Reply.

1. Me thinks you might as wel have shewed the non-sense, as said it was non-sense. But [many expositours, you say, expone these words otherwise] This shews not that I have spoken non-sense, in saying, that I have met with no such. But I doubt it shews, that you speake an untruth, which is worse then non-sense. For you might as easily have nam'd some of them, as have said it, and bid me looke them out. And had there been any, I presume you would too, seeing it is not likely, that they would have brought an exposition different from that which was commonly received by others, and have given no reason for it, or one no better then [a why may we not think so?] 2. If you thinke that these places here quoted be diversly interpreted, (as your disjunctive conjunction [OR] intimates, and yet say, [why may not this Kingdom be taken, as the thiefe meant, or as Christ meant, or as Simeon meant?] any one may perceive, that you are altogether unresolved what sense to take it in: but had rather take it in any sense, then that we take it in. And if you thinke that all these places have but one meaning, (as the last words of this part of your answer imply) you should have shewed us what it had been. For in our Saviour's and Simeon's words, the word [Kingdom] is not found. And the words which you take to be equivalent with it, are diversly ex­pounded. Paradise, in our Saviour's words, is interpreted to be Heaven. And salvation and Glory, in Simeon's song doe signify, [Page 11] Salutis et gloriae authorem, the authour of glory, and the authour of salvation; to wit, Christ himselfe. So that if the Kingdom in the Apostles Querie be expounded either of these two waies, it is all one as if they had said, Lord wilt thou at this time restore Heaven to Israel? or, Lord wilt thou at this time restore thy selfe to Israel? And as for the Kingdom the theife spake of, we thanke you for menti­oning of it. And doe willingly grant, that the Apostles understood it as he did. But how was that? surely as all other Jewes did, of a Kingdom on earth, and not in Heaven. For his words in the original are, [...], when thou commest in thy kingdome (that is, in thy Kingly power, as it is Mat. 16. verse 27, 28.) for by those words, the theife could not meane his ascension into Heaven (as it is comonly expounded) seeing he was wholly igno­rant of it. And therefore it must needs follow, that he understood it of an earthly Kingdom, which all Jewes expected; and (as it seemes by the Apostles Querie) all beleeving Jewes thought should suddenly appeare after his resurrection. But because it was not to be so, therefore it was, that our Saviour promised the theife the present happinesse of his soule in Heaven: where it should remaine in his presence, until at his comming in his Kingdom (of which he had spoken) he should bring it with him, to be reunited to his glorified body: and so, according to his request he should in his whole manhood be made partaker of his Master's glorious reigne on earth.

3 You must give us leave to thinke, that no expositour doth deny it, until either we can find; or you, or others shew us such a one. But It follows not, you say, the Apostles thought so, therfore it shall be so. But this follows, therefore we must beleeve the Apostles, before Mr. Petrie, or any others, who thinke it shall not be so. Yea and this follows, the Apostles thought so, and our Saviour (who knew their meaning) reprehended them not for misunder­standing it; therefore it shall be so. And whereas you say, that the Apostles [for a time] beleeved not the calling of the Gentiles; and referre these words [for a time] to the time after our Saviours ascen­sion; it is not so. For doubtlesse from the very time in which our Saviour said unto them, Goe teach all Nations, Mat. 28.19. they did beleeve it (although perhaps they might not thinke, that they should have been cald so soone) yea if the words of S^t. James, [Page 12]Acts 15. verse 14. should be meant of the song of old Simeon, as you doe say, page, 26. there is no doubt but they knew it from the time they first heard of that prophecy. Neither doth the text you quote speake of the Apostles doubting of it, but of other beleeving Jews. And therefore you have shewed your selfe very bold with the Apostles, mistooke the ground of your argument, and denyed what afterwards you confesse. And lastly, when the Authour doth take the Apostles words in that sense which interpreters doe give unto them, and shews by reasons first, and Scriptures afterwards, that the Apostles did not out of any carnal minde, or misconceit of our Saviours Kingdom, u [...]ter this Querie; and when that M^r. Petrie doth neither flatly affirme or deny any sense of the Apostles words; nor give a reason worth the naming (much lesse reading or answering) against any of these reasons, albeit but childish, as he saith, will any reader thinke, that Mr. Petrie will prove a better guide to him herein, then this Authour? doubtlesse no man taking a journey, will choose him for a guide, that is in doubt which way to goe; and no good Christian will be lesse carefull in his way to Heaven. To the Law then and to the Testimony, to the plaine word of God, this is the sure ground of thyfaith: and therefore sticke to it; for if men speake not according to this, it is because there is no truth in them, Isa. 8.20.

Reply.

1. The question is not, what Kingdom the Apostles meant in their Querie, which Divines generally consent, to be an earthly Kingdom. But whether they did not erre in meaning thus. So that this part of your answer having relation onely to what Kingdom they meant, is nothing to the purpose, and wee have answered you in that already, more then wee need have done; un­lesse you had named plainly, what other Kingdom they spake of, and stood to that onely.

2. What you give with one hand you plucke backe with the o­ther. In the former part of this answer you say that [it was likely the Apostles understood of the true Kingdom of Israel, as Christ did,] and yet here you tell us that [it was not unlikely, that before Christ's ascension they might be miscaried with that opinion of the Jewish Mon­archy.] What, and yet when they askt the Question, understand it too of the true Kingdom of Israel, which you by opposing this part of your answer to the former, doe take to be a different Kingdom from this? surely it is a plaine contradiction; for they could not understand it both waies at the same time. And there­fore impossible it was, that they could, and could not meane an earthly Kingdom, when they askt the Question. But, Romae Ti­bur amas veniosus, Tibure Romain; you say, and unsay, because you know not what to say. And as for the instance you bring to confirme this part of your answer, to wit [the Apostles not beleeving [for a time] the calling of the Gentiles,] it hath been already shewed to be false. And if by the words [as Christ did] in the former part of this answer, you meane his reply to the theife, which you have quoted before, it hath been shewed already too, that it could not be meant of this Kingdom: but if by these words you meane otherwise, you should have told us what it was.

Reply.

This cause is no mistaking, for the Question must needs be granted; and that even because Christ's words have nothing ex­pressely of that point; unlesse you will be so irreverent, as to think, that Christ who reprehended them onely for a curious desire to know when this thing should be; would not much rather have reprehended them, for misunderstanding of the thing it selfe, if it should not have been. Yea doubtlesse if it should not have been, he could not have said, It is not for you to know the times, and the seasons. Seeing that which shall never be, can have no time nor season. And thus while you grant that Christ did reprehend their curiosity, in seeking to know the time when Israel should be re­stor'd; and yet deny, that he did therein grant Israel should be restor'd; you make him say, that there should be a time for that which should never be: and so in effect, put the ly upon him. So [Page 15]much have you over-shot your selfe in denying, that the subject in the Question is granted, because our Saviour doth expresly say nothing of it. And besides, if the Question be an untruth, and so nothing meant by it; then what doth our Saviour's answer meane? doth that meane nothing likewise? you will not say it, for you tell us, that it taxed their curiosity, and therefore surely it meant something: for an answer that meanes nothing doth taxe nothing. And therfore also the Apostles meant something that was true; for that knowledge is not curious, which thinks it knows something, when it knows nothing, or which knows the truth; but that which would know more then it ought to know touching some truths. And thus it appears that the para­phrase in this reason, which you have cunningly conceal'd from the readers sight, is not vaine, but valid.

Reply.

1. Not this reason, nor any other was brought to shew what Kingdom the Apostles meant, which interpreters grant to be an earthly Kingdom: but to shew they did not thinke amisse in looking for such a Kingdom, which is that that interpreters doe accuse them of; and that because our Saviour gave them such an answer: from which answer, my foregoing reason doth shew, that no such harsh conclusion doth arise; seeing the Apostles are not excepted against by our Saviour, for not rightly understand­ing that about which they askt: but onely for seeking to know more in it then is fitting they should know. And this reason is al­ledg'd for the same purpose. For whereas our Saviour gave a shar­per answer here to the sonnes of Zebedee, then he did to the Apostles, and yet granted withall, that the thing they spake for should be given to some, it is altogether unlikely that where he used a milder reproofe, he did therby deny, that the thing which was askt should at any time be done: especially seeing in both answers, it was for the motives of their asking onely, and not for the matter, that they were reprehended. And therefore you having not answered ought to the force of this reason, but onely caught at that which was not intended; I might well passe by all that you have thus impertinently spoken; but yet I will say somewhat to it, though not much. First, then I grant that these sonnes of Zebedee [spake of Christ's glorious Kingdom, and that the Apostles un­derstood the same Kivgdom:] but I conclude not from hence (as you doe) that this Kingdom shall not be on earth (which expositours say, as well these, as the Apostles did meane) and that because Christ shall come in glory, and reigne in glory, as you may see Mat, 16. verse, 27, 28. 2 Thess. 1. verse 7, 8, 9, 10. Heb. 1. verse 6. Jude, 14, 15. ver. Rev. 11. verse 15. chap. 15. verse 4. Psal. 72. Psal. 102. verse 13. &c. Isa. 2. verse 2, 3, 4. Zach. 14. verse 4, 5. &c. But I thus conclude from hence against your answer to my former reason: that seeing the Apostles meant the same Kingdom, that these two did; therefore they meant a Kingdom which should be, and not a Kingdom which should not be.

2. But, if Christ in his answer had spoken of an earthly King­dom, how, say you, was it not in his power to choose his princes in that Kingdom? And how doth it appeare that he spake [Page 17]rather of an earthly Kingdom, then of one in Heaven, if we say he had this power? for why he should have this power on earth, rather then in Heaven, you cannot conceive. And seeing you would have the reader take this for a currant argument from you to shew that Christ in his answer to these Zebedites did not speake of an earthly Kingdom: to wit, because he seemed to deny that he had power to choose his princes therein; will you your selfe take it for a currant argument from us, to shew that Christ did speake of an earthly Kingdom, if he had power to choose his princes therein? if you will not, then you would have the reader to esteem better of your argument then you your selfe doe. And if you will, you must needs grant, that you have herein argued a­gainst your selfe. For whereas our Saviour said, it is not mine to give, he meant not that he had nothing to doe in the giving of it But this he meant, that it was not his to give indifferently to any that should aske it, (as the words, which you have omitted in this reason, doe shew) for he could give it to none but those to whom the Father had eternally appointed it to be given; and to them he could, and should give it. For the Father giveth it by the Sonne in the temporal accomplishment of it: and the Sonne giveth it from the Father according to the eternall appointment of it; as the text it selfe in the original clearly shews. For it is [...]; It is not mine to give, but to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

Reply.

Who that enjoyes the benefit of understanding, will not find how grosly you abuse the Author, and dissemble with the Reader; when purposely overpassing the main ground here al­ledged for the earthly kingdom of the Jews, you make as though there were no other light for it but in this one word [Redemption] which hath in it self none but a borrowed light, to wit, as it hath reference to the words in the 21. verse, which are these: They shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all Nations, and Jerusalem shall be troden down of the Gen­tiles, untill the time of the Gentiles he fulfill'd. Untill then, but no longer. And because he would not tell them the precise time of the continuance of these times of the Gentiles: and yet would have them know too, when they were neer their expira­tion: in the verses following, he acquaints them with the signes immediately foregoing his own appearing, their Re­demption, and the setting up of the kingdom of God. And do the same signes betoken all this? and yet can you say [that our Saviour speaks not here of an earthly kingdom, nor of the Jews conver­sion?] Doubtlesse in that they foreshew, the Jews Redemption, they betoken not onely their conversion, but their deliverance out of captivity too: and consequently their earthly king­dom, even that kingdom of which the Apostle enquired. And in that they foreshew, our Saviour's appearing, they shew him to be the Author of this deliverance, according as the Apostles spake of him, Lord wilt thou, &c. And in that they foreshew, the Kingdom of God to be nigh at hand, they shew this kingdom to be no other, but the kingdom of Israel; so call'd, partly be­cause the power of God shall mightily, and wonderfully ap­pear to the whole world at the erecting of it: the fearfulnesse whereof the very signes foreshewing onely its neer approach may serve to evidence; for great and unusuall signes, shew great and unusuall alterations. And partly because God shall be more generally, more constantly, and more purely worshipt in the time of this kingdom, then ever he was since the crea­tion of the world. And therefore there is no cause why any spirituall minded man should be discouraged at the thought of such an earthly kingdom. Neither therefore have we wrest­led [Page 18] [...] [Page 193] [...] [Page 194]against our own fancies, in concluding not onely the con­version, but the restauration of the Jews also from the world, [Redemption] seeing it is apparent to all that will not turn away their eyes, that they may not see it, that as this prophe­sie was spoken onely to Jews, so both the misery at first, and the mercy at last was spoken onely of the Jews. We have no need then to find clearer texts in the New Testament for this earth­ly Monarchy, for fear that any understanding Christian will reject what the Prophets have deliver'd so agreeable thereun­to. But both we and they have good reason to suspect, that you care not what you say, nor how you tamper with the Word of God, if thereby you can procure belief. And to this end you cry out against the clearnesse of the text, when as it hath no darknesse but what you put upon it: and speak any thing of your self, as an undoubted axiome. For you tell us [that every ground of faith is revealed more clearly in the New Testa­ment, then the old] which is indeed not oriously false. (for where is the Creation describ'd, the moral Law deliver'd, and our Saviour promised to be born in Bethleem, of a Virgin, of the seed of David? &c.) And admit it were true of all such things, as our Saviour was to fulfill at his first coming; yet it could not be true of all such things as are reserved to be done by him at his second coming. Amongst which, the restoring of the Jews, and his reigning on earth have place.

Reply.

Did you not say but now, [that every ground of faith is reveal'd more clearly in the New Testament then in the Old?] and did you not speak it to make the Reader beleeve, that there can be no evi­dent Scripture in the Prophets, to prove the Jewish Monarchy; because as you say (and would have him conceive) there is no clear text for it in the writings of the Apostles? And why then did you onely name the verses of this prophecy, as if you had been afraid to utter the text it self? Certainly it was no other­wise. For you took the word [therefore] in the 3. ver. to be like the bad herbe in the Prophets pottage, which spoiled the taste of all the rest: and so omitt [...] the rehearsing of the text, part­ly that the Reader might take no notice of your letting of it slip in your Comment, the independency whereof this [there­fore] would have discovered: and partly that he might not see the coherence of mine. But let's compare our paraphrases to­gether. Now gather thy self together, and make thy best resistance, O populous Nation: for the Lord will certainly bring a siege against thee, because of thy contumelious behaviour towards the Judge of Israel, even the great Ruler that Bethleem Ephratah shall bring forth unto thee; [Page 197]whom thy children shall smite, and deliver up unto death: and for this offence will the Lord give them up both to captivity and infidelity, untill the Church of those Gentiles, which during the time of thy blindnesse shall be taken into thy roome, hath brought forth all her children: and then again shall the remaining Israelites return both unto the faith, and inheritance of the ancient Israelites. Thus I, and You as follow­eth. Gather your selves together, ye numerous enemies of the Jews, and lay siege against them, and smite and abuse their Rulers, but yet, O ye Jews, be of good comfort, and regard not this calansity which is coming on you, for you shall have a more powerfull Ruler then ever you had, born in Bethleem Ephrata: and therefore you shall be given into the enemies hand, and carried away captives into Babylon, there to remain, untill the daughter of Zion, who shall be in pain and labour to bring forth like a woman in travail, shall be delivered there of them, whom the Lord shall redeem from the hand of their enemies, and bring into their own land. And then shall the Gentiles adjoyn themselves to the Jews, and both shall become one Church. And now, good Reader, (utrum horum mavis, accipe) either follow me in a smooth and plain way, wherein no truth here foretold, and since accomplisht, or to be accomplisht, is crost, or conceal'd. Or else follow Mr. Petrie, who leads thee athwart so many rubs and stumbling blocks. For first he gives thee a [therefore] without a [wherfore] a punish­ment without the intimation of any transgression. And second­ly, he makes the Jews, that were to be given up: and She that travaileth in the time of their giving up, to be one people: which is so unlikely, that his comparing of this phrase, with that which is spoken in the 4. Ch: v. 10. will not prove it. For although they be the words of the same Prophet, yet they are not in the same particular prophecy, and therefore not fit to interpret each other, unlesse there were withall, some other circumstance to confirm it. Neither is it likely, that the tra­vailing where it is said of the daughter of Zion expresly, be in pain and labour to bring forth like a woman in travail, is meant of such a travailing, as that is meant of, where no such pains are spoken of. And thirdly, he affirms against the plain history of Gods Word, that upon the coming back of the Jews from Babylon, the Gentiles were called to the faith of Christ; for of them he understands [the remnant of his brethren.] [Page 198]Whose return was immediately to succeed [the time of her that was to travail] which he applyes to Zions travailing in Babylon. And lastly, by interpreting the [remnant of his brethren] of the converted Gentiles, shews his willingnesse to take away all fu­ture hope of the National conversion of the Jews. Whereas [the remnant of his brethren] here, being the same with [the remnant of Jacob, in the 5. and 8. ver.] and with [the remnant of Israel, Ch: 2. v. 12.] is meant onely of the elect Israelites that should be con­verted to the Christian faith, after the conversion of the surro­gated Gentiles, as Christ himself, Matth. 24. v. 22. and St. Paul, R [...]m. 9. v. 27. and Ch. 11. v. 28. do expound it. And consequent­ly by her that travaileth here, cannot be meant, the daughter of Zions travailing in Babylon, to which the Jews return from that captivity did put an end. Neither will it follow, as Mr. Petrie would have it, that by the [remnant of his brethren] here are meant the Gentiles, because they are distinguished from the [children of Israel] for how are they distinguished? Surely not in respect of their stock and naturall descent (which would indeed have shew'd them to have been a different people, had they been thus distinguished) but onely in respect of the distinct times of their calling; the [children of Israel] here comprehend­ing all such Israelites as were then departed, or should after­wards depart in the true faith of Christ, before the casting off of that Nation (before the giving of it up to a generall capti­vity and infidelity) and the receiving of the Gentiles in their stead: and [the remnant of his brethren] comprehending all the faithfull Israelites, whose conversion is presently to follow the accomplisht conversion of the substituted Gentiles. And be­sides, seeing the Babylonish captivity, whither the Jews were carried away captives for their idolatry, is foretold in the 4. Ch: at the 9. and 10. ver. why should we think, that here again the same captivity is threatned, and not rather (as some Ex­positors say) their captivity by the Romans for crucifying their S [...] io [...]r, with the story of whose vile usage amongst the n [...]t [...] words of the Prophet do so punctually agree? For the [...]hall smite the Ju [...]e of Israel with a [...]od upon the cheek, saith M [...]h, v. 1 And wh [...] t [...]ey had blindfolded him, they stroke him on the face, and asked him, saying, prophesie who is it that sm [...]te thee? saith [Page 199] Luke 22. v. 64. which words you have craftily conceal'd: and the words of St. Paul also, Rom. 11. v. 25. alledged to shew that by [She which travaileth] is meant the calling of the substituted Gentiles. And yet for all this, as if all were plain on your side; and nothing so on ours, you can boldly conclude. [therefore this Exposition not agreeing with the text, all that follows upon it, hath no ground in the text.] Of which, now the matter hath been plead­ed on by both, let the indifferent judge.

Reply.

1. He, is both the Ruler mention'd in the 2. vers. and the Judge, mention'd in the 1. ver. and therefore call'd the Judge of Israel, and not of Judah, or Jerusalem; because Israel com­prehends all the Tribes: which in the time of our Saviour's [Page 200]reign, are again to be reunited. As Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Eze­kiel do shew.

2. They, are the Jews, and so are, the remnant of his brethren,, whose return is mention'd in the words immediately forego­ing. For the beleeving Gentiles can neither be said, to return to the faith, which the Nations of whom they came never had. Nor in respect of their faith, to the Israelites, to whom they had before no relation. And their abiding, is meant of the place where they should dwell, from whence they should be no more remov'd, as in former times: and not of the perseverance of faith in any; from which no true beleever hath ever been re­mov'd.

3. Now, is apply'd here to the time in which Christ shall be great unto the ends of the earth, that is, both known, fear'd, and obey'd over all the earth: and so signifieth the time after his second coming, and not the time that now is; in which he is acknowledged but of a few Nations, and amongst them too, fear'd and obey'd by a very small company. And yet you can tell us without blushing, that he is already [great over all the world, seeing all the Gentiles praise him, and all people do land him.] What? Turks, Arabians, Chinois, and heathens of America? I pray apply the Scriptures more pertinently. For St. Paul did not alledge those prophecies touching the Gentiles, Ch. 15. v. 10, 11. to shew that all Gentiles did praise God when he wrote that Epistle, or that they should do so at any time before Christ should come to reign over both Jews and Gentiles too: but to shew, that God had as well appointed Christ to be a Saviour to the Gentiles, as to the Jews, that so he might move them both to agree the better together, and to bear with the infirmities of each other; and to receive one another, as Christ had recei­ved them to the glory of God: in suffering for both, and in sending the Gospel to be preacht indifferently to both. And whereas you say, [that at Christs second coming men shall not build a Throne to him, but he shall judge the quick and the dead.] I say that as well the first as the last must be done. And for the build­ing of Jerusalem, see Jer. 31. v. 38. &c. and Ezek. 48. v. 15.30. &c. and Zech. 14. v. 10, 11. and then hear also what Jer. hath said, Ch. 3. v. 17. At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the [Page 19]Lord, and all the Nations shall be gathered unto it, to the Name of the Lord, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walke any more after the imagi­nation of their evil heart, &c. and therefore surely more must be done by Christ at his second comming; then you meane by the judging of the quicke and the dead.

Reply.

1 This prophecy of Amos speakes of a deliverance of the Jews out of a captivity, after which they should no more be pulled up out of their land. And therefore cannot be meant of the returne of Judah and Benjamin from Babylon, since which they have fallen into a greater captivity then that was, but of their returne from the cap­tivity they are now in. This you saw to be the necessary conse­quence of the proper sense of the prophecy, and therefore you wrest that part of it which concernes the deliverance of the Jewes to another meaning. But first you cavill, and aske [how it can be denied, that the house of Judah was destroied when their Kings and people were carried out of their land?] Surely that they were in a sad condition it cannot be denied, but that they were destroyed, it may; for how else could they have return'd? yet this thing too Haman sought to bring to passe on the Jewes in his time, and you know how well he and his adherents sped in the device. But what of all this? who denies that they were carried captives into Babylon? I say onely that this prophecy was not fulfill d in Judah's captivity there, but in their captivity under the Romans; and that because the deliverance after which they are no more to be carried captives, must needs be yet to come.

2. But you have found a great mistake in me, For I have said that the Tabernacle of David shall be a prime agent in the restau­ration, whereas God saith, I will raise up the Tabernacle of David, and so, [it is to be a patient, you say, and not an agent.] A very lear­ned exception, for is there not an instrumentall agent, as well as a principall agent? and amongst instrumentall agents, doe not some excell others? (as amongst David's worthies, some were su­perior [Page 22]to the rest) although then God shall shew his power in raising the Tabernacle of David, as the first and chiefe cause, what hinders but that this also may use its owne endeavor to raise it selfe, as a secondary and lesse principall cause? surely if God shall so raise it, that it shall doe nothing for it selfe, it may rather be said, to be a spectator of its deliverance, then either an agent or a pati­ent. You say further [that none denieth it is included in the dispersion of Israel] But yet you say withall, that the Jews dispersion and re­stauration here spoken of were both fulfill'd before their overthrow by the Romans, which the close of this prophecy, shewing that after their restauration here foretold, they should no more be disperst, doth deny. And these words also in the 11. ver. I will build it as in the daies of old, doe shew the contrary. For if you take, the daies of old, for the time immediately foregoing their Babylonish captivity; then I say, that so short a time cannot be taken for the dayes of old; seeing it was but seventy yeares from that time; and consequently it must imply a restauration after a captivity of a longer date. And if you take it for the daies of David and Solomon, then I say, that it was not so restor'd after that captivity, for in the daies of these Kings, all the Tribes were but one Kingdom: and they were not tributaries to other Kings, but others to their Kings; and con­sequently it is as yet thus to be restor'd. But that you may be sure to avoide all that can be brought out of this prophecy for the fu­ture restauration of the Jewes, you will not have the 11. verse to be meant of the restauration of Judah, but of the Israelites in the 14. verse, and these Israelites must not be taken for the Jewes, how plaine soever the text be for it, but for the Gentiles: for [so you say, S^t. Iames expounds them, Acts 15. verse 16.] Surely the Apostle repeates the 11. and 12. ver. of this chapter somewhat differently from the Prophets expression, but yet speakes not of Israel there at all. Neither doth he expound the building of David's Tabernacle, of the calling of the Gentiles, as you pretend. But shewes onely in the verse following, that when it shall be built againe, the residue of the Gentiles, that are yet uncald, shall then be cald; and to­gether with the Gentiles upon whom Gods Name is already cald, seeke after the Lord. And therefore you have not learned of S^t James, to take the Tabernacle of David, for the beleeving Gentiles. Nor can I beleeve that the Hebrew Doctours doe so intepret it: albeit they [Page 23]may grant, that the calling of the Gentiles in the time of the Mes­sias, as they expect him yet to come, is spoken of in the 12. ver. And doubtlesse whosoever shall looke into the 14. ver. of this pro­phecy, he will say, that the actions here rehearst may very well agree with men newly come out of captivity: but not that they doe any way intimate the calling of men to the Christian faith. For what relation hath the building of waste cities to inhabit them, the planting of vineyards to drinke the wine thereof, and the making of gardens to eate the fruit of them, to this? doubtlesse none at all. For suppose that one should tel you of a Jew that had lately built him a saire house; & of an other that had planted an Orchard of choice fruit, would you thinke thereby, that they were become Christians? nay would you not laugh at him, if he should have no other mea­ning? and yet without any ground for it, but your owne fancy as hath been shewed, you conclude [that by bodily houses, and benefits, the Prophet understands spirituall.] To which you adjoyne Scripture to prove, that the elect cannot fall away; which is not questioned. And thus, good reader, thou hast seene the first part of one and the same prophecy historically and properly understood; and the latter part allegorically and figuratively expounded; and that for no other reason but because the deliverance of the Jewes out of their captivity here foretold hath not been as yet properly and literally fulfill'd, as their carrying into captivity hath been. And Mr. Petrie will not take Gods word for it, that it shall be thus ful­fild. And therefore whereas I have askt, Who dares affirme that the captivity of Judah here foretold, is meant of any other but their captivity by the Romans: seeing God hath said here, that after their returne from this captivity they shall no more be pulled up out of their land? he tells thee that Zacharias hath not spared to affirme it, Luk. 1 verse 68. &c. But is it not the same God, that spake by the mouth of both these Prophets? a God that is not as man, that he should lie, or forget himselfe. And having then fore­told in Amos such a deliverance after which the Jewes should no more be given up into captivity; doth he, thinkst thou, by Zachary affirme that this was fulfill'd before their captivity by the Romans? yet thus M^r Petrie dares to make God contradict himselfe: and that because Zachary sa [...]th, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an horne of salvation [Page 24]for us in the house of his servant David, as he spake by the mouth of all his holy Prophets &c. and what is meant by all this but that the Redeemer was then to be borne, as the Prophets had said, and that therefore their redemption should as surely be fulfill'd, as if it had been done already? For it is usual with the prophets, when they would shew the certaine accomplishment of a thing, to speake as if it were then effected. But why hath Mr. Petrie left our [for us] in these words of Zachary? was it not because they shew, that this prophecy doth belong to the Jewes, & not to the Gentiles? and this he likes not to heare of himselfe, neither would he have thee to take notice of it. And besides, it Zachary should speake of a spirituall deliverance onely, as this Author affirms, how doth he shew, that this prophecy of Amos was then fulfild, which (as is before proved, and as any one may indeed of himselfe perceive) doth foretel onely an immoveable deliverance of the Jewes from their bodily captivity amongst, and subjection to other Nations?

Reply.

The Apostle repeats, but expounds not the Prophets words, and consequently shewes not the accomplishment of ought that the Prophet affirms shall be done. All that he shewes is this, That the thing which then happened to the Apostles, was the worke of the same spirit which Joel spake of: but he saith not, that it was the same worke. The same spirit indeed was then powred out, but it was not the same powring out of the spirit. And for want of distinguishing betwixt the effusion of the same spirit, and the same effusion of the spirit; you affirme, that those things which the Prophet saies the spirit shall doe not long before the Lord's second comming, were then done at his first comming. And the reason you bring from St. Peters words, Act. 2. verse 22. to shew, that the prophecy of Joel was then fulfild in part, is a very strange one. For the Prophet shewes what others shall doe through the extraordinary inspiration of the Spirit, before the Day of the Lord comes; and the words you have alledg'd doe shew, what works Christ himselfe did, when he was come.

Reply.

That the darkning of the Sun, or of the Moone properly taken (especially if supernaturall, as this here) is a signe of an eminent and imminent destruction you confesse: but that it is onely so, you deny. And were this true, I have not spoken much out of the way. But the instance you bring of the darkning of the Sun at the time of our Saviours passion, makes nothing for you. For whereas you say [it was a testimony from Heaven of Christ's innocency for conviction of the murtherers] the historie of the Gospel tels you no such thing, and interpreters are against you. Sicut enim Deus tenebris involvebat terram Aegyptum, sic etiam nunc totam Jud [...]am, in signum ira [...]i Dei, et futurae poenae, saith Pareus on the 27. chap. of Mat. at the 45. verse, that is, As God did once bring darknesse on the land of Egypt, so likewise did he now on the land of Judea, as a signe of his wrath and their ensuing punishment. So Chrysostome too, It was an undoubted signe of Gods anger, for that which they did against him. And Origen, It was a presage of the future darknesse which should over-spread the whole Jewish Nation. To which D^r. Mayer consents, and with Origen concludes from the time of the darknesse [Page 27]continuance, being three houres, that the Jewish Nation should be in darknesse, till about the Evening of the world. Although then Christ's innocency may well be gathered from it, yet for ought I can finde, you goe alone in alledging it as a reason of the darknesse. And Piscator resolves the matter thus peremptorily a­gainst you, Praeter-naturales istae trium horarum tenebrae, quae totam terram occuparunt patiente Christo, portenderunt haud dubie calamitates ill [...]s quas non multò post Deus iratus huic populo immisit, quas et Christus suprà cap. 24. discipulis praedi [...]it. Sunt enim Tenebrae signum irae Dei, ut perspicitur ex eo quòd signum erunt adventantis Christi ad judicium, ut ipse testatur suprà cap. 24.29. Et passìm in Scriptura nomine Tenebrarum calamitates significantur &c. in cap. 27. verse 45. Mat. In which words he doth not onely say, that this darknesse was a token of those miseries, which shortly after befell the Jewes: but also that the word [darknesse] in the Scripture (whether properly or improperly taken) doth every where signify calami­ties. And in your next instance out of the 21 chap. of Luke ver. 25. you your selfe doe say, that the signes there rehearst are all pro­perly to be understood, as signes before the great and terrible Day of the Lord. But amongst the rest, you reckon the distresse of Na­tions with perplexity, for a signe: whereas it is rather an effect of the signes, which shall be so extraordinary, that they shall bring men into great perplexity and feare of the things, which they shall shew to be comming on the earth. But whereas you say [that what is promised in the 28. and 29 ver. of the 2. chap. of Joel, was truely (albeit not altogether) fulfilled in the dayes of Peter (even how­beit the words of the 30. and 31. ver. be properly understood) and not wholly fulfilled, till the time immediately preceding the last comming of Christ.] It is utterly false, as hath been already shewed: and may further thus be shewed. To wit, because the powring out of the Spirit spoken of by Joel, is to precede (or at least to accompany) the dark­ning of the Sun and Moone, and both to precede the great and terrible Day of the Lord: whereas the darkning of the Sun at our Saviour's first comming, did precede the powring out of the Spirit; and neither of them did precede the day of his birth. For the Sun was darkened, when he was about to leave both his life and the world together. And the Spirit was not powred out, til after his ascension. And thus (besides that there was not then any unusuall [Page 28]darkening of the Moone) the very different order of the accom­plishment of these things, from that mentioned by Joel, and their not preceding our Saviour's first comming as signes thereof, doe abundantly shew the grosnesse of your interpretation.

Reply.

1. That the Prophet speakes not of any whom the Spirit should endue with the gift of tongues, is so evident, that you could not deny it; and yet you dare say, [If this exception were true, it would prove, that the Apostle citeth the words impertinently.] Belike then the Apostle must be out in citing them, rather then you in shewing to what end he cited them. No, Sir, the Apostle alledgeth it very pretinently, in that he shewes by it, that the disciples spake not thus out of drunkennesse, as some accused them, (and conse­quently from an evil spirit) but by reason of the effusion of that Spirit on them, of which Joel had spoken. And therefore the mis­take is in you, who doe very impertinently conclude from hence; that the same effusion of the Spirit, which Joel spake of was then fulfilled. For although the same Spirit may be powred out divers times, yet that powring out of it which Joel speakes of, can be ful­filled but once: & consequently, not at our Saviour's first comming, and second comming too. And now who fights most against the Apostle, & the Spirit of God, he that understands them rightly, and endeavours to make others do so too; or he that misunderstanding them himselfe, had rather condemne them both, and draw all others into an error with him, then yeeld to the truth? and here I would intreat thee, reader, to take notice, that when M^r Petrie hath little or nothing to say, he commonly breaks out into the more violent speech, thereby to disgrace what he cannot answer.

2. This part of your answer, is as much to the matter as the former▪ For whereas I speake of the gift of tongues, as the most remarkeable effect of the Spirit in the Apostles: you speake of the manner of the Spirits descending upon them, as the most remarke­able worke of the Spirit. But doe you know what you say? was it not a greater worke to make the Apostles speake divers languages, then to cause the sound of a mighty winde, or the appearance of tongues, which were onely outward signes of the extraordinary gift, which the Spirit then wrought within them? I can hardly thinke, that any man but you will say otherwise. And by your leave, it was the Apostles speaking with other tongues, which made the Multitude come together, and at which they were con­founded, as the 4, 5, 6, 7. ver. &c. doe shew. And not the sound of the rushing winde, that filled the house where the Apostles were [Page 30]sitting, when the appearance of cloven tongues, like as of fire, came and sate upon each of them. For this was past: and S^t Peter speakes not of it, but shewes onely, that their speaking thus in divers languages, was the worke of the same Spirit, of which Joel had spoken. And your conclusion [therefore Peter citeth the words pertinently] (which I dare say, none is so likely to doubt of, as your selfe) hangs as loosely to your premises, as the premises doe to that which I have said.

Reply.

1. Now you tell us [that Joel saith not, that the powring of the Spirit shall not be til the great and terrible Day of the Lord come.] Nei­ther have we said he doth; for had he said so, the Spirit could not at that time have been powred on the Apostles. But yet Joel saith that that particular powring out of the Spirit of which he speaks, is to be a signe of the neere approach of that terrible Day; and therefore cannot til that time be accomplisht. Although then we thinke not, that all the things which Joel speake of [are to be fulfilled in the same juncture or moment of time▪] yet we thinke, that they shall be all accomplisht in a very short time. But to say that one of these things shall be accomplisht in one age, and another in the next, or some hundreds of yeares after, and so of the rest, is to make the word of God of none effect. For Joel speakes of these things as immediately to ensue, if not to contemporate with each other: and speake but of one powring out of the Spirit; and that also to be a forerunner of the Day of Christ's second comming: and therefore it can be but once fulfilled, and that onely in its proper season.

2. But you will make good all that you have said by and by. For the Day of our Saviour's first comming [was terrible, you say. And that because, it is written Act. 2.6. The multitude came together and were confounded, because every man heard them speake in his owne language, and they were all amazed and marvelled, and verse 22. a man approved amongst you by miracles, wonders, and signes.] And did this make him terrible? what then could make him comfortable? If to save sinners, to cast out Devils, to raise the dead, to open the eyes of the blinde, the eares of the deafe, to loose the tongues of the dumbe, the feet of the lame, to heale the lunaticke, and them that had palsies, in a word, to cure all diseases, did terrify the Jews, what could he doe to make his presence delightfull unto them? O what a terrible message the Angel came with, when he said, Behold, I bring you tydings of great joy, which shall be to all people, Luk. 2.10.11. for unto you is borne this day in the City of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord! O what a terrible noise was made, when a multi­tude [Page 32]of heavenly Spirits praised God, saying, Glory to God in the Highest, on earth peace, good will towards men! O what terrible doings there were,ver. 13 14. when Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their Synagogues, and preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, Mat. 4.23. and healing all manner of sicknes, and all manner of diseases among the people! O what a terrible sight it was, when so many thousands of hungry soules were sed with five loaves and two fishes! These were wonders indeed; but all things that are wonderfull,ch. 14.23. are not terrible, but such onely as are either punishments, or signes of punishments: otherwise though they cause amazement at the first, as surpassing the reach of natu­rall causes, yet being intended for man's good, they occasion glad­nesse and not feare, unlesse it be a pious feare, which well consists with joy in the Holy Ghost. For shame then recall this doctrine, and thinke not to make any one beleeve, that the sicke person will be afraid to heare of his health, or the condemned prisoner of his pardon; and til you can doe this, perswade not your selfe, that you can prove our Saviour's presence terrible in the Day of his humiliation, wherein he was approved for so many signes, miracles, and wonders, wrought onely to make men lay hold on the meanes of their eternall happines. And if the history of these things be so wonderfully pleasant unto us, what was the performance to such as saw them, and the benefit of the miracles to such as felt the vertue of them? You goe on, and say [that the time of Christ's second com­ming shall be more terrible then his first was. And surely the great destroyers of the earth should else have greatest cause to climbe up to the tops of the mountaines to meet him first, (if such a thing might be) as rayling Shimei was the first of al the house of Benjamin that met King David in his returne after Absoloms conspiracy; and no need at all, to call for the mountains to hide them from his pre­sence. But you will not have that day accounted terrible in regard of a generall destruction to be brought on the Nations, for oppo­sing the Jews, but for their not acknowledging God, and not obeying the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, as it is in the 2 Thess. 1.8. and had you confirmed this by shewing, that the Nations should not at that time oppose the Jews; you had said the whole truth: but seeing you have not, and indeed could not doe this (for the prophecies following doe shew the contrary) you have affirm'd one halfe of the truth to exclude the other halfe of it. And there­fore [Page 33]you must give us leave not onely to imagine, but to beleeve, that the foresaid destruction shall be for both: that those, I say, which shall then oppose the Jews, shall be the very same which the Apostle here speakes of under another notion, and in other termes. For though Christians may not, you faith we know shall then be very scarse amongst the Gentiles, as our Saviour hath said of them, Luk. 18. verse 8.

Reply.

1. My words doe shew, that this prophecy of Joel, cannot be meant of the time of Christ's Judging the dead (when they shall be all called out of their graves) as it is commonly expounded; and that because it speakes of the gathering together of a great Army against the Jews; but not after Christ's comming (which opinion you falsely attribute to me) although against his comming, as the parallel prophecy Rev. 16. at the 12, 13, 14. ver. doth shew, for that Army is to be gathered into Armageddon in the time of the sixth vial, and to be destroy'd at the powring out of the seventh vial, by our Saviour and his Heavenly Host, as the 15. ver. of the same chap. and the latter part of the 19. chap. of the Rev. from ver. the 11. &c. doe plainly declare.

2. That which you here begin with was the ground of the former part of your answer, but on what ground I know not; for I deny that this prophecy doth speake of a battle after Christ's comming, albeit I doe affirme, that our Saviour's comming shall be when this great Army is gathered together against the Jews as ready to destroy them. And your shewing the coherence of this chapter with the precedent, doth make more against you then you are aware of, for it is remarkeable, that you rightly conclude from hence, [that the Prophet shewes the contents which I have urged out of both (being in the Hebrew all in one chapter) to be at the same time.] And yet you say presently after [that this same time is not any par­ticular yeare or age, but comprehends all the time from the Jews returne from Babylon to the second comming of Christ] which is as if you had said, This particular time, is not a particular time, but many par­ticular times; yea thousands of particular times. This same time, is not the same time, but more then the same time: yea as much more then the same time, as is from the Jews returne from Babylon to this same time. For the text in the originall points emphatically to one particular time, as the seperate pronounes ( [...] and [...]) subjoyn'd to their substantives with the praefix [...] doe shew. So that it is as if the Prophet had said, In those selfe same dayes, and in that very time, in which I shall bring againe the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather all Nations, &c. And besides, how I pray can the signes, that are to be shewed more often then any man knows: or in any part of so large a time as you speake of (all which your exposition grants) foreshew the neernesse of the terrible Day of the Lord? which yet is the onely end of the won­ders, that Joel saith shall be shewed, in the Heavens and in the earth at that time. For our Saviour Mat. 24. Luk. 21. speaks of the same darkening of the Sun and Moone that the Prophet doth: and if his word may be taken, these signes shall as infallibly shew the neere approach of his second comming, as the shooting forth of the leaves of the figgtree doth shew that the summer is nigh at hand. And thus the emphasi [...] of the Hebrew text, and our Savi­our's intimation of the true extent of the time betwixt these signes and his appearing (the accomplishment of which signes you con­fesse to be at the time of the deliverance which the Prophet fore­tels) doth both discover how notoriously false your exposition of the [same time] is. And therefore the sense which you by this means [Page 37]would thrust upon the prophet must needs be your owne like­wise, and not the Prophet's. For the Prophet speakes here but of one Army, and the parallel prophecy Rev. 16. speakes but of one Army, and Ezek. who foreshewes the same battle, speakes but of one Army, and they all say that the Iews onely are to be opposed by this Army, and that a sudden destruction shall come on this Army; and consequently the deliverance here spoken of, is to be short and sudden, and the people to be delivered by it, are the Jews: And so here is nothing at all touching God's special prote­ction of his Church in all ages, or of many deliverances, but here is an extraordinary Judgement foreshewing the dreadfull over­throw and downefall of all the enemies of the Jews, and the then faithfull Christians. And as concerning the place where this Army is to be gathered together, this is chiefely to be taken notice of, that the prophecy speaking but of one Army, it can be meant but of one place, and that to be in the land of Judea, whither the Nations shall come up against the Jews shortly upon their returne, as the valley of Jehoshaphat here doth intimate, and Ezek. doth plainly declare. Neither is the doubt you bring, about the possibi­lity of so many Nations meeting together in one place, of any con­sequence; For it is not usuall for a people wholly to leave their owne countrey when they invade their enemies land (for that were the ready way to lose their owne land and to starve them­selves) but to send forth such a strength, as they may well raise and maintaine, and the Prophet here calls for their men of war, and their mighty men; but not for all the men of these Nations, much lesse for all the people of these Nations: and who knows not, that many hundred thousands may against the time of a battle be drawne together within the space of a few miles? and at once to overthrow so mighty an Army as the Prophets speake of, and thereupon to make all tha [...] are left of the Nations willing­ly to submit themselves as tributaries to the Jews; and to settle not onely one Nation, but the whole world in a godly peace and prosperity for a thousand yeares after, will doubtlesse set forth the Justice, mercy, and power of God in a more glorious and won­derfull manner, then all the victories of Christians or Protestants put together, can doe. Yea it will even abolish the memory of all the miraculous victories and benefits, which God hath wrought [Page 38]for the Jews themselves, since the time, that they grew up into a Nation. And yet you feare not to say, that this generall and ex­traordinary deliverance, and exemption from future calamities, will not so much declare Gods glory, as their particular delive­rances in formen ages doe.

Reply.

1. You doe not onely forsake the literal sense, which as it is opposed to a figurative is alwayes meant of a proper sense (and is by Divines commonly used for this, where no other sense is men­tioned) but in forsaking this sense, you forsake also the sense prin­cipally intended in these prophecies: And that it is not a [restricted interpretation] which understands prophecies onely of what, and of whom they speake: but that is a loose and licentious interpre­tation, which understands them of what, and of whom they speake not.

2. The onely reason that you bring to prove, that in these pro­phecies [Page 40]the Jews are not to be taken by way of opposition to all other Nations, is, [because then without exception all other men should be consum'd in the valley of Jehoshaphat,] But though God saith in the prophecy, I will gather all Nations &c. yet he saith not, I will gather all of all Nations, and consequently it is to be understood onely of some of every one of these Nations, and not of all the men of all these Nations, as the words in the 9. ver. of the same chap. and the parallell prophecy of Ezek. chap. 38. doe shew. And some few of these also are to escape, as we may see Isa. 66. ver. 19, 20. And so we have no need to seeke out a figurative sense to solve this argument, although it be your chiefest drift to make us doe it. And therefore had rather take paines to obscure, what is plainly delivered, then to open what is doubtfully spoken, as by your words following we may perceive. For [if these prophecies, say you, be expounded of beleevers, whether Jews or Gentiles, then none of these absurdities shall follow which are here rebearst] and so you take them in this figurative sense without any other warrant for it, but your (sic vol [...], or) so it must be: for testimony from Scripture you can bring none. And the reason you alledge to shew why the faithfull are called Jews, is a very strange one. For [they are so called, you say, for the speciall comfort of the Jews, because they were hated of all Nations everywhere, which might have been unto them an occasion of despaire.] But what likely-hood is there that the Apostles (who try'd all wayes and meanes to winne the Gentiles unto, and to confirme them in the faith) would call them by that Name which; you say, was so odious unto them? and what com­fort could it be to the Jews, (yea what readier way could there be to make them distrust the truth of the Gospel, then) to con­ceive that their Name, and the prophecies delivered in their Name, did belong to others, and not to their owne Nation? yet that which you add presently after [that the Lord saith unto them, How many or great so ever your enemies shall be, I will judge them] was in­deed an effectuall remedy to keepe them from despairing of God's mercy, and their future deliverance; and consequently too from acknowledging the figurative sense of these prophecies, or of the words [Jews, Israel &c.] And whereas you say further, [And for the same are the Jews oft named in the promises of the new Testament, to shew their particular interest in the Church of Christ &c.] you here­in [Page 41]in contradict what you say before, that the Jews and Israel are to be exponed of the elect people of God. For if they are thus to be ex­poned, they are not to be taken properly for the Jews as here you affirme (and in which exception onely they doe shew the Jews particular interest in the Church of God.) And if these words are used both properly and improperly in the new Testament, I pray tell us how we shall know, when and where, they are to be taken properly, and literally, and when, and where improperly, and figuratively. But 'tis time to leave this wavering discourse, and to survey your answers to the objections you alledge out of my somer words.

Reply.

But these prophecies, as I have prov'd, may and must be pro­perly understood: and may and must be accomplisht in one age, and in lesse then one age too. And doubtlesse these Prophets [yea] is of more weight, then your [nay.] Neither will these promises of God be the lesse, but the more glorious, for being fulfilled in so short a time. For is it not more glory for a King to subdue his ene­mies speedily then to be a long time about it?

Reply.

To this objection, which saith that the Church of the Gentiles hath not been thus victorious, and by consequence is not spoken of in these prophecies, you answer, [that Christ in suffering did triumph. And martyrdom is victory; and next, that albeit the Church were oftner crown'd with martyrdom then victory, yet she hath been crown'd with glorious victory.] So that as before by the Jews and Israel you understood the Gentiles, to avoyd the force of that rea­son; so here for the like end, you would willingly put a figurative sense too upon the victory mentioned in the prophecies: but it may not be; for these prophecies doe not foreshew the death and affliction of God's people by their enemies (as it is in persecution and martyrdom) but their great deliverance, and their enemies wonderfull destruction. Yea such a destruction as never yet hap­pened to the enemies of God's Church, either Jewish or Christian. And therefore as your spiritual conquering is very impertinently inferr'd, so no glorious outward & bodily victory that the Church of the Gentiles hath had, will match with this that the Prophets speake of, nor indeed all that she hath had. To my next reasons which shew that these prophecies of Zecha. were not fulfilled in the times of the Maccabees, as Cornelious a Lapide expounds them, you say nothing: but huddle them up together with that which you have said touching the Church of the Gentiles. For [the house of David, you say, is exalted in the person of Christ and his members; and all the wealth of the Nations hath been employed, or shall be employed for the use of the faithfull (albeit not in any particular yeare or age) and the Lord shall descend and all the Saints shall be with him.] But by the house of David is meant the linage of David that are in captivi­ty (as by its being opposed to the tents of Judah it is manifest:) and as the faithfull Gentiles are not of the linage of David, so though Christ be descended of David as touching his humane nature; [Page 43]yet he is not in captivity, but in Heaven; there to abide, til the time of this deliverance of his brethren according to the flesh. And so your exposition of the [house of David] wholly failes; for though the faithfull in generall are cal'd in Scripture the seed of Abraham, yet neither Gentiles nor Jews are in this respect cal'd the house or seede of David. And what made you take the wealth of the Nations in a proper sense, when as you take all that is spoken of in the prophecies besides this, in a figurative sense? doubtlesse had it been the wealth of the Jews, you would have so expounded it as well as you did their houses, Vineyards, and gardens in the 9. of Amos at the 14. ver. But though you doe not so expound it, yet you understand the text of such heathen onely upon whom Gods Name is not cal'd: and by your words too, you seeme to conceive that you have a better title to their wealth then they themselves, which would be a hard matter for you to prove. And that you may not thinke you have any interest in it by reason of this prophecy, you must know that the gathering together of the wealth spoken of in Zech. is against the time when the Lord shall descend, and all the Saints with him. Which being at the time of the victory there foretold, shewes your application of this prophecy to the spirituall and corporal victories of the faithfull Gentiles, to be a meere wresting of the Scriptures.

Reply.

Having spent your store and your stomack so vainly, that any one may perceive your wilfull mistake, you are forc't in the close, to shift it off with this pitifull excuse: [but it may be that this ex­clamation was made against the conjecture of Cornelius à Lapide; then he should distinguish the persons.] How? it may be? and he should distinguish the persons? Surely there is no other Commentatour spoken of; and almost a whole page is spent to shew, that he is out in his exposition of the Prophecies of Zech. which I have re­hearst, and so contrary to the true meaning of the Prophecie, which I have alledg'd out of Zeph. that he interprets, the pou­ring out of Gods fierce anger on the Nations: of his great mercy in sending the Gospel to be preach't unto them: upon which ground­lesse exposition, I have inferr'd the words you are so much offen­ded with. And it may be you had more reason to be so, then you will be knowne of, however (in stead of confirming that ex­position, which perhaps you may too much favour) you take oc­casion to tell us how conscionably you dispence the word of God. And may we believe you? what made you then so scornfully to call that remnant of the Jewes, whose temporall prosperity the Prophets have so frequently foretold, [a carnall people?] when as God himselfe saith of them: I will bring it health and cure, and I will cure them, and I will reveale unto them abundance of peace and truth: and againe, I will put my feare into their hearts, that they shall not depart from me: and the remnant of Israel shall not doe iniquity, nor speake lies, &c. Yea, the regeneration of their persons, is almost as often foretold, as the restauration of their Land, their deliverance from captivity, or their Lord-ship over other Nations. And when you call them [carnall] whom [Page 45]God so oft calls spirituall, yea, spirituall in a farre greater mea­sure then we Gentiles are, doe you not put evill for good, darknesse for light, and bitter for sweet? And to what purpose doe you tell us [that some have liv'd more happily in the midst of Scythia, then many have done in Judea?] Doth this prove that these Prophecies shall not be historically fulfill'd? or that when they are fulfill'd, the Jewes shall not live so happily in Judea, as the Nations shall in o­ther Countries? And it is to as much purpose, that you tell us out of the 11. ch. of John at the 31. ver. that Caiaphas prophecied, that Christ should die for the Jewes, and not for them onely, but that he should gather together in one the children of God, that were scattered abroad through the world, for doth any one de­ny this? or doth this prove, that the Prophecies touching the Jewes, are not to be understood of the Jewes? doubtlesse it doth rather prove, that they can be no otherwise understood, see­ing the Jewes cannot be made partakers of the benefits of Christs death, till they be call'd out of the darknesse of unbeliefe (in which they have liv'd so many hundred yeares) into the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, by the effectuall working of Gods Spirit in them, as the Prophets have said.

Reply.

1. There is mention of recovering the remnant of his people from Assyria, Egypt, Paphros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, Hamath, and the Islands of the Sea, and of smiting the River, that men may goe over dry-shod, and of a high-way, for the remnant of his people that shall be left, from Assyria, like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the Land of Egypt. And how much doth this recovering dif­fer from a returning?

2. Who the people be that are meant in this Prophecie, the words Israel, Judah, and Ephraim doe shew, and not the tenth verse where the Gentiles are mention'd. For why should those things which concerne the Jewes here, be understood of the Gen­tiles, which are onely mentioned by the by as it were; rather then that which is said of the Gentiles, be understood of the Jewes, of whom so much is spoken in this Chapter? And where have you learned to take Judah, and Ephraim, or Israel for the Gentiles? Surely the Apostle expounds not the Jewes by the Gentiles, nor the Gentiles by the Jewes, but rehearseth the 10. ver. of this chap­ter, to shew that Christ was to bring salvation to the Gentiles, as [Page 47]well as unto the Jewes (and this Prophecie of the Gentiles being mixt with that which concernes the Redemption of the Jewes, is more likely to be meant of the coming in of the fulnesse of the Gentiles at Christs next appearing, then of the comming in of the substituted part of the Gentiles, in the time of the Jewes blind­nesse.) And therefore seeing God hath made mention of the Gen­tiles by name, in those Prophecies which concerne them; and of the Jewes by name in those which concerne them: it behoves us to give to the Jew, the Prophecies that beare the Image and super­scription of the Jewes: and to the Gentile those which beare the Image and superscription of the Gentiles: and not so needlessely, so irrationally, and so unjustly to give unto the Gentiles, all that belongs unto the Jewes. Whereas then the Apostle quotes this Prophecie out of Isaias, onely as a testimony to prove, that Christ came as well for the good of the Gentiles as the Jewes: if you had any regard of what you say, you would never have cal'd it an ex­position: nor have publish't it to the world as a rule to interpret the Prophecies, which concerne the Jewes, of the Gentiles. The objections which you have alledg'd against your selfe out of the foresaid Prophecie, are these.

Reply.

And so you separate these words from the rest of the Prophe­cie, and apply them to the calling of the Jewes at the first preach­ing of the Gospel, of purpose to delude the Reader; for the Prophecie speakes of their returne into their owne Countrey, and not at all of the preaching of the Gospel unto them in other Countries, as any one may perceive. And yet although the Gos­pel was in the first dayes thereof preach't to the Jewes scattered abroad, what effect had it amongst them? surely St. Paul Act. 13. ver. 45, 46. and in the 1 Thess. 2. ver. 14, 15, 16. doth testifie, that [Page 48]such was their malice against the Apostles for preaching of it, that they laboured all they could, to raise up enemies against them, thereby to hinder the growth of the Gospel, not onely a­mongst their owne Nation, but amongst the Gentiles also: so that even in this sense, Israel and Judah, the twelve Tribes are not yet assembled. And it is observable how palpably you here con­tradict your former words, for here you expound Israel and Ju­dah properly of the Iewes onely, as your quoting of the first chap▪ and first ver. of the Epistle of St. James doth shew, and yet in the second part of your Answer you tell us, that both the Prophet and St. Paul doe expound [his people] to be the Gentiles.

Reply.

1. In this first part of your answer, you say, [that whereas there had been contentions twixt the Tribes one against another, and both against the Gentiles, and the Gentiles against them both, under Christ shall be an end of that malice.] All which is very true, and here the Reader may see you at once confesse, all that we affirme: for you take Ephraim and Judah properly, and affirme, that they are againe to be united under Christ; and not onely one with another, but with the Gentiles too, all malice being laid aside. And is not this to say with us, that it is not yet fulfill'd? for can you prove that the twelve Tribes are already converted, and uni­ted? or that all malice is at an end twixt Jewes and Gentiles? certainly you cannot, and what need we then any further wit­nesse? for (habemus confitentene reum) your owne mouth hath con­demened you, and quitted us.

2. This part of your answer hath no relation to the objection, but is a quarrell against us for omitting the 14. ver. in the citation of this Prophecie, which we did you say [because we saw that it could not be verified of the peaceable Kingdome which wee imagine.] But this Kingdome is plainly held out unto all in the word of God, and is not the fruit of our imagination, which is nothing worth but as it is enlightned from hence. And though the 14. ver. will not consist with the peace of this Kingdome, yet it will very well consist with the returne of the Iewes before this Kingdome, who in their passage to their Land may have many particular victories over their Enemies, as well in this returne, as in that out of Egypt onely; and this is all that the 14. ver. doth shew, with which the verses preceding and following speaking onely of their re­turne (and alledgd to shew their returne) doe better agree then with the Apostles preaching of the Gospel to severall Nations, whereof there is not a word spoken in this verse, nor in any other that I have alledg'd: and seeing you have interpreted Judah and Ephraim in the 13. ver. of the Iewes in opposition to the Gentiles, how could you expound the 14. verse. there the same persons are [Page 50]meant of the Apostles? or understand by their spoyling them of the East, the preaching of the Gospel?

3. That the tongue of the Egyptian sea shall be utterly de­stroyed, and the river give a passage to the Iewes (as Iordan did in time past) is the expresse word of God in this chapter, and is the hand of the Lord shortned, thinke you, that he cannot doe such Miracles now, as he did heretofore? or is his mind changed, that he will not doe what he hath said? or hath he forgotten what he spake by the Prophets so long agoe? I know you dare not affirme ought of this, and yet surely some such impious thought doth seeme to be the best ground that you have, for the strange metamorphosis that you make of this Prophecie, by your mysticall application of it: For [what kind of Miracle say you, shall that be? shall the Jewes who are scattered into all corners of the Earth, have a dry passage through every river? and the Egyptian [...] Red-sea be dryed up?] But you forget your selfe, for the text saith [River] not [Rivers] and the [the River] is in the Scripture by way of excellency put for Euphrates, and yet admit it were in the Text, as you say; it were but the reiteration of the same Miracle, and cannot God as well make all rivers yield them a drie passage as any one river? hath he power to doe it once, and hath he not power to doe it againe? yea as oft as he pleaseth? or can he not doe greater Miracles then any here foretold? or then any that he hath hitherto done? Why then should your Faith straine thus at a gnat, at the drying up of a river, or the destroying of the tongue of the Egyptian Sea; when as it can so easily swallow a Camel, in destroying the plaine history of Gods word, by incredible alle­gories, and incongruous interpretations?

Reply.

1. Surely your further clearing is no other then a further clouding, as the very reading of this prophecy, and that which our Saviour hath said, Joh. 10. ver. 14. and 16. is of it selfe sufficient to discover. For Ezek. speaks of uniting the Jews together under one King in their owne land, and our Saviour speaks of uniting the Jews and Gentiles into one Church, after a certaine number of elect Gentiles should be cald. Other sheepe, saith he, I have which are not of this fold, (that is, other elect servants which are not of this Nation) them also I must bring, and there shall be one fold and one Shepherd. Where it is to be noted by the words [them also I must bring] that he speaks onely of such elect Gentiles as were to be cald before the Jews and Gentiles should make one sheepfold, and not after they were one sheepfold. For when they are all brought, then it is, that there shall be one sheepfold, and not while they are bringing. No, the words of our Saviour Mat. 21. at the 43. ver. will not admit of such a meaning, for The Kingdom of God, saith he, shall be taken from you, and given to a Nation bringing forth the fruit thereof. Whereby it is evident, that the [Other sheepe] he speaks of in the 10 chap. of St. Iohn, should be brought to the faith, when the Nation of the Iewes should be deprived of the meanes of salvation: and consequently when it could not possibly be one Church. And therefore in saying that the Iewes and Gentiles are at this time one sheepfold, you con­tradict our Saviour, and affirme that the Iewes are now saved with­out the ordinary meanes of salvation: For this they have not, but shall have it when the time comes, in which the Jews and Gentiles [Page 53]shall be one sheepfold. And then also the Jews shall be one King­dom agane in their owne land, and Christ shall reigne over both Jews and Gentiles together. And thus our Saviour's words doe nei­ther expound Ezek. prophecy, nor shew that the Jews and Gentiles are now one sheepfold. But rather point out the time when Ezek. prophecy shal be fulfilled, to wit, when the Jews and Gentiles shal be one fold under one Shepheard. So much have you mist your aime in alledging these propheticall words of Christ.

2. The words, David, King and Shepheard, will no more prove that the temporal prophecies (or temporal part of the prophecies) in which they are used, are to be spiritually and figuratively under­stood, then Gods words to David, Thou shalt feed my people Israel 2 Sam. 5. ver. 2. will prove, that David's Kingdom was not a tem­poral Kingdom; nor he a temporal King. Or then David's owne words of his people, But these sheep what have they done? will prove that the whole Kingdom of the Jews were all faithfull persons.

3. Being conscious, that all which you have said before, to make men take these prophecies in a mysticall sense will nought availe you, if the word [land] in the prophecies should be properly under­stood, of the land of Canaan; you now endeavor to perswade them to take this figuratively also, and your first reason to induce them to it, is (like to that by which Jereboam dissuaded the Israelites from going up to Jerusalem,) because [it may be more easily understood, you say, in the spiritual then an earthly sense] But what is that spiritual sense which may so easily be understood, and yet was so hard to be described, that you could not tell us what it was. But sure I am, that God hath told us by the Prophet what land he minds to joyne the Tribes together in; even in their owne land, ver. 21. in the land upon the mountaines of Israel, ver. 22. in the land that he gave unto Jacob his servant, ver 25. which circumstances doe infallibly manifest, that it can be meant of no other land or place but Judea. And therefore the second reason you bring to shew, that it is best to take the word [land] spiritually, is both false and impious. For [that land, you say, was not given to Jacob.] No? did not God say to Jacob in a dreame; The land whereon thou liest to thee will I give it, and to thy seed &c. Gen. 28.13. and hath he not said here in this pro­phecy, the land that I gave unto Jacob my servant? no marvel th n that you can so lightly reject all the plaine texts of Scripture that [Page 54]speake for us; when as you dare thus affre [...]r God himselfe, and tell him to his face, that he did not doe that which he saith he did doe. Neither will the words [for ever] in the text any whit excuse you, seeing the Lord saith plainly, that he gave [That land to Jacob,] of which he saith, that they and their children, and their childrens children should dwell in it for ever. And yet the very next words [wherein your Fathers have dwelt] doe put it out of doubt, that it is meant of Judea, and consequently, the dwelling of their childrens children in it for ever; is to be understood of their dwelling in it successively: and the word [for ever] is to be taken finitely, for a long time; to wit, as long as men shall succeed each other on the Earth (as it is in many other places of Scripture) and [...] fi [...]i [...]ly, for time without end. And whereas you say, that [...] in the 2 Cor. 6.16. expounds the 27. verse of this Prophe­cie, of the Corinthians [as a part of the People the Prophet here speaks of] it is not so, for as the words which St. Paul makes use of, are rather taken out of the 26, of Leviticus, at the 13. ver. where they are more fully delivered, then out of this Prophecie: so they are not alledg'd by the Apostle to make the Corinthians thinke, that they were part of the people spoken of in those places, where any of the words, that the Apostle quotes, are us'd, (which is evidently false) but to shew that the Faithfull (whether Jewes or Gentiles) had all the same spiritual fellowship with God, & therefore should have the like care not to defile their bodies, which are the Tem­ples of God; with the unfruitfull works of darknesse, of which he gives a particular instance to the Corinthians, touching the consorting with unbelievers and Infidels, in their Feasts and rites celebrated in honour of their Idols, and that these words were onely thus applyed in the Epistle to the Cor. the very next verse in Ezek. doth declare, wherein the Israelites are oppos'd to all other Nations; so farre were other Nations from being included in the Prophecie as a part of them. And therefore this proofe is too weak also to support your conclusion [that the Jewes and Gentiles, who were strangely divided, are now one Church by Faith in Christ] yea doubtlesse they were never divided with greater hatred one against the other, then they have been since the preaching of the Gos­pel, and our Saviour hath told us, that the meanes of salvation was to be taken from the Jewes, that a part of the Gentiles, (even [Page 55]the Gentiles that have been a long time the Church of God) might be saved by it; before it should be given to them againe, and St. Paul in the 1 Thess. 2. ver. 16. saith also, that wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. And can yet all the spirituall and temporall Prophecies which concerne them, be at the same time (the time of their unbeliefe, and of Gods wrath against them) fulfilled in them? these are grosse contradictions, and 'tis not the conversi­on of a few Jewes in many ages, or of all that have hitherto been cal'd by the Gospel, that will solve the doubt, for the Prophets speake of a Nationall conversion and deliverance. And besides you your selfe doe tell us [that through many ages Ephraimites are not knowne in any part of the Earth] and how then can they help make one Church with the Gentiles (as you say) if there are now no such people on the earth? can there be a union betwixt some­thing and nothing? But this slam was brought in as a reason wherefore the people of Israel and Ephraim should be expounded typi­cally for the Gentiles. And if there were no Jewes left; yet why should these Prophecies be the rather expounded of the Gentiles for that? were it not better to say, that they were conditionall Pro­phecies, and should have been fulfil'd if the Jewes had been obedi­ent to Gods word, then without any necessitie to make them types of the Gentiles salvation? And yet we doe not grant, that there are no Ephraimites now, although none are cal'd so; for none of the Jewes are now cal'd after the names of their particular Tribes, at least by the Gentiles; and why should that Tribe rather then the rest? or why should this prove that Tribe to be consum'd, ra­ther then the rest? doubtlesse it's sufficient to prove them remain­ing, if the twelve Tribes are remaining: and they were remaining in the Apostles dayes, as St. James, c. 1. v. 1. & St. Paul, Act. 26 v. 7. doe witnesse, and St. Joh. Rev. 7. reckons them up as remaining neere the time of Anti-christs confusion, & as then cal'd to the Faith, as some Interpreters understand that vision, where though Ephraim be not mentioned, yet Joseph is, which is all one, and Mr. Mede saith that he is cal'd by this name as unworthy to be called by his own name, in that catalogue of Converts, because he had been a ring-leader to Idolatrie: and perhaps also now the Tribes should againe be­come one Kingdome, his name was conceal'd, for that he had formerly been the occasion of the dividing of the Tribes into two [Page 56]Kingdomes, and how could you tell us here, that through many ages Ephraimites are not knowne in any part of the earth, when as you say but a little before, page 18. that all malice betwixt the Tribes, and betwixt them and the Gentiles should be at an end under Christ? For if this bealreadie fulfill'd (as you teach) what should consume the Ephraimites after all malice betwixt them and all others was departed? and if it be not yet fulfill'd (as indeed it is not) you must either recall what you before affirme should be done under Christ, or else confesse, that the Ephraimites must needs remaine to the accomplishment of it. Now as for the Prophecie of Hosea, it is to be understood of the Jewes, as well as this of Ezek. and the word Jezreel, which signifies the seed of God, will help you nothing. For shall we think that God will make his power known after a wonderfull manner in the redeeming of an unbelieving Na­tion? nay, but because the Jewes shall then be even the whole Church on earth: because I say, they shall be believers when al­most all others are fallen into unbeliefe; therefore great shall be the day of Jezreel, of the deliverance of this seed of God.

Reply.

That we neither quarrell with the Apostle, nor with any man else, may be seene by our words; for of the Apostle we speake not, and the worst that we say of others, is, that they are mistaken: and whether this be so worthy to be cal'd a quarrell, as your cal­ling [Page 57]it a quarrell against the Apostle, is to be cal'd an egregious untruth, [let all the world judge,] and let it judge it too, whether our Saviours words in the 10. chap. of St. John, doe expound the former Prophecie of Ezekiel, of which he speakes not a word. And though the Apostle alledgeth some of the words of this Pro­phecie, yet it is not to shew that the Prophecie is to be understood of the Gentiles, but to shew that God did reject some and choose others of the Israelites, as he pleased.

Reply.

I have here cal'd the ten Tribes Jews in opposition to the Gen­tiles, and you say that [this was not prophecied of the Jews onely, for it is plaine that Hosea speaks of the Israelites, as well as of the Jews] A wild exception, for are not these Israelites, Jews? certainly Israelites and Jewes, are the proper names of that Nation. And though af­ter the division of the Tribes, Israel and Judah were often used to distinguish the two Tribes from the ten, and the ten from the two; yet the word [Jews] was never thus us'd. For by this Name all the Tribes are cal'd in the History of Hester, and in many other places, and in that instance that you bring out of the Rom. chap. 10. ver 12. [Page 58]the word [Jew] is taken indifinitely for any Jew. And wherefore is it that you urge these words of the Apostle? doe you think that it proves the name [Jew] to be indifferently taken for a Jew or a Gen­tile? surely these words shew, that the beleeving Gentile is as ac­ceptable to the Lord as the beleeving Jew: and that there is no­thing in the Jew which can move God to bestow grace on him, rather then on the Gentile, as the following words confirme: but they shew not that God takes a faithfull Jew for a faithfull Greeke, nor a faithfull Greeke for a faithfull Jew. And therefore you can­not conclude from hence [that albeit the prophet was sent perso­nally unto the Israelites, yet his words were no lesse true and meaned of the Gentiles] for though through Christ all beleevers are the people of God, yet through Christ a beleever of one Nation, is not made a beleever of another Nation: & though every one that (confi­dently) cals upon the name of the Lord shall be saved; yet every one that cals on the name of the Lord shall not thereby become a Jew. And how can you take Israelites for Gentiles, who are of different Nati­ons from them; and yet will not take Israelites for Jews, which is a Name belonging equally to all the Tribes? But you herein con­demne S^t Paul, who sometimes calls himselfe a Jew, and sometimes an Israelite; and could he be both, if these Names doe not equally belong to the same Nation?

Reply.

1. Arias Montanus renders the original (Et erit in loco, quo) with­out any such marginall note at all. And the Septuagint reads it ( [...]) and it shall come to passe, that in the place where, &c. And this expression agrees best with the scope of the Prophecie, which foretells their returne againe to their owne Land; in which it had been said unto them, yee are not my people, yea, the Apostle too alledgeth these words, agreeable to the tran­slation in the text: and in the latter part of the sentence relates to them with an ( [...]) illic vocabuntur, there they shall be call'd, &c. And therefore this proves so much, that of force you must grant the accomplishment of the Prophecie in its proper sense.

2. And what though (the Gentiles are the people of God even in the same Lands where they did not serve God?) shall not therefore the Jewes be call'd againe, the people of God, in the same Land where once they forsooke God? or shall this Prophecie be there­fore understood of them, to whom the Prophet was not sent to say, as he did to the Israelites, Ye are not my people?

3. I thinke not that the Apostle did apply this Prophecie by way of similitude to the Gentiles, and much lesse that he did accommodate it to them, as to those of whom it was meant by the Holy Ghost. For the Holy Ghost fore-shewes not the calling of the Gentiles under the name of the Israelites, but in their own name. And surely if it cannot be prov'd, that the Apostle expounds these Prophecies of Gods mercy towards the Gentiles, till the Au­thorities alledg'd in the 10. and 15. chap. of this Epistle to the Rom. doe shew it, it will never be prov'd: for those Prophecies [Page 60]speake onely of the Gentiles, and how then doe they expound in any degree the Prophecies of the Iewes in Ezek. Hosea, or any other Prophet?

Reply.

1. In the preceding page I have said, that the Prophecie Hos. 1. is meant onely of the Jewes, [and if that be true, say you, it is not meant of the Israelites.] O rare criticisme! O profound subtletie Jewes are not Israelites, and Israelites are not Jewes. But surely if it be meant of the one it must needs be meant of the other: for they are both the names of the same people, and the Apostle calls them by both in the 9. chap. of the Rom. ver. 4. and 24. Yea, they are indifferently us'd one for the other in the last part of your former Answer, for [as the Israelites by Idolatry became like unto the Gen­tiles; so, say you, the Gentiles receiving the Gospel are Jewes.] So readie are you to censure that for an errour in another, which you allow for a truth, when spoken by your selfe.

2. 'Tis true that the Apostle speakes expressely of the Jewes and Gentiles, in the 24. verse, but it is not true (that hitherto be useth the [Page 61]testimony of Hosea,) for the 24. ver. hath relation onely to the pre­ceding verse, and not to that which followeth, so that it is as if the Apostle had said, And that [...] might make knowne the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, even on us (as on a part of them) which he had afore prepared unto glory, and hath now called, not of the Jewes onely, but also of the Gentiles. For the 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. verses are brought in by way of digression, to satisfie such as might from the discourse of the freenesse of Gods election, be readie to dispute against his Justice: and at the 25. v. he returnes againe to confirme this Doctrine, partly by other Scriptures in Hosea, and Isaiah, which shew Gods eternall purpose, in passing by some, and receiving others of the Israelites: and partly, by Gods receiving the Gentiles even in the time of his passing by the Israelites, as the 30, 31, 32, and 33. verses doe manifest.

3. You said before, that the words alledg'd in the 2 Cor. 6. chap. at the 16. ver. I will dwell in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people, were taken out of Ezek. chap. 37. ver. 27. and are they now taken out of Hosea too? but what is it that you will not say, to make a shew of answering, and to puzzle the unlear­ned Reader? for the Apostle neither mentions Ezek. nor Hos. and tis most likely that he tooke these words out of the 26. chap. of Levit. at the 13. ver. (as I have said) and he makes no other use of them, but to shew that the faithfull Corinthians were be­come Gods people, and therefore should no longer yoke them­selves with the servants of Belial, either in the observance of their Idolatrous Feasts and pastimes, or in any extraordinary familia­rity.

Reply.

The copulative knitteth the testimonies, and shewes that the te­stimonies of Hosea must be understood of the Israelites, as well as the testimonies of Isaiah; and if these are not properly to be un­derstood, why saith the Apostle, Isaiah also cryeth concerning Israel, and not rather concerning the Gentiles, or the Nations? And this is fully cleared by the 30. and 31. verses, where the Gentiles and Israel are plainly oppos'd; and that that passage is inferr'd upon the former Prophecies of Hosea and Isaiah, these words in the 30. verse immediately following them, What shall we say then? doe clearely shew, and therefore those Prophecies must needs be un­derstood of the Jewes onely. And if this be not enough, consider also what the Apostle saith in the 3. and 4. verses of the same chap­ter, I could wish saith he, that my selfe were accursed from Christ for my Brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites; where as he shewes his great heavinesse for them, because they were cast off; so in the following dispute about the freenesse of Gods ele­ction, he alledgeth those Scriptures which doe foreshew their passing by, and receiving againe; and therefore if we know who those Israelites are, that are S^t. Paul's brethren according to the flesh, we need not doubt what Israelites Hosea and Isaiah speake of.

Reply.

1. That by David here Christ is meant, is not to be doubted, [Page 64]but that therefore this Prophecie was fulfill'd at Christs incarna­tion, it is to be proved, and so it is too, that the Rhetoricall and tropicall sense of some words and phrases in a Prophecie, doth fasten a mysticall meaning upon it; for the sense of a Prophecie takes not its denomination from the words in which it is spoken, but from the things it speakes of, if it speakes of materiall things (whether in a proper or figurative straine) it is a materiall Pro­phecie; if of spirituall things (whether in a proper or figurative straine) it is a spirituall Prophecie, if of both, it's partly mate­riall, and partly spirituall, and the title of a Prophecie takes its denomination, from the place, person, or people of which it is spoken.

2. There is a great difference betwixt the last dayes, and the lat­ter dayes. For the (last dayes) Heb. 1. ver. 2. and the (last times) 1 Pet. 1. ver. 20. doe comprehend the whole time under the Gos­pel; the time I say, from Christs first comming to his second: but the [latter times] 1 Tim. 4. ver. 1. doe signifie onely the latter part of the last times. And as the last times, or dayes, have their latter times; so againe the [latter times] have their [last dayes] as we may see in the 2 Tim. chap. 3. ver. 1. and in the 2 Pet. chap. 3. ver. 3. and of the end of these [last dayes] of the [latter times] are the [latter dayes] in this Prophecie to be understood; as St. Paul's words in the 11. chap. of the Epistle to the Rom. at the 25. and 26. verses doe evidence. For I would not Brethren, saith he, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, that blindnesse in part is hap­ned to Israel, untill the fulnesse of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Is­rael shall be saved, &c. And yet it is enough to confirme the first part of the Dilemma; that the [latter dayes] in this Prophecie, cannot be taken for the first dayes of the preaching of the Gospel, in which onely the Gospel was preacht unto the Jewes, and there­fore the Israelites that sought the Lord in those first dayes of the Gospel, cannot be the same Israelites which the Prophet saith shall seeke the Lord in the latter dayes of the Gospel, that is, not long before Christs appearing. And basides, what effect the word of God tooke amongst the Israelites, even in the dayes in which it was preach't unto them, we have formerly shewed out of the 13. chap. of the Acts, at the 45. and 46. verses, and out of the 1 Thess. 2. at the 15. and 16. ver. to which wee may adde the same [Page 65]Apostles great heavinesse and continuall sorrow for them, Rom. 9. ver. 2.3. and his words concerning Israel, in 31, 32, and 33. ver. of the fame chapter, and his prayer for them, and record of them, chap. 10. v. 1, 2, 3. and his words, ch. 11. v. 8, 9, 10.12.15.25. and 28. in which places he saith, that they stumbled at the stumbling stone (that is, at Christ preacht unto them) that they submitted not them­selves unto the righteousnesse of God: that they were enemies to the Gospel, and that God had given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and eares that they should not heare, and therefore we dare not but to affirme that Israel did not then returne thus the Lord; to wit, by repentance and embracement of the Gospel. For the Prophet speakes not of the returne of some particular Families, or of some particular persons of divers Families; but of all the children of Israel, that were to be so long without a King, that is, of the whole body of the ten Tribes at least. And of the whole Israel of God it is (that is, of all the Tribes, though not of all of every Tribe) that the Apostle speaks of in the foresaid Texts of Scripture, and how then can it be said of any of the Tribes, that they have as yet sought the Lord? and if none of the Tribes are converted, where is the union you boast of betwixt the Jewes and Gentiles? How are they one Christian Church, when as not one of the Tribes hath been hitherto joyn'd to this Church? And further though it be not said expressely here, that the children of Israel shall returne into their Land, yet other parallel Prophecies doe shew, that the word (returne) doth imply this: and so doe some of the contents of this Prophecie. For whereas it is said (they shall be many dayes without a King) it is to be understood, that after the end of these dayes, they shall againe have a King; to wit, one to reigne over them in a temporall Monarchy, as before they had, when David did reigne over them: for such a King it is that the Prophet saith, they shall be without, and he saith not, that they shall be without him alwayes, but many dayes, and there­fore after the expiring of these dayes, they shall againe enjoy such a King: and consequently they shall againe become a Kingdome on Earth too. As for the other part of the Dilemma, you had no­thing at all to say to it, and therefore you fight with your owne fancies onely; first in saying [...]hat Christ came not till the Scepter was departed from Judah) which (though it is not easily to be main­tain'd) [Page 66]I have neither affirmed, nor denyed, but onely urg'd the Prophecie of Jacob, to shew that the Scepter could not depart from Judah till Christs comming (for whether it was to depart immediately before, or shortly after, it is not materiall in this Argument) and consequently, that if this Prophecie were to be understood of the two Tribes, the punishment in abiding many dayes without a King, and without a sacrifice, &c. could not be ful­fill'd on them, till their Captivitie under the Romans, at the de­struction of their City: from whence also it will follow, that their returne here foretold must needs be as yet to come. And se­condly, in saying, that the latter dayes are not to be refer'd unto the 4. v. (as if the Israelites should abide many dayes without a King and sacrifice in the latter dayes, and then returne) but unto the 5. v. in the end whereof they are.) For I never thought that the (latter dayes) did comprehend the (many dayes) spoken of in the 4. v. but I know that they doe shew what a long continuance and space of time the (many dayes) doe imply, for 'tis not before but afterward, that is, at the end of the (many dayes) that the (latter dayes) doe begin; in which the contents of the latter part of the Prophecie are to be fulfill'd: as the contents of the first part of the Pro­phecie are in the (many dayes.) And as I have already prov'd, these (latter dayes) not to be begun: so you your selfe seeme to confesse as much, saying, (and so in the latter dayes they shall returne, and seeke the Lord their God, and Christ their King, as they did, Acts 2.41. and chap. 4.4.] but whereas you adde, [and in severall ages] surely the conversion of the Jewes did even wholly weare away in a very short time after the preaching of the Gospel. For they were St. Paul and Barnabas that told them: It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken unto you, but seeing yee put it from you, and judge your selves unworthy of everlasting life, loe, we turne to the Gentiles, Act. 13. ver. 46. and that their behaviour was the same towards the Apostles in other places, as well as at Antioch in Pisidia, you may see, in the 1 Thess. 2. chap. at the 14, 15, and 16. verses. And therefore their conversion held not one ago, so short was the continuance of the Jewes joyning with the Gentiles in the Christian Faith, yea too short and too small to prove, that the uniting of the Jewes and Gen [...]es into one Church, is already accomplish't and so the truth of both parts of this Argument doth appeare the more firme, by your indirect and slight answer.

Reply.

1. Had not these prophecies been to the same purpose, you might well have thought, that I had had as little regard what sense I wrested the Scriptures to, as you your selfe have. And seeing they are all to the same purpose, you had the lesse reason to quarrell at the number of them. But it was a great eye-soare unto you, to see such, and so many witnesses together, all maintaining the truth we hold, and you oppose. And because you could not reply unto them, by any credible interpretation in your allegorical way; you slide from them, with no more, nor weightier words then those [but number prevaileth not in this case.] Surely it is a poore case, that you, who have laboured all this while to perswade the reader that we can bring no plaine proofes for what we say, should now be affraid to let him heare what God hath said for us, and what you could answer for your selfe. But you saw very well, that these prophecies were too cleare to be obscured with the vaile of a figure­ [...]i [...] sense: and too eminent to [...]e put on the roll of conditionall prophecies: because many of them doe as well containe spiritual blessings, as temporal blessings: and there can be no doubt of their doing God's will, to whom that Spirit, and those graces are promi­sed, by which alone men are inabled to doe it. And for a caste of what I have said, take the prophecy of Jeremiah chap. 32. at the 37. ver. Behold I will gather them out of all countries whither I have drivers them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath, and I will bring them againe unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely. Here is an outward and temporal promise. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God, and I will give them one heart, and [...], that they may feare [...] for [...]ver, for the good of them, and their children [Page 69]after them. And I will make an everlasting Covenant with them, that I will not turne away from them to doe them good, but I will put my feare into their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. Here is an inward and spiritual promise; after which it follows, yea I will rejoyce over them, to doe them good, and I will plant them in this land assuredly, with my whole heart, and with my whole soule. For thus saith the Lord; like as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them, all the good that I have promised &c. And the like prophecy is in the 33. chap. of Jer. at the 6. ver. &c. and in the 36. chap. of Ezek. at the 24. ver. &c. and in the 39. chap. at the 25. ver. &c. And in the 36. chap. at the 8. ver. this prophecy is made to the Mountaines of Israel. O yee mountaines of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches, and yeeld your fruit to my people of Israel, for they are at hand to come: for be­hold I am for you, and I will turne unto you, and ye shall be tilled and sow­en, and I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel even all of it, and the Cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be builded; and I will multiply upon you man and beast, and they shall increase and bring fruit, and I will setle you after your old estates: and I will doe better for you, then at your beginning, and ye shall know that I am the Lord. Yea I will cause men to walke upon you, even my people Israel, and they shall possesse thee, and thou shalt be their inheritance, and thou shalt no more henceforth bereave them of men &c. Now as none of the former pro­phecies will beare the title of conditional prophecies, so neither will this; for the land it selfe could neither doe any thing, for which God should make such a promise unto it, nor for which he should refuse to fulfill unto it, what he hath promised. And I am per­swaded, that he who will deny, that these prophecies are to be understood of the prosperity and happinesse of the Jews onely: that will deny I say, that they are properly and historically to be taken; or that they are as yet to be fulfilled, will not sticke to say any thing.

2. If they affirme, that these prophecies were partly, though not onely accomplisht in the time of the plagues; that, I say, their ac­complishment did continue as well then, as at other times; they affirme that which is altogether inconsistent with the uninter­rupted prosperity of these prophecies, which shew, that none of the people of whom they are spoken, shall be left in captivity a­mong the Heathen, or be a prey any more to the Heathen; but that [Page 70]they shall dwell safely in their owne land, without feare and with­out sorrow. And that they shall have such increase of cattle, come, and other fruits of the earth, that there shall come no more famine upon them. And who seeth not by this that these prophecies can­not possibly belong to the troublesome and distressed state and con­dition of the Christian Church? or to any other people but the Jews. who alone live dispersed in captivity? But you [deny that the plagues spoken of in the Rev. were to be continued plagues.] you should then have shewed what intervalls of joy the Church hath had from the time that the Dragon began to persecute the woman which brought forth the man child. And went to make warre with the remnant of her seed. Rev. 12.13.17. For doubtlesse persecution hath bin a constant attendant on the servants of God ever since the first preaching of the Gospel. Tis true indeed that the Gospel at the first made a great conquest on the Gentiles; but how was it done? surely not by the contentious hearts, & bloody hands of the Apostles and their successours, but by a constant lifting up of their hearts and hands in prayer, and by an undanted offering up of their lives in persecution. And it is hard to say when all Christian Churches together have had rest from open persecution. But grant that there had bin no such persecution at all in any Christian Kingdome unto this time, yet doubtlesse that maxime of St. Paul in the 2 Tim. at the 12. ver. Yea and all they that will live godly in Christ Iesus shall suf­fer persecution, had stood firme, and passed still for an undoubted truth. For the servants of God might neverthelesse have bin mo [...]t, reviled, hated, and opprest, albeit they had not bin haled to prisons, to [...]nres, and death it self, and yet let that Hell on earth, the devillish Inquisition witnesse, whether this also might not have bin effected, in a more cruell & barbarous manner in a secret, then in an open per­secution. You say next that [all interpreters from the beginning of the Christian Church (except a few Millenaries) till this time, have expo [...]d these texts, not of the Jews only, but of the Christian Church:] which is as if you had said, that all interpreters doe write for you, besides those that write against you. And doe you not remember what you said before (even of the scriptures themselves) that number prevaileth not? why then doe you urge us now with the greater number of inter­preters? I am sure you will not be content, that the triall of the truth shall be put to most voices betwixt Protestants and Papists; if [Page 71]not, why would you have it so here? But were the prophets thus in­terpreted from the beginning of the Christian Church? no, it could not be, for we have learned from the Dialogue betwixt Tripho, and Justine Martyr, that then no other Christians weree steemed ortho­doxe, but those of the Millenarian faith; & therefore it may easily be conceived how the Prophets were expounded in those days; and that they then began to interpret the scriptures my stically, when errour had taken hold, not onely on the most, but the most powerfull pa­trons in the Church also: on such who by their place and authority, could force the truth either wholly to hide it selfe, or to be knowne no otherwise then by the ignominious name of an heresie: which was not till some ages after the Apostles dayes, as you your self con­fesse in your Preface. But you say that [these Interpreters have writ­ten according to their consciences.] And so our Saviour [...]d the Disci­ples, that they should be put out of the Synagogues, yea that they should be kild, by such as should thinke that they did God service, Joh. 16.2. and St. Paul was mov'd by his conscience to raise a very tyrannous persecution against the Saints, as he confesseth Acts 26.9. I verily thought with my selfe, saith he, that I ought to doe many things contrary to the Name of Jesus of Nazareth, which thing also I did, &c. and so although he went not against his conscience, yet he went against the truth, for his conscience was a blind and ignorant conscience, as he saith in the 1 Tim. 1.13. but I obtained mercy, because I did it ig­norantly in unbeleefe. And such consciences, no doubt, were the con­sciences of many (if not of all) of those Interpreters in relation to the truth in controversie; who had they first made diligent search after this truth of the Jewes generall conversion and returne; and of our Saviours personall reigne on earth; they would never, I pre­sume, have spent their time and paines in such Expositions. But these Interpreters are dead for the most part long agoe, and there is scarcely one of them now living; and we appeale not to the dead, but to the living, who are or may be acquainted with what is said on both sides, and therefore cannot passe sentence against us out of ignorance, although they may out of prejudice, and so not accor­ding to conscience. And who ever heard till now, that it is a [vain [...] bragge] to appeale to mens consciences in giving their judgement a­bout a truth? certainely he that feares to appeale unto this Judge, doth feare the uprightnesse of his owne cause; for what saith Saint [Page 72] Paul in the 2 Cor. chap. 4. ver. 2. We have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftinesse, nor handling the Word of God de­ceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth, commending our selves to every mans conscience in the sight of God.

Reply.

You grant first [that the foresaid Prophecies doe containe evident ar­guments for a future restauration of Israel] whereby if you meane no more then a future restauration in relation to the time in which it was foretold, you grant onely what you could not possibly deny, seeing Prophecies speak not of things already done, but to be done: and if you meane a future restauration in relation to the time that now is; you contradict your self in saying presently after [that it is already begun in part] seeing that which is as yet to begin, cannot be already begun; and that which is already begun, cannot be as yet to begin: and if you meane by a future restauration, such a restau­ration as was to begin at the first preaching of the Gospel, and to continue to the comming of Christ: besides that it is somewhat an harsh expression, it is not true [that you have before clearely proved this by the testimonies of the Apostles, and by experience,] for you have not brought any at all, much lesse any cleare testimonies out of the [Page 75]Apostlesr to prove that this restauration which the Prophets speake of is to be wrought successively, and by degrees, in many ages; or that it is meant only of a spirituall restauration; or that by the Isra­elites, any of the Gentiles are to be understood: neither can experi­ence shew you any one Tribe converted to the Christian faith, but that all the Tribes are of a different Religion from us. You grant also [that these Prophecies doe agree in their contents with the Pro­phecies of Amos and Isaiah alledg'd by the Apostles, but you deny, 1. Our manner of restauration, for you hold (you say) that the spiritu­all restauration is more glorious for the honour of God, and weale of Israel.] And did you consider what you said in all this? doe we speake of a corporall restauration onely, and not of a spirituall too? certainly that we hold not only a bodily restauration of the Jewes from their captivity, is very well knowne unto you, by our words you here an­swer; and your very next words doe confirme it, where you deny [that the Apostle James alledgeth the Prophecie of Amos for the generall conversion of the Jewes,] and what is it to contend for their conver­sion, but to hold their spirituall restauration? so that although you hold onely a spirituall restauration to be meant in the Pro­phecies, we hold both to be meant in them. And is it most for their [weale] thinke you, to be restored from the bondage of their bodies and soules both; or from the bondage of their soules onely? and is the accomplishment of one or of both these [most glorious for the ho­nour of God?] But it had been a signe of farre more discretion, and of some Christian modesty in you, if you had onely forborne to teach God so often what course he should take to make himselfe appeare the more glorious; for doubtlesse it is most for Gods glory to ac­complish what he hath promised to doe, and we cannot imagine, but that he hath promised to doe what should make most for his glory.

2. You deny that the Apostle James alledgeth the Prophecy of Amos for such a conversion of the Jewes: for he speakes expresly (you say) of visiting the Gentiles, &c. The Apostle James by your owne confession alledgeth two Prophecies, one (as you say after page 27.) of old Simeon, Acts 15. at the 14. vers. and the other of A­mos, ver. 16.17. where there is expresse mention of building the Ta­bernacle of David (as in the former there is, of visiting the Gentiles) and yet you would have this last Prophecy to be no more then an [Page 76]Exposition of the former (which we have once already shew'd to be false) and were it not to expound Notum per ignotius, to make the Comment more obscure then the Text, to say that by [the building of the Tabernacle of David] James meant the [visiting of the Gentiles] before spoken of? Thus then whatsoever talke you make of the pre­sent conversion, and union of the Jewes with the Church of the Gentiles, yet when you come to apply the Scriptures, you debarre them of all interest in those Prophecies, or that part of a Prophecy which concernes them alone, so much doe you favour their conver­sion, or esteeme their company. But as you hold the words in the 14. vers. to have reference to Simeons Prophecy, so you must remem­ber, that Simcon saith of Christ, that he should be a light to lighten the Gentles; before he saith of him, that he should be the glory of his people Israel; and what doth this imply, but that a substituted part of the Gentiles, were to become the Church of Christ, before the Nation of the Jewes should receive the Gospel? for being indued with the spirit of Prophecy, he could not speake at randome; and therefore the very order of these words is observeable; with which Saint James his changing of the first words of the Prophecy [In that they] into [After this] doth very well agree; which might else as well (if not better) have beene alledg'd according to the Prophets expression, had this Prophecy beene no more but a larger explana­tion, and further confirmation of the Gentiles calling. And if you looke into the latter part of Amos Prophecy recorded by St. James, you may see, that at the building againe of Davids Tabernacle, there is not onely mention of [the residue of men] that should then seeke after God, but of the Gentiles too, upon whom God's Name is call'd, before that (for why else should they be thus distinguished from other Gentiles, that are then to seeke the Lord as well as they?) And what will follow from hence upon your expounding [the buil­ding of the Tabernacle of David] of the first calling of the Gentiles? cer­tainely this will follow, that the first calling of the Gentiles, was not the first calling of the Gentiles, seeing [the people upon whom God's name all is call'd] is alwayes meant of a people that doth worship the true God. And consequently from the words [after this I will return & wil build again the Tabernacle of David] inferr'd upon the foresaid [vi­siting of the Gentiles] in the 14. ver. and from the words [that the resi­due of men might seeke after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my [Page 77]Name is call'd] referr'd to the time when it is againe to be built, it must needs follow, that here is an expresse mention, as well of the Nationall conversion of the Jewes after the visiting of the Gentiles, as of the calling of a substituted part of the Gentiles before such a conversion of the Jewes: for as the Tabernacle of David cannot possibly signifie the Nations of the Gentiles, so the building againe of it, cannot be meant of God's receiving those Nations for his peo­ple, which were never before his people. And thus this Prophecy of Amos shewes not the calling of the Jewes onely, nor the calling of the Gentiles onely, but the order of both; for which purpose it was alledged by the Apostle, to wit, to shew, that a substituted part of the Gentiles should be called, before the generall conversion of the Jewes; and that all Gentiles whatsoever, that were then left both of the call'd and uncall'd, should make one Church with the Jewes, when the Tabernacle of David was againe built, that is, upon the conversion, deliverance, and setling of the Jewes in their own land, according as the foresaid Prophecies doe declare. And whereas you seeme to deny, that this Prophecy was taken out of Amos onely [because the Apostle speakes not onely of Amos, but saith generally, to this agree the words of the Prophets,] you shew great weakenesse in it, for (besides that it is an usuall manner of speaking, to put the plurall number for the singular, and the singular for the plurall,) he might very well say, to this agree the words of the Prophets, because other Prophets also foretell the same thing, although he brought an in­stance onely out of one of them: for I am sure that this prophecy is wholly in Amos, with a little difference from this translation accor­ding to the originall, but none according to the Septuagint, as Do­ctor Mayer affirmeth. And why doe you say before [Iames alledgeth the prophecy of Amos,] if you did not thinke it to be the prophecy of Amos? and if you knew that but a part of it was his, why did you not shew what words were spoken by him, and what words by some other Prophets? But you could not: for [to this agree the words of the Prophets,] is indeede as if he had said, to this agree the words of Amos in the booke of the Prophets. For the minor (or lesser Pro­phets, were all in one volume, called the booke of the Prophets, and therefore when a testimony is brought out of any of them, it is most commonly alledged as from the whole booke, and not from that prophecy where they are written in the booke. And thus you may [Page 78]read, [As it is written in the booke of the Prophets, Acts 7.42.] in­stead of as it is written by Amos in the booke of the Prophets. And Acts 13.40. [which is spoken of in the Prophets] that is, by Habbakkuk in the booke of the Prophets. And in all this I hope I have fully answered this great doubt, the mentioning whereof doth either shew your lit­tle insight in Divinity, if you were not able to satisfie your selfe there­in: or your great delight to wrangle, if you knew the answer to it.

3. You deny that the Apostle Paul alledgeth the prophecy of Isaiah to shew the generall conversion of the Jewes, after the conversion of the sub­stituted Gentiles: for he saith not, (you say) and then all Israel shall be saved, but, and so all Israel shall be saved. But though he saith not [and then,] yet Paraeus tels you, that this, and more then this is under­stood: for he saith there is an [Ellipsis] of the antecedent; a defect or leaving out of something that should have been spoken before. So that the full rehearsing of the Apostles minde herein had been thus. For I would not brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery: that blindenesse is in part happened to Israel, Ʋntill the fulnesse of the Gentiles shall come in: and then when the fulnesse of the Gentiles shall come in, the blindnesse shall cease, and so all Israel shall be saved. And doubtlesse this is the true meaning of what the Apostle hath more briefely uttered. And yet we doe not grant, [that the Apostle shewes no order and diffe­rence in time,] because he saith not [and then] but [and so.] For the distance of time betwixt Israel's casting off, and calling againe, is exprest by the words [Ʋntill the fulnesse of the Gentiles shall come in:] without which or the like words in the premises, the word [then] in the conclusion had beene of little force: as the want of it after such a plaine marke and boundary of Israels blindnesse, is not con­siderable; for seeing the Apostle saith, blindnesse is in part hapned to Israel, untill the fulnesse of the Gentiles shall come in, and adds presently after, and so all Israel shall be saved; and confirmes it too with a Prophecy which concernes the pardoning and purifying of the Jewes onely; who that calls his wits about him, can beleeve, that the Apostle meant neverthelesse, that blindnesse should never depart from that Nation? which doome your expounding of [all Israel] of none but of the called of Israel and of the Gentiles, doth necessarily put upon it. For by the words [and so all Israel shall be saved] you doe not understand a further calling of any, but the accomplishment of [Page 79]the whole number of the beleeving Jewes and Gentiles formerly call'd: and therefore the blindnesse being to continue, untill the ful­nesse of the Gentiles shall come in, and then (according to your opini­on) the calling of men to salvation, to cease; it must needs follow, that in your sense, there is to be no other end of Israel's blindnesse, then the eternall condemnation and perdition of almost that whole Nation. Whose generall conversion, many of the Fathers, and the most and most learned men amongst Protestants and Papists doe acknowledge to be both plainely foretold here by St. Paul, and a­betted by the Prophecy alledg'd out of Isaiah, which you grant to be the same in sense with the Prophecies before recited, and yet the want of this poore particle [then] must sway the scales on your side, against so many evident authorities of God and man. And seeing you prize your conceit so highly, you might very well have afforded us a paraphrase of the 25. and 26. verses of this Chapter; that so we might have knowne your meaning fully, and seene how you could make all St. Paul's words here suite with that mysticall sense which you take Israel in. But to say no more of a Text, which is one of the maine pillars of the Tenet you so much condemne, then [there­fore the conclusion must be expounded according to the preceding words, that is, All Israel are the called of Israel, and of the Gentiles:] is to bring the Reader into a wood, or labyrinth rather, and there to leave him, to seeke his way out himselfe. For the preceding words are, that blindnesse is in part hapned to Israel, untill the fulnesse of the Gentiles shall come in; and the meaning of them (you say) is, All Israel are the called of Israel and of the Gentiles; and the conclu­sion is, and so all Israel shall be saved: and the meaning of this also (you say) is, All Israel are the called of Israel and of the Gentiles. For the conclusion, you say, must be exponed according to the preceding words, that is, All Israel are the called of Israel and of the Gentiles. A [...]ditum admissi, risum teneatis amici? is this to helpe or hinder the Reader in the understanding of the Apostle? And yet for all this stirre about [All Israel] 'tis not your distinction betwixt Israel and all Israel, that can prove the word [Israel] to be mystically taken. For besides that there is an apparent opposition betwixt the Jewes and the Gentiles throughout this Chapter: and that the Israel which is to be saved, hath relation onely to the Israel that is before said to be in blindnesse (and not to the words, untill the fulnesse of the Gen­tiles [Page 80] sha'd come in, which are added to shew the distance of time be­twixt the blinding and saving of Israel) besides all this, it is not ge­nerally true, that [all Israel] is more then [Israel] seeing the word Israel] alone, is more often used for the whole Nation, then [all [Israel] is. Neither is it true that [all Israel] here, doth comprehend both Jewes and Gentiles; for he useth the universall note [all] in the last place, and not in the first; because all, none excepted, were to be converted, although all, none excepted were not to be blinded. And lastly, it is not true, that [all Israel] here is more then [Israel] here, for Israel to whom blindnesse is hapned in part, comprehends both the beleeving and unbeleeving Israelites, and consequently all Israelites, and although [all Israel] be more then the blinded, or not blinded part of Israel, that is, then Israel divisively taken, yet it is not more then Israel indivisively taken, then Israel to whom blindnesse is hapned in part, and in part not hapned: for thus Israel in the 25. v. is [all Israel] too, because it contains all beleevers & unbeleevers of the Jews together; although it be not [all Israel] as it is appli'd to the beleeving or unbeleeving Jews severally, and apart; and therfore in saying, that [all Israel] is more then [Israel to whom blindnes is hapned in part] you do say; that [all Israel] is more then all Israel: & though it be more then the beleeving or unbeleeving part of Israel; yet to argue thus from hence, all Israel, is more then the blinded part of Israel, therefore it comprehends the Jewes and Gentiles both: is just such an argument as this, all England is more then almost all Eng­land, therefore it is England and Scotland too; or, all your wit is more then the greatest part of your wit, therefore it is your wit and your folly both. And whereas you say [that in this signification the proofe following in the cited testimony must necessarily be understood] you doe hereby closely endeavour to put the like mysticall meaning upon the words [Sion and Jacob] in Isaiahs Prophecie: but 'tis not the delivering of your meaning so darkely, nor the pressing of it upon the Readers beleefe with such an irrationall necessity, that will ought availe you. For [Sion] doth signifie in this place, the people of the Jewes, of whom the Deliverer, that is, Christ our Saviour was to be borne; and [Jacob] is never used but for the person of Jacob, or the posterity of Jacob: which last acception is the mea­ning of it in this Prophecie; and how then shall the turning away of ungodlinesse from Jacob be understood, but of saving [all Israel] [Page 81]the whole posterity of Jacob by calling them out of the blindnesse in which they are? And consequently this Prophecy also doth shew the Nationall conversion of the Jewes after the fulnesse of the sub­stituted Gentiles is come in; or when the time comes in which tho­rough the wonderfull deliverance of the Jewes, (not a part, as now) but) all that were left of the Gentiles shall together with them serve the Lord. But [these conjectures (you say) destroy one another, for if the calling of the Iews shall be after the fulnes of the calling of the Gentiles, then all the Gentiles that shal be left cannot be called through the wonder­full deliverance of the Jews.] Thus no doubt you would have it, al­though you cannot thus apprehend it; for I have before in a margi­nall note, which you would take no notice of, (nor of some others which would have given good light to the reader in the totall dis­covery of this truth) I have there, I say, as wel as he here distinguish­ed betwixt the full number of the elect that were successively to be cal'd out of the Nations of the substituted Gentiles before the con­version of the Jews: and the full calling of all unbeleeving Gentiles whatsoever at and through the extraordinary restauration and de­liverance of the Jewes. Now to say that the Jews shall be converted after, or at the filling up of the full number of the elect of the substi­tuted Gentiles, that are appointed to be call'd before, and at the Jews generall conversion (& before our Saviours comming, which shall be at the deliverance of the Jewes, not long after their calling, and even suddenly after their return) & that the Jews shall be converted before the calling and comming in of all unbeleeving Gentiles what­soever, that are to be converted through their wonderfull delive­rance at our Saviour's descending; is not to affirme, that all Gentiles shall be call'd to the Christian Faith before the Jewes conversion, and yet many of them left to be call'd through the Jewes delive­rance; as any one, that is not more willing to have the truth mi­staken, then to satisfie himselfe or others therein, may easily per­ceive: For that the Christian Nations have beene the people of God in the Jewes stead, ever since the Apostles turned from them to the Gentiles, is knowne to all Christians that endeavour to know any thing; and that there are farre more Nations then these, that as yet embrace not the Christian Faith, experience at this day witnes­seth. The comming in of all which Nations both call'd and uncall'd to make one Church with the Jewes, the Prophecies of Isaiah 66 [Page 82]at ver. 19. &c. and of Zech. chap. 14. at the 12. ver. &c. doe clearely prove to be through the wonderfull deliverance of the Jewes, from the destruction which these Nations shall endeavour to bring upon them, and God shall in a most terrible and marvellous man­ner turne upon their owne heads: and that the Nations which are yet aliens from the Christian faith, shall not till that time become Christians (besides the great probability thereof) the foresaid Pro­phecie of Amos doth manifest it. For by [the building of the Taberna­cle of David] is meant the restoring of the Jewes; by [the Gentiles on whom Gods name is call'd] are meant the Christians; and by [the residue of men] are meant the Nations which shall not till then be call'd to the Christian faith: and of this comming in of all Gentile Nations together upon the foresaid deliverance of the Jewes, I doe indeed take [the fulnesse of the Gentiles] which St. Paul speaks of, to be understood. So that untill the fulnesse of the Gentiles shall come in; is, untill the time in which God hath appointed thus to bring in all Gentile Nations together, be neere at hand, be shortly to begin: then shall the Jewes be converted, that this may be effected: and thus the Apostle doth prophecie of the generall conversion of the Jewes and Gentiles too: and that Mr. Mede (whom you your selfe commend for a renowned Author) did thus understand the Apostle you may see page 54 of his Commentaries on the Apocalyps: where affirming, that from the time of the Jewes rejection, the Church of the Gentiles hath beene taken into Israels roome, he saith, Fóque loce apud Deum tantisper babenda, dum veteri populo suo denuò misericordiam consecuto, plenitudo gentium introierit; and indeede the Apostles own words in the 12. and 15. ver. of the same Chapter doe confirme this; for there he shewes, that as the fall and casting away of the Jewes, was an occasion of the conversion of the substituted part of the Gentiles; so their fulnesse, their receiving againe, should be an occasion of the comming in of all other Gentile Nations whatsoever. And though you say [that this last conjecture (to wit, touching the com­ming of all Gentiles whatsoever through the deliverance of the Jewes) doth destroy a maine Tenet of the Millenaries, who say that the Jewes shall rule over all the Nations and hold them in subjection till the end of the thousand yeares, and then these prophane Nations shall rise again in armes against the Jews,] it is onely spoken not prov'd: and though you will not beleeve God in all this; yet if you will beleeve what [Page 83]long experience hath verified in others, you must needs beleeve this also. For why may not the Jews rule over them, that shall imbrace the same faith, and worship the same God with them: whenas one Gentile Nation doth thus rule over other Gentile Nations of the same beliefe? and why also may not these Nations fall away, and rise in armes against the Jews, at the end of the 1000. yeares, at the loosing againe of Satan? when as it is not onely ordinary for one Nation to rise in armes against another of the same faith, and many times against such as beare sway over them: but they who reject our Tenet doe hold too, that the Christian Church shall be farre more enlarged, and more flourishing, then ever it was since [...]e preaching of the Gospel, and yet before Christ's comming even wholly fall away againe? and therefore you have onely slandered what by reason of the evidence of Gods word, and of common experience you could not possibly disprove. And yet you have not done, For [the greatest part of the prophecies (which shew the Jews prosperity after their returne) are exponed of the Christian Church (you) say in other passages of the new Testament.] Surely if there be no better passages in the new Testament to expound them so, then the prophecies of Amos and Isaiah are, there be none at all; as the rea­der doth by this time, I thinke, plainly understand. But [Ier. 31.1. is exponed (you say) in 2 Cor 6.18. and Ier. 31.31. in Heb. 8.8. and ch. 10.16, 17. and Jer. 32. containes the same words with ch. 31.31. so doth that of chap. 33.6. and to the same purpose is that of chap. 50.19. and that of Ezek. chap. 34. concerning the gathering and feeding the sheepe, is exponed by our Saviour Iohn 10 11.16. and that of chap. 39. is correspondent with the prophecies of Ioel, whereof we spake before. and that of Zech. 10. is one with Ier. 23 6.8. and other that are handled before.] And what other were they? certainely you have not answered one of all these prophecies that are alledged to shew the Jews peaceable and prosperous condition after their returne. And the answere that you have made to them which concerne their re­turne, doe leave the reader as doubtfull and unsatisfied, as your shuffling together of these prophecies here doth. For the first words which I have alledged, out of Jer. 31. are at the 10. ver. and not at the first ver. but this verse was quoted in the margent of your Bible in the 2 Cor. chap. 6. at the 18. ver. and that was enough to make you say, that the whole chap. of Jeremiah is meant of the [Page 84]Gentiles: and yet the word [...] in Jer. 31. at the 1. verse, are not the same with those in the 2 Cor. chap. 6. verse 18. and what if they were? what though that which is common to the faithfull in gene­rall, (as that God should be their Father and their God; and they his people, Sonnes and daughters, and the like) be applied as well to the Gentiles as to the Jews, it will not follow from hence, that where God saith he will be a God to the Jews, and they shall be his people, he meanes in that place the Gentiles, and not the Jews; or the Jews and Gentiles both. And much lesse will it follow, that any thing which is prophecied as proper to the Jews in particular, or as opposed to other Nations, should yet be understood of other Nations. For doubtlesse, if such prophecies belong not to the Iews onely, no promises can be so properly, distinctly, and plainly made to any Nation, which can assure that Nation that they be­long to it, and to no other. You say next [that the prophecy Ier. 31. at the 31. verse is exponed in Heb. 8. ver. 8. &c.] There indeed it is wholly repeated, but expounded it is not, unlesse the same prophe­cy doth expound it selfe, which is to make it both the text and the comment: such poore shifts are you put to, whilst you had rather say any thing, to winne the unstable, or to hide the truth from the unlearned, then acknowledge it for a truth. And to whom did the Apostle alledge this prophecy, but to the Jews of whom it was spoken by the Prophet? and why did he alledge it to them, but to shew that Christ Jesus was the Mediator of the new Covenant, which God had promised to make with them, and that the ordi­nances of the old Covenant, were by his death become voyd and unprofitable? that hereby he might at once establish the faith of the beleeving Jews; and, if it had been possible, have moved the whole Nation at that time to embrace the Covenant of the Gospel; of which this prophecy doth plainly witnesse they shall be one day partakers; even the whole house of Israel and Judah together. And as this prophecy cannot expound it selfe (and is indeed so plaine that it needs no exposition) so it doth no more expound the other prophecies (which you say, are the same with it) as it is repeated by the Apostle, then it doth as it is delivered by the Prophet. And they being all to be accomplisht to the Jews at the same time, at the restoring of their Kingdom, this prophecy is as much expoun­ded by the others, as the others are by this, if not more. For where­as [Page 85]this containes spirituall benefits onely, those Jer. 32. at the 37. ver. &c. chap. 33. at the 6. ver. &c. and chap. 50. at the 19. ver. &c. doe containe spirituall and temporal benefits both: for they fore­shew the Jews withall, their returne unto, and prosperity in their owne country; and so declare both where and when the new Co­venant shall be made with them. It follows [and that of Ezek. 34. at the 12 &c. is exponed by our Saviour, Iohn 10. ver. 11.16.] These words of our Saviour you have before alledged as an exposition of the prophecy Ezek. chap. 37. at the 19. ver. &c. because our Saviour prophecieth of uniting two sorts of people, the Jews and Gentiles, into one Church, after the calling of the substituted Gentiles; and the Prophet of uniting the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, which were one people, into one Kingdom againe in their owne land. And you will have our Saviour's words to expound this prophecy too, because our Saviour and the Prophet doe use the same Meta­phor, to wit, the word [sheepe] to expresse men by. But the sheepe the Prophet speakes of, are the scattered Jews and none else: and the sheepe our Saviour spake of, were the Jewes impli'd in the words [of this fold,] and the substituted Gentiles, exprest in the words [other sheepe] and all Nations together intimated in the words [one fold:] for after the calling of the [other sheepe] the substituted Gen­tiles, there shall be one fold and one shepheard, that is, one Church and Kingdome over all the world, under one King, to wit, Christ Jesus; and therefore when you can prove this prophecie in Ezekiel to be meant of Jewes, and Christians, and all other Nations, you may have some colour to say, that our Saviour's words Joh. the 10. doe expound it. And [that of chap. 39. is correspondent (you say) with the prophecies of Joel &c.] And therefore it is not yet accom­plished, for I have shewed before, that the prophecies cited out of Ial are not to be fulfilled til the great and terrible Day of our Savi­ours comming, (to wit, that in the 2 chap. at the neere approach of that Day: And that in the 3. chap. partly immediately before, and partly at the very time of Christ's descending) and this prophecy of Ezek. doth so plainly declare the returne of the whole Nation of the Iewes to their owne land, none excepted; that you could neither prove it to be already fulfilled; nor deny that it shall be fulfilled; because God, who hath promised so to pow [...]e out his Spirit upon them, that he may no more hide his face from them, [Page 86]hath therein promised both their conversion from sin, and continu­ance in obedience. And [that of Zech. 10. at the 6. v. &c. is one (you say) with Jer. 23. at the 6.8. v.] you should have said at the 3. & 4. v. But doth it prove, that they are therefore fulfill'd already, be­cause they have one meaning? because they were to be fulfill'd to the same people at the same time? then you may say too, that the Prophecies which concerne our Saviour's comming, or the day of Judgement, are already accomplished, because they foreshew the same thing. And thus it appeares by the three Prophecies which you have barely referr'd to three passages in the New-Testament, whereof the first is mistaken, the second the selfe-same Prophecie that is referred; and the third neither spoken of in the Text to which it is referr'd, nor of any affinity with it, in the contents thereof; by this I say, it appeares, that being unable to give a con­siderable answer to any of these Prophecies, you had no other way to hold up your credit, amongst your friends, but by a sub­tle pretending [that the greatest part of these Prophecies are exponed to their hands in the writings of the Apostles:] but whatsoever the rest may doe, I presume the learned of your opinion, will be asha­med of the few and meane instances, which you have brought to make good your assertion: for doubtlesse by such references, with which you have answered these Prophecies, you may shun the force of any Argument, and expound any text of Scripture, as you list. Now in the last place you taxe me for [omitting the 12. and 13. ver. in the testimony of Jer. chap. 33. and for overslipping like­wise the 18. and 22. ver.] But not one of these verses was in that part of the chapter, which I have cited; and therefore they were neither overslipt, nor purposely omitted; as you have purposely omitted in the 12. verse these words, [againe, in this place which is desolate, without man and without beast;] and in the 13. verse these, [and in the places about Jerusalem—shall the flocks passe againe un­der the hands of him that telleth them] that so you might make way for your mysticall interpretation, in the entrance whereof you doe so sawcily flout at the glory of Christs Kingdome, saying [what? is this the glory of Christs Kingdome, that sheep shall lie in his Citie?] certainly the chiefest glory of Christs Kingdome is, that mercy and truth shall meet together; and peace and righteousnesse kisse each other: but yet the promised fertility and pleasantnesse of the [Page 87]Land of Canaan, and the encrease and prosperity of man and beast upon it, shall help set forth the glory thereof also, seeing the glo­ry of a Kingdome on earth doth as well consist in the abundance of outward and temporall blessings, whereby the evills that would come through want and povert [...] are prevented; as in the abun­dance of inward and spirituall blessings, whereby the evills that would follow upon riches and plenty are avoided: yea it is more glory for the servant of God to keep himselfe holy and righteous in the midst of prosperity and delight, then when there is a scar­city of the creatures which conduce to the pleasure and welfare of his body. And whereas you say further, [that the Lord understands here the spirituall sheep of Christ, &c. as he expoundeth it, Ezek. 34. v. 31. Ye flock of my pasture are men, & I am your God.] You doe herein appa­rently bely God; for although God doth in that chapter of Ezek. call the Jewes his sheep, and his flock; yet it doth not therefore fol­low, that by [flocks] in this chap. of Jer. he understands men also, yea the words, which you have omitted doe cleerly shew, that this word is here to be taken properly, for why doth God say in the 12. verse; Againe in this place which is desolate without man and without beast, and in all the Cities thereof shall be an habitation of shepheards causing their flocks to lie downe; but to shew, that there should be againe an increase of men and of beasts in that land? and what doth God meane when he saith, in the 13. ver. that in the Land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the Ci­ties of Judah shall the flocks passe againe under the hands of him that telleth them? Doth he meane that Ministers should tell their Con­gregations, as Shepherds tell their flocks? or rather that there should be againe both flocks and men to looke to them, and to tell them as formerly they had done? and so the concealing of these words doth plainly witnesse against you, that you made the fore­said impious flourish against your owne Conscience. And as you could not be ignorant, that by [flocks] here cattell are meant, and not men; so you had no ground in the Text, wherefore you should conceit that sheep shall lie in the Cities, as the inserting of the words [there even, &c.] into the Text doth declare: for the Lord saith, In this place—and in all the Cities thereof shall be an habitati­on of Shepherds causing their flocks to lie downe. Whereby it is ma­nifest, that Shepherds shall dwell in the Cities, but not that their [Page 88]flocks shall have their folds there, but by the Cities where their [...] ­ding shall be; and in that there shall then be Shepherds as well in the cities as in other places, it shewes what a great increase of cat­tle shall then be; and besides who knowes not that cattell may be driven into Cities to be sold there (or for some other occasion) and so may passe under the hands of him that telleth them, in the cities themselves? But suppose that these words in Jer. were my­stically to be understood, what would you gaine by it? when ask is expressely said, that for the Shepherds of these flocks shall be an habitation [in this place] that is, in the Land of Judea? and after­wards more particularly in the Cities of the Mountaines, in the Ci­ties of the Vale, and in the Cities of the South, and in the Land of Ben­jamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the Cities of Judea: doth not this prove, that these faithfull Congregations (if the Prophecie were to be mystically taken) must needs be Inhabitants of Judea, and not of other Countries? And yet you can shew no reason, wherefore we should take spirituall promises in these Pro­phecies for spirituall I blessings, and not temporall promises for tem­porall blessings: and must we thinke neverthelesse, that when God saith, I will strengthen the house of Judah, and will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them againe to place them, and they shall be as though I had not cast them off: And I will cause you to dwell in the Cities, and the wastes shall be builded, and the desolate land shall bee tilled, whereas it lay desolate in the sight of all that passed by, and they shall say, This land that was desolate, is become like the garden of [...]en, and the waste and desolate and ruined Cities are become fenced and inha­bited. And I will cause the showre to come downe in his season, then shall be showres of blessing, and the tree of the field shall yield her fruit, and the Earth shall yield her increase, and they shall be safe in their land, and shall know that I am the Lord when I have broken the bands of their yoke, and delivered them out of the hands of those that served themselves of them: and they shall no more be a prey to the Heathen, neither shall the beasts of the Land devoure them, but they shall dwell safely, and none shall make them afraid. Must we thinke, I say, that in these and such like promises God hath the same meaning as he hath, where he saith, I will cleanse them from their iniquitie whereby they have sinned against me: and I will pardon all their iniquities whereby they have sin­ned against me, and whereby they have transgressed against me. And in [Page 89]those dayes and in that time the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none, and the sinnes of Judah, and they shall not be found, for I will pardon them whom I reserve, I will sprinkle cleane water up­on you, and ye shall be cleane from all your filthinesse, and from all your Idols will I cleanse you, and I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walke in my Statutes, and you shall keepe my judgements and doe them? Hath God in those first promises the same meaning that he hath in these last? then shew us how wee shall know, when God doth make a temporall promise, and when not; if the former pro­mises be not to be understood of outward and temporall blessings, as well as the last of inward and spirituall blessings: for sure it is not the manner of the Holy Ghost to obscure what is plainely de­livered, but to explaine what is obscurely reveal'd. But in the 18. and 22. verses of the 33. chap. of Jer. [the perpetuity of sacrifices and Levites (you say) is promised as plainly, as the Throne of David, whereupon (you demand) shall in the last dayes the meat offerings, and burnt offerings, and the house of Levi be restor'd, &c?] This is indeed your palmarium argumentum, your maine fort, your principall Ar­gument: by which doubtlesse you suppose, that you have stopt our mouthes for ever, and given the Millenarian Tenet a mortall blow, an irrecoverable wound. But what thinke you? If Adam had not fell, and so sinne had not entred into the world; should there not have been eating and drinking, buying and selling, Judge­ment and Justice, marrying and giving in marriage? you will not deny it: and might there not also have been offerings and sacrifices made unto God; as of incense, in token of Gods hearing and be­ing delighted with their prayers: and of the best of their fruits, and of their cattell, in token of mens praising of, and thanksgi­ving unto God for the increase of them? doubtlesse there might. And what hinders then, that in the Kingdome of the second Adam, there should not be such sacrifices offered also? For as it is not the use but the abuse of the foresaid actions, that makes a King­dome to be accounted more or lesse carnall and voluptuous: so nei­ther is it the offering of a materiall sacrifice, when requir'd and as requir'd, but the superstitious invention of man, that makes the worship of God a carnall and sinfull worship; and the carelesse and cold performance of a prescribed worship, that makes men carnall and sinfull worshippers. But you will say, are not then sa­crifices [Page 90]abolished by the death of Christ? hath not the substance swallowed up the shadowes? true, they are ceast in regard of that end to which they were formerly us'd: they can no longer shew, that Christ shall come to suffer againe, (and therefore the place where alone they could be offer'd, and the people by whom alone they could be offer'd, are both forsaken, the Temple is destroy'd, and the people scatter'd) but seeing the Prophets have frequently declar'd, that at our Saviours appearing, the City and Temple shall be rebuilt, and the people and Priesthood restor'd; why should wee not thinke, that as sacrifices of prayse and thanksgi­ving may againe be required, so other sacrifices may also? but how? surely not as in time past, to shew what Christ should doe for sin­ners, but to witnesse to the generations then to come, what he hath done for sinners, or perhaps to be a testimony of the publick acknowledgement of, and repentance for sinne. For whereas it is said, Heb. 10. at the 18. vers. Now where remission of sinnes is, there is no more offering for sinne: it is to be understood in relation to Christs satisfaction for sinne, who by one offering hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified: and shall appeare againe the second time, unto them that looke for him, without sinne unto salvation; that is, without sinne any more to be imputed unto him, whereby he should be constrained to lay downe his life againe for sinners; so that it is as if the Apostle had said, where remission of sinne is already pro­cured through the death of the Mediator, there is no more offering for sinne by way of satisfaction, or as representing any satisfaction againe to be made: but yet there may be offering for sinne by way of signification, and manifestation of an atonement formerly made, or at least of publike confession of, and repentance for sinne. And why then should the restoring of this thing amongst the rest, give distaste to any, and (upon a groundlesse mistake of being restored as types of a Mediator to suffer for sinne, which were to offer them ac­cording to the Law) become an occasion of rejecting so many other things yet to be fulfilled: as namely, the calling and restoring of the Jewes, the rebuilding of their City and Temple, the making of their Land more fruitfull then ever, the descending of Christ to deliver them from their enemies and to reigne over them, and the com­ming in of all Nations to worship God with them? all which are so plainely and so often foretold; that for my owne part, could I [Page 91]give my selfe (much lesse another) no satisfaction in this particular about sacrifices onely: I should yet thinke it should be done, because God hath said it; though I knew not to what end and purpose, ra­ther then thinke that the things before mentioned, should not be properly fulfilled, which as they are frequently foretold, and that as well distinctly and by themselves, as together with this; so also they are so clearely foretold, that it is not possible any thing should be more plainely spoken. And thus I have given my Judgement in this matter, which I submit to the whole Church of God, ho­ping not to be censured for that, which the importunity of an ad­versary hath put me to, who presuming that the Prophecies touch­ing the restoring of sacrifices, are altogether uncapable of a proper Interpretation, doth (because they are conjoyned and mixed with the others after the same straine, as he saith) hereupon take occasion to wrest all other Prophecies to a mysticall meaning.

Reply.

Whether St. James meant Peter, or old Simeon, I left it as doubt­full; and your maine reason touching the [difference twixt Simon and Simeon,] is of no force to decide the Question. Seeing Peter is (in his 2. Epist. 1. chap. at the 1. ver.) according to divers readings in the originall, call'd both Simon and Simeon; as you may see in the edition of the New Testament with Stephanus, Scaliger's and Casaubons notes, printed London 1622. And Casaubon, who was as confident that he Apostle meant Peter, as you are, that he meant old Simeon, feared not to say, in his note on the 14. ver. of this chap. of the Acts, that your opinion in this matter, is an ancient error grounded on the diversity of writing this Name. His words are, Simeon hic voca tur, qui alibi Simon dicitur, quae diversitas [...] fecit, ut magno errore existimarius quidam [...]verteribus non [Page 93]Petrum hic intelligi, sed Simeonem—verum errasse eos qui ita senserunt, notius est, quàm ut longâ refutatione opus habeat. And doubtlesse if the Apostle had meant old Simeon, he would not have said, Sime­on hath declared how God at first did visit the Gentiles. But that God would first visit the Gentiles. For Simeon shewed onely, that they should be cal'd, and not that they were cal'd, and therefore the Apostle's words [how God at first did visit the Gentiles] having re­lation onely to the actuall performance of it by Peter, who had told in what manner God had by him begun to visit them, must needs be understood of Peter, and not of Simeon, who onely pro­phecied, that it should be done. And yet if it had been meant of old Simeon, it would have made the more with me: seeing the word [first] alone compared with the order of Simeons words, [a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel] had plain­ly shewed, that a substituted part of the Gentiles should be cal'd, before the Nationall conversion of the Jewes. From this you pro­ceed to shew, that Simeon spake by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which no Christian can doubt of: and then repeating the prophecy, you say. [Wee may see that he declares there the fulfilling (at that time) of the prophecy, Isa. 49. ver. 6. and chap. 52. ver. 9. and chap. 60. ver. 1.3.19. and chap. 62. ver. 1, 2.11.] How? at that time? certainly amongst prophecies touching the same thing, one may be more plainly delivered then another, and so may give some light for the true understanding of the other. But to say that one prophecy doth shew the fulfilling of another, is a ridiculous un­truth: seeing it is not the prophecying of the same thing, but the actuall performance of it, that shews the fulfilling thereof. And therefore Simeon who prophecied of the calling of the Gentiles, and restoring of the Jews, as well as Isaiah, could not herein declare the fulfilling (at that time) of Isaiah's prophecies; unlesse you can prove, that to foretel what should be done, is to declare what was done. And thus Simeon's words which you have alledged to prove that Isaiah's prophecies were then fulfilled, doe indeed most evident­ly shew, that they were not fulfilled. And the reasons which you bring to confirme your doctrine, are as meane, as the doctrine is maimed. For [the faithfull (say you) are bidden to rejoyce at the com­ming of Christ; and so did Simeon when he saw him.] No doubt but the faithfull, that saw Christ when he was come, did rejoyce? that [Page 94]he was come, and so did the faithfull too before Christ's comming, and before Isa. prophecied, rejoyce that he should come: for Abra­ham, saith our Saviour, saw my day and rejoyced. Yea this was a thing ever performed by the Saints from the beginning of the world. But yet it is not exprest in the text, that Simeon rejoyced; neither doth the Prophet in any of these texts which you have cited bid the faith­full rejoyce at the comming of Christ, but chap. 52. at the 9. ver. he calls to the waste places of Jerusalem to breake forth into joy—for the Lord, saith he, hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem. Where the Prophet useth the like forme of speech, as Zacharias doth in his prophecy, Luke. 1. ver. 68. &c. And therefore Zacharias spea­king in the preter perfect tense. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his people, doth no more prove that Israel was then redeemed (for which purpose you have before alledged it page. 8.) then this prophecy of Isaiah doth, that it was redeemed when Isaiah prophecied. And in confessing, that this prophecy of Isaiah (which agrees so well both in matter and forme with the first words of Zacharias) was not fulfilled before Christ's first comming, you doe as good as confesse, that it is not to be fulfilled til his next comming. For seeing the Prophet cals to the waste places of Ierusa­salem to rejoyce, and speakes of God's redeeming Jerusalem, as well as of comforting his people; it is manifest, that this prophecy can­not be fulfilled, til the city it selfe be againe restored, as is implyed in our Saviour's prophecy, Luk. 1. ver. 24. and exprest, Jer. 31. ver. 38. and Isa. chap. 60. and 62. and in many other places. This is your first parallell, for which you had no ground in the text. The rest are these. [Christ is called the salvation of the Lord; and Simeon saith, My eyes have seene thy salvation. The Messiah is called a light un­to the Gentiles: and Simeon saith, a light to lighten the Gentiles; Christ i [...] called the glory of Sion, and Jerusalem; and Simeon saith, the glory of thy people Israel.] And will it follow from this, that Isaiah's prophe­cies were at that time fulfilled? surely no more then it will, that they were fulfilled when Isaiah spake the same words, but this will follow, that these texts of Isaiah and Simeon's prophecy are one in their contents; and that the fore Simeon's words doe no more shew, that Isaiah's prophecies were fulfilled at Christ's first comming, then Isaiah's doe, that Simeon's prophecy was then fulfilled. Which doe indeed shew that Christ is to be [the glory of his people Israel] at [Page 95]his next appearing, and not before. For seeing to be the glory of his people, implies a greater happines to belong to the Iews of whom the Redeemer came; then to the Gentiles, to whom he is said to be a light; is it likely that this should be fulfilled, when now and then a Jew should seeke God amongst the Gentiles, or rather when the Gentiles in generall should seeke God amidst the whole Nation of the Jewes? or rather I say when (as Isaiah speakes) the Tribes of Iacob shall be raysed up, and the preserved of Israel restored; when they shall come from the North, and from the West, and from the land of Sinim. When the waste and desolate places, and the land of their destruction shall be even now too narrow by reason of the inhabitants, and they that swallowed them up shall be far away. When the Lord shall feed them that oppresse them with their owne flesh, and they shall be drunken with their owne blood, as with sweet wine, and all flesh shall know, that the Lord is their Saviour, and their Redeemer, the mighty one of Jacob. When the glory of the Lord is risen upon Sion, and the Gentiles shall come to their light, and Kings to the brightnes of her rising. When the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto her; and the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto her. When the multitude of Camels shall cover her, the Dro­medaries of Midian and Ephah, and all they from Sheba shall come, and shall bring gold and incense, and shew forth the praise of the Lord. When all the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto her, and the Rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto her, when they shall come up with acxcep­tance on God's altar, and God shall glorify the house of his glory. When the glory of Lebanon shall come unto her the firre tree, the pine tree, and the boxe tree together, to beautify the place of God's Sanctuary; and when God shall make the place of his feet glorious. When the Nation and King­dom that will not serve Sion shall perish, yea shall be utterly wasted. When violence shall no more be heard in her land, wasting nor destruction with­in her borders, but she shall call her walls salvation, and her gates praise. When the Gentiles shall see her righteousnes, and all Kings her glory, when she shall be called Heph-Zibah, and her land Benlah. In a word, when the Jewes shall be cal'd, The holy people, The redeemed of the Lord: and Sion shall be called, Sought out, a City not forsaken. When the time comes wherein all this, and much more (which is revealed in the chapters of Isaiah cited by you) shall come to passe; then, and not til then shall our Saviour declare himselfe, to be the glory of his people Israel, as Simeon hath foretold. And so by the testimony of these [Page 96]prophecies, that part of Simeon's prophecy, which concernes the glory of the Jewes, is to be referred wholly to our Saviour's second comming; when as well [the residue of men] the Gentiles, that are yet uncal'd, as the Gentiles [on whom God's Name is already cal'd] shall all goe up to worship the Lord at Ierusalem: shall all seeke salvation amongst the Iewes, and not the Iewes amongst the Gentiles: And therefore when the Iewes and Gentiles shall be so united, as these and many other prophecies doe foreshew; there is to be no disagree­ment at all betwixt the Iewes, or betwixt them and any other nation in the practise of religious duties. Which thing too this marginall note doth so clearely prove out of the prophecy of Amos alledged by St. Iames, that you could make no better reply to it, then to call it a long tailed note, and a frivolous discourse. And whereas, you say [that there was an unanimous consent in the true worship of God, be­twixt the Jewes and other Nations, when they did conveen in the gene­rall Synode Act. 15.] Surely there was not one whole City, and much lesse was there any one Nation of the Gentiles, at that time converted. And if a few Turks should become Christians, you might as well infer from this, that there were an unanimous consent in the worship of God betwixt Christians and the Turkish Nations: as you can conclude from that meeting or from all that were then converted, that the Jewes and (any, much lesse all) other Nations were united in the true worship of God. And indeed the uniting of the Jewes and Gentiles into one Church, so often and so plainly foretold by the Prophets, and confirmed by our Saviour Ioh. 10. ver. 16. is not of some Jewes and Gentiles onely, as it was in the first dayes of the Gospel: nor of some Nations of the Gentiles and a few Jewes, as it hath been since the conversion of the substituted Nations of the Gentiles: nor of all the Jewes and some Gentiles, as it was un­der the Law; nor of all the Jewes, and a part of the Gentile Na­tions: but of all the Tribes of the Jewes, and all the Nations of the Gentiles.

Reply.

The Prophet Amos doth neither before nor at the 11. ver. speake of the calling of the Gentiles, but at the 12. ver. where they are ex­prest. And it hath been shewed before, that the Apostle cites not the 11. ver. for the calling of the Gentiles, but for the conversion and deliverance of the Jewes after the calling of the substituted Gentiles. For the Apostle having said, Simcon hath declared how God at first did visit the Gentiels to take out of them a people for his Name: confirmes it by this prophecy of Amos, which in the 12. ver. shewes, that there should be some Nations of the Gentiles, upon whom Gods Nune should be cal'd, or who should be cal'd by Gods Name, whilst David's Tabernacle lay waste, whilst the Jewes were to continue in blindnesse. And surely seeing there are so many prophecies which shew the generall conversion of the Gentiles at the restoring of the Jewes, the Apostle in passing by them, and alledging this prophecy to shew, that God would at that time take but a part of the Gentiles to be a people for his Name; doth to my thinking, thereby plainly shew, that the Jewes were then to be given up, and to be no mo [...]e God [...] people, until that day in which he hath appointed to build againe the Tabernacle of David: at which time, the residue of m [...]n also shall seeke the Lord, as well as the Gentiles on whom God's Name is already cal'd. You tell us next [that the Prophet hath not these words [after this] but, in these dayes.] But though the Prophet hath not these words, yet the prophecy hath as the Apostle cites it; who saith, to this agree the words of the Prophets, i [...] it written, After this & [...]. [Page 98]And the prophets words are not [in these dayes] but [in that Day] in that Day, [...], in that great Day of Christs Kingdom. Neither is it likely that the Apostle cited the words [after this] in reference to what the Prophet had said (which was not questi­oned,) bu [...] rather to what he himselfe had said. And if wee should referre these words to the foregoeing destruction of Israel, how doth this prove that their restauration shall not follow the calling of the substituted Gentiles, whenas it is evident, that their threat­ned dispersion and sifting among all Nations, after which they should be againe restored, was more to be fulfilled upon them in the time of the substituted Gentiles calling, then before? and seeing you confesse, that the preceding destruction was denounced against the Jewes onely, how could you beleeve, that by [the raising of the Tabernacle of David, that is fallen, and building of it as in the dayes of old] is meant the calling of the Gentiles, and not the restoring of the Kingdom and people of David, whom the foresaid judgement should ruine? And yet you seeme to be so confident of the cur­rantnesse of this exposition, that you thus peremptorily conclude [It is manifest that in this note is a twofold errour, one inserting the words in the prophecy, which are not in it; another in misinterpreting the Apostle's words] Certainely it is very manifest what spirit was predominant in you, when you penned these bold and lowd un­truths. For did I insert the words [after this] into the prophecy? or did the same Spirit who revealed the prophecy by Amos, re­hearse it thus by the Apostle? search and see. Nay doe you not say before [and howbeit the Apostle cite them so?] whom then doe you here accuse of error, me, or him? And as for misinterpreting the words of the Apostle, it is already shewen, that you would faine father your misinterpreting of it on the Apostle. To which this may be added, That the Prophet doth make a plaine distincti­on betwixt the people meant by [the Tabernacle of David] and the people meant by [the remnant of Edom, and all the heathen which are called by Gods Name.] For he saith that those meant by the Taberna­cle of David shall possesse these. What? can the same people be the possessours and the possessed? surely so it must be according to your interpreting of the [building of Davids Tabernacle] of the calling of the Gentiles: seeing in the 12. ver. not onely the remnant of Edom, but the heathen that were to be called in the Jewes steed are plainly [Page 99]spoken of. Or take it as the Apostle delivers it. And then in your sense it will be thus. After this I will returne and call againe the Gentiles, that the residue of men (that is, the Gentiles which are not yet to be called) may seeke the Lord: & all the Gentiles upon whom my Name is (now to be) cal'd. Or thus, that the residue of men (that is, all the Gentiles, that are now to be cal'd) may seek the Lord: & all the Gentiles upon whom my name is (already) cal'd▪ And what sense is there in either of these interpreta­tions? one of which must needs follow upon your interpreting of [the building of David's Tabernacle] of the calling of the Gentiles by the Apostles: seeing the conversion of the Gentiles [upon whom God's Name is cal'd] in the prophecy, was to precede the conversion of the Gentiles meant by [the residue of men.] And besides, [The building of the Tabernacle of David as in the dayes of old,] doth infallibly shew the re­storing of a people to that estate & condition they were formerly in; which cannot be said of the Gentiles, who were never before God's people.

Reply.

This is meere carping; for to [returne] doth necessarily imply a former abode in that place, or among that people, to which the returning is; or a former possession of that thing, which doth re­turne. For can it be said, that you are returned to a place where you never were before? or could Neb [...]tchadnezzar have said, I lift up mine eyes unto Heaven, and mine understanding returned unto mee: if he had not been formerly endued with understanding? It is not a sufficient reason therefore to prove that God did returne unto the Gentiles, when he look't graciously upon them [because he was before their calling averse from them, and they from him,] unlesse it can be shew'd withall, that God was sometime before that averse­nesse, not averse from them. And whereas you say further [that in the words of Amos immediately preceding, the Lord was offended with Israel, and when he sent the salvation of God and glory of Israel among them, it may be truly said, that he returned unto them.] If you had said, and when he shall raise up the Tabernacle of David, that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof, &c. he may be truly said to return unto them; you had said the truth: for the Prophet saith it is this, and not the first comming of our Saviour, that declares Gods returne to Israel after the full accomplishment of the wrath before denounc't against it, which wrath had not wholly seized upon them, untill Judah and Benjamin were dispersed also at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans: and before this the Apo­stles were turned from the Jewes to the Gentiles, so that God had then ceased to be their God, as our Saviour had said, Matth. 21. ver. 43. and therefore when he shall againe become their God, as he hath foretold he will, at the rebuilding of Davids Tabernacle, then shall this [Returne] the Apostle speaks of, be fulfill'd unto them: for as God cannot be said to returne to a people in respect of a donation of outward and temporall blessings, unlesse they be first taken from them; so neither can he be said to returne to a people in respect of a participation of inward and spirituall bles­sings, unlesse they be first depriv'd of the meanes of salvation, which [Page 112]formerly they enjoy'd. And it is very remarkable here, how wa­vering you are both in your interpretation and application of God's [Returning] mention'd by the Apostle: for first you un­derstand it of Gods returning to the Gentiles, in calling them by the preaching of the Gospel, and presently after you understand it of his returning to the Jewes, in sending Christ among them; of whom neverthelesse, you have hitherto deny'd, that this Pro­phecie doth speake. But I have said that the Jewes were [quite for­saken] and [the Apostle (you say) cannot suffer this phrase, Rom. 11. ver. 1. Hath God cast away his people? God forbid, &c. And yet the same Apostle in the same ch. at the 15. ver. saith, If the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? and ver. 32. For God hath conclu­ded them all in unbeliefe, that he might have mercy upon all: and was not the Nation of the Jewes quite cast off, when all the Tribes were thus concluded in unbeliefe? or will you say, that they have still continued the people of God under the Gospel, as well as un­der the Law? if you will not, you must needs grant, that the Na­tion is quite forsaken, quite cast off; although not so forsaken, not so cast off, as never againe to be received to mercy; although some particular Jewes be not cast off, as some particular Gentiles were not secluded before Christs comming. And thus having made a shift to passe through almost halfe this note, you leave the Rea­der in the briars, and step over all the rest, as too rough for your handling.

Reply.

As the last part of the note, so the first part of this Section was too strong for your pallet, and therefore it was high time for you, to cry out, [all this Section fights against vaine imaginations,] of which kind of answers you have a very pregnant fancie. But as [Page 105]vaine as they are, they have made the greatest Scholars in Chri­stendome to confesse, that a generall conversion of the Jewes is here foretold by the Apostle; and to deny, that no more but a partiall and successive conversion of them with the Gentiles, throughout the whole time of the Gentiles calling, is here meant, as you would have the Apostle understood. For I would not Bre­thren that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, &c. saith St. Paul, what? was it a mystery, that some Jewes were then joyn'd with the Gentiles in the Church of Christ? or shall we thinke, that the Apostle would admonish them not to be ignorant of that which they could not be ignorant of? to wit, that some Jewes as well as the Gentiles, were then to be converted. No doubtlesse, but to be mindfull of that which being a mysterie they were ignorant of, untill he had now reveal'd it unto them; to wit, the conversion of All Israel, of the whole Nation when the fulnesse of the Gentiles should come in. And as I have before shewed, that Israel here is pro­perly to be taken, so I dare say, that you cannot alledge any text of Scripture, that will justifie the mysticall acception of it, if it be throughly scan'd. And whereas you say [that the Prophecie, Esa. 66. ver. 8. was fulfill'd truely (albeit not fully) when the believing Church travelled, and brought forth so great multitudes in one day, as may be call'd a Nation, as 3000. and 5000. Acts 2.41. and 4. ver. 4. and chap. 8. ver. 6. and chap. 19. ver. 10.17, 18.20.26. besides o­ther great and miraculous conversions, whereof we read in Ecclesiasticall Histories;] Certainly your application sailes you very much. For first the Prophet speaks of the conversion of a whole Nation, not of halfe a Nation; and much lesse of so small a number, as you (to maintaine your cause) would perswade us to take for a Nati­on. Secondly, he speaks but of one Nation (to wit, the Nation of the Jewes) and not of the Jewes and Gentiles both; as you in these instances doe interpret him. Thirdly, he speaks of Sions travelling, when she should returne from her unbeliefe (as the contempora­ting Prophecies in the same chapter doe shew) and not before she fell into unbeliefe; as the conversion of the Jewes which you men­tion, was. And fourthly, the conversion he foreshewes, is to be so sodaine, that it is said to be performed [at once] which connot be affirmed of a conversion of any ordinarie continuance, and how then can it be affirmed of a conversion of so many yeares and ages, [Page 106]as you understand it of, in applying it to the whole time under the Gospel? For suppose that a great summe of mony were to be paid to you [at once] would you give the creditour leave to make this construction of it, that it was to be paid by him and his heirs, to you and your heires, untill it were all paid? doubtlesse you would not: and yet as if all the time betwixt Christs first and se­cond comming, were not time enough to be understood by [one day, and at once] you tell us too [It is certaine, it was in part ful­fill'd at their returning from Babel, for then they reared up their walls, they planted Vineyards, &c.] Who ever heard of such a large [at once?] of an [at once] to begin at the deliverance of the Jewes from Babylon, and to continue to the next appearing of Christ? what? could the Prophet have made the speedie execution of that he speaks of, a matter of so great admiration, if it should have been any long time in fulfilling? or shall we say, that Adino the Eznite, who lift up his Speare against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time, did it at so many severall times as there were men slaine by him? 2 Sam. 23. ver. 8. or that when Abraham said, Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speake yet but this once, Gen. 18. ver. 32. it is to be understood that he spake more then that once? or that when the Lord said unto Joshua, Ye shall goe about the City once, Josh. 6. ver. 3. it was to be done many times together? (for in all these texts there are the same words in the originall, as are here in the Prophet) were not this most wilfully to contradict the text? and yet you can very modestly, reverently, and righteously affirme that [It is certaine this [once] was in part fulfill'd at the Jewes returning from Babel.] But where are the reasons that prove this certainty, seeing there is neither in this verse, nor in the whole chapter, any mention of Babylon, or of walls and Vineyards? and if there had been mention of rearing up their walls and Vineyards: how could you understand it properly here, who take it figuratively, Amos 9. ver. 14.? so that all this being laid together, to wit, that this Prophecie doth speake of the conversion of a whole Nation, of but one Nation, of a Nation formerly given up to unbeliefe, and at once againe to return to the truth; it should me thinks, be motive enough to make any partiall or impartiall Reader, to understand the accomplishment of it particularly of the Nationall conversi­on of the Jewes onely, by the plentifull effusion of Gods Spirit up­on [Page 107]on them before the great and terrible Day of the Lords appearing, as Joel hath prophecied. And as for that which followes, any one that hath but halfe an eye may perceive how well your eye-sight serv'd you, when you conceived, that the Prophecie Matth. 21. ver. 43. was alledged by me to prove the temporall Kingdome of the Jewes; who have alledg'd it onely as a reason to shew, that this Prophecie of Isaiah could not be fulfill'd at the returning of the Jewes from Babylon, because the meanes of salvation (the King­dome of God, as our Saviour cals it) was then amongst them on­ly, of which they were to be destitute before the accomplishment of this Prophecie, which shewes their conversion to it againe. And he may perceive too how you take non causa pro causà, how inju­riously you impute unto me the alledging of the accomplishment of our Saviours Prophecie; to shew that Joels Prophecie was not fulfill'd, which was indeed before prov'd by such reasons as you could not answer.

Reply.

Now we are come to the Prophecies that decide the difference, for the very ground of the controversie is; Whether the Jewes and Gentiles are already joyn'd into one Church; which you affirme, and we denie, and yet both agree that these Prophecies doe fore­shew their uniting. And what then doe they say of it? certainly [Page 109]they say not, that the Jewes and Gentiles were united into one Church, whil'st the Church was amongst the Jewes onely, and some Gentiles were cal'd into it; as i [...] was before Christs com­ming: neither doe they say, that they are united into one Church, whilst the Church is to be amongst the Gentiles onely, and some Jewes cal'd into it: as it hath been since Christs comming: but this they say, that at their uniting, the whole Nation of the Jewes, and all Nations of the Gentiles that are left shall worship God after the same manner at Ierusalem. This they shew of them­selves, and compar'd with the Prophecies which concerne our Sa­viours reigne on earth they infallibly declare too, that at their uniting, all Nations in the world shall make but one Church and Kingdome under the government of our Lord Jesus Christ: which is enough to shew, that in the ensuing discourse you doe but vain­ly kick against the pricks, and manifest an obstinate apostasie from the truth. But lest the unlearned Reader should mistake mole­hils for mountaines, and shadowes for substances, wee must pro­ceed to examine your Answers. And first you tell us [It is now ma­nifest, that these forenamed Prophecies are not of the earthly prosperity of the Jewes onely.] What? is it manifest that these forenamed Pro­phecies speake not onely of the prosperity of the Jewes, because the prosperitie of those dayes belongs not to the Jewes onely? be­cause I say, these Prophecies here doe shew that the Gentiles shall be partakers with them in the peace, piety, and plentie of that time? who sees not this non sequitur, the independencie of this in­ference? These last Prophecies shew, that the prosperous estate of the Gentiles shall be dependent on their voluntary submission to, and union with the Jewes; therefore those forenamed Prophecies touching the Jewes returne unto; and prosperitie in their owne Land, are not of the prosperitie of the Jewes onely: such bald untruths and sophisticall Arguments doe stop many a breach in this worke of yours; and help very much to gaine the simple, and to hold up the considence of the prejudio [...]te Christian. You goe on, and say [we know certainly that the Gentiles are partakers with the Jewes.] Partakers? of what? of the happinesse which the accom­plishment of the Prophecies here alledg'd, was to bring forth un­to them? You must first prove, that these Prophecies are fulfill'd, before you can affirme, that they are partakers of the contempo­rating [Page 110]happinesse reveal'd in them, and unlesse you meane that they are partakers with them of the happinesse foreshewed in these Pro­phecies, you doe but equivocate, in saying, [that the Gentiles are partakers with the Jewes.] And yet you conclude, [so that the proofe of this point is needlesse, and neverthelesse he filleth up some pages with Prophecies to this purpose.] Doubtlesse this is spoken of purpose to b [...]ffle the Reader from a serious consideration of the union which these Prophecies speake of, which is so obvious, that every ordi­nary apprehension may of it selfe perceive, that it is not yet accom­plished; and this you knew very well, and therefore have not so much as quoted the Chapters, or bookes where these Prophecies are reveal'd. Was not this after all your braving, to plead guilty? For if this point was needlesse, you might so much the rather have afforded the Reader a sight of, or at least a direction unto the Pro­phecies so needlessely alledged, seeing you could not have wisht for a greater advantage against me. But when you passe over the for­mer Prophecies untoucht, and keep these wholly out of sight, who will not conclude from hence, that you could not possibly dis­prove the proper and historicall accomplishment of them? and consequently, that the time of their accomplishment, is not yet come?

Reply.

As I say, that Interpreters doe rightly affirme, that these Pro­phecies doe concerne the joyning together of the Jewes and Gen­tiles into one Church: so I say also that they doe wrongfully ap­ply the accomplishment of these Prophecies to the time of the sub­stituted Gentiles calling. And therefore by your fallacious dividing of these words from that which followes, you doe wilfully put out your owne eyes, that so you may the better beguile others of the truth. For first the union foreshewed in these Prophecies is [Page 111]not to begin, untill the Nations which shall oppose the Jewes af­ter their returne be miraculously overthrowne at the comming of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the foresaid Prophecie of Isaiah, chap. 66. at the 15, 16, 19. ver. &c. compar'd with the 38. and 39. chapters of Ezek. with the 3. chap. of Joel, and with the 19. chap. of the Rev. at the 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, &c. doth plainly declare. And se­condly, at the accomplishment of the union foreshewed by these Prophecies. All Nations must goe up to worship before the Lord at Jerusalem; as the latter part of the 66. chapter of Isaiah doth shew, to which we may adde the Prophecies in the 8. chap. of Zecha. at the 20. ver. &c. and in the 14. chap. at the 16. ver. &c. The words are, Thus saith the Lord of Hostes, it shall came to passe, that there shall come people, and the Inhabitants of many Cities: and the Inhabitants of one Citie shall goe to another, saying, Let us goe speedily to pray be­fore the Lord of Hostes, I will goe also; yea many people, and strong Na­tions shall come to seeke the Lord of Hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray be­fore the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of Hostes, In those dayes it shall come to passe, that ten men shall take hold, out of all Languages of the Nati­ons, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will goe with you, for we have heard, that God is with you. And it shall come to passe, that every one that is left of all Nations which came against Jerusalem shall even goe up from yeare to yeare, to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, and to keep the feast of Tabern [...]cles: and it shall be that who so will not come up of all the Families of the earth unto Jerusalem, to worship the King the Lord of Hosts, even upon them shall be no raine. And thirdly, at the accomplishment of this union, the Jewes shall not seeke unto the Gentiles, but the Gentiles in generall unto the Jewes onely, for instruction in the wayes of God, as Isaiah saith, chap. 2 ver. 2. and 3. and Micah. chap. 4. ver. 1. and 2. It shall come to passe in the last dayes, that the mountaine of the Lords house shall established in the top of the mountaines, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all Nations shall flow unto it; and many people shall goe and say, Come yee, and let us goe up to the Mountaine of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us his waies, and wee will walke in his pathes, for out of Sion shall goe forth the Law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And fourthly, at the accomplishment of this union (and throughout the whole time of its continuance, which it exprest Rev. the 20. ver. 2, 3.) there is to be an uninterrupted [Page 112]peace over all the world, as the following words of the foregoing prophecy of Isa. & Micah, doe manifest. And he shall judge amongst the Nations, & shall rebuke many people, & they shal breake their swords into plow shares & their speares into pruning books, nation shal not lift up sword against Nation, neither shall they learne warre any more. With which agreeth that of Hosea chap. 2. ver. 18. In that day I will make a Cove­nant for them, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowles of Hea­ven, and with the creeping things of the ground. And I will breake the bow, and the sword, and the battell out of the earth; and will make them to lie downe safely. And to this wee adjoyne the prophecy Psal. 46.8, 9. Come behold the workes of the Lord, what desolations he hath made in the earth. He maketh warres to cease unto the ends of the earth, he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the speare in sunder: he burneth the chariot in the fire. And fiftly, at the accomplishment of this union, the converted Jew shall not be governed by the ecclesiastical and civill lawes of the Gentiles, as it is now; but the Gentiles by the ecclesi­astical and civill lawes of the Iewes; as is before shewed by their going up to Ierusalem to worship, and to be instructed in the wayes of the Lord. And as touching their civill grovernment, it is further evidenced by the prophecies in which the Gentiles great subjection to the Iewes is revealed. Of which sort are the prophecies, Isaiah chap. 14.1, 2. chap. 49.22, 23. chap. 60.9, 10, 11, 12. &c. and chap. 61.4, 5, 6, 7. And thus, good reader, thou hast the true sense and scope of the prophecies, with which (as M^r Petrie saith) I have need­lesly silled many pages; and doubtlesse it was very needfull for him to say so, seeing their perspicuity is so irresistible, that he could finde no mysticall paraphrase against it, to puzzle thee with­all.

Reply.

What the Apostle affirmes wee deny not, and therefore wee say not that every family amongst the Jewes, and every Jew of every family, was cast away, was broken off from their Olive. But where­as the Apostle saith, If the fall of them be the riches of the world, ver. 15. and, As concerning the Gospel they are enemies for your sakes, ver. 28. [Page 114]and, God hath concluded them all in unbeliefe, ver. 32. These passages wee understand with the Apostle to be meant of all the Tribes, though not of all of every T [...]ibe. I say, with the Apostle, for so generall was the unbel [...]efe of the Jewes even in St. Paul's time, that chap. 10.1, 2. he saith, Brethren, my hearts desire and prayer to God for Jsrael is, that they may be saved. For I beare them record, that they have a zeale of God, but not according to knowledge. And in the 13. and 14. verses of this chap. he hath these words of them. For I magnify mine Office; if by any meanes I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. Not any one Tribe, but here and there some, (yea but some in all, here and there) amongst the Tribes. And your flying to the former translation of the 32. ver. as to a refuge against the evidence of the last translation, will not serve your turne; seeing the words in the originall are [...], which are more fully and more fitly rendred by [them all] then by [all] onely. And the [them all] in the 32. ver. must needs have re­lation to the Jewes onely exprest in the third person by [their, these, and they] in the 30. and 31. verses. And not to the Gentiles exprest in the second person, by [ye, and, y [...]ur.] And the reason you bring to prove, that the 32. ver. must be extended to Jewes and Gentiles both, to wit, [because the Apostle in the 30. and 31. verses is speak­ing of both,] is of no force at all, seeing he speakes of the Gentiles as beleevers, and of the Jewes as unbeleevers. And therefore might well say of the Tribes who were then left in unbeliefe, For God hath concluded them all in unbeliefe, that he might have mercy upon all. But of the Gentiles who had then obtained mercy (through the Jewes unbeliefe) he could not affirme this. Neither will the text which you have alledged out of Gal. 3.22. (as parallell to this in the former translation) any thing availe you. For there is a vast difference betwixt these propositions. The Scripture hath concluded all under sin. And, God hath concluded all in unbeliefe. The first is universally, and actually true; se [...]ing all men are sinners; as well beleevers, as unbeleevers. But the last is not universally, and actual­ly true; seeing all men are not unbeleevers, nor ever were since the first promise of a Saviour. Yea the Apostle saith Gal. 3. that the Scripture hath concluded all under sinne, for this very cause, to wit, that the promise by faith of Iesus Christ might be given to them that beleeve. That is, to them that are not concluded in unbeliefe, albeit they [Page 115]are concluded under sin. And therfore it must needs be granted, that the 32. ver. Rom. 11. is applyed by the Apostle to some men onely, and not to all; to wit, to the unbeleeving Jewes in opposition to the beleeving Gentiles. And consequently must of necessity too be meant of all the Tribes, none excepted; because it cannot be meant of all Jewes, none excepted. And if this be not evidence enough to make you understand the 32. ver. of the Jews onely, wee have undeniable experience to helpe cleare your eye-sight: For tell us, what are the many numerous multitudes of the unbeleeving Jewes disperst at this day amongst the Nations of the Gentiles? are they the Nation of the Jewes, or are they not? if they are, then were all the Tribes concluded in unbeliefe; if they are not, then tell us what Tribe, or Tribes are wanting, that fell not, or continued not in unbeleife with the rest. For surely in the opinion of great Divines the Holy Ghost hath reckoned up by St. John Rev. 7. all the Tribes as re­maining, and to be converted, not long before the destruction of the Beast and false Prophet. And therefore it is somewhat hard to conceive, how a man of such understanding as you conceite your selfe to have, could notwithstanding so much evidence of Scripture and experience condemne this conclusion. Therefore it cannot possi­bly be maintained, that the Jewes and Gentiles are as yet one sheep­fold. And as for the fallacy of consequence, let the reader judge, whether it be on our part, who say, that the Jewes and Gentiles shall not be united into one Church, until the whole Nation of the Jewes be converted, and the foresaid prophecies accomplished: or on yours, who granting, that these prophecies doe foreshew their uniting, doe affirme that they are already thus united, although not one of these prophecies be fulfilled, nor any one Tribe conver­ted. But to prove that the Jewes and Gentiles are united into one Church, you alledge [Ephe. 2. ver. 11. &c. Remember that yee being in times past Gentiles in the flesh—that at that time yee were without Christ—but now are made nigh by the blood of Christ—who hath made both one, and broken downe the midwall of partition betweene us—for to make in himselfe one new man.] And is St. Paul then contrary to himselfe? what? would he have wisht himselfe accursed from Christ for his brethren, his Kinsmen according to the flesh, Rom. 9. ver. 3.? or would he have said, that going about to establish their owne righte­ousnesse, [Page 116]they had not submitted themselves to the righteousnesse of God. chap. 1. v. 3. or Even so have these also now not beleeved, that through your mercy they also may obtaine mercie, chap. 11. ver. 31. would he have said all this of the Jewes (and much more to this purpose) if the Jewes and Gentiles had then equally embrac't the Gospel? if the Tribes had been alreadie one bodie, or then likely to become one bodie with the believing Gentiles? doubtlesse he would not. And therefore, First I may say, that these words [who hath made both one] are to be referr'd to the meriting cause or purchase of their union alreadie wrought on Christ's par [...], by the shedding of his blood for them: and not to the actuall accomplishing of this purchased union in them; which was to be performed in the time fore-appointed by God for it. For as in the 6. ver. of this chapter, where the Apostle saith likewise in the pretertense. And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. The words could not be meant de facto, of the actuall pos­sessing of these heavenly places by the Saints then on earth: but de jure, of their right unto them by Faith in Christ, in like manner he might say, that Christ had made the Jewes and Gentiles [one] by purchasing their union, by paying the price of their reconcili­ation with God, and amongst themselves, although it were not to be fulfill'd by an actuall dispensation of it unto them, untill the fulnesse both of the Jewes and Gentiles should come in, as it is Rom. 11. ver. 12.25. Or secondly, I may say (as you your selfe deter­mine of the union betwixt the two people in your answer to my next words) that the union the Apostle here speakes of, is not to be understood of an actuall union betwixt the Jewes and Gentiles then living: but of an actuall union betwixt the Church of the Gentiles then begun under the New Testament, and the Church of the Jewes formerly gathered under the Old Testament, (both which were to make one new man, that is, that one glorified As­sembly and mysticall bodie of Saints which shall come with Christ their head at his next appearing. Whereas the union which wee treat of, and which is fore-shew'd by the preceding Prophecies, is to be of all Nations on earth in one visible Church. And thirdly as I say not, that all the Jewes, but all the Tribes were concluded in unbeliefe, so I denie not that the first fruits of the Jewes under the Gospel are joyned unto the Church of the Gentiles; but I de­nie [Page 117]that this is such an uniting of the Jewes and Gentiles as the pre­ceding Prophecies doe reveale, or that it is any more an uniting of them into one Church, then the calling of the believing Gen­tiles before Christs comming, was an uniting of the Jewes and Gen­tiles into one Church, and therefore I thus retort your following Argument against your selfe. Who will denie, that the believing Gentiles living amongst the Jewes before Christs comming (yea before the foresaid Prophets dayes) were members of the same bodie and Church universall, whereof Abraham, Jacob, David and others, were members also? then ther [...]fore (by this Argument) even then the Jewes and Gentiles were one fold.

Reply.

In the first words of this answer, you say with me that the Jewes which were converted at the preaching of the Gospel, may be cal'd the first fruits of the Gospel: but whereas you adde [yet they can­not be call d the first fruits of the sheepfold:] you speake of your owne; howbeit in such a manner, as if I had affirmed, that they were the first fruits both of the Gospel, and Sheepfold; (which had been a meere contradiction.) You say next, [that there is a vast difference betwixt the calling of the Gentiles under the Old Testa­ment, and the calling of the Jewes under the new: because the Gentiles then converted, were very few, even nothing in comparison of the conver­ted Jewes since the Gospel.] And suppose the Jewes were more, yet seeing no one Tribe of the Jewes hath been converted since the in­carnation of Christ, as no one Nation of the Gentiles was before the incarnation, why should these first fruits of the Jewes (though more) be taken for the conversion of the Jewes, rather then those first fruits of the Gentiles (though fewer) be taken for the con­version of the Gentiles? But yet it is but suppos'd by me, and but said by you, that the Jewes converted under the Gospel, are more then the Gentiles converted under the Law were. For most of the Jewes converted under the Gospel are mention'd in the Acts, and besides the many Gentiles, that became Proselytes in the flourish­ing and powerfull estate of the Jewes, wee read Hester the 8. ver. 17. that in the very time of their captivitie, many of the people of the Land did Judaize (as the originall hath it) that is, did turne to the Jewes Religion: and these [many] must needs be a great mul­titude, seeing the Land which Ahasuerus reigned over, was divided into an hundred and seven and twenty Provinces, in all which the Jewes inhabited, as the Letters sent into these Provinces, by Haman for their destruction, and by Mordecai for their delive­rance doe witnesse: and it is not unlikely, that as in all these Pro­vinces the feare of the Jewes fell upon them, so in all these Pro­vinces some were converted unto them. And in the very last dayes of the Jewish Church, the multitude which came together to heare the Apostles speake with other tongues, were partly Jewes, and part­ly Proselytes, Acts 2.10. And therefore doubtlesse the number of the converted Gentiles before Christs comming doth not come so much short of the number of the Jewes converted since Christs [Page 119]comming as you pretend: yea for ought that you or any man else can tell, they doe not onely equall but exceed the number of these Jewes. And lastly, in saying [that the union of the two people, of the Jewes and Gentiles, consists in the union of the Church under the Old and New Testament;] You doe herein grant, first, that the Church under the New Testament, is the Church of the Gentiles; and so not of the Jewes and Gentiles both, as it should be, if it did pro­portionably consist of the Jewes and Gentiles. And secondly, you doe herein grant, that the Apostles words, Ephes. 2. ver. 11. &c. are meant of this union: for you cannot conceive, [that the uni­on betwixt the two people consists in the union of the Church under the Old and New Testament:] unlesse you doe conceive withall, that the places which speake of their union are so to be understood. And thirdly, you doe herein contradict the preceding prophecies (which you grant to foreshew the same uniting of the two people) for these Prophecies doe plainely declare the uniting of the whole Nation of the Jewes with all the Nations of the Gentiles on the earth: and not the uniting of Gentiles under the Gospel with Jewes under the Law; not the uniting I say, of one part of Christs mysticall bodie the Church then in heaven, with another part thereof newly cal'd to the Faith on earth.

Reply.

The reason of my doubting in the former passage, is because neither you, nor any other can give a reason sufficient to prove, that the bringing of the Jewes for an offering unto the Lord out of all Nations, upon horses, and in Litters, and in Charrets, and up­on mules, and upon swift beasts, &c. to his mountaine at Jerusalem, is not to be taken in a proper sense for the best reason you can shew, is (as it seemes) that many thousands have conceived these words in another sense, which is as good a reason to prove that other sense to be the true sense of them, as it is to say; that Mahomet was no false Prophet, because many millions have and doe erroneously conceive him to be a true Prophet. And why did you not afford us a sight of that other sense, which so many 1000. have taken these words in: and of the important reasons, that mov'd them so to doe? seeing you confesse page 10. that the Scripture is pro­perly to be taken, unlesse the proper sense be dissonant from the scope of the text, or contrary to the analogie of Faith, or honesty of manners: neither of which hath been prov'd of the proper sense of these words; nor of any of the Prophecies upon which you strive so much to impose a figurative sense. And as you have not brought a reason to remove my doubting in this former pas­sage: so you have not prov'd, the reason of my doubting in the other, to be naught. For in saying, [that albeit the vaile be not ta­ken away from all the Jewes, and from all of all the Nations (in which sense it shall never be taken away, &c.) yet certainly it is taken away from the Jewes, and from all Nations, to wit, so many of them as turne to the Lord, &c.] In saying thus, you say nothing to the purpose: for was it not thus when the Prophet spake these words? was not [Page 121]the vaile then taken away from as many of the Jewes, and of other Nations, as were then turn'd unto the Lord? And when St. Paul said, Even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vaile is upon their heart, neverthelesse when it shall returne unto the Lord, the vaile shall be taken away: were there not then more Jewes converted to the Christian Faith, then have been ever since? and yet the Apostle saith, that the vaile was then upon their hearts, and speaks of the removing of it from them, as of a thing to be done, and not then done; although those were then converted which God had ap­pointed to be then converted. And therefore the Apostles words are to be understood of the removing of the vaile from all the Jewes, and not from some onely. And the Prophet saith likewise, that God will destroy the Covering cast over all people, and the vaile that is spread over all Nations; which cannot be fulfill'd when onely a part of the vaile is destroy'd, as you understand it: but shall be, when the whole vaile is destroyed. And that it shall be wholly de­stroyed, the Prophecie of Isaiah, chap. 2. v. 2, 3. which shewes, that all Nations shall goe up to the mountaine of the Lords house, to be taught in his wayes; and the same Prophets words, ch. 11. v. 9. for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the Sea. And the Prophecies which shew that all Nations shal goe up to Jerusalem to worship, doe with the preceding Prophecie joyntly testifie: and therefore this first clause of your parenthesis doth flatly denie, what God doth frequently affirme. And the Scripture which you have alledg'd, is us'd onely as a daring glasse to dazzle the eyes of the heedlesse or unlearned Reader, for that of Tit. chap. 2. ver. 11. hath relation to the severall ages, Sexes, and conditions of men, as the preceding verses doe shew: so that [to all men] there, is no more then to all sorts of men, young, and old, male and female, Master and servant. And yet it might he true too, that the grace of God that bringeth salvation, had then appeared unto all Nations, in re­gard of the report and publishing of it amongst them; as St. Paul saith, Rom. 10. ver. 18. although not in regard of any effectuall par­ticipation of it by them. And as for that text, in the 2 Cor. chap. 4. ver. 6. what doth it shew, but that God had reveal'd unto the Apo­stle and his Assistants, what they preach't unto others; to wit, the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ? and Quid hoe ad Rhombum, what can you conclude from hence?

Reply.

1. This is the second time that you cavill at my using of the word literall, for proper, although I herein speake but as Divines commonly speake, out of whom it were easie to fill up many pages with instances for the confirmation of this sense of the word. For what is the meaning of it in this Question, An dogmata fidei ex so­lo Scripturae sensu literali, non autem mystico, figurato & parabolico sta­bilienda sint? thus it is propos'd by S [...]agmannus: and by Broch­mand thus, An dogmata fidei e solo sensu literali, non autem mystico sta­biliri commodè at (que) tu [...]ò possint? and in the abridgement of the sub­stance of Religion set forth by Amandus Polanus, page 127. con­cerning typicall Oracles, are these words. Of the first sort are they which are understood of both of them, that is, the type and the substance together, and are to be taken properly, or as they use to speake, literally, as Ex. 12.45. Ye shall not breake a bone of it. And now who hath shewed himselfe the novice? have I, in following Divines in the use of this word? or you in carping at me for it? And whereas you boast [that you give no other interpretation of the Prophecies, then be chiefly intended,] it were well if you did not: but surely you cannot prove your mysticall sense to be the sense chiefly intended: neither doe I say that it is, in telling you, that Inter­preters doe chiefly expound the preceding Prophecies of the joy­ning together of the Jewes and Gentiles into one Church: for as I grant that they doe rightly conceive of the subject of these Pro­phecies, in affirming that they concerne the uniting of the two peo­ple; so I allow not of the application of this union to the time of the substituted Gentiles calling, by their mysticall interpretations of them.

2. That the Evangelist alledgeth this Prophecie of Zech. as then fulfill'd, onely touching the piercing of our Saviours side, I wil­lingly [Page 124]grant; and as the rest of the Prophecie was not at that time fulfill'd, so that it hath not been since fulfill'd, I doe also affirme. And yet if you looke into Cornelius à Lapide you shall finde, that some have said it was then wholly fulfill'd in the Disciples: of whom there were more present then St. John, as St. John him­selfe records; I say more of the Disciples, if no other of the twelve, and therefore it is false, that our Saviour was not beheld by the Disciples. But as I say, that this exposition is quite contrary to the evidence of the Prophecie, which speakes of the piercing of Christ by his enemies, and not by his friends; so I say too, that your expounding of it as fulfill'd by the Iewes that were pricked in their hearts at Peters preaching, Acts 2. ver. 23.37. is not so con­sonant to the words of the Prophet, as you imagine. For albeit that many, if not most, of these Iewes were consenting to his death, and upon their conversion were sorrie for their sinne; yet the oc­casion of all this sorrow was St. Peters preaching, was the hearing I say, of what they had done, and not the beholding of their pier­ced Saviour, which the Prophet mentions as the onely occasion of their sorrow by whose mourning this Prophecie is to be fulfill'd. And our Saviour himselfe also hath foretold, Matth. 24. at the 30. ver. that this mourning is to be fulfill'd at his next appearing, his words are, Then shall appeare the signe of the Sonne of man in Hea­ven, and then shall all the Tribes of the earth mourne, and they shall see the Sonne of man comming in the Act. 1. v. 11. clouds of Heaven with power and great glory. Whom then shall wee believe, our Saviour and the Pro­phet? or you? For what though the Iewes which shall mourne for him so long after his suffering did not in their owne persons, ei­ther pierce, or see him pierced? yet as Levi is said to pay tithes in the loynes of his Father Abraham, so these are said to have done what their Fathers did? and Mr. Brightman in his exposition of the 7. ver. of the first chap. of the Rev. understands that too of the accomplishment of these words of Zech. which he expounds al­most in the same termes as I have done, pag. 16. 17. of his Rev. of the Apocalyps.

Reply.

As in the preceding answer you have applied the accomplish­ment of Zech. words, ch. 12. ver. 10. to the Jewes converted by St. Peters first Sermon: so in this you endeavour to parallel their mour­ning, with the great and solemne mourning so largely exprest in the following verses of the same Prophecie. For it is said ver. the 11. There shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, &c. and ver. 12. The Land shall mourne, everie Familie apart, &c. [whereby is intimated (say you) a distinction of the mourning in respect of place: and as they did mourne at Jerusalem publickly, so wee may easily conceive, that these who had resorted at these publick Feasts unto Jerusalem did like­wise [Page 126]mourne apart after their returning—(all facts that are very credible are not written.) And therefore on the contrary you have written here what is not credible. For is it credible that the mourning of 3000. is any way comparable to the solemne and universall mour­ning of all Judah and Jerusalem for Josiah, 2 Chron. 35. ver. 24, 25. to which the mourning in this Prophecie is compared? Or is it credible that any of these Jewes who resorted unto Jerusalem out of so many Countries as are rehearst, Acts 2. ver. 9, 10, 11. were of the Families of David and Nathan, when as the Tribe of Judah wat not then carryed into captivitie by the Romans? And if they mourned after their returne into their severall Countries, into Me­sopotamia, Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia, &c. this was out of the Land, whereas the mourning the Prophet foreshewes is to be ful­fill'd onely in Lerusalem, and in the land of Iudea, and it is to be observed by men and their wives apart, and what circumstance is there in the 2. chap. of the Acts from which you can gather, that any of the 3000. you speake of, were women? yea it is to be ob­serv'd by all the Families of the Jewes that remaine, that is, that are living at the accomplishment of this Prophecie, and therefore the repentance of these 3000. could not possibly be the mourning here spoken of by the Prophet. You say next [that this Prophecit doth concerne the Jewes, and chiefly the persons that crucified their Sa­viour, but not onely, seeing even the Gentiles, &c. And did you not tell us even now, [that you give no other interpretation of the Pro­phecies then is chiefly intended?] How then can you say here, that this Prophecie is chiefly meant of the Jewes in a proper sense; and yet meant also of the Gentiles in a figurative sense? is not this to give another sense besides that which is chiefly intended? and doe you thinke that both these senses are intended? if so, how shall we know certainly which is chiefly intended? Surely to affirme that the Holy Ghost doth intend a double sense in these Prophecies, is no small errour; seeing it makes God to have, as it were a heart and a heart; to be I say, as a double dealer, who speakes one thing and meanes another: and shall we conceit thus of God? God for­bid. Yea, let God be true and every man a lyar: as truth then is but one, so doubtlesse there can be but one true sense of any place in the Scripture, but one sense intended by God; and thefore to make the Scripture Janus-like to looke two wayes, is from man and not [Page 127]from God, and it is the readiest way that I know to foment divisi­on amongst men. But there is yet the heaviest charge behinde, for [it is great impudence, you say, to affirme that Zech. chap. 14. ver. 5. and 9. saith Christ shall descend unto the Jewes to restore their Kin­dome, for there is not one word of restoring or of the Jewes Kingdome in these two verses.] And yet his descending and reigning over all the earth is expresly foretold in these two verses, and shall he come to be King over all the earth, and yet not restore the Kingdome of the Iewes? what City then shall be the royall Citie of this great King, if not Jerusalem, whose extraordinarie restauration is pro­mised in the verses immediately following, and to which all the Nations shall goe up to worship, as the latter part of the chapter doth foreshew? And what people shall be the choycest subjects of this great King, if not the Saints that shall come with him, and the Iewes (his brethren according to the flesh) whom he shall then deliver from their enemies, as the judgement reveal'd in the 12, 13, 14, and 15. verses doth declare? Certainly you must needs grant, that the Prophet hath here foretold the restoring of the Iewes (though he useth not these very words, which I say not) unlesse you will denie that the 9. verse is meant of our Saviours reigning on earth as man, and how can you doe this, when as the Prophet saith plainely, that our Saviour shall be King over all the earth af­ter his descending to the earth, and not while he is in Heaven? Thus then the great impudence of my innocent assertion, is nothing but the gracelesse imprudence of your cholerick accusation: and this one Prophecie which first shewes our Saviours comming with all the Saints, and then his reigning over all the earth, doth in­fallibly prove all your answers to the other part of the Treatise, to be (as the answers to this) but meere shifts, and evasions.

Reply.

As it is very untrue that you have had nothing from us of the felicity of the Nations in the day of the Jewes deliverance, for wee have brought you many unaccomplished prophecies out of Gods word to confirme it; so it is very true, that the reader hath had no­thing from you of this felicity, seeing you have wholly conceal'd from him those prophecies in which it is reveal'd. And these en­suing prophecies doe speake of the restauration of the creatures both sensible and insensible at that time, for which purpose they were alledged, and not to shew the felicity of the Nations; which yet may well be gathered from the large mercy which God keepes in store even for the dumbe and insensible creatures in that Day; in that day, I say, so frequently foretold by God, and not falsely imagined by us. But to prove that these prophecies doe not con­cerne the restoring of the sensible creatures to their primitive inno­cency at the redemption of the Iewes, you bring foure raw and trifling reasons. For reciting the 10. verse, In that day there shall be a roote of Iesse, which shall stand for an ensigne of the people, to him shall the Gentiles seeke. You bid us, [Marke first, that he saith in that day, so he conjoynes the preceding and following things to the same time.] And wee say that the restoring of these creatures to their originall per­fection; the comming in of the fulnesse of the Gentiles; and the redemption of the Iewes are all to be performed in that day. [Second­ly (you say) that he speakes expressely of the calling of the Gentiles, as it is cited Rom. 15.12.] And wee say, that as some Nations of the Gentiles were for long agoe cal'd to the knowledge and obedience of the Gospel; so at our Saviour's next appearing, all other Nations of the Gentiles shall be cal'd unto it. [Thirdly, you say, that in the 1. ver. he speakes of the first comming of Christ, A rod shall come forth out of the stemme of Iesse, and a branch shall grow out of his rootes.] And this wee say too, and yet wee say with all, that as the foure verses immediately following may as well, if not rather, be understood [Page 130]of his actions at his second comming, then at his first: so all that follows in the 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.12, 13. ver. &c. is to be fulfilled onely at his second comming, which the first part of the 10. ver. speakes of. And you may not thinke it strange, that both the first and second comming of our Saviour are revealed in the same chap. when­as wee finde them elswhere revealed within the compasse of two or three verses, as Isa. 9.6, 7. and chap. 52.13, 14, 15. and in other pro­phecies. Yea you doe seeme to me to acknowledge it, in that you forsake the 10. verse (cut of which you gather your two former observations, and) in which the roote of Jesse is expressely menti­oned, and fall backe to the first verse, as the onely place in this chap. that shewes the first comming of our Saviour. And [fourthly, you say, that in the words following that testimony, he speakes of the calling of the Jewes and Gentiles together, as was exponed before.] And wee have before shewed this exposition to be notoriously false: and that from the 11. ver. to the end of the chap. nought but the wonderfull redemption of the Jewes is foretold. As then you have not yet dis­proved the proper sense of these prophecies; so doubtlesse you can­not fit them with an allegoricall paraphrase. For first, as here are many severall kinds of beasts mention'd, so you must finde out as many severall degrees, or dispositions of men to expound them by. And secondly, seeing in an allegoricall sense these prophecies are apply'd to the conversion of men, you must tel us, why after their conversion some are cal'd, Wolves, Leopards, Lyons, Beares, and Cocka­trices: and others, Lambs, Kids, calves and oxen. I say after their conversion, for these names they are distinguished by, when they are said, to lie downe together, and to feed together, and to doe no hurt. And thirdly, you must give us the meaning of these phrases. The sucking childe shall play on the hole of the aspe, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice den. The Lyon shall eate straw like the Oxe. And dust shall be the Serpents meate. And fourthly, seeing here is mention, not onely of irrationall creatures, but of rationall also; of mankind, as well as of beaster, you must tel us first what Converts are alluded unto under the names of these severall sorts of beastes, and what Converts are meant by the little child, the sucking child, and the weaned child: and secondly, why the names of these beastes are not to be taken properly for the beastes themselves, whenas the things here rehearst doe so well agree with them, and they are [Page 131]plainely distinguished from mankind too. And unlesse you can give us reasonable satisfaction in all this, you doe but vainely say, [that these words may be better exponed allegorically, then properly.] Yea the proper sense of these Prophecies is further confirmed by the food which God created for every beast of the earth, and every fowle of the aire, and every thing that creepeth on the earth to live by, to wit, the green herb, Gen. 1. ver. 30. and by restraint of the wilde beasts and fowles, both from their ravenous disposition and feeding, the whole time of their being in the Arke: for seeing Noah was to pro­vide foode for them as well as for himselfe and his Family, Gen. 6. ver. 21. it must needs be granted, that as the Wolfe, the Lamb, and the Leopard; the cow, the Lyon and the Beare &c. did then lie downe together, so they did feed together too: and that the Lyon did eate straw, (or hay) like the Oxe: this, I say, must needs be granted, unlesse we can imagine that Noah did take in flesh into the Arke for the ravenous creatures to live by at that time.

Reply.

1. We thinke that God is best pleased with us, and most glori­fied by us, when we confesse the truth, albeit against our selves: and therefore as wee are not so ingrate to denie, that God hath gi­ven pa [...]ticular Churches rest, not onely from foraigne enemies but homebred also; not onely from heathenish persecutors, but from hereticall too; so we are not so ungodly to denie our owne unrighteousnesse, and unthankfulnesse towards God notwithstan­ding such mercy conferred upon us. For even when these Churches have had such rest, then have they provok't God afresh, by more then heathenish impieties and oppressions; so that rest from per­secution hath been the very seed-time in which the tares of all impi­etie and injustice, of all manner of misgovernment and mi [...]beliefe have been sow'd afresh amongst us; and the spring-tide, in which that oursed and numerous brood of the flesh, which St. Paul reckons [Page 133]up, Gal. 5. ver. 19. &c. hath been manifest in us: as adultery, for­nication, uncleannesse, lasciviousnesse, Idolatrie, witcheraft, hatred, variance, emulations, strise, seditions, Heresies, envyings, murthers, drunkennesse, revilings, covetousnesse, and such like: For it was in the time of Israel's rest, that the faithfull Citie became an harlot, and full of murderers, that her Princes grew rebellious, and companions of theeves, that every one of them loved gifts, and followed after rewards: that they judged not the fatherlesse, nor the cause of the widow: that they joyned house to house, and field to field, till there was no place: that God looked for Judgement, but behold oppression; and for righteousnesse, but behold a cry: that the Harpe, and the Viol, and the Tabret and Pipe, and wine were in their Feasts, but they regarded not the worke of the Lord, nor the operation of his hands, Esa. the 1. and 5. chapter 8. And have Christians made any better use of their rest from perse­cution and destruction? surely no. For it was in the very in­fancie of the Church, that Ephesus was threatned for leaving her first love; Pergamos for the Doctrine of Balaam, and the Doctrine of the Nicholaitans: Thyatira for suffering Jezabel to seduce the servants of God to commit fornication, and to cate things offered to Idols: Sardis for that her workes were not found perfect before God, that is, to proceed from a sincere heart and an upright affe­ction; and Laodicea for her lukewarmenesse in Religion, Rev. the 2. and 3. chapter. And seeing it was thus in the first and best age of the Christian Church, how bad, thinke you, hath it been since? surely the same Apostle will tell you, chap. 9. ver. 20, 21. And the rest of the men that were not killed by these plagues, yet repen­ted not of the workes of their hands, that they should not worship Devills, and Idols of gold, and silver, and brasse, and stone, and wood, which nei­ther can see, nor heare, nor walke: neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts. And 'tis this great wickednesse of Christians themselves, 'tis their en­vying at, their contention with, and their defrauding of each other; 'tis the mischiefe they devise against, and the hurt they daily doe one to another, that I have spoken of; and not of the hurt they receive from others; not of suffering by their heathe­nish neighbours before the whole Empire became Christian, or by heathenish Nations since that time; and therefore in this part of your answer you have quite mistooke the marke, and brought a [Page 134]record of some particular Churches rest from suffering, instead of their rest from sinning.

2. In the next you give but a false fire; for we are discoursing of what doth inevitably follow from these Prophecies according to the allegoricall interpretation of them: and therefore if the Rev. or the Prophets doe speake otherwise of the times, to which you referre these Prophecies, then these Prophecies doe; it is an undeniable evidence against you; that either the allegoricall sense is not the true sense of them; or that these Prophecies are not to be accomplisht in the time to which you apply them: as indeed they are not: for they shall not burt nor destroy in all my holy moun­taine, saith the Lord, which words doe infallibly shew, that the innocencie of the creatures whom this is spoken of, shall be such, as cannot possibly consist with the many mischievous (that I say not unnaturall) actions of Christians amongst themselves: but may very well be fulfill'd in the generall agreement and gentlenesse of the dumb creatures at the appearing of our Lord Jesus; at which time it is, that these Prophecies which reveale the Jewes pro [...]ri­tie in their owne land, and those which reveale the joynt-embrace­ment of the truth by all Jewes and Gentiles, and these which re­veale the reducement of the dumbe and insensible creatures to their originall perfection, are all to be accornplished; and therefore al­though it be the propertie of the Church to be militant in this world, that is, untill the appearing of Christ; yet in that new world she shall be triumphant; she shall be rid of all her adversa­ries, of all her disturbers, as is plentifully declar'd by the Pro­phets, and implied in the first part of the 20. chap. of the Rev. But whereas you have alledg'd these words, as a reason to prove, that there shall be alwayes hurt done by Christians in this world (for these you say are the beasts of whom these Prophecies are to be un­derstood) certainly you are much mistaken in this argument; for it will not follow, that Christians must needs be hurtfull to them­selves, because [it is the property of the Church to be militant in this world,] that is, till our Saviours comming to receive hurt from o­thers. And yet though we denie your Argument, wee denie not what you would infer from it, to wit, that Christians are hurtfull to each other; yea we say (and that without an hyperbole) that they are so hurtfull, that even for this very cause these Prophecies can­not [Page 135]not be understood of them. For wee dare not with you first to make them contradict other Scripture by wresting of them to a false sense, and then to uphold our errour by a flat denyall of that which God hath spoken in them: by affirming I say, that these words, they shall not hurt nor destroy in all, my mountaine, are thus to be under­stood, they shall hurt and destroy in all my holy mountaine. Yea, wee hold it much safer to denie the allegoricall sense of them, and so their present accomplishment withall (neither of which any other Scripture, or any circumstance in these Prophecies doth enforce) then to denie what God hath so plainely reveal'd in them.

3. And yet you goe on like a Conquerour, and beare the Reader in hand [that the words in the 9. ver. for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, doe puzzle the Author, and that therefore hee fancieth a private conceite for expounding these words, of which he gives no reason.] But surely it doth not puzzle the Author so much, as to make him contradict any thing that God doth say; as you have done to justifie the allegoricall interpretation of these Prophecies; and therefore it is evident, that your exposition is the private con­ceit, seeing it crosseth the text, and not mine, which though you accuse, you could not shew to be contrary unto the text. Yea, the reason which I have given for it (for you wilfully belie me, in say­ing, I have given none) is not onely very agreeable unto the proper sense of these Prophecies, but to reason it selfe: for what could more illustrate the wisedome, Justice, and mercy of God in the re­stauration of these creatures, then to ordaine, that man, the crea­ture whose disobedience had been the occasion of subjecting all o­ther inferiour creatures unto vanitie, should againe by his obedi­ence (springing from the abundant knowledge of his maker) be­come the occasion of delivering them from this bondage of cor­ruption? and therefore though it be true, that the saving know­ledge of the Gospel hath made and doth still make wicked men to leave their wickednesse; yet it is not true that the calling of men out of the state of nature into the state of grace is foretold in these Prophecies, and the words of our Saviour, I send you as sheepe amongst Wolves, Matth. 10. ver. 16. are flat against you, for they are meant of the most obstinate enemies of the Gospel: they are meant, I say, not of such as should become sheep, but of such as should kill the sheep, and use their utmost endeavour to keep all others out of [Page 136]the sheepfold: as the verses following doe declare, and interpre­ters acknowledge: and albeit there hath been now and then one such Wolfe as St. Paul was, that of a savage persecutor, hath be­come a pious Saint, yet besides all these Wolves, that have still kept their owne hue and habit (and befides those who being bred up in the Church, have still retain'd their innocent garments) there have been many, who being without the Church, have exchang'd their habit for sheeps clothing for no other end, but to have the benefit of the Sheeps pasture, and the better opportunitie to de­stroy the sheepe, and to destroy the more sheep. And befides, al­though the word [Wolves] doth in the saying of our Saviour, signi­fie men, yet it followes not from hence, that it is so to be understood in these Prophecies: for it must be some circumstance out of the Prophecies themselves that must prove this, and not the allegori­call acception of this word in another place. And as I say not, that the change of beasts affections from bad, to better, from e­vill, to good, is to be the proper effect of any knowledge of God in themselves; so I say, that God hath here reveal'd, that this change shall as well bee the effect of mans pleasing him by obedi­ence, as the change of them from better to worse; from good to evill, was of mans displeasing him by sinne.

Reply.

1. The truth of God, say you, needeth not the houlstering of mans devices. And mans devices, say wee, are not a boulstering, but a be­reaving; are not an upholding, but a destroying of the truth of God. But what is the device which you have found here? is it not the comparing of one place of Scripture with another, which speakes plainly of the same thing? and is not this warranted by the generall approbation of Divines, for a very remarkable rule in the right interpreting of the Scriptures? you cannot denie it. The device then which you speake of, is but a device of yours to make the Reader baulk the onely light Gods word holds out un­to him for the true discoverie of the Apostles meaning, that so he may stick the closer to that sense, which mans device hath put up­on it.

2. The Apostle saith, the creature it selfe also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, &c. and the Prophet saith, the Wolfe shall dwell with the Lamb, and the Leopard shall lie downe with the Kid— and the Cow and the Beare shall feed together. Whereby he shewes both what these creatures bondage of corruption is, and what their deliverance from it: whereby he shewes, I say, that the wild, un­tamed, and hurtfull disposition which these creatures are now sub­ject unto, is their bondage of corruption: and that the re-estating of them into that mild, peacefull, and harmlesse condition in which they were first created, shall be their deliverance from it. And when [Page 138]shall this be fulfill'd? shall it be after the generall judgement of the dead mention'd, Rev. 20. ver. 12, &c.? surely no, for then this earth out of which these creatures were made, shall passe away, and be no more found, Revel. 20. ver. 11. then this earth and the workes (the creatures) that are therein shall be burnt up, 2 Pet. 3. ver. 10. And we read not of any Starres in the new heaven, or of any beasts on the new earth; yea, besides men and Angels, we reade of no more creatures then of a tree of life, and of a river of life in that holy Jerusalem which shall descend from God unto the new earth; the earth with which there shall be no Sea created: and consequently these creatures deliverance is to be fulfill'd at the restoring of Judea and Jerusalem, cal'd here by Isaiah, the holy mountaine, and chap. 2. the mountaine of the Lords house, and the mountaine of the Lord. And thus by conferring these two Prophecies of Isaiah and St. Paul, it is manifest, what these creatures deliverance from the bondage of corrup­tion is, touching which you say onely [that the Apostle is speaking of the finall deliverance of the creature from the bondage of corruption: which is not cleared by that cohabitation of beasts, unlesse wee will be content with a small portion of deliverance for the generall deliverance of the creature.] So that you grant, that the cohabitation of the beasts is their deliverance from the bondage of corruption (and conse­quently, that the foresaid Prophecies in which it is reveal'd, are properly to be understood, which before you so stoutly denied) but you say withall, that it is [a small portion of the creatures delive­rance,] that it is a deliverance but of a part of the creatures: and surely we doe not say, that the deliverance of the sensitive crea­tures is the deliverance of all the creatures; but we say that all the insensitive creatures too shall be restor'd to their Primitive perfe­ction (and so delivered from the bondage of corruption) when these are, as other Prophecies doe foreshew of them. And seeing you acknowledge the Renovation of the creature to be its delive­rance, we marvell what you meane in saying that [the Apostle is speaking there of the finall deliverance of the creature:] For if you meane by [the finall deliverance] a further renovation of it; surely we know but of one renovation of the creature that the Scriptures speake of, and that is to be a perfect renovation of it: but if you meane annihilation and dissolution of it; you hold one more de­liverance of the creature then any other Divine doth, to wit, a de­liverance [Page 139]by renovation, and a deliverance by abolition, but wee denie that the Apostle speakes there of the dissolution of the crea­ture; and that this is cal'd a deliverance of the creature from the bondage of corruption in any place of the Scripture: Yea, wee see not how the creatures deliverance from the bondage of corrup­tion, should be a delivering of it into a greater corruption; nor how the creature should rather earnestly expect such a deliverance from the bondage of corruption, by which all the kinds of it shall be destroyed; then desire to continue subject to this bondage, un­der which all the kinds are preserved. And seeing the creatures bondage of corruption, is the vanitie to which it was made sub­ject by reason of mans sinne, after its creation; and so cannot be meant of that corruptible condition of the creature in which it was created subject to death and dissolution; it must needs fol­low, as wee conceive, that the creatures dissolution cannot be its deliverance. For such as the bondage is, such must the deliverance be: but the bondage was the alteration which befell it through mans sinne: after its creation (which was adventitious to it) and not its corruptibilitie, which was made naturall to it by creation: and consequently the deliverance must be a restauration of it; the deliverance of the sensitive creatures a restauration from their hurt­full and untamed disposition to a mild and harmelesse, and of the insensitive, of the Starres and Heavens from a malignant influence to a favourable, and from a dimmer to a clearer brightnesse, &c. And whereas you say, [that the Author collecteth nothing particular­ly from that text, Isaiah 65. ver. 25.] Surely he collects as much from that Prophecie, as from the other; and to this end hath alledged both together, because both doe reveale the same thing: but if you want a particular observation from this text, you may take notice that he saith, And dust shall be the Serpents meat, whereby he shewes, that when the Lyon shall eate straw like the bullock, when all other beasts and creeping things of the earth, and fowles of the aire, shall live by that food which was appointed for them at the creation, Gen. 1. ver. 30. the Serpent onely shall feed still on the nourishment of his curse, Gen. 3. ver. 14. as a memoriall of his be­ing the instrument of mans fall, and so of subjecting his fellow-creatures into vanity thereby. And how could you say [that there is not any word of the Jewish Monarchy in this Prophecie;] when­as [Page 140]these are the verses immediately foregoing? And I will rejoyce in Jerusalem, and joy in my people, and the voyce of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voyce of crying. There shall be no more there an infant of dayes, nor an old man that hath not filled his dayes: for the child shall dye an hundred yeares old: but the siner being an hun­dred yeares old shall be accursed. They shall build houses and inhabit them, and they shall plant Vineyards, and eat the fruite of them, they shall not build and another inhabit, they shall not plant and another eate: for as the dayes of a tree, are the dayes of my people: and mine elect shall long enjoy the worke of their hands: they shall not labour in vaine, nor bring forth for trouble: for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their off-spring with them: and it shall come to passe, that before they call I will answer: and while they are yet speaking, I will heare. The Wolfe and the Lamb shall feed together, &c. What thinke you of all this? doth it not plainly shew the future establishment and prosperity of the Jewes in their owne Land, as the latter part of the 11. chap. doth their returne to it? and are not the dumb creatures as plain­ly distinguisht here from the Jewes, as in the 11. chap. from the Iewes and Gentiles? what then shall we say of you, who have so lit­tle care of your credit, and regard of your Conscience, as to de­nie, [that here is any word of the Jewish Monarchy? surely you have need of such Readers as will swallow all you say with an implicite faith: for if they take the course of the noble Bereans, and search whether it be as you say or not, you will often be found a traitour to the manifest truth of God; a crime doubtlesse of no low ranke, a sinne of no light dye.

Reply.

How, you say, he shewes no Argument for his purpose, but gives a buze for reconciling the 26. ver. with chap. 60. ver. 19. And doe you [Page 142]speake this in good earnest? I pray then tell us, when the light of the Moone shall be as the light of the Sunne: and when the light of the Sunne shall be seven fold, as the light of seven dayes; if it shall not be fulfill'd at the time of our Saviours reigne on earth. For as yet it hath not been thus, and after the last resurrection it cannot be, because then the day and night shall come to an end, as it is Job. 26. ver. 10. because then these Heavens in which the Sunne, Moone, and Starres are set shall passe away, shall be no more found, as it is, Rev. 20. ver. 11. and Job. 14. ver. 12. And therefore it must needs be thus at the restoring of the Kingdome to Israel, or as the Prophet here expresseth it, in the Day that the Lord bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound, and so here is not onely [a buze] but such an argument too for our pur­pose, as you knew better how to avoyde, then answer, how to conceale, then to reconcile with your opinion: (and yet if you like not the buze you speake of, I can give you another buze, for per­haps that text in the 60. ch. may be thus understood, to wit, that the cloud which chap. 4. the Lord hath promised to create upon every dwelling place of mount Sion, shall both defend it from the heat of the Sunne, and be it selfe a light unto it by day, and that the shi­ning of the flaming fire, which he will create, shall be in stead of the brightnesse of the Moone unto it by night) But [all my travell in the reconciling of the 26. verse of this chapter, with the 19. ver. of the 60. chap. might have been spar'd, you say, if I had considered, that Isa. chap. 30. had a particular warning for the Jewes in his owne time, and so repeating the severall heads of the chap. you conclude, all which were accomplisht in the Prophets owne time, as we may finde in chap. 37.] And what doe wee find [...] there? doe we finde that the threatning against the Jewes, chap. 30. for their confidence upon Egypt, and their contempt of Gods word, was fulfill'd in Senna­cheribs threatning to come up against Hezekiah? no, but the con­trary, that Sennacherib was disappointed of his purpose by Heze­kiahs prayer unto the Lord. Doe we finde then that the destructi­on of the Assyrian which is foretold in the 30. chap. was fulfill'd in that slaughter of an hundred and fourscore and five thousand of Sennacherib's Army mention'd chap. 37? no, for that slaughter was an extraordinary Judgement of God by an Angel sent in the night to destroy them: but the destruction spoken of in the 30. [Page 143] chap. was to be in more then one place, and to be performed with Tabrets and Harpes: and in battles of shaking, as the 32. verse doth declare. Doe wee finde then that the mercies of God foretold in the midst of the 30. chap.—for the people shall dwell at Sion in Jeru­salem, thou shalt weepe no more.—And there shall be upon every high mountaine, and upon every high hill rivers, and streames of water—Moreover the light of the Moone shall be as the light of the Sun, &c. Doe we finde it recorded in the 37. ch. that these things were fulfill'd in the Prophets dayes? no, wee finde not a word there touching ought of all this Prophecie; and therefore the 37. chap. is onely a Chronicle of that which passed betwixt Hezekiah and Sennacherib; and no Register of the accomplishment of what is foretold in the 30. chap. and consequently Mr. Petrie in affirming this, of pur­pose to shift off the invincible evidence of that which wee have al­ledged out of the 30. chap. for the restauration of the creatures, hath shewed himselfe a teacher fit for none, but such as the Pro­phet mentions, chap. 30. ver. 10. who said unto the Prophets, Prophe­cie not unto us right things; speake unto us smooth things, prophecy de­ceits.

Reply.

Without doubt if the Reader will take all to be true that you say, he shall never finde you in an errour: But if you have no bet­ter reason to prove, that the words [Sion and Returne] must be taken in another then a proper signification: but because you con­ceit, [Page 145]that the worde [everlasting joy] cannot consist with the insur­rection of the Nations at the expiration of the thousand yeares; you doe but deceive your selfe with this reason. For though the thousand yeares peacefull reigne shall be terminated, by the Gentiles insurrection at the loosing againe of Satan: yet the joy of the Jewes (here reveal'd) is not limited by it. For we read indeed of the sur­rounding of the Saints by the Nations, Rev. 20. ver. 9. but we read not there of any feare in them, or hurt done unto them: yea wee read onely of the finall overthrow of their enemies. And whereas the better to countenance your Argument, you call the [everla­sting joy] here, a worldly joy; I pray what reason moves you to imagine that the joy promised by God to the converted Jewes (whom he calls his elect, and whom others, he saith, shall call the holy people, and the seed which the Lord hath blessed) should rather be a worldly joy then such a joy, as our Saviour promised his Disci­ples, John 16. ver. 22. Is it because the Jewes are to be Inhabitants on the earth, after they receive this everlasting joy? and were not the Disciples Inhabitants of a more sinfull world, then these Jewes shall be, when they were made partakers of the joy which no man could take from them? This reason then cannot prove your Epi­thite to belong rather to the joy of the Jewes, then to the joy of the Apostles; and yet unlesse this be the reason of your calling it a worldly joy, I cannot conceive why you should thinke, that af­ter the Jewes are so plentifully inspir'd with the Spirit of God, as the Prophets doe foreshew they shall be, their joy should not be as spirituall and inseparable as the Apostles was. And although it be unquestionable from the passage of St. Paul, in the 1 Cor. chap. 6. ver. 3. that the Judgement of all evill as well Angels as men, is at the last resurrection to be passed on them by the joynt-approbati­on of the whole number of the elect: yet seeing it is not unlikely, that by [the world] ver. 2. the Apostle meanes rather the Nations of the Gentiles in the time of Christs reigne on earth, then the number of the reprobate at the generall Judgement of the dead; it may justly be doubted, whether by the word [Saints] in that place also, the Nation of the Jewes be not comprehended with the faithfull which our Saviour shall bring with him, as well as in the 20. chap. of the Rev. where it is foreshewed, that the Nations of the foure quarters of the earth shall be gathered together against [Page 146]the Saints at the end of the thousand yeares. And the words of our Saviour to his Disciples, Matth. 19. ver. 28. Ye who have followed mee in the regeneration, when the Sonne of man shall sit on the Throne of his glory, shall sit upon twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel, doe help to confirme, and not to confute the Government of the Gentiles by the Jewes. For as the Apostles shall be made the supreme Governours of their owne Nation under our Saviour: so doubtlesse shall other glorified Saints both of the Jewes and Gentiles be chiefe Governours under our Saviour over other Na­tions, according as it is satd, Rev. 5. ver. 10. and chap. 20. ver. 4. and as the parable, Luke the 19. of the Noble-mans distributing of ten Cities to one servant, and five to another doth imply: for who is that Noble-man, which is gone into a farre Countrey to receive for himselfe a Kingdome, and to returne, but our Savi­our? whom the Heavens must receive untill the times of restitution of all thing, &c. Act. 3. ver. 21. who also spake that Parable, be­cause he was nigh unto Jerusalem, and because the Jewes errone­ously thought that the Kingdome of God should immediately ap­peare, should be set up then at his first comming. And as the glori­fied Saints shall be chiefe Judges under Christ, so wee may well thinke, that many of the unglorified Saints of the Jewish Nation shall be imployed by them in the administration of their Govern­ment, seeing Isaiah chap. 14. ver. 2. saith plainly, that they shall take them captives whose captives they were, and shall rule over their op­pressours. And suppose that none of the unglorified Jewes should be imployed in this government, yet when our Saviour himselfe shall be King over all the earth, and all the Saints that come with him, Princes under him: when the Nation of the Jewes shall be his naturall Subjects, and all other Nations tributaries and ser­vants unto them: when they shall be comprehended by the name of Saints, with those undefiled ones that Christ shall bring with him: when all this shall be, what Nation shall the Gentiles be said to be governed by, but by that which they live in subjection unto, and of whom their King came, and amongst whom he shall reigne? And thus much touching your first pretence, that the Gentiles shall not be judged by the Jewes; because the Jewes are to be judged by the Apostles. Which is all one as if you should say, that a Nation that live under any government it selfe, cannot governe [Page 147]other Nations that are in subjection unto it. Your next pretence is [that our Saviours words are not meant of the Apostles judging in a temporall Monarchy, seeing the Angels shall not be judged before the uni­versall Judgement.] But where doe you finde, that our Saviours promise to the Apostles, is not to be fulfill'd, before the judging of the Angels? And what shall we understand by [the twelve Tribes of Israel] according to your opinion? shall we [...] take them for the rest of the glorified Saints? no no, they cannot, for they shall be all Judges at the universall Judgement as well as the Apo­stles. Shall we take them then for the reprobate of the Jewish Nation? Surely wee finde no such signification of these words in all the Scripture, neither doe wee find it taught by any, that the reprobate of one Nation, shall be judged by some of the Saints onely, and the reprobate of another Nation, by others of the Saints: but that all the Saints shall joyntly judge all the repro­bate both Angels and men, onely by assenting to the Judgement that our Saviour himselfe shall give against them: and this may be gathered from the Apostle, who saith not thus, Know yee not that the Apostles, or Prophets: but, know yee not that we shall judge the Angels? he speakes of all, and not of some Saints only: seeing then the twelve Tribes of Israel, as you apply this saying to the universall Judgement, can neither be taken for the rest of the glorified Saints, nor for the reprobate Jewes, it must needs follow, that you are out in your application, and consequently, the twelve Tribes of Israel, must be taken for the Nation of the Jewes, over which the Apostles shall sit as Judges in the time of our Saviours reigne on earth. And how else should this promise of our Saviour implie a priviledge to the Apostles above the rest of the glorified Saints, for their following him in the time of his temptation, if it did not constitute them alone to be supreme Judges under him o­ver that Nation which shall be nearest and dearest unto him in his Kingdome? for seeing all other Saints shall joyne with them in judging of the reprobate Angels, much more shall they in judging the reprobate Jewes, which cannot be so much honour unto the Disciples, as the judging of the reprobate Angels: and so the great priviledge which our Saviour promised the Disciples shall ac­cording to your opinion, be farre inferiour to that which St. Paul affirmes to be common to all the Saint [...]. And whereas you s [...] [Page 148] [that the Apostle saith, how much more things appertaining unto this life? whereby it appeares, that in the first part of the verse, he under­stands a judgement not in this life.] Wee grant your conclusion, for we know that the Angels were not to be judged by the faithful Corinthians and the rest of the Saints, before their departure out of this life, or before the redemption of their bodies at our Sa­viours appearing, but that they shall be judged by them after their reigning with Christ, after their judging of the world a thou­sand yeares. And so the glory of the Kingdome of Israel is not yet diminished, by any of your feeble falicies, and indigested imagi­nations.

Reply.

If you will acknowledge them both in their owne sense, you must acknowledge them to be for our purpose▪ for you must ac­knowledge, that the Nation of the Jewes, which now s [...] in [Page 149]darknesse, which now heares the indignation of the Lord, because she hath sinned against him; shall againe be brought forth to the light by him: as Micah saith here. And the foresaid protestation of God by Jer. chap. 31. touching the preserving of the Jewish Na­tion will force you to acknowledge your errour page 20. where you say [that now through many ag [...]s Ephraimites are not knowne in any part of the earth.]

Reply.

The temporary Kingdome of the Jewes hath been already de­monstrated by such evident Scriptures and unanswerable Argu­ments from them, as you durst not to examine, and it is now (praised be God for his good leave and assistance) delivered also from that darknesse which your deluding allegories, and farre setcht interpretations doe draw over it, and thereby set free from that disgrace and contempt, which you strive so much to bring is into amongst the Gentiles. And our next taske is to discover the like fraudulent dealing in your Answers to those texts and reasons, by which wee have prov'd, that our Saviour, who shall restore this Kingdome, shall also reigne over it on earth. And first that the Reader may not take distaste at us before he heare us, you tell him here that these sew Millenaries agree not concerning the person of [Page 150]their King: for Mr. Maton thinks that Christ shall continue visible King of this Kingdome, and Mr. Archer thinkes that Christ shall re­store the Kingdome unto the Jewes, and returne unto the Heavens.] Herein indeed wee agree not, and as I heartily wish, that all Chri­stians did so rightly understand the word of God, that there might be no difference at all amongst them: so seeing offences must needs come, and that there must be heresies and divisions amongst us, that they which are approved may be made manifest, 1 Cor. 11. ver. 18, 19.) I had rather differ from any man in opinion, then for any by respect to depart from one jot or title of the truth, which is either plainely reveal'd in the Scripture, or may be gathered from it by infallible consequence. And sure I am, that as wee find often mention of our Saviours comming againe, so Job tells us, chap. 19. ver. 25. that his Redeemer shall stand at the latter day upon the earth, to wit, at the day of his next appearing and the Saints resurrecti­on, as these words immediately following doe declare, And though after my skinne, wormes destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God, &c. And St. Luke, ch. 1. v. 31, records, that the Lord shall give unto him the Throne of his Father David: and Jer. chap. 23. ver. 5. that he shall reigne and prosper, and shall execute Judgement and Justice in the earth; and so say Isaiah, and Zechary; (yea and we conceive it to be for this reason, especially, that Judea is cal'd the Land of Immanuel, Isaiah 8. ver. 8.) and we reade not of his departure from the earth againe, untill the earth it selfe shall passe away at the last resurre­ction. Yea, unlesse our Saviour should as well reigne over the Jewes as restore their Kingdome to them, wee cannot conceive, why he should descend before the universall Judgement, seeing he can as well restore the Kingdome of the Jewes in Heaven, where he is, as if he should descend unto the earth to doe it▪ But yet your collection from this difference, to wit, [that [...]till these two Que­stions be decided, you may superside,] is a very dangerous Doctrine For though [superside] be a very fine word, yet as you use is, it hath a very soule consequence, for you would have the Reader conceive, that there is no truth in the subject wee treat of, be­cause there is some difference betwixt us in the stating of it: where­as indeed all truth is made the more firme and manifest by diffe­rence: else what shall wee say of our Religion there being scarce any one head or Article in Divinity, about which there hath not [Page 151]been, or is not now some difference or other amongst Christians: if then wee must superside from, if wee must let passe, if wee must have nothing to doe with those things in which there is not a full agreement amongst us: we must omit the use of the Lords Sup­per, because Papists differ from Lutherans, and Calvinists from both about the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Wee must not beleeve our election or Justification, because Divines doe differ about the materiall and formall canses of the one, and the moving and meriting causes of the other: and because there is a difference betwixt you and us about the manner and place of our Saviours Kingdome, we must not believe that he hath any King­dome, yea, we must quite cast off the worship of God, because we cannot agree about the forme of it, some being for a set forme and others against it; some againe for premeditated, and others for extemporary prayers. And thus to make one truth odious, you stick not to make a shipwrack of the faith: even at once to destroy our whole Christian practise and beliefe: so contrary is your ad­vice to that of the Apostle in the 1 Thess. chap. 5. ver. 21. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good. Now for conclusion of this first part, I will adde Mr. Brightmans words touching the 7. and 8. ver. of the 66. chap. of Isaiah, and the 3. ver. of the 110. Psal. Many such places of Scripture, saith he, might he brought to this purpose; (he meaneth to shew the generall conversion of the Jewes) and perhaps it would be profitable to bring them, at least for this end, that our Writers might have occasion thereby given them, to consider more diligently of these places, from the right interpretation whereof, I feare mee that we wander, when as we make them to speake of things that he past, whereas they doe fore-tell of things yet to come In his Revel. of the Apoc. chap. 19. on the 8, and 9. verses pag. 791. and his words on the 11. ver. of the 6. chap. of the Cant. Time, saith he, will teach many things to be in the Prophets, which we commonly interpret as though they were past, whose event is yet to come: and especially (as it seemeth to mee) in the calling of the Jewes: which verily little con­fidered of ours, hath darkned (I will not say perverted) the proper and naturall meaning of the Prophets in many places.

Reply.

What a miscellany of untruth and contradiction is here? we need not then enquire what spirit had the guidance of your pen. It is evident enough, that it was he, who once undertooke to [Page 179]be a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahabs Prophets. For that Christ is a King, it is unquestionable: Where is he that is borne King of the Jewes? said the wise men, Matth. 2. ver. 2. And Saint Matthew, and Saint Luke have given us his regall genealogy, have registred his princely parentage. At his birth then he was a King autho­ritative, as Divines speake. The Authority of a King did then of right belong unto him: but he was not then, nor hath been since, a King executive, by putting his royall Authority in execution, Neither have I said it, but the contrary, for my words are [but— considering this we may justly doubt, whether he hath as yet executed the office of a King,] yea that our Saviour as man, as the Sonne of David, hath not yet executed the office of a King, is the very hinge of the difference we are now entring upon; for you hold that our Saviours reigning as the Sonne of David, is to be fulfil­led while he is in heaven, where and when he was not to restore the Kingdome to Israel: and we hold, that his reigning as man, as the Sonne of David, is to be fulfilled on earth, at his next ap­pearing, when and where he is to restore the Kingdome to Isra­el: In this then, is our disagreement, and not our agreement, as you report. And seeing you affirme [that he hath executed his Kingly office, for you say, (though falsely) in all which we agree] How can you conceive, that he doth now reigne? when as that which is already done, cannot possibly be as yet in doing, or to doing. It seemes by this therefore that you neither rightly un­derstand what we, nor what your owne side doe hold of our Sa­viours Kingdome: and yet as I take it, you are the man, that uttered this selfe-conceited query, [Whether doe they understand the differences betwixt Jewes and Christians? pag. 1.] This is one untruth, to wit, [That I have granted, that Christ hath executed his Kingly office,] The next is, [That I have said, that he sits on a Throne in heaven as man] which though it be in it selfe a truth: for Christ himselfe saith of himselfe, and am set downe with my Fa­ther in his Throne, Rev. 3. ver. 21. Yet it is not true, that I have said these words; for thus I have said, [that the place where he now sits is the Fathers Throne, a Throne in which he hath no proper in­terest, but as God.] These are your misreports of what I have idsa to which we may adde, your affirming that it hath not been pro­ved, that the Prophets have spoken of a Kingdome on earth; [Page 180]when as the Prophecies which I have alledged for it, are so plaine, that you left them, as one afraid to behold their evidence. Now your contradictions follow: for having also falsely affirmed that this Proposition, [Christ sits on a Throne in heaven, as man,] is one thing [...]bout which we disagree, you thus descant on it. [If these words, as man, be understood according to the Logicall accep­tation it may be granted.] Thus farre you affirme that according to the Logicall acceptation, Christ sits on a Throne in heaven, as man: and yet you subjoyne presently [for what agreeth unto a­ny man as man, belongeth unto all men, and indeed i [...] belongeth not un­to all men to sit on the throne of Majesty.] Whereby you deny, that according to the Logicall acceptation, Christ sits on a throne in heaven as man; It followes, [and neverthelesse Christ sits at the right hand of the Father as God-Man, or Mediatour.] Here likewise you affirme, that Christ sits on a Throne in heaven as man, though not onely as man, but as God too: and yet you im­mediately subjoyne [and in this sense we deny this assertion (to wit, that Christ sits on a Throne in heaven as man) as it seemes this Au­thor takes it.] But surely this Author hath not spoken the words, and yet he will not deny that Christ doth fit there as man, lest he should deny what Christ himselfe, and the Apostles have said, neither will he affirme that Christ sits there any otherwise then as God-man, or Mediatour; although his sitting doth properly belong unto him as man onely. But you have said, [that Christ both sits, and sits not there, in a logicall acception, and that he sits there as God-man, and yet not as man.] Thus contrary are you to your selfe, and withall as contrary to the truth in misapplying your distinction. For whereas you say [It may be granted, that Christ sits on a throne in heaven as man, if these words be understood accor­ding to the logicall acceptation of them] it is notoriously false: for the words [as man] in this sense doe imply somewhat essentially belonging unto man which cannot be affirmed of Christs fitting on a Throne in heaven, to wit, that it doth essentially belong un­to his humane nature; for then it should inseparately belong un­to him, and to all other men besides; this then you should have deny'd, and affirm'd onely that he sits there, as such a man as Me­diatour. Put you, out of your great skill in Logique, (in which you will allow me no insight) have first affirmed both members [Page 181]of your distinction, and presently deny'd both: such a subtile or rather simple discourse have you extracted out of your logicall principle. And that the Reader may see how unseasonable and unreasonable you have alledged this Philosophicall rule, as well as the Propheticall and Apostolicall writings and revelations, he must know; that this maxime, [what agreeth unto any man a [...] man, belongeth unto all men,] is generally true onely of meere man in opposition to other creatures; and not of our Saviour, who is both God and man; and so as well distinguisht by his humane properties from his divine nature, and by his essentiall attributes from other creatures, as by his mediatory offices from other men. Wherefore it followes not, that what belongs unto Christ as man, belongs unto all men: because we usually say, that all that belongs to Christ, as man; which belongs not to him as God; which appertaines to his humane, and not unto his divine na­ture. Whether it be proper to him as man, in opposition to other creatures, as to laugh, and to be borne of a woman, or com­mon also to other creatures, as to be hungry, and thirsty, to eate and drinke, to walke, to weepe, to groane, &c. Or proper to him as such a man, as Mediatour, in opposition to other men: As to be borne of a Virgine, to dye for our sinnes, to rise againe for our justification, to sit on a Throne in heaven, and to reigne vi­sibly on earth over all Nations. These and such like we say, doe not in propriety of speech, belong unto Christ as God, but as man because they are the properties of his humane nature. As on the contrary, it belongs unto him as God, and not as man, to be equall with the Father, to be infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, &c. And thus much for your answer in grosse, which is indeed a very grosse answer. You goe on to catch at particulars, which you thus alledge.

Reply.

It is true that the text saith [whose captives they were] but see­ing the deliverance which the Prophecy foreshewes hath not been hitherto accomplished, we may truely say [whose captives they are] and therefore there is no such great difference in this change, as you pretend For unlesse you can prove, that the whole Nation of the Jewes▪ whose redemption this Prophecy doth con­ceane, as these words [for the Lord will have mercy upon Jacob, and will yet chuse Israel,] doe shew: Vnlesse, I say, you can prove, that the whole Nation, that all the Tribes have been set in their owne I and, and a [...] their returne thither have brought strangers with them, whom they have, possessed there for servants and handmaids, and have ruled there over their oppressours, over those who formerly ruled over them, (which I am sure you can­not doe) it is not very materiall, whether we say, whose cap­tives they were, or, whose captives they are. And if there be a­ny difference in the change, it is onely because the Prophets ex­pression doth seeme to point to that last generation of the Nati­ons, under whom the Jewes shall remaine captives immediately before their deliverance. But because you could not shew the ac­complishment of this Prophecy touching the Jewes, you tell us that Interpreters doe shew the accomplishment of the Prophecy touching the Assyrian, at the end of this chapter; and that that Prophecy speakes not of them, whose captives the Jewes now are, No? Doe none of the Jewes then continue captives in Assy­ria? surely the reports and writings of Travellers and Traffick­ers in those parts doe testifie the contrary. And what though the Emperiall power hath been translated from one Nation to ano­ther, since the Jewes were carried captives by the Assyrian? yet may we truely affirme that the Jewes remaining in that Coun­trey, are now captives to the Assyrian, because by the Assyrian in the Prophecy, is meant the Inhabitant of Assyria (whither the Jewes were first carried captives) of whom the Lord hath said, I will breake the Assyrian in my Land, and upon my mountaines tread him under foot, th [...] shall his yoake depart fr [...] off them (that i [...], from [Page 183]off the Jewes) and his burden from off their shoulders. And have Interpreters shewed the accomplishment of this according to the Prophets meaning? Me thinkes then you should not have hid it from us; for the story is worth the hearing, which can shew when the Jewes were in their owne Land, wholly set free from the bondage which the Assyrian first brought them into; and the Assyrian himselfe made subject to them. And what though no Jewes were now captives in Assyriae? what were this to the aforesaid Prophecy touching the Jewes redemption, which speakes indefinitely of their deliverance from their oppressours: and of their taking them captives, whose captives they were, and not particularly of the Assyrian, or of any other Nation? It fol­lowes [neither know we whose captives they are, seeing they live as free Subjects wheresoever they are.] But doe you know that God calls them captives? and their dwelling in strange Countreys a cap­tivity? this then would have made you account them captives too, if you had had but a graine of that divine reverence towards Gods word, of which you would make others beleeve that you have no small measure. And what was it that made the Jewes captives at first? was it not the losse of their Countrey, and their living under the dominion of another people? and doth not this still continue upon them? wherein then are they now lesse captives then they were heretofore? what priviledges have they now, which they enjoyed not under Nebuchadnezzar; Cy­rus, D [...]mius, Artaxenxes, Ahasuerus, and others? It seemes then, that you take them not for captives, unlesse they should be put under great slavery, under an Egyptian bondage. This indeed were to make their captivity more grievous and burdensome unto them, but captives they are with [...]ut this; and God onely knows how soone also the civill power under which they live may be turned against them.

Reply.

It is manifest, that the faithfull before Christs incarnation, could say also as well as we, The life which we now live, we live by faith in the Sonne of God, and Christ lives in us. For they were bap­tized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea: and did eate the same spirituall meate, and drinke the same spirituall drinke which we doe, (for they dranke of the spirituall rocke that followed them, and that rocke was Christ) 1 Cor. chap. 10. ver. 2, 3, 4. So that if you will call the adoption, sanctification, regeneration, and justifi­cation of the Saints [a reigning,] which the Apostle calls [a li­ving,] Christ doth no otherwise reigne over them now, then he did from the beginning of the world, to wit, by his holy Spirit. But the reigne in qu [...]stion, is his reigning visibly in his humane nature on earth: In which sense it is, (and for which end it was) that he was borne a King, an heire apparant to the Throne of David. For unlesse he had been to reigne as man on earth, and as the Sonne of David over Israel, there had been no more neces­sity of his being borne of that Tribe and Family of the Jewes, which had sole interest, and title to the Crowne of Israel; to qualifie him for the execution of his Kingly office in your spi­rituall sense (for the distributing of his Spirit unto, and the gui­ding of the Church therewith) then there was of his being born of the Tribe of Levi, to fit him for the execution of his Priestly office, in laying down his life for our sine, and making intercessi­on for us now unto the Father. And as Herods destroying of the Infants of purpose to destroy our Saviour, that he might there­by translate the Kingdome of Israel from the House of David, and fasten it to himselfe and his Posterity: had been a plot as [Page 185]sottish, as it was savage, if he had not understood that the Scep­ter did belong onely to our Saviour: So doubtlesse if he had not therein truely conceived what King Christ should be, the Evan­gelists would as well have recorded, that Herods misapprehension of our Saviours Kingdome, was the occasion of his bloudy fact, as he hath related his malicious attempt, to defeate our Saviour of his right. And although we doe not say, that this Kingdome of our Saviour on earth, is all the reward of that contempt and torment which he hath endured for us: yet we say, that it is all the reward which he is to have here on earth. And we say also, that this reward is very agreeable, though not equall to his suf­ferings: that, I say, God hath very righteously appointed, that our Saviour should by the Posterity of the same persons be there worshipped and obeyed, where by their Predecessours he had been so scornefully & despightfully handl [...]de and that at the end of this reigne, he sh [...]uld there judge those persons also, who had formerly adjudged him to death. And the scriptures which you have brought, doe not gaine say this; for that Heb. 12.2. doth shew onely what reward he hath a [...]ready in heaven; and so doth the 9 ver. of the 2 chap. to the Phil. but the 10. and 11. verses doe rather shew what reverence he shall have in the Day of his reigne on earth, then what he hath already.

Reply.

Can any man choose but see in these words, two distinct Thrones? & will any man besides you say, that they may be both in heaven? What? Can our Saviour have an idle Throne in hea­ven? Throne in which he doth not now sit? For he now sits in his Fathers Throne; and when then shall he sit in that other Throne which you say may be in heaven besides his Fathers Throne? Certainely you cannot tell us; To put you out of doubt then, that the Throne which our Saviour here calls [my Throne] is a distinct Throne from the Fathers, and yet not in heaven: you [Page 186]must remember first, that this Throne is our Saviours Throne of judgment, which he shall receive, when he comes to judge the quicke and the dead, and therefore is to be on earth, and not in heaven. And secondly, That it is the Throne in which the Saints that overcome shall fit with him; & therfore also not the Throne where he now fits, because no man can sit in that but himselfe. And therefore also the Throne as well of his Monarchicall go­vernment, as of his judging the dead at his delivering up of the Kingdome to the Father: because it is in the time of his reigne onely, that the twelve Apostles shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel, as hath been shewed before.

Reply.

You have here strived all you could to obscure two texts, which I have quoted in the margine of my booke out of the 2 and 10 chap. of the Epist. to the Heb. that Heb. 2. ver. 8. is this, Thou hast put allthings [...] subjection under his seete. For in that he put [Page 187]all in subjection under him, be left nothing (saith the Apostle) that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. Out of which words you frame your objection thus [Here is a two-fold Ʋniuersality, all things are put under him, and, nothing is not put under him. What more would yee have? The last words say. [All things are not put under him] This is your form all argument, and your wise answer is this, [If the last words say so, they must be con­trary to the former words: but the words are, we see not all things put under him.] No, the words are, But now me see not yet all things put under him. And if they were as you here alledge them, why did you object before, that the last words say, [All things are not put under him] seeing you deny that they say so in you answer? I [...] not this, first to speak otherwise then the text speakes, and then to reprehend your self for mis-alledging of it? yet, this I hope, is neither false Logique, nor false Divinity in you. And what, I pray, is the meaning of these words? But now we see not yet all things put under him, if this be not the meaning of them, that all things are not put under him? And yet (by your leave) they are not contrary to the former words: for the Apostles former words, have relation to the Prophetie all expression of the Psalmist, who speakes of that which was to come, as if it had been then done. Who fore shews onely what great power was designed unto our Saviour by the Father; and not when the manifestation and ex­ercise thereof should be. So that, the whole meaning of Saint Pauls words is this, For in that God (hath fore appointed to) put all in subjection under, Christ, he (hath) left nothing. (he hath ex­empted no creature,) that is not (to be) put under him. But now we see not yet (this fulfilled, we see not yet) all things (actually) put under him. But we see (already) Jesus—for the sufferings of death crowmed with glory and honour. And thus the Apostle shews what of that Prophecy of David was then fulfilled in Christ after his ascension, to wit, this; that he was then [...]nod with glory and ho­nour. And what was not then fulfilled, to wit, this, the actuall subjection of all creatures unto him: which is not to be fulfilled till the manifestation of [the world to come,] to which time it is that the Apostle referres the accomplishment and exercise of Christs dominion over the creatures, which the Psalmist reveales; as the comparing of the 5. verse of this chapter, with that which [Page 188]follows, doth evidently declare. For having said in the 5. ver. For unto the Angels hath be not put in subjection the world to come, whereof he speakes, he presently assumes, But one in a certaine place testified, saying, What is man that thou art mindfull of him, or the Sonne of man that thou visitest him? &c. And thus this text shews not our Tenet to be foolish, but you to be as fallacious in see­king to obscure it, as your owne mouth doth pronounce you pro­phane, in calling that truth foolishnesse, which Christ, the Pro­phets, and Apostles have so plainely, and plentifully set forth. In the other Text, Heb. 10. ver. 12, 13. it is said, But this man af­ter he had offered one sacrifice for sinnes for ever, sate downe at the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his foot­stoole; that is, looking for the time in which his enemies shall be subdued unto him, as the 1. ver. of the 110. Psal. doth ma­nifest, where the words are these. The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand (donec ponam) untill I shall make, (not, un­till I have made) thy enemies thy footstoole. So that he sits not there while it is doing, but untill it must be done, untill the time or­dained for the accomplishment of it. All then that the Apostle affirmes in this text likewise to be already done is this, That Christ is sate downe at the right hand of God, as was foretold; but as for the other part of this prophecy, he saith plainely, That Christ now expects onely when it shall be fulfilled; and if this be not sufficient to make you confesse, that the enemies which David here prophecied of, are not yet made subject unto Christ; that which follows in the Psalme will put it beyond exception, for he nominates what enemies are here meant, the time when, and the manner how they are to be made Christ's footstoole. The enemies he speakes of, are men, the Kings and Heads of the earth, as we finde ver. 5, 6. The time when, is [the day of his pow­der.] The day in which the Jewes shall be as willing to receive him, as in the day of his poverty they were to be rid of him; as we learne ver. 3. Thy people shall be willing in the dry of they power. The manner how, is by an eminent destruction brought on these Kings, and their forces, as the 5 and 6. verses doe informe us also: which being compared with the latter part of the 19. chap. of the Revel. doe plainely shew that this destruction which David foretels, is the very same with that which Saint John [Page 189]there reveales: for that is to be effected at our Saviours descen­ding from heaven, and so is this; for it is to be at his comming againe from the right hand of the Father. And therefore here is a good ground too for another Throne, and that a Throne on earth. And your answer to this text is a meere contradicting of it; for whereas the Apostle saith, That Christ being sate downe at the right hand of God, expects till his enemies be made his footstoole. You say plainely, [that his enemies are made subject unto him, even his greatest enemies.] And for want of scripture to justifie this an­swer, you subjoyne, [as it is granted before,] and so father it on me. But you shew not where it is granted, neither can I imagine what you meane by it, unlesse you meane that it is granted by my alledging of the same Apostles words, Phil. 2. ver. 15. to wit, That Christ having (by his passion) spoiled principalities and pow­ers, made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in himselfe. But surely though it may be true, That Christ after the accom­plishment of the worke of our Redemption on the crosse, trium­phed over the evill spirits in his owne person, making a shew of them openly, that is, leading them captives in the time of his tri­umph; (as some expositours understand it) yet it is not true, that these principalities are the enemies recorded in the 110. Psalme, whence Saint Paul tooke the foresaid text. Neither is it true, that the evill Angels were then held in a continued subje­ction by Christ, for the space of a 1000. yeares (as they shall be in the time of his reigne on earth, when he casts them into the bottomlesse pit, when he shuts them up from deceiving the Nati­ons, as it is foretold Revel. 20.2, 3.) For as before Christs pas­sion, Satan could no more deceive the elect, then he can since; so hee hath been no more straitened of his liberty in walking up and downe in the earth, nor of his power in tempting men un­to sinne, since Christs triumphing over him in his owne person; then he was before, (if he hath so much) for it is of the time un­der the Gospell that it is said, Revel. 12.12. Woe to the Inhabitants of the earth, and of the sea, for the devill is come downe unto you, ha­ving great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. 'Tis of this time, that Saint Peter saith, Our Adversary the Devill, as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devoure, 1. Ep. chap. 5. ver. 8. And 'tis that we may be able to stand against [Page 190]the wiles of this enemy, that Saint Paul adviseth us, to put on the while armour of God, Ephes. 6.11. &c. Yea it is in the Christian Church, that some were to give heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, as Saint Paul writes, 1. Tim. 4.1. and that there should be false teachers who privily should bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them. As Saint Peter writes, 2. Ep. 2. chap. 1. ver. &c. And they are the Christians of the last dayes, of whom S. Paul foretells, 2 Tim. 3.1. That they shall be lovers of their owne selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphe­mers, disobedient to Parents, unthankefull, unholy, without naturall affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitours, heady high-minded, lovers of pleasures more then lovers of God; having a forme of godlinesse, but denying the power thereof. And if these be the fruites of Satan's subjection and in prisonment, what then are the fruites of his power and free­dome? Doubtlesse Satan cannot be held in subjection, to be bound up, (as he must be in the time of Christ a reigne) as long as new enemies doe arise against Christ, in his poore members, seeing it is onely through the liberty and power that this Arch-makebate hath in the world, that good men suffer for the truth, and evill men oppose it; that I say, men are kept from a generall peace and unity over the whole earth. And therefore in confessing, [that new enemies still arise against Christ] you doe Italy gaine­say, what you before falsly affirmed, to wit, that the evill An­gels Christs greatest enemies are now held in subjection by him that they are now deprived both of their power and liberty to doe, hurt, to rebell against Christ, and to raise persecution against those that are Christs; as they shall be, I say not in this time of the world, but in that in which Christ shall reigne personally on earth. Yea if Christs enemies mentioned in the foresaid Psalme, be now made his footstoole, if they be now wholly subdued unto him, (for this is the meaning of their being made his footstoole) how can new ones still arise?

Reply.

It doth ill become a deceive to cry out against deceit. Our Saviours words Revel. 3.21. are very plaine, they are no para­ble: To him that overcometh, (saith he) will I grant to sit with mee in my Throne, (loe here a Throne in which the Saints shall sit with Christ, it follows) Even as I also overcame, and am set downe with my Father in his Throne. (Loe here a Throne in which no man can sit but himselfe,) and therefore here are two distinct Thrones. But you object, [That one and the same throne, is called the throne of God, and of the Lambe: and therefore say you, his Fa­thers throne is his owne throne.] And therefore say we, you are slipt from the matter in question: for whereas you should prove, that the Throne, which Revel. 3. Christ calls, [my throne] is not a distinct Throne from that which he calls [the Fathers throne] you prove onely that the Fathers Throne, is Christs owne Throne, which no Christian will gainsay. For it is his, by proper interest, as he is God: and by purchased interest, (as I may say) as the Lambe of God, as a crucified Saviour: and yet it is not that Throne which properly belongs unto him as he is man; as he is the Sonne of David. For this he is to receive on earth, where others, where they that overcome shall sit with him. And in opposition to this Throne on earth it is, that he calls the Throne in heaven, the Fathers throne, Revel. 3.21. which Throne Revel. 22.3. (after the expiration of the time of his reigne, on Davids Throne) he calls the Throne of God, and of the Lambe. And so your argument being mistaken, the scriptures alledged to con­firme it, are of no force to beare downe the truth of a double Throne mentioned, Rev. 3.21.

Reply.

You here fall backe to somewhat that you had left behinde; but unlesse you had proposed a wiser challenge, it had been more for your credit to have let it alone. For is it not strange, that one so well read in the scripture, as you seeme to be, should call on us to [shew any text that speakes of Christs two thrones?] Sure­ly we have shewed you already one unanswerable text, Rev. 3.21. and yet you will not beleeve it. To shame you then, if not to satisfie you, we will shew you others. For what are the Thrones of which Saint John saith, Rev. 20.4. And I saw thrones, and they sate upon them, and judgement was given unto them? Are not these the Thrones in which they that overcome shall sit with our Saviour? And are not the Thrones on which the Disciples shall sit, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel, some of these Thrones? deubtlesse they are. For as it is said, Matth. 19.28. That the Disciples shall sit on thrones, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel, which necessarily shews a government over others: so it is said, Revel. [...]0.4. That they sat on thrones, and judgment was given unto them; not, on them: that is, They were made Judges over others, not others over them. And where should the Saints departed sit on seates exercising judgment over others, but on earth? and when but in the time of our Saviours Kingdome, (who shall bring them with him) when, I say, but in the time of his 1000. yeares reigne, as it is Luke 22.29.30. and Rev. 20.4? For in heaven they cannot sit judging any, because there are none to be judged by them there are none but themselves; and at the judgement of the dead, they shall not judge any, (any otherwise then by way of approbation) because this is our Saviours privi­ledge onely, as his words, John 5.22.27. and the single throne, Rev. 20.11. doe declare: (and indeed it is not likely, that the [Page 193]Saints who are saved onely by our Saviours righteousnesse, shall pronounce glory to themselves, and perdition unto others.) The time therefore in which our Saviours Throne shall be accompa­nied with the Thrones of the Saints, must needes be the time of his 1000, yeares reigne on earth, after which time, and the little season of the selfe-ruining insurrection of the Nations that must follow it; he is to sit alone on the white Throne spoken of Rev. 20.11. to give sentence on the dead, and (taking the full number of the elect with him into the new Jerusalem) to sit a­gaine in the Throne of God, and of the Lambe, in the height of glory, Rev. 22.3. And thus we have laid before you other texts, which shew that our Saviour shall have a Throne on earth: and consequently, that he hath another Throne, besides that where he now si [...]s. And that his Throne on earth is a Throne given un­to him, the words of the Angel Gabriel, Luke 1.32. doe wit­nesse, And the Lord shall give unto him the Throne of his Father Da­vid. And his owne words, John 5 27. And hath given him au­thority to execute judgement also, because he is the Sonne of man. But you by your wily, if not rather weake arguing, would perswade us to thinke, that Christ cannot have another Throne given him, because the Throne where he now sits, is a given Throne. Which is just as true a reasoning as this; King James was first crowned King of Scotland, therefore he could not afterward be crowned King of England.

Reply.

1. Doubtlesse you take this for a very witty comparison; but the truth is, it is a very ignorant one. For the force of this reason is not as you make it say, [that Christ shall not be a King till all his Subjects be called, and overcome.] But it is this, That Christ shall not receive his Kingdome, till all those Subjects, those glo­rified Saints which shall come with him in his Kingdome, are called, and have overcome. So that the forme is like this, Fer­dinand shall not be Emperour, till all those Subjects, those No­bles that shall waite on him at his coronation, be borne, and able to attend him. And Ferdinand being a mortall King, is to be ac­companied by mortall attendants; but our Saviour being an im­mortall King, is to be accompanied with immortall attendants; with all those beleevers which have already, or shall hereafter overcome the temptations, and afflictions of this world, before his appearing, and his Kingdome: which Saints being but a part (though the choisest part) of our Saviours Subjects, are indeed ridiculously compared by you to all Ferdinands Subjects borne and unborne.

2. Though the prayer of the Saints, Rev. 6.10. doth not men­tion our Saviours Kingdome on earth, yet seeing the revenge they call for, is deferred till the number of those that shall be slaine for the word of God, be fulfilled; we know that it is not to be executed till our Saviours comming. And in what manner it is then to be done by him, the 14. chap. of the Rev. from the 14. ver. to the end, doth declare. And the 19. chap. also at 17. ver. &c. Where the fowles of heaven are summon'd to the Supper of the great God: to eate the flesh of Kings, and the flesh of Captaines, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all both bond and free, both small and great. And surely this judgement on the Saints enemies, is to be a tempo­rall judgement on earth: at our Saviours comming with the Saints to receive his Kingdome, as the 11. and 14 verses of this Prophecy doe shew, and not an eternall judgement on their bodies and soules in hell: which is not to se [...]ze on them, till the giving up of Christs Kingdome at the Judgment of the dead, till above a 1000 yeares after this overthrow, (in which the fowles are to feast on their carkasses,) as in the 20 chap. of the Rev. at the 11 verse, &c. it is revealed.

3. That text Rev. 11.15. [speakes not, you say, of a proper King­dome of Christ, but of the Kingdome of our Lord and his Christ] And by this reckoning our Saviour hath no proper Kingdome at all, and consequently is not properly a King: for what Kingdome belongs to Christ, which may not as well be called the King­dom of our Lord, as the Kingdom of his Christ? But certainly the Kingdom which this text saith shall become the Kingdomes of Christ, are the Kingdomes of this world: and therefore King­domes on earth, and proper Kingdomes, both which you deny. And they are to become Christs Kingdomes at the sounding of the seventh Trumpet, and not before, that is, at the time of his appearing againe: and therefore they are to be his to governe as he is man; and so by your owne confession, to be properly his. Although then we grant, that these words, [the Kingdomes of our Lord, and of his Christ, doe intimate a distinction of persons, and unity of power,] which is more then Pareus grants, (who enclines to a distinction of natures, and unity of persons,) yet it will not follow from hence, that the Kingdomes of this world, [Page 196]which our Saviour at his comming shall receive into his owne possession, as he is man, shall not be his proper Kingdomes. For they are said to become the Kingdomes of our Lord, not because they are not now his: but first because at the accomplished do­nation, and actuall subjection of them unto Christ, God shall more marvellously declare his supreame power over them, then ever he did. And secondly, because they shall then be his after a more speciall manner, then they are now his; because I say, he shall then be worshipped and obeyed in them all, accor­ding to the righteous rule of his owne Lawes. And yet they are said to become the Kingdomes of Christ onely, in regard of the administration, of the immediate government of them. For Christ alone shall then be visible King over them, as now others are: and therefore shall be as properly a King on earth, as any of them who now beare rule in these Kingdomes. And this the next words of the text doe confirme, which say not, and they, but and he, (that is Christ alone) shall reigne for ever and ever. And there­fore that text Rev. 2.26. is very pertinently cited, for proofe of that thing which shall be on earth, and is not now in heaven. For our Saviour (though then in heaven) did not say, that he had given the Saints in heaven, or Saints on earth, power over the Nations on earth, but that he would give them power over them. And surely we cannot thinke, that the Martyrs, Rev. 6.10. would call on God to hasten the time for the avenging of their bloud, on them that dwell on the earth: if they could now do it themselves, if they could now rule the Nations with a rod of iron, & break them to shivers, as a Potters vessell. Yea, why have the Saints on earth been so long time persecuted, afflicted, tormented, and still are, if the Saints in heaven have power to deliver them, and tread down their enemies? And why are there still so many large heathen Kingdomes, not yet subdued to the faith, or government of the faithfull, if the Saints in heaven can rule them as they please? Certainely if you can make this good, that our Saviour hath al­ready given to the Saints in heaven, that power over the Nations which he here speakes of, to wit, a conquering and commanding power, a power to rule them with a rod of iron: you will helpe the Papists to a better ground for their supplication unto Saints, then was ever yet thought of by themselves. For doubtlesse if [Page 197]the Saints in heaven have now command over this inferiour world, they must needes be acquainted with all passages of im­portance in it, as Kings and their Agents are with the affaires of State in the Kingdomes over which they rule: and so may wel be sought to, if nor for spirituall, yet for outward and temporall advice, succour, and defence.

Reply.

It might have been more for my purpose, you say, to have concealed this text. And why? because you have nothing to say to it, [that it makes the twelve tribes of Israel the persons iudged?] What? doe you thinke then that in our Saviours Kingdome, in the restored Kingdome of Israel, there shall be no government? or that it is a token of the unrighteousnesse of a Kingdome to have governours in it? Certainely unrighteous Judges are a ready meanes to make a Kingdome unrighteous: to make charity waxe cold, and envy and contention grow hot. But upright Judges are as effectuall a meanes to preserve righteousnesse in a Kingdome, to cherish and strengthen love and unity, and to chase away all hatred and dis­sention: and how righteous then shall that Kingdome be, where our Saviour himselfe shall be King; and the Disciples and other Saints governours under him? And surely seeing the twelve Tribes of Isael cannot be taken for the reprobate, nor for the Saints already departed, and to depart, or to overcome before our Saviours appearing, (for these must be Judges, as well as the [Page 198]Disciples, as our Saviour himselfe doth testifie, Rev. 3.21. To him that over cometh will I grant to sit with me in my Throne, that is, to have power over Nations, as it is Rev. 2.26, 27. and to reigne on earth, as it is Rev. 5.10.) Seeing, I say, the twelve Tribes of Isra­el can be taken for neither of these; they must needes be taken for the Kingdome of Israel, which is againe to be restored on earth, where onely the glorifi [...]d Saints can sit as Judges over o­thers. For in the new Jerusalem they are all to be partakers of the same glory, (though not of the same measure of glory,) they are all to have equall interest in the tree of life, and river of life; and therefore there shall neither be need of judging, nor any temporall possessions, and affaires to be judged of. For the hea­vens and the earth that now are, and all the creatures on the earth, (being to last no longer then the first death shall last) shall be then all dissolved. And those new ones mentioned, Rev. 21.1. (that new heaven, I say, from which, and that new earth to which the new Jerusalem shall descend,) created in their place. You tell us next, [that all the texts quoted on the margine speake of the Kingdome of God, except that of Luke 24 42, 43. where is mention of no King­dome, but of eating and drinking after Christs resurrection, &c. But doe not the other texts speake also of something to be done in the Kingdome of God, as well as of the Kingdome of God? Surely our Saviour saith Matth. 26.29. I say unto you, that I will not drinke henceforth of the fruite of the Vine, untill that day, when I shall drinke it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome, (as it is Marke 14.25. in the Kingdome of God,) and Luke 22.15. he saith, I have earnestly desired to eate this Passeover with you before I suffer, for I say un [...]o you, Henceforth I will not ease of it any more, untill it be fulfill'd in the Kingdome of God. And he tooke the cup, and gave thankes, and said, Take this and divide it among you, for I say unto you, I will not drinke of the fruite of the Vine, untill the Kingdome of God become. Loc, here is mention of eating and drinking too: and that of our Saviours eating the Passeover, and drinking wine againe with his Disciples, but not untill the Kingdome of God be come; And therefore unlesse you will deny, that the Kingdome of God shall come, you cannot deny that our Saviour and his Disciples shall again eate and drinke together: nor consequent­ly that the Kingdome of God, is meant of our Saviours Kingdom [Page 199]on carth. Of that Kingdome, of which he said to his Disciples, Luke 22.28. Yee are they which have continued with me in my temp­tations, therefore I appoint unto you a Kingdome, as my Father hath ap­pointed unto me, that ye may eate and [...]rinke at my table in my King­dome, &c. For where is a Lambe for the Passeover? where growes the Vine, but on earth? and when could the Disciples eate the Passeover, and drinke wine againe, with our Saviour at his table, but after the resurrection of their bodies? And that text Luke 24.42.43. was quoted onely to shew that glorified bodies can eate, and consequently, that the denyall of this can be of no force against the proper sense of our Saviours words: whose single affirmation of his eating and drinking with his Disciples, after his next appearing, ought to be of more account with us, and to gaine more beliefe from us, then all other mens negation of it. And this selfe same Kingdome of our Saviour on earth, is sometimes called, the Kingdome of the Father, because it is appoin­ted unto him by the Father: and sometimes Christs Kingdome, because as man he is to reigne visibly in it: and sometimes the Kingdome of God, because Gods power shall be revealed after a wonderfull manner at the setting of it up, and because none but God, Lawes shall be observed in it: and sometimes the Kingdome of heaven, because the chiefe governours of it shall come from heaven, and because it shall be of an heavenly condition, in regard of the holnesse and righteousnesse thereof: for as our Saviour and the glorified Saints shall then as perfectly doe Gods will on earth, as it is now done by them in heaven; so shall their righ­teous judgement occasion a more righteous dealing amongst all others over the whole earth, then was ever yet observed in any particular Kingdome.

Reply.

It may well be doubted, whether pride or choler did most o­versway your judgement in this answer. For though I willingly confesse my selfe to be a man not worthy to be numbred amongst the learned: yet unlesse I should make as little conscience of ly­ing for an advantage, as you doe; you cannot chuse but know [Page 199]what schools I was bred in: for the title page of my Book doth pub­lish it to the world. And doubtlesse these schooles have ever yeel­ded men as eminent for judgement, as righteous in their life, and as zealous for the truth, as those that you have been bred in; or a­ny other schooles in Christendome besides. But that which you here first indict me for, is this [T [...]ar I abuse rhetoric all termes, as literall sense for proper sense.] And I pray, what Divine doth not as often, or oftner, use literall sense for proper sense, then for the true sense, whether proper or figurative? and what is the mea­ning of literall sense, in this approved Axiome, but a proper sense? For doubtlesse there is no necessity that can compell us to leave the true sense of the scripture, although it may to leave the proper sense. And yet the axiome runnes thus: We must not for­sake the literall or proper sense, &c. which being rendred (accor­ding to your acceptation of the word literall) the true or proper sense, what sense will there be in the axiome? Your next censure is, [That I have contra-distinguished metaphoricall sense to figurative sense.] But it had been honest dealing to have shewed the place, or else not to have said so: for an accusation without proofe doth onely declare the plaintiffe a slanderer. Your third complaint is [That I keepe no Logicall canon, in arguing.] No Sir, it is not for e­very one to doe this; it is for such as you are, for such as are scholars; such men will observe a canonicall method in argu­ing: and make as excellent use of logicall maximes, as you have done pag. 30. of this maxime, [What agreeth unto any man as man, belongeth unto all men.] The last censure is, [That I never learned such interpretation of scripture, in any approved schoole.] Surely the interpretation of scripture, is to be learned from God, and not from man; for that interpretation is most true, and infallible, when the coherence of the text doth point out the sense, or when one scripture doth expound another of the same nature. And yet I goe not alone, but am accompanied with many approved Authors, bred in approved schooles, who have all confessed the same truth that I speake for, and stucke to that proper interpre­tation of these scriptures, which I follow. For not to speake of the primitive Christians, or of many of the Fathers after them, there have been many approved men for learning in these latter t [...]nes, that have been witnesses of this truth, amongst whom, are [Page 200] Brightman, Alstedius, Wendelinus, and Mede, whom you your selfe pag. 14. commend for a renowned Author, although you shake off his choisest proofes, as easily as Sampson shooke off the Philistins cords: and breake through his strongest arguments, as forcibly as Sampson did through the gates of Azzah, which he carried a­way in a triumphing manner: such wonders doe you worke by your canonicall, (or rather carelesse) arguing. And yet for all this, you must give me leave to make so bold with you againe, as to tell you: That as the plainesse of this text in hand, and of the fore-cited scriptures, doth compell us to acknowledge the proper sense of them; so I trust both the love of the truth, the feare of God, and a desire to keepe a good conscience, will ever constraine us to sticke to it. For it is manifest by your taunting termes, that you could finde neither scripture contradicting, nor necessity forbidding the proper sense of our Saviours words; for the confirmation whereof, this rule is here alledged.

Reply.

Here you startle the Reader with a very foule exclamation, but an evill tongue, as it doth not become you, so it will nothing benefit you. Yea it deepely staines you innocency before God, very much impaires your reputation amongst men, (especially [Page 201]upright men) and sets up your wounded conscience as an irre­concileable Judge against you. Looke into the Epistle of Saint James, chap. 3. ver. 6. and you may see both the abominable off spring and originall of it. So is the tongue, saith he, amongst the members, that it defileth the whole body, and settethou fire the course of nature, and it is set on fire of hell. That therefore it may not burne hereafter in those flames, from whence it is now too much inflamed, thinke seriously on this passage, and from henceforth give better language to others, though your enemies, then you have done to me for telling you the truth. Now as for your an­swer, I con [...]sse these texts to be Davids words, and that there are some metaphoricall phrases in them. But I deny that they have any resemblance with the civill affaires of an earthly Kingdome, or that there is any comparison to be made betwixt them and our Saviours saying, Luke 22.28. so that the impudence you speake of may well recoile on your selfe. For the text Psal. 16.11. shews onely, that the fulnesse of alljoy and delight, is in the enjoyment of the sight of God, and to be [at the right hand of God] doth be­token the highest place of honour and glory in heaven, which is proper to our Saviour, who is said to sit at the right hand of God, in allusion to a custome amongst men, who are wont to set those whom they will most honour, whom they most delight in, at their right hands. And that Text Psa. 17.8. shews that David after the resurrection, when he shall have a glorified body, as Christ now hath, shall be perfectly happy, shall be as he would be. For these words [to awake after thy likenesse,] are all one with those of Saint Paul in 1 Cor. 15. 42, 43, 44. To rise in incorruption, in glory, in power, to rise with a spirituall body. For if we have been planted to­gether in the likenesse of Christs death, we shall be also in the likenesse of his resurrection, saith the same Apostle, Rom. 6.5. and because we are laid into our graves as one that lies downe in his bed to sleepe, and shall be raised out of them, as one that riseth out of his bed from sleepe, therefore it is, that the Prophet useth, [awake] in stead of [arise] And the text Psal. 36.8. is referred by Muscu­lus to Gods bountifull provision in this life for all men indiffe­rently; and by Calvine better, as well to the outward and tem­porall, as to the spirituall and eternall benefits of God towards the faithfull, his words are, Some restraine it to spirituall graces, but [Page 202]unto mee it seemeth a more likelyhood, that under it are comprehended all Gods benefits, that pertaine as well to the use of this present life, as to the eternall & heavenly blessednesse. And so refers it as well to joyes on earth, as to joyes in heaven. And happily seeing the Prophet makes mention here of the house of God, it is best understood of the great comfort which men shall receive through Gods loving kindnesse towards them, in the time of our Saviours Kingdome on earth, when Jerusalem and the Temple of the Lord shall again be rebuilt, and all Nations shall flow unto it, as it is, Isai. 2.2. or as it is, Zech. 14.16. shall goe up from yeare to yeare to worshippe the King the Lord of Hosts, and to keepe the feast of Tabernacles. When I say, in the mountaine of the Lords house, in the restored Jerusa­lem, the Lord of Hosts shall make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined; And shall destroy the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vaile that is spread over all Nations, Isai. 25.6. &c. And besides, every understanding man knowes, that [to drinke of the river of thy pleasures] is a metaphoricall expression, seeing plea­sures are not the nourishment of the body, and so properly, and corporally dranke of; but belonging to the soule, to which they are as comfortable, as sweete and wholesome waters to a thirsty body. But to drinke wine, to eate the Passeover, to eate and drinke at our Saviours table, to eate bread in the Kingdome of God, to sit on seates, and judge the twelve Tribes of Israel, are all proper expres­sions, and so quite different from the other. And as spirituall pleasures appertaine to the Saints on earth, as well as to the Saints in heaven; so doe eating and drinking agree as well with glori­fied, as unglorified bodies, as well with the state of immortality, as with the state of mortality. For our Saviour did eate on earth, (at his Disciples table) after his resurrection; and he saith, that the glorified Saints shall eate and drinke with him at his table, after their resurrection. And further he saith, that after the last Judgement, there is in the new Jerusalem the fruit of the tree of life, to be eate of; and the water of the river of life to be dranke of; his words are, To him that over cometh will I give to eate of the tree of life in the midst of the Paradise of God, Rev. 2.7. and againe, Rev. 22.14, 15. Blessed are they that doe his Commandements, that they may have right to the tree of life. And whosoever will, let him take [Page 203]of the water of life freely. And indeed seeing God creates nothing in vaine, it were vaine to thinke, that the tree of life should beare twelve manner of fruites monthly, unlesse they were to be fed on: or that the river of the water of life should runne through the midst of the streete in the holy Jerusalem, if it were not as well to be dranke of by the Saints in glory, as to nourish the tree of life on the sides of it. And therefore unlesse you can bring bet­ter proofes to shew that I am misinformed, or doe misinforme, then these texts of the Psalmist, or any you have cited hitherto, you your selfe will be found an over-hasty misinformer against the truth.

Reply.

1. The reason which you alledge against the distance of time betwixt the resurrection of the godly and ungodly, to wit [that the last clause of the 22 verse, So in Christ shall all be made alive, is not properly and univocally meant of the ungodly, whose rising shall be to the accomplishment of their second death;] this reason is a meere mistake, or rather a groundlesse untruth. For as in Dan. 12.2. the words, [Sleepe and Awake,] are indifferently applyed to the death and resurrection of the just and unjust; as in this chap. ver. 20. the word [Sleepe] is indifferently applyed to all that are dead; and ver. 12, 13.15, 16 21.29. [The dead] are opposed to the living in generall, to all that live a naturall life on earth; and so are meant of all that are departed out of this l fe, both e­lect and not elect. In like manner the word [Sh [...]ll be made alive,] ver. 22, is opposed onely to the first and naturall death of the bo­dy, to the corruptible state of it in the grave: and not to the spirituall death of the soul, or to the second and supernaturall death of the body; and consequently doth equally comprehend the resurrection of the good and bad: as the 21 verse doth fur­ther [Page 206]confirme, For since by man came death, (to all, both good and bad) by man came also the resurrection of the dead (of all, both good and bad.) So that the Apostle discoursing here of a proper and bodily resurrection, speakes onely of such a death, as is com­mon to all, (which is a bodily death,) and such a resurrection as is common to all; (which is a bodily resurrection.) And having proved the resurrection, and shewed also in what order it shall be fulfilled: towards the end of the chapter, he tells the Saints with what bodies they themselves shall arise, to wit, with incor­ruptible, with glorified, with spirituall bodies. And as for the text, in 1 Thes. 4.16, 17. it doth shew onely that the Saints which are living, at our Saviours comming, shall not be caught up to meete Christ, before those that are dead. For when the Saints who are dead, shall be raised out of their grayes, then the Saints that remaine alive shall together with them be caught up into the cloudes to meete the Lord. So that this order, (as you call it) is an order betwixt the Saints remaining alive at our Saviours com­ming, and the Saints deceased before his comming: and not an order touching the distinct rising of all those that are dead, which is that which Saint Paul affirmes in the 1 Cor. 15.23. &c. And whereas you would make it a matter incredible, that our Savi­our and the Saints shall come downe againe, from the aire, to abide so long space on earth, onely because it is said, [That they shall meete the Lord in the aire, and so shall ever be with the Lord.] You doe shew your selfe to be either very forgetfull of what you have read in Gods word, or that you tooke but little notice of it, when you did read it; For doth not Zech. 14.5. tell us, That the Lord shall come and all the Saints with him? Seeing then the Saints shall meete the Lord in the aire, as Saint Paul saith: and seeing also when they are met, the Lord shall come, and all the Saints with him, as the Prophet saith, whither shall they come, but from the aire to the earth? Surely whatsoever you or any other through your perswasion may imagine of it, Job makes no doubt of it. For chap. 19. ver. 25, 26, 27. he saith, I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though after my skinne, wormes destroy this body, yet in my fl [...]sh shall I see God: whom I shall see for my selfe, and mine eyes shall be­hold, and not another, though my reines be consumed within me. And [Page 207] Jeremiah seconds him, chap. 23. ver. 5. in expresse termes touch­ing our Saviours abode on earth. Yea seeing our Saviour at his comming with his heavenly host, shall take the Beast and false Prophet alive in battell, and make a feast of their Armies for the fowles of heaven, as it is revealed in the 19 chap. of the Revel. and tread them in the winepresse of his wrath, that the bloud shall come even unto the horse-bridles, by the space of a 1000 and 600 furlongs, as it is foretold Revel. 14.19, 20. Shall he descend to the earth to doe this, thinke ye, or shall he not? And why also may not the Saints, when they have met the Lord, as well be ever with him, though he first descend with them to reigne on earth, as if he should goe immediately backe with them into heaven? Nescis, haud dubio nescis.

2. You might well have spared this passage, unlesse you could have shewed, that I had markt any thing against the truth. But doth the Apostle prove them onely to be in an errour, who hold that none besides the Martyrs shall rise & reign with Christ at his coming? Surely he markes a word against those too, who hold that all the dead shall rise at Christ comming; for—every man, saith he, in his owne order, Christ the first-fruites, afterwards they that are Christs at his comming. Loe here the order of the Saints that dye before Christs appearing, is, to be the next that shall rise after Christ himselfe. And when then is the order of the rest of the dead; but when the time of Christs 1000 yeares reigne on earth, is finished? when the last enemy is destroyed, which is death? which shall not be utterly destroyed till the last resurre­ction, till all men be raised from the dead. For seeing the Apostle without any relation to the severall estates of the just and unjust, after their resurrection, speakes here onely of the rising of their bodies, which equally and univocally belongs to them all; why should we thinke, that he would not as well have mentioned the resurrection of the just, if they were to rise at the same time with these? if the words [But every man in his owne order] doe not in­timate any order? doe not intimate a priority of time betwixt the godly and ungodly, as well as they doe betwixt Christ and them?

3. If you were as able to justifie your accusations, as you are [Page 208]forward to accuse, there were no contending with you; but it is so common with you to awe the Reader with great words, when you have least to say to the purpose, that he is by this time well acquainted with your craft, and therefore your bare affir­ming that here is a contradiction, will be taken for no evidence. Although then the word [commeth] be not expressed in the ori­ginall, yet to make the sense compleate, this word, or a word equivalent to this, (as your owne translation doth witnesse) is here to be understood. For then, [or at that time, say you, is the end.] I pray at what time? at the time of our Saviours descen­ding? surely the Apostle answers not so: but when he shall have deli­vered up the Kingdome to God, even the Father: When he shall have put downe all rule, and all authority, and power, &c. So that the [Then] here is referred by Saint Paul, to these [Whens] which follow it, and not to the words foregoing, as you wrest it. And besides whereas the Apostle shews us, when the end shall be by these convertible expressions, When he shall have delivered up the King­dome to God: When he shall have put downe all rule, and all authority, and power: you skippe from this, and falsely and fallaciously in­ferre, [That the time when he shall deliver up the Kingdome, is, when they who are Christs shall rise at his comming:] so that according to your explication of the text, the words, [Then commeth the end] are superfluous, and the text should runne thus, Christ the first-fruites afterwards they that are Christ's at his comming, when he shall have delivered up the Kingdome, &c. And thus it appeares, how much this place of the Apostle doth puzzle you. And yet you tell us also, [That the 15 ver. doth teach us that Christ reigneth now, because it is said there, for be must reigne, &c.] But this is no truer then the rest that you have said. For the Apostle referres these words to the time after his comming, and not to the time that now is; so that the full meaning of his words, is this. After­wards they that are Christs at his comming, Then commeth the end, when (after his comming) he shall have delivered up the Kingdome to God; When (after his comming) he shall have put downe all rule, and all authority, and power; When (after his comming) the rest of the dead are risen. For he must reigne (after his comming) till he hath put all his enemies under his feete: And the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death, at the last resurrection of the dead. And whereas [Page 209]you adde that text Heb. 2.8. [Thou hast put all things under his feete, to prove also that Christ doth now reigne;] You doe very unad­visedly contradict your owne Tenet, and the Apostles words. For if all things are now actually put under him, then he doth not now reigne, seeing the Apostle saith, That he must reigne untill he hath put all his enemies under his feete, and no longer. And there­fore it is evident that those words, Heb. 2.8. are spoke in rela­tion to Gods fore-appointment of it, and not to the actuall per­formance of it: to Gods committing of that power to the Sonne by which he is now able to subdue all things unto himselfe, as it is Phil. 3.21. and not to the Sunnes putting of this power in exe­cution, which shall not be till his comming againe, as both the order and sense of Saint Pauls words here doe shew; and the voi­ces in heaven at the sounding of the seventh Trumpet, Rev. 11.15. And the thanksgiving of the Elders, ver. 17. doe confirme. And so the beginning and not the end of the administration of Christs Kingdome is to be when they who are dead in Christ, shall be made alive. And though these Saints shall dye no more, yet death the last enemy shall not be then utterly destroyed, for as much as none but these Saints shall then rise: and that the Jewes which are then to be delivered, and the Gentiles which shall be called at and through their deliverance, and those who are borne in the time of our Saviours reigne, shall be subject unto death as well as we, though not to the like persecution by men, or temptation from Satan, who is then to be bound up for the space of a 1000 yeares.

Reply.

Certainely experience doth joyne nothing together, but de­clares onely to us what God hath conjoyned, and doubtlesse what God hath conjoyned, Christ would not separate: and yet Luke 22.28. he saith, Yee are they which have followed mee in my temptations, therefore I appoint unto you a Kingdome, as my Father hath appointed unto me, that yee may eate and drinke at my table in my Kingdome, and sit on seates judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Which words, as they doe plainely distinguish the time of Christs temp­tations, from the time of his Kingdome; so they doe shew too, that the Apostles Kingdome was then onely appointed unto them by our Saviour, and not then enjoyed by them. And you cannot deny it, unlesse you will say, that the Disciples did then sit on seates, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel: or that Christ himselfe did then reigne; for it is his owne Kingdome which [Page 211]he here appoints unto them. Neither will the texts which you have cited, prove that the time of our Saviours and the Saints persecution and affliction doth contemporate with the time of their reigne. For that Psal. 110.2. Reigne thou in the midst of thy enemies, doth shew onely, that he shall reigne amongst those who shall declare themselves enemies to him and his, both before and when he comes to reigne; and not that his enemies shall have any power to molest (much lesse to raise persecution against) him, and his when he doth reigne: for the 1 verse doth manifest that these enemies are to be made his footstoole at his very en­trance into his Kingdome: at his comming from the right hand of God, at which time it is, that he is to reigne amidst them, and not before. And that text Rom. 8 37. doth shew onely, that through Gods speciall love towards us, we are enabled to con­quer a [...]l tribulation, distresse, perill, (or whatsoever else) that can be brought on us for our faith in Christ: and consequently that we doe now contend for a Kingdome, but not that we doe now reigne; for who will say, that when two strive for the ma­stery, either of them is conquerour, [...]ill one be vanquisht: or that when two Princes contend for a Kingdome, either doth reigne over the other, till one be quite subdued unto the other? and such certainely is our condition in this life, and no other. For now yee are full, now yee are rich, yee have reigned as Kings without us, and I would to God yee did reigne, that we also might reigne with you, saith Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 4.8. where he goes on, For I thinke that God hath set forth us the Apostles last, as it were men appointed to death, for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to the Angels, and to men, &c. What! would the Apostle have thus denved that he did reigne, onely because many tribulations did attend him, if the reigne of the Saints and their sufferings were consi­stent? Doubtlesse he would not: and therefore though they depart out of this life, as conquerours over all temptations, through the grace of God that is in them: yet they live not here as Kings, but as combatants: neither doe they finish their con­quest, till the appointed time of th [...]ir life be finished. And when should they be Kings, but when they receive their crownes; which is not while they fight, nor presently after they have o­vercome, (but when they receive their bodies againe to weare [Page 212]them) but at the day of Christs next appearing, which shall be a Coronation day to all them that love that day; as the same A­postle's words doe witnesse, 2 Tim. 4.7.8. I have fought (saith he) a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. Hence­forth is laid up for me a crowne of righteousnesse, which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at that day, and not to me onely, but to all them that love his appearing. And in the 2 chap. of the same E­pistle also ver. 11.12. he thus plainely distinguisheth the time of the Saints reigning from the time of their suffering. It is a faithfull saying: for if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him. If we suffer, we shall also reigne with him. Here Mr. Petrie further excepts against two particulars in the parenthesis of my foresaid words.

Reply.

You should here have told us, whether the bodies of the Saints shall not reigne with Christ as well as their soules; in stead whereof you tell us, [that their soules dye not, and that when Christ comes, their bodies shall be made alive, and both bodies and soules shall be with him for ever.] I dare say this answer was never learned in any approved schoole: and I beleeve indeed, that this Querie did put you to a stand. For if you should have denyed, that the bodies of the Saints must reigne as well as their soules, you could shew no reason for it. And if you should have granted it, you had herein denyed your owne Tenet, to wit, that the Saints do now reigne, because while they are in this life, they suffer in their bo­dies all manner of distresse, they are hungry, thirsty, naked, scour­ged, buffeted, banished, tormented: and when their soules de­part out of this life, their bodies are left behind to moulder into dust. So that neither while they are in the body, nor when they are out of the body, are their bodies in a condition agreeable to a regall estate; to the quiet, free, honourable, powerfull, and de­lightsome [Page 213]estate of Kings; of such as rule over others. Yea it is in regard of their bodily afflictions onely, that they are here of all men most miserable: and the spirituall conquest of their souls, is indeed the principall occasion of mens tyrannizing over their bodies, and of their conquering and destroying the life thereof.

Reply.

This answer is as much besides the question as the other: for the argument is, That if Christ doth now reigne, and shall reigne onely till his comming, then those Saints which shall be found a­live at his comming shall be exempted from his Kingdome, shall not reigne with him, as the Saints departed did reigne with him. To which you say no more but this, [That they shall be caught up to meete him.] And besides, seeing our Saviour is not to give up his Kingdome to his Father, till after his next appearing, and that the time of his reign is to be but a 1000 yeares; it must needs fol­low, (according to your opinion) that not onely all the Saints before his incarnation, but that the Apostles themselves too, and all the rest of the Saints that have been converted within the first six hundred yeares and upwards since his incarnation, must be ex­cluded from his Kingdome. And yet doubtlesse both the Saints before Christs first comming, and the Saints under the first ages of the Gospell, have all reigned spiritually, as well as the Saints since that time. They have been conquerours I say, over sin, and over sufferings for obedience unto Christ, in as eminent manner, as any Saints since have been, (if not more eminently,) as in the 11 chap. to the Heb. the Acts of the Apostles, and the Ecclesia­sticall histories doe testifie. And therefore that reigne of the Saints revealed in the 20 chap. of the Apoc. as a reigne to come, and to be but of a 1000 yeares continuance, must needs be meant of some other reigne: and consequently of a proper and politick reigne on earth, at the redemption of their bodies. But lest the [Page 215]reader should take notice that you have nothing to say to these arguments, you annexe unto your indirect answer, a long dis­course; whereof that of the Apostle, Rom. 5.19. As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous: is the whole summe. And in this discourse which you call [a clearing of the whole matter.] There are these notable passages. For first you rell us, [that Adams revolting was a diminution of the Fathers Kingdome.] whereas indeed it made way for the salvation of those whom God had predestinated unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, of which number not one was diminished by Adams apostasie: for as many as God had purposed to save before mans fall, so many and no more will he make heires with Christ, will he make partakers of the King­dome prepared for them from the beginning of the world. Se­condly, you tell us, [That the bringing of the faithfull into the obe­dience of the Father, is the rendring of the Kingdome unto him.] And so you make Christs reigne, and the rendring of his Kingdome to the Father, to be all one, and to contemporate; whereas the giving up of his Kingdome, must needes succeede the time of his reigne: for to cease from governing a Kingdome, must needes presuppose a preceding government of it. Yea and you your selfe say afterwards, [That when the determined time comes, these who have beene received into mercy, are presented unto God the Father— when the Sonne saith, Here I am, and these whom I have brought into the acknowledgment of their offences, I have satisfied justice for them, Thou O Father hast thine owne Subjects, and let them have the King­dome prepared for them.] Wherein you plainely acknowledge, that the rendring up of the Kingdome to the Father, is to be when the number of the elect is fulfilled, when these who have be­fore been received into mercy, are all presented unto God the Father, with spotlesse and incorruptible bodies and soules. Which is a flat contradicting of your former words, to wit, That the recei­ving of the faithfull into mercy, that the bringing of them into the Fa­thers obedience at their conversion, is the rendring of Christs Kingdome. Thirdly, you tell us, [That Adams revolting was a sinne directly against the Father.] Whereas the workes of power being chiefly attributed unto the Father, the workes of wisedome unto the Sonne, and of love unto the Holy Ghost; The sinnes of infirmity, [Page 216]and weakenesse are most direct against the first Person: the sinnes of ignorance and unadvisednesse most direct against the second Person: and the sinnes of wilfulnesse and malice, most direct a­gainst the third Person. And did Adam fall out of weakenesse, when (as all Divines agree) he had ability to stand? or out of ignorance, when he knew that he did what he was forbid to doe? or rather out of wilfulnesse, when notwithstanding his power to have withstood temptation, and his knowledge of the unlawful­nesse of the act; he yet yeelded to doe what he should noth [...]ve done? Fourthly, whereas the rebellion of mankinde against God is generall: you compare it onely with the rebellion of a part of an earthly Kings Subjects. Fifthly, from this defective comparison, you make Christ to reigne but over a part of his Fa­thers Kingdome; whereas he is to deliver up a whole Kingdom to the Father, and not a part of a Kingdome onely; and doubt­lesse he must reign over al that he delivers up. Yea although you here make Christ to reign only over a part of his Fathers King­dome, and say also, [That the areh-traytour gain-stands in malice to the honour of the King and his Sonne: that Satan still opposeth by deceiving some, and vexing others:] yet you say pag. 7. That Christ is great over all the world, seeing all the Gentiles doe prayse him, and all people land him. And pag. 52. That he hath made all Kingdomes of the world acknowledge his authority, and hath put downe all contrary power and authority, &c. And pag. 58. That now is no Kingdome but our Lords and his Christs. And pag. 40. That his enemies are made subject to him, even his greatest enemies. So contrary are you to the truth, and to your selfe. Sixthly and lastly, you tell us, [That at the delivering up of our Saviours Kingdome, the Father will not say, Thy reward is not in heaven, therefore let them goe againe into the earth, and inherit glory for a 1000 yeares.] And doubtl [...]sse he will not. For when our Saviour shall give up his Kingdome to the Father, his owne Kingdome on earth shall be fulfilled. And we say, that his Kingdome is to beginne at his appearing, when none but the Saints then departed shall rise: and not at the last judgement, when all others shall rise, as you to delude the reader doe purposely misunderstand us. And so your pretended expli­cation of the whole matter, is indeede no other, but an intended implication of a plaine truth.

Reply.

1. If these words in themselves import not, that our Saviour shall reigne among the Jewes as a Monarch on earth: yet com­pared with the prophecies to which they doe direct us for an explanation of [the times of refreshing, and times of restitution of all things,] [...]hey doe certainely import as much. And this forme, If by the times of refreshing, and times of restitution, &c. the Jewes re­storing to, and prosperity in their land, must needes be meant, th [...]n it is evident, that when he comes at these times, he shall accomplish this unto Israel, is not to prove (idem per idem,) the same thing by the same thing, as you untruely affirme. But this forme, If by the times of refreshing &c. the Jewes restoring to, and prosperity in their land be meant, then by the times of refresh­ing, &c. the Iewes restoring to, and prosperity in their land is meant. And your silence touching the meaning of the times of re­freshing, and the times of restitution of all things doth manifest, that you did thus traduce the forme of this argument, on [...]ly because you could not g [...]insay the evidence f it.

2 You say pag. 23. T at a [...]l interpreters (except a few Mille­naries) have expounded the prophecies touching the Jewes future prosperity in their owne land, of the Jewes onely. And you say here, [That all (without exception) have said, that the Prophets [Page 219]have another meaning.] But surely we have shewed that such in­terpreters cannot prove what they say. Yea seeing it is evident by Saint Peters words here, That our Saviour shall not come a­gaine till the times of refreshing, &c. and that it is as evident by the writings of the Prophets, (to which the Apostle directs us for an interpretation of these times) that nothing appliable to our Sa­viours second comming, (as a comfortable effect) is foreshewed by them all, besides the pious and prosperous establishment of the Jewes in their owne land: It necessarily followes, first, That this is meant by the times of refreshing, &c. And secondly, That the prophecies touching this subject, are properly and historically to be understood. I say historically, for what is a prophecy, but an history of things to come, as a Chronicle is an history of things past?

3 Doubtlesse these words are plaine enough to a man of farre meaner capacity, then you are. And as I have said it once, so I dare say it againe; That as the Prophets speake not more of any one thing then they doe of the redemption and restauration of the Jewes; so nought which can be applied to our Saviours second comming as a comfortable effect, is foreshewed by them all, but this. Which last words you purposely misapprehend, that you might have somewhat to say. For whereas I have said onely, That there is no comfortable effect belonging to Christs second comming, which all the Prophets have foreshewed, but this. You make me say, that none of the Prophets have spoken of any other thing, that can be applied to our Saviours comming, but this. And then you bring an instance out of Dan. 12.1, 2. [Where, you say, is mention of the great Prince, of great trouble, even to the time of deliverance, and then awaking of some, (not for a space of time, but) to everlasting life, and of others, (at the same time) unto shame and ever­lasting contempt.] But surely as the matter of the first Parenthe­sis is not affirmed by us, so the contents of the last are but a false glosse. For though the Proph [...]t s [...]ith, That many of them that sl [...]epe in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt; yet he saith not, that all these shall [...]ise at the same particular time. And the first verse, which shewes that the great Prince shall stand for the children of Daniels people, and that they shall at that time be delivered, (e­very one that shall be found written in the booke, that is, That [Page 220]God hath appionted to be delivered) doth plainly intimate, that the Jewes shall be then greatly hated and oppressed by other Na­tions (as the two last verses of the preceding chapter compared with Rev. 16.12, 13, 14, 16. and with the 7 chap. of this prophecy, and other prophecies doe plentifully declare) and consequently it doth foretell, that which we affirme to be meant by the [times of refreshing,] to wit, the deliverance of the Jewes, (of Daniels people,) both from their spirituall and bodily bondage: For why else is the deliverance of the Jewes onely spoken of, who have so long been, and still are captives both to unbeliefe, and to other Nations? strangers to Christ, and to their owne countrey? And whereas you tell us, [That the restoring of the Kingdome of Israel, was so often revealed by the Prophets rather to keepe the Jewes from the distrust of our Saviours comming, thou to comfort them against the losse of their bodily liberty, and native inheritance.] Doubtlesse it was ra­ther for this, then for the other; seeing they did reveale also ma­ny particular prophecies, touching our Saviours incarnation; which revelations did more directly confirme their beliefe of Christs comming, then those touching the deliverance of their posterity, and the restoring of their Kingdome to them, could. And seeing you confesse here, [That the prophecies touching the re­storing of Jerusalem, and that Kingdome, did concerne the Common­wealth of Israel, which was afterwards destroyed,] You doe herein apparently admit of that proper sense of the prophecies, which you have before so much opposed. For the d [...]struction of a tem­porall Kingdome cannot be repaired, but by the regaining of that freedome, and command which it formerly enjoyed. And yet you presently recall this; for having said, [That howsoever that Kingdome shall be ruined, yet it shall be restored▪] you adde imme­diately, [And all Nations shall by the preaching of the Jewes come into the obedience of Christ, and so receive lawes from the Jewes, as being captives unto them, whose captives they might be for a time.] So that you speake forward and backward, all in a breath, and are as one in the midst of a bog, who knowes not where to fixe his foote. For first you grant, that the Kingdome of whose re­stauration the Prophets write so much, was the temporall King­dome of the Jewes; and by and by you make the restoring of this temporall Kingdome, to be the converting of the Gentiles by [Page 221]the preaching of the Gospell, which is a very ridiculous impos­sibility. And as this your inconstancy, so your expression is ob­servable: for first, though you understand that which you speak of, to be already past, yet you deliver it in the future tence, and as hereafter to be fulfilled; And secondly, yoy say, [That the Nations shall by the preaching of the Jewes—become captives unto them.] But surely the state of grace is very unfitly termed a cap­tivity, seeing it brings with it the greatest freedome, the freedom of the conscience. For where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, saith the Apostle, 2 Cor. 3.17. And if the calling of men to the faith of Christ, should make them captives; I pray, what will become of the spirituall reigne of the Saints, which is all the reigning that you allow them under Christ? And besides, the Prophets words, That the Jewes shall possesse the Gentiles in the land of the Lord for servants, and for handmaides, that they shall take them captives, whose captives they were, and shall rule over their oppres­sours; doe plainely shew that the Gentiles shall be captives to the Jewes, in the like manner as the Jewes were to the Gentiles; to wit, by a bodily subjection, and captivity: which cannot be wh [...]le the Jewes themselves remaine captives under the Gentiles. And therefore we doe truely imagine, that the faithfull did expect, and the Prophets in their revelation touching Jerusalem, and that Kingdome to be restored, did speake of a monarchy on earth. Neither doth this imagination contradict any testimony of the Apostles, touching the expectation of the faithfull before Christs incarna­tion. For who will say that this antecedent of S. Paul, Heb. 11.14, 15, 16. The Patriarches Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, did, in their corruptible condition, when they lived as strangers and pilgrimes on the earth, desi [...]e a better countrey, that is, a [...] heavenly (for so the Apostle interprets himself, and n [...]t as you doe) will beare this consequence; Therefore when they shall rise in incorruption, they shall not reigne on earth a 1000 yeares? Or that this, pro­position of Saint Peter, 1 Ep [...]st. chap. 1. ver. 9. &c. The beleeving Jewes did by faith in Christ receive the salvation of their soules; (of which salvation, when it should be purchased by the suffe­rings of Christ, (and when conferred upon the whole Nation of the Jewes,) the Prophets which prophecied of the grace that should come unto the Jewes, did enquire, and search diligently) [Page 222]will inferre this conclusion; Therefore at the redemption of their bodies, at the perfecting of their salvation through the re­velation of Jesus Christ, they shall not reigne with Christ on earth?

Reply.

You tell us here, that we may call to mind too our Saviours reprehensive words, Matth. 20.22. and the Evangelists words, ver. 24. touching the indignation of the ten against the brethren. But surely it is best to call to mind the truth, which as it is plainly taught in our Saviours direct answer, ver. 23. so it is necessarily implyed in the other disciples indignation, who doubtlesse would rather have marvelled at the strangenesse of their suite, then have been any whit offended with them for it, had they sought that which no man should at any time enjoy. And there­fore although you may charge the two brethren with ambition, for seeking to be preferred above the other disciples: and with an erroneous conceit touching our Saviours unlimited choise of the persons, that should sit at his right and left hand; yet you cannot charge them with ignorance touching the subject and matter of their request, to wit, that there were such places to be had, which they aimed at.

Reply.

1. Doubtlesse if never one shall sit on Christs right hand, nor his left: there can be nothing in our Saviours answer to prove this; for no scripture doth teach, that that shall be done, which is ne­ver to be done. But how shall we know whether any shall sit at his right hand, and his left, but from scripture? And if the scrip­ture is to be sole Iudge in this case, (as indeed it is,) our Saviours answer is an unquestionable evidence to prove this. For he saith, not onely (as you answer for him) It is not mine to give; but he saith, It is not mine to give but to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. What! were the places on his right hand and on his left, then prepared of his Father, to be given by him to some; and yet can you say, that never one shall sit on his right hand, nor his left; and, that nothing in these words is for this purpose? Alas, that of all Gentiles, a Christian: of all Christians, a scholar: of all scho­lars, a Divine should so wilfully and presumptuously beare false witnesse against Christ himselfe.

2. 'Tis true, that Matth. 19.28. our Saviour speakes of sit­ting on the Throne of his glory: and that he said unto his Disci­ples, when he should sit on that Throne, they also should sit (not on multitude of Thrones, but) on twelve Thrones, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel. And therefore that Throne of his glo­ry is not to be in heaven, (as you say,) but on earth, (as we say,) [Page 224]seeing neither our Saviour, nor the Disciples shall judge any in heaven And we willingly grant that some of these Thrones are to be on his right hand, and some on his left. And therefore we say also, th [...]t they cannot be in heaven, because then some of the di­sciples, (if not all) should be as highly exalted there, as our Sa­viour, to wit, to the right hand of God. Which is a dignity that no creature but the Sonne of man shall have.

Reply.

'Tis true, that Christ sits on a Throne in heaven, as he himselfe saith, Rev. 3 21. and tis true likewise, that he sits on the right hand of God, as the Apostle saith, Heb. 1.13. and chap. 10. ver. 12. but it is not true, that I have said, To sit on a Throne, is to sit at the right hand of God. And therefore this instance, (as it is alled­ged by you) being a meere perverting of my words: you an­swer your selfe, not me. And yet your answer is but a bundle of superfluous words. For who knows not, that to sit on a Throne onely, is one thing; and to sit on a Throne at the right hand of a King, is another thing? and therefore that though to sit on a Throne onely, be not to be advanced to the right hand of a K ng: yet to sit on a Throne, (or out of a Throne) at the right hand of a King, is to be advanced to the right hand of a King. As Bath­sheba was to the right hand of her sonne Solomon, 1 King. 2.19.

Reply.

Although the end doth alwayes precede the means to the end, in the intention, and in this text of Saint Peter in the expression also: yet (as we say not that Christs appearing is the like medi­um to his Kingdome, as vertue is to honour, so) we deny, that the order of Saint Pauls words, in 2 Tim. 4.1. is like to this of Saint Peters; and that our Saviours appearing is the end for which he is to reigne. For that our Saviour is to reigne, that he may appeare, there is no scripture to testifie: but th [...]t he is to appeare that he may reigne, not onely this text of Saint Paul, but many prophecies doe witnesse, as that of Zech. 14.4. &c. which shews that he shall reigne on earth after his comming with the Saints. And that Rev. 11▪ 15. which shews that at the time of his de­scending, the Kingdoms of this world are to become his: and that Rev. 19, which shewes in what manner the Kingdomes of this world are to become his, to wit, by destroying the Kings and mighty men on the earth in battell, and giving their flesh to the fowles of heaven. And that Rev. 20.2.3. which shewes that after these Kings are thus destroyed, and their Kingdomes obtained, Christ shall shut up Satan in the bottom [...]esse pit the space of a 1000 yeares. And lastly, that propheticall parable, Luke 19 11. &c. which was purposely spoken against the false opinion of the Iewes, who even generally thought, that Christs Kingdome should immediately appeare. For it declares plaine­ly, that the Nobleman went into a farre countrey, (not to reigne, but) to receive a Kingdome, and to returne: and that when he was returned, and had [...]eceived his Kingdome: h [...] gave to one servant authority over ten cities, and to another [...]er five, &c. And slue those that would not that h [...] shou [...]d reigne over th [...]m. and is not this all one as if he had said, that he was not to reigne then whilest he was among them, (as they expected,) nor in the [Page 226]time of his absence from them in heaven: but when he should returne to them againe from heaven? And besides, that our Sa­viours Kingd me is to beginne at his appearing, and not before (and so according to the order of the Apostles words) it is evi­dent, in that it is said, Who shall judge the quicke and the dead, at his appearing, and his Kingdome. Where by the judging of the quicke and the dead, (which necestarily followes his appearing,) is shewed to be his imployment in his Kingdome. The judging, I say, of his enemies that would not that he should reigne over them, by a temporall, (but terrible) destruction at the beginning of his Kingdome, (as the foresaid parable, and the prophecies of Zech. 14. and Iohn 19. and others doe declare.) And the judging of his Subjects, by a civill judgement in the time of his reigne, (as the same parable likewise, and the Thrones of judgement promised to his Disciples, and to them that overcome, and all the Pro­phecies of his and the Saints reigne on earth, doe manifest.) And the judging againe of his rebellious subjects by a temporall, (but totall) destruction, when his 1000 yeares peacefull reigne is ex­pired, (as the Prophecy Rev. 20.7, 8, 9. doth shew.) And lastly, his judging of all both good and bad, at the delivering up of his Kingdome to God even the Father, at the last resurrection of the dead: when he shall pronounce the definitive sentence of a per­fect and compleate salvation to the one part, to the elect: and of a perfect and compleat condemnation to the other part, to the reprobate. According as it is largely exp [...]est, Matth. 25.32. &c. and as it is implyed Rev. 20.15. in these words, And whosoever was not found written in the booke of life, was cast into the lake of fire.

Reply.

1. You were here a little too hasty in your answer, for surely I doe not say, That this image doth signifie a temporall Monarchy of the Jewes: but I say, That our Savi [...]ur (prefigured by the stone, that brake the image in peeces, and became a great mountaine filling the whole earth,) shall set up in the place of the foure Mo­narchies, (represented by the gold, the silver, the brasse, and the iron,) and of the Kingdomes (represented by the mixture of iron and clay,) into which the last, and iron Monarchy was to be di­vided; a Kingdome over all the world; (which is the point in hand.) And whereas to prove that the Kingdome of Christ here foretold, was not to succeed these Kingdomes, you alledge ver. 44. [Page 228]in which it is said, In the dayes of these Kings shall the God o [...] hea­ven set up a Kingdome, which shall never be dest [...] yed: and the King­dome shall not be [...]eft to other people, but it sh ll breake in peeces, and consume all these Kingd [...]mes, (the iron, the b asse, the clay, the silver, and the gold,) and it shall stand forever. Certai [...]ely you could not have urged a plainer text to prove the contrary. For first seeing the Prophet saith, that the Kingdome here spoken of, is to be set up in the dayes of these Kings, that is, after the iron Romane Empire should be divided, (as the preceding verses declare,) the setting of it up, cannot possibly be meant of a Kingdome to be set up at our Saviours first comming; and consequently not of the prea­ching of the Gospell by the Apostles. For this was done while the Empire was entire, and in its height: it being in the reigne of Augustus Caesar that Christ was borne, and of Tiberius that he was crucified. And therefore the Kingdome that was to be set up after this Empire should be divided into severall Kingdoms; and yet not pr [...]sently after, but in the dayes of these Kingdomes; that is, after they should be of some remarkeable continuance, must needs be understood of ou [...] Saviours visible reigne on earth, to whose kingdome, these Kingdomes shall give place, as the former Kingdomes did successively to each other. And secondly, seeing the Prophe [...] saith, That the Kingdome shall not be left to other people: It necessarily followes, that when the God of heaven shall set up this Kingdome, some one people shall have the sway over all other p [...]ople, from whom the dominion shall not be ta­ken away, as it was from the successively prevailing Nations of the foure severa l Empires. And what people should this be, (in whose hands the rule shall continue so firme and stedfast,) but the Jewes, the people of whom Christ (the person, prefigured by the stone cut out without hands, har should smite the image) was to be borne? And to wh [...]m (at the expiration of the time allot [...]d to the four Kingdom s, revealed in another vision, chap. 7.) The Kingdome, and dominion, and the greatnesse of the Kingdome under the whole heaven, shall be given, ver. 27? And thirdly, see­ing the Prophet sa [...]th, That this Kingdome shall breake in peeces, and consume all other Kingdoms, to w [...], the iron, the brasse, the clay, the sil­ver, and the gold it is ma [...]ifest, that it is by it self alone to succeed, and follow after all these: for how shall all these be broken in [Page 229]peeces by it, if this be not to succeed them in the place where it breakes them in peeces? And how shall all these be so consumed by it, that no place shall be found for them; if either of them shall continue with it? And fourthly, seeing it is unquestionable that the Kingdomes which the image represented, and which this Kingdome should breake in peeces, were all temporall and visi­ble Kingdomes: It must needes be granted, that this Kingdome by which these temporall Kingdomes were to be destroyed, and succeeded in their place, (for the stone having smote the image filled the whole earth,) must it selfe be a visible, and (for the place and manner of government) a temporall Kingdome also, Because no temporall and politicall Kingdom can be overthrown, and succeeded in its place, but by another of the like nature over­mastering it. You goe on and say, [It shall breake in peeces the sil­ver and gold, then it shall be before the brasse and iron: And of what King, say you, can that be understood, but of Christ, who saith, Isai. 10.12. I will punish the stout heart of the King of Assyria▪ and chap. 37. ver. 29. Because of thy rage against me, I will put my hooke in thy nose, &c.] Here are a few words, but full of very grosse and contradictory untruths. For first, h [...]ving immediately before recited out of the Prophet, It shall breake in peeces the iron, the brasse, the clay, the silver, and the gold; You presently affirme, [It shall breake the silver and the gold, then it shall be before the brasse and the iron.] And shall we beleeve you when you speake against the Prophet, or when you speake with the Prophet? When you say of your selfe, It shall breake in peeces, and succeed but two of the four Empires; or when you say, as the Prophet doth, that it shall succeed and breake in peeces the whole image, all four Em­pires, and the Kingdomes of the last divided Empire? Second­ly, in saying that the stone (the type of our Saviours manhood) was to be before the brasse and the iron, you make Christ to be borne before the Grecian Empire was in being; whereas it is e­vident by the history of the Gospell, that he was borne in the dayes of the Romane Empire, to which the Jewes were then tri­butaries. Thirdly, by the instances which you bring out of Isai. 10.12. and chap. 37. ver. 29. &c. to co [...]s [...] me your argument. You first make the stone to be Christ in his God-head, (to whom you attribute this threatning,) and not in his manhood, of which [Page 230]alone it is to be understood (For the stone cut out without hands, is Christ borne of a Virgin: and the mountaine out of which he was cut, is the Jewish Nation, the Inhabitants of Mount Sion, the place which God had chosen to put his Name there.) And se­condly, you hereby make the accomplishment of the vision, (which shewed things then to come) to be before the revelation of it. For the threatning against Senacherib was fulfilled before Judah's captivity: and this vision was in the time of their cap­tivity under Nebuchadnezzar, who was the head of gold in the image. And thirdly, you make the destruction of the Assyrian Empire to be by an extraordinary meanes, by an Angel sent from God; whereas it was by an ordinary meanes, by the army of Cy­rus Prince of the M [...]des and Persians: And what could you have said more contrary to the dreame, and the interpretation there­of, then all this?

2. You have nothing to say against the evidence of ver. 35. which shewes that the Kingdome of Christ was to succeed the four Empires in time and place, as they had succeeded each other, (to wit, by force of armes,) but this, [that ver. 35. is not contrary to ver. 44. And doubtlesse it is not, nor ver. 44. to such a setting up of our Saviours Kingdome, as we hold. For whereas you say, That this Kingdome shall be set up in the dayes of these Kings, and not after them.] It is as if you had told us, That a King can­not overcome, and succeed other Kings in their Kingdomes, while they reigne, but after their reigne. When as indeed they cannot lose their Kingdomes, but while they have them: but in the dayes of their reigne, and not after them. And so you have not yet shewed us any reason, why this phrase, [It shall breake in pee­ces and consume these Kingdomes,] should not as well be taken properly, when it is attributed to the setting up of our Saviours Kingdome, as when it is attributed to the setting up of the other Kingdomes. And therefore we have still good reason to beleeve, that the forcible and destroying fall of the stone upon the i­mage, doth betoken no lesse then a conquest and succession by force of armes.

Reply.

Doubt lesse the dreame implyeth nothing contrary to the ex­position: but both dreame and exposition doe point out our Sa­ours personall reigne on earth. For the confirmation and mani­festation of which truth, we bring not probabilities onely, but certainties too; yea such certainties, as all your wit and wilt­nesse are not able to answer, or obscure: and therefore me thinks you have no cause to be offended with such variety of testimo­nies. And had I said also, that this, which I called onely a proba­bility, had been more then a probability, I had not overlasht. For seeing God by this image foreshewed Nebuchadnezzar what Kingdoms should succeed his unto the second comming of Christ: (all which time the Jewes should remaine captives, and tributa­ries.) And that the falling of the stone on the feete of the image, did intimate both the second appearing of Christ, (for the first was when he was borne of a Virgine, when he was cut out with­out hands:) and the expiration of the time allotted to the King­domes represented by the image: It necessarily followes, that when the stone should fall on the image, (when the Kingdome of God should be set up, as it is expounded,) the Kingdoms pre­figured by the image, should be no longer, should all be subdued: and that the mountaine filling the whole earth, the visible and Monarchicall Kingdome of Christ on earth, should succeed alone.

Reply.

1. We leave this presumption to your selfe, who have so bold­ly told God, what is most for his glory, pag. 15, 16. and what is most to the praise of his mercy and bountifulnesse, pag. 68.

2. It is revealed in expresse words, ver. 44. That God shall set up a Kingdome in the dayes of these Kings. But not that these Kings and the Kingdomes which God shall set up, are to continue together. Yea the Kingdome of God could not breake in peeces these King­domes, could not succeed them by conquest, unlesse they should be in the possession of their severall Kings, when the Kingdome of God is thus to be set up. And seeing these Kingdomes are to be broken in peeces, are to be consumed, by the Kingdome which God shall set up; how can you once imagine, that their conver­sion, and not their confusion: that their instruction, and not de­struction: that their amending, and not their ending, (I meane onely in respect of their former distinst titles and governments,) should hereby be meant? Certainely you cannot finde in all the scripture, nor in any humane writer, such a signification of these words. And as for the Christian beleefe, it doth not alter the form of civill government in any Nation. But be it Democraticall, Ari­stocraticall, or Monarchicall, it agrees alike with all of them. Yea it consisted in the primitive times with the profession of Pa­gans: and doth now consist in the Easterne Churches in the re­ligion of the Mahometans, so farre is it (in its purity and integri­ty,) from teaching us to disturbe the peace of any Kingdome: to seeke, I say, the suppression and removeall of the government or religion thereof, by outward violence, by the helpe of the sword. And therefore it cannot be said of the preaching of the Christian faith, that it breakes in peeces, and consumes the King­domes in which it is profest.

3. There was reason, you say, to expresse the Kingdome of God, ver. 44. by a thing different from the image, because the foure Kingdomes were of one quality, and this of another. But doubtlesse, (as the four were no more of one quality, then gold, silver, brasse, and iron, are all of one quality, so) though they were all of different qua­lities from this, yet this could not be the reason wherefore the Kingdome of God, ver. 44. was represented by no part of the image, but by a thing different from it: For if notwithstanding [Page 234]their different qualities, they had been to continue together, (as you say) they might notwithstanding this difference of quali­ties have been represented together also: (as well as the contem­porating Kingdomes of the divided Empire are, by the mixture of iron and clay,) but the reason was, because the setting up of this Kingdome should be the beginning of a new world; of a world in which all the Kingdomes on earth should make but one Kingdome under Christ, when once the time comprehended by the image, should be at an end, as it is said, ver. 35. Then was the iron, the clay, the brasse, the silver, and the gold, broken in peeces to­gether, and became like the chaffe of the Summers threshing-flores, and the winde carried them away, that no place was found for them; And the stone that smote the image, became a great mountaine, and filled the whole earth. And againe ver. 44. But it shall breake in peeces, and consume all these Kingdomes, and it (not it with any other, but it alone) shall stand for ever. And that text, John 18.36. My King­dome is not of this world, doth helpe also to confirme this: for it either points out unto us the time of our Saviours reigne, or the authority by which he is to reigne. And so is as if he had ei­ther said thus, My Kingdome is not (to be now, in the time) of this world: in the time before my next appearing: but hereafter in the time of that world to come, spoken of Psal. 8. that is, at the time of my appearing againe: when all creatures shall be actu­ally put in subjection unto me. Or thus, My Kingdome (that is, the authority by which I must reigne,) is not (from hence, is not to be given unto me,) of the world, (that is, of men,) but I am to have it from God; I am to fetch it from him, and to come a­gaine, as it is in the parable, Luke 19.11. &c. and in this sense the expression agrees very well with that Querie, Matth. 21.25. The baptisme of John whence was it, from heaven, or of men? And besides all this, the Kingdome of grace, of which you understand the Kingdome which the God of heaven should set up, ver. 44. was set up at the first promise of Christ, as you confesse pag. 9. and so was in the world even from the beginning: whereas that Kingdome ver. 44. was then to come, when this vision was re­vealed to Nebuchadnezzar. And if you say, that the Kingdome, ver. 44. did represent the Kingdome of grace, as it was to be set up amongst the Gentiles, at the preaching of the Gospell to them [Page 235]after our Saviours ascension: Surely it was set up thus also be­fore the division of the Romane Empire, and therefore it cannot in this sense be the Kingdome meant in ver. 44. which was to be set up after the division of the Empire: and when some of the Kingdomes into which it was divided should be Christian, or rather Protestant Kingdomes, as these words ver. 43. doe inti­mate. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the dayes of these Kings (to wit, of these amongst whom some that are Chri­stian or Protestant Princes, shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, shall joyne themselves in marriage with unbeleeving or mis­beleeving Princes,) shall the God of heaven set up a Kingdome which shall never be destroyed. And at the setting up of this King­dome it is, that the contents of Psal. 2.8. and of Psal. 110.2. &c. and of Psal. 149.2. &c. (which agree so well with the brea­king of the image in peeces,) shall be accomplished. And if their very expression doth not sufficiently declare, that they are pro­perly to be understood; yet certainely all the prophecies which foreshew the Gentiles subjection to the Jewes doe render it un­questionable.

Reply.

If none denieth, that the Kingdome of our Saviour is to be in the time of the world to come; why doe you so much condemne us for beleeving this truth? and why also doe you affirme, flat against this truth, that it is now in this present world?

Reply.

That the Apostle speakes of a world to come, as well in respect of Christ, as of himselfe, it is evident, first from Psal. 8.4. &c. which shewes, that the world, which the Apostle calls [the world to come,] is the world, in which those workes of God are, that he made for man to have dominion over: is the world, I say, in which the beasts of the field, the fowles of the aire, and the fishes of the sea doe inhabit. And secondly, it is cleare from the origi­nall word, by which it is exprest: which is not [ [...]] the superiour world, the third heaven, (as you take it,) but [ [...]] the inferiour world, the terrestriall globe, the dwelling place of men, and all other mortall creatures: as we read Matth. 24.14. and Acts 17.6.31. And therefore the Kingdome of heaven in your sense, that is, Christs possession of heaven, and his reigning over the Saints departed, cannot possibly be meant by it; but the Kingdome of heaven in our sense, that is, the heavenly Kingdome which Christ shall here visibly reigne over in time to come, In the day, (the great day) in which God hath appointed to judge [ [...]] the world in righteousnesse by him, as it is Acts 17.31. that is, to execute judgement and justice on the earth, as the Prophet Jeremiah expresseth it, chap. 23. ver. 5. So that the Apostles words are, as if he had said; For not unto the Angels hath be ap­pointed this inferiour world, (of which we spake before chap. 1. ver. 6.) to be subject in time to come, but unto Christ; as one in a certaine place testified; saying, What is man that thou art mindfull [Page 237]of him, or the sonne of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower then the Angels, thou crownedst him with glory and ho­nour, and didst set him over the workes of thy hands, &c. And thus it is manifest, that your referring of the words, [whereof we speake,] to ver. 3. is but a private fancie crossing the Apostles explication of [the world to come,] by the prophecy of David, Psal. 8.4. &c. And imposing such a signification on the word [ [...]] as is not to be found in all the Scripture. And therefore we still conclude, that the world which the Apostle speakes of, is to be a distinct world in time, from this we now live in; and both in time and place, from that in which our Saviour shall give up his Kingdome to the Father. And as for those, who by [the world to come,] doe understand the time of the Gospell betwixt Christs first and second comming: they doe hereby make the Apostle either to call the time in which he himselfe lived, [the world to come,] or to distinguish the time betwixt Christs first and second comming into two worlds at the least. Whereas the scripture doth divide the whole time appointed to the heavens and earth that now are, but into three worlds, or parts of time; the fi [...]st whereof containes the time from the creation to the floud, and is the old world of which Saint Peter speakes, 2 Epist. chap. 2. ver. 5. the world long since past. The second containes the time from the floud to our Saviours next appearing, and is the world that now is. The third containes the whole day of judgement, the 1000 yeares, and little season mentioned Rev. 20. which is to beginne at our Saviours next appearing, and to end with the world it selfe at the last resurrection; and this is [the world to come] of which the Apostle here speakes.

Reply.

That which shall be given up is not past as yet, you say; true, and that which shall beginne, is not come as yet. But surely, it is false to say that we acknowledge Christs Kingdome shall not be given [Page 238]up altogether: that we acknowledge I say, that Christ as man, as the Sonne of David, shall not then cease to reigne, when the generations of men, over which he must reigne, shall cease. And this earth on which he must reigne, shall passe away. In a word, when at the last resurrection he shall take the elect with him, in­to eternall glory and delight, and turne the reprobate from him into endlesse horrour and contempt. For we know that the A­postle, in 1 Cor. 15.24.28 teacheth otherwise, saying, Then commeth the end, when he shall have delivered up the Kingdome to God even the Father, &c. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Sonne also himselfe he subject unto him that put all things un der him, that God may be allin all.

Reply.

That the [ [...]] the power our Saviour speakes of Matth. 28.18. was given to him as man, and not as God, (for so he had it from all eternity) interpreters agree. And what though all power in heaven and on earth was then given to Christ as man? What doth this make against my words, which affirme that Christ as man shall after the judgement of the dead, after all things are subdued unto him, surrender againe this power, (as having no further use of it,) and in the new Jerusalem, (not reigne as man, but) be himselfe subject to the Father? Or what doth it make a­gainst Christs 1000 yeares reigne on earth, that he had then all power in heaven and on earth given unto him? unlesse it will follow from hence, that if he had been to reigne visibly on earth, he might, and would have done it at that time. But certainely this will not follow, for though our Saviour had then all power given him, yet he was to exercise it, to doe all that was to be done by it, in that order and manner which God had appoin­ted [Page 239]it to be done, and no otherwise. And therefore as we ac­knowledge, that God had from all eternity the same power of creation, which in the beginning of this world, be first of all put into act and exercise; so we acknowledge likewise, that Christ hath now that power by which he shall reigne visibly on earth; although he cannot put it into act untill he descend to take the Kingdomes of this world unto himselfe. Thus we finde that he had power to lay downe his life, and power to take it againe, before he did either, John 10.18. And that all judg [...]ment, even the judgment of the great day, was committed unto him at his fi [...]st comming John 5.22. And thus it appeares, that a [...]l your an­swers to the consequ [...]nces by which we have proved our Savi­ours visible reigne on earth, are of no consequence at all.

Reply.

This answer is a double confession of the truth you oppose; for first in s [...]ying [That these texts prove something against Mr. Ar­cher, who thinks that Christ after he hath put the Jewes in possession of their Monarchy shall ascend againe into the heavens,] you plainely acknowledge, that they prove his abode amongst them to go­verne their restored Kingdome. And consequently, that you your selfe are in an errour, in denying the restauration of their Kingdome, as well as Mr. Archer was in denying Christs perso­nall and immediate government of it. And secondly, in saying, [That they prove nothing against you, who hold that Christ reigneth on the true Throne of David.] You acknowledge likewise, that these prophecies doe prove, that our Saviour was to reigne on the true Throne of David: and consequently, that (seeing he hath not yet,) he shall hereafter reigne over the whole Nation [Page 242]of the Jewes in their owne d land, [...]er. 33.15, [...]6, 17. The Throne of Israel, on which David reigned being the true Throne of David, and no other. But to say, that Christ now reigneth on the true Throne of David, is to affirme, that he is now reigning over the Jewes in the Land of Judea: and what can be further from truth then this?

Reply.

You told us even now, [That Christ reigneth on the true Throne of David.] And you tell us here, [That he sits on the right hand of the Throne of Maj [...]sty in heaven, which was typified by the Throne of David.] And doth he reigne then on both these Thrones at once? on the true Throne of David, (the type) and on the Throne of God, (he antitype,) too? But I pray, what scripture doth teach you to call the Throne of David, a type of the Throne of God? Surely if this were so, Christ must needes have reigned on the Throne of his Father David. before he could have been ex­alted to the right hand of the Throne of Majesty on high. Be­cause the possession of the typicall Throne, must needes pr cede the possession of the typified Throne. This therefore is an un­warrantable conceit: and we know that these prophecies speake onely of his reigning on the Throne of his Father David, and not of his reigni g on the Throne of God. And if by the Throne of David which is promised to Christ, is meant the Throne of God; what then is meant by the Throne of the House of Israel, which is promised to him, Jer. 33.17? Is not this all one with the Throne of David? if it be, then by the Throne of David cannot be meant the Throne of God: unlesse you will say, that by the Throne of Israel, the Throne of God is meant also. And if the Throne of Israel be not meant of the Throne of David, then tell us what it is; and why you take it to be all one with the Throne of Da­vid, pag 26. where you alledge this text of Jeremiah, to shew [Page 243]that the promises of the Priesthood, and of the Kingdome, are conjoyned and mixed after the same straine. And tell us too what is meant by the Kingdome of David, upon which Christs govern­ment is said to be, as well as upon the Throne of David, Isai. 9.7. And besides, what reason can you alledge, wherefore we should not as well take that part of these prophecies in a proper sense, which speakes of our Saviours reigning on the Throne of David; as that part which speakes of his being borne of the seede of Da­vid, the one being revealed unto us in as plaine termes as the other?

Reply.

In the 23 chap. of Jer. we reade this prophecy, Behold the dayes come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David, a righteous Branch, and a King shall reigne and prosper, and shall execute judgement and justice on the earth. In his dayes Jud [...]h shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is his name, whereby he shall be saved, The Lord our righteousnesse. In which words there are these particu­lars foretold: first, that Christ should be borne of the seede of David, I will raise unto David, a righteous Branch. Secondly, that he should reigne, And a King shall reigne and prosper. Thirdly, how he should reigne; to wit, civilly, as other Kings: which is set forth, first, by the quality of his administration, And shall ex­ecute judgement and justice. Secondly, by the place where he should doe it, On the earth Thirdly, by the people amongst whom, the Jewes, the Tribes of Jud [...]h and Israel. And fourthly, by the time when, to wit, when the Jewes should be redeemed out of captivity and s [...]tled in their land: When Judah shall be sa­ved, and Israel shall dwell safely. Now of all these particulars, there is but one already accomplisht, which is that touching our Savi­ours incarnation: and the rest remaine to be fulfi led [...]t his next appearing. Amongst which, I have alledged onely the last, to prove that our Saviours reigning here foreshewed, was not fulfil­led [Page 244]at his first appearing, to wit, because Israel was not then in the land with Iudah. To which you give no other answer but this, [There is neither Jew nor Greeke, neither bond nor free, nor male, nor female, but we are all one in Christ Jesus: and if we be Christs, then are ne Abrahams seed and heires according to the promise.] And what then? doth this make the prophecies o [...] God of none ef­fect? may the reader conclude from hence. Therefore Iudah and Israel shall not dwell safely in the land together, nor Christ be sent to reigne over them on the Throne of David? Surely he may as well conclude, Therefore amongst Christians, there are no men, nor women: no masters, nor servants: no Iewes, nor Gentiles. But the Apostles words will countenance no such con­tradictory infe [...]ences: for his meaning is, That grace doth con­joyne and assimulate those whom naturall and civill respect doe difference and div de. For they that have put on Christ, are not distinguisht in him, (he saith) as they are in the world, by nation, fexe, and condition, but they are all one. They are one in deno­mination and title, being all Christians; they are one in ranke and society, being all of one mysticall body; they are one peo­ple, being all Abrahams seed, and they have one inheritance, be­ing fellow-heires according to the promise. And what though the beleeving Gentile be one in Christ with the beleeving Iew? was he not so before Christs incarnation, as well as since? was he not Abrahams seed before as well as since? was he not heire according to the promise before as well as since? What hinders then but that the Iewes may (notwithstanding this spirituall uni­on and fellowsh [...]p with the beleeving Gentiles,) be (as heretofore, so) at their generall conversion againe advanced above all other Nations by many not onely outward favours and priviledges but by a greater measure of inward gifts and abilities also?

Reply.

Was ever scripture more apparently wrested, more imperti­nently alledged? Behold, saith Zechariah, the man whose name is the Branch, and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the Temple of the Lord, even he shall build the Temple of the Lord, &c. chap. 6. ver. 12. This is the prophecy, and your inter­pretation this, Christ said, Destroy this Temple, and in three dayes, I will raise it up againe, &c. John 2.19. And interpre­tation doubtlesse as wide from the sense of the Prophet, as the Iewes apprehension was from the meaning of our Saviours words. For shew us where [the Temple of the Lord,] is in all the [Page 247]old Testament, (which was then all the scripture,) taken in any other sense, then for the house of Gods worship at Ierusalem. Or, [the building of the Temple of the Lord,] in any other sense, then for the building of that Temple. Yea, looke but into the 14 and 15 verses immediately following, and it is unquestionable, that the same words are there taken for the Temple of the Lord in Ierusalem. And besides, seeing the Prophets shew so plainely, that our Saviour shall reigne over the Iewes, in their owne land, and that Ierusalem shall againe be built; Why should we not be­leeve, that both the building of the Temple of the Lord, and his reigning on the Throne of his Father David, shall be as properly fulfilled, in Christ (the antitype,) as they were in Solomon (the type?) Whereas then you say further, [That in this sense the Dis­ciples did beleeve the Scriptures, after the resurrection of Christ.] I pray, what scriptures? this prophecy? Surely it is false, that they did any where cite this prophecy to prove our Saviours re­surrection from the dead. And the words of the Evangelist are plaine, When therefore he was risen from the dead, (saith Iohn,) his Disciples remembred, that he had said this unto them, (to wit, that he had said to the Iewes, Destroy this Temple, &c.) and they beleeved the Scripture, (that is, the scripture which foreshewes our Savi­ours resurrection, as Psal. 16. alledged by Saint Peter, Acts 2.25. &c. and Psal. 2.7. alledged by Saint Paul, Acts 13.33. &c.) And the word which Iesus had said; (that is, and they beleeved also, that this saying of his to the Iewes, was meant of the resur­rection of his body: and not (as you say they did,) that it was an interpretation of Zechariah's prophecy, which for shewes in­deed the building of the Temple of the Lord, but not the destroy­ing of it by the Iewes: nor the building of it in three dayes; no, nor the building of it untill the man whose name is the Branch should sit and rule on his Throne. Neither did our Saviour say plainely, Destroy the Temple of the Lord, (as the false witness [...]s ac [...]used him,) nor absolutely, destroy the Temple: but darkely, and inre­lation to his owne body, destroy this Temple: as his words touch­ing the raising of it in three dayes doe intimate, and the Evange­list doth afterwards expound it. And he said also, I will raise it, and not, I will build it, which shewes the making of a Temple, where was none before; and therefore cannot be applyed to [Page 248]the quickening of our Saviours body, a temple then in being, and not to be corrupted in death. And as for your confused ex­position of the prophecy of Zech. 14.4. &c. it is not onely con­trary to the truth, but to reason it selfe. For first, (which is flat against the truth,) you ascribe the accomplishment of this pro­phecy to our Saviours ascending to the Saints in heaven, and to the time succeeding his ascension: whereas it is manifest by the words in the first verse, (which you have concealed) And the Lord my God shall come, and a [...]l the Saints with thee, that it is to be fulfilled at his descending with the Saints from heaven, and in the time succeeding his descension. And secondly, (which is not onely against the truth, but against reason also) you affirme [That by the cleaving of the Mount of Olives towards the East, and towards the West, is meant, the shaking of all the world at the preaching of the Gospell.] And [That by the Iewes flying to the valley of the mountaines, is meant, their imbracing of the Gospell] Which is as if you had said, that the Iewes did then imbrace the Gospell, when they fled from it; or that the Iewes in flying from the Gospell, fled to the Gospell. For as you interpret the cleaving of the Mount of Olivers, (from which the Iewes were to fly,) of the preaching of the Go­spell: so you interpret the valley of the mountaines, (to which the Iewes were to flee,) of the same also. And who sees not by this, and by your expounding of the 6 and 7 verses [Of the perpe­tual [...]ight of the Gospell,] and the 8 verse, [Of the continuall fl [...]wing of the doctrine of the Gospell,] and all of the Gospell, and of nothing but of the Gospell: that by such a liberty of interpreting, any one may make the plain [...]st scripture that is, to say onely as he faith: and so to patronize and defend any dangerous opinion a­gainst the truth clearely revealed in it. The truth therefore of this prophecy, is no other then that which the Prophet himselfe hath plainely told us: to wit, that the Mount of Olives shall be cleft in the midst by an earthquake at the comming of our Saviour with all the Saints: and that the Iewes which are gathered toge­ther neere unto it, shall then flye for feare of this earthquake, as they fled for feare from before the earthquake in the dayes of Ʋzziah King of Judah. And the effect of this earthquake is de­scribed, ver. 10. where it is said, And all the Land shall be turned as a plaine from G [...]ha to Rimm [...]n, South of Jerusalem, and it shall be [Page 249]lifted up, and inhabited in her place: from Benjamins gate unto the place of tho first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Ha­naniel un to the Kings wiae-presser. And man shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction, but Ierusalem shall be safely inhabited. And as this part, so all the rest of the prophecy is to be under­stood likewise according to its owne stile and language; which is so obvious, that it needes no inter preration: and the light thereof cannot be more obscured, then by such a glosse as you have put upon it. And thus it being undeniable, that this prophecy of Zech. doth foreshew our Saviours second comming, his comming with all the Saints, and the things then no be performed by him: it necessarily followes, That he shall come, not onely to conquer death, first in part, at the resurrection of the Saints, that shall rise to meete him, and to come with him; and then wholly at the resurrection of all others, when he shall passe the sentence of salvation on the elect, and of damnation on the reprobate: but in the interim, in the space betwixt this first and second resurre­ction, to be King over all the earth, as this Prophet saith, ver. 9. to take the Kingdomes of this world unto himselfe, as Saint Iohn reveals Rev. 11.15. to put downe all rule and all authority, as Saint Paul affirmes, 1 Cor. 15.24. and to set up that dominion, glory, and Kingdome, at the manifestation whereof, all people, nations, and languages, shall serve him, as Daniel foreshewes, chap. 7. ver. 14. which he shall doe by an extraordinary destroying of the most and greatest of his enemies in batte'l: and by causing every one that is left of the Nations, to goe up from yeare to yeare to Ierusalem, to worship the King the Lord of Hafts, as Zech. here, and many o­ther Prophets besides doe declare.

Reply.

It seemes by your first words, that you are doubtfull of the ac­complishment of this prophecy, for [that it shall be fulfilled, or hath been fulfilled, it is most certaine,] you say. And your next as­sertion, [that it shall never he fulfilled in the proper acceptation of the words,] doth appa [...]ently contradict that which followes: for by and by after, you tell us, [that Cyril hath exponed it, as if the hea­vens were open, the Angels shall come downe, and ascend unto my Ser­vice: and that Chrysostome do [...]h apply it to the Angel ministring unto Christ, in time of his passion and resurrection.] And is not this a pro­per exposition of the prophecy? then shew us one more proper. And doubtlesse it is to be understood, as Cyril understands it, of the Angels ministring to our Saviour. But yet we beleeve not, that it was fulfilled, when in his agony there appeared an Angel unto him, strengthening him, Luke 22.43. and much lesse when after his resurrection and Angel appeared at his sepulchre, Matth. 28 2. For it is evident, that when this proph [...]cy shall be fulfil­led, they that are in our Saviours presence, shall as plainely see heaven open, [ [...]] the starry firmament part asunder, and the Angels ascending from, and descending [...]o him, as they shall see each other: as plainely, I say, as Saint Stephen, [Page 251]looking stedfastly into heaven saw [ [...]] the heavens open, and the Sonne of man standing on the right hand of God, Acts 7.55, 56. And as Saint John Baptist saw the heavens opened unto Christ, and the Spirit of God descending li [...]e a dove, and lighting up­on him, Matth. 3.16. And Saint Paul assures u [...], Heb. 1.6. That when God againe bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he sayth, And let all the Angels of God worship him. And to what time then can our Saviours [Hereafter] can this visible attendance of the Angels on him belong, but to the time of his next appearing, of his comming againe into the world? the time, and place of which God hath said, that all the Angels of God shall doe homage unto him. And besides, it is more then probable, that the Evangelist would as well have recorded the accomplishment, as the predi­ction of this thing, if he had knowne of the fulfilling of it. But the acute reason of your denying the proper sense of the prophe­cy, is yet behinde, and may well remaine to posterity, as the wonder of your worke, and the monument of your wit: For [the Angels, you say, shall not ascend and descend upon the Sonne of man, seeing the body of Christ is not so tall, as that it shall reach from heaven to earth.] Doubtlesse a very tall proofe: and yet it comes short of the marke you aime at. For surely the proper accepta­tion of the prophecy, as it depends not on, so it is not proved, but infallibly disproved, by the proper acceptation of the word [upon:] which preposition having relation onely to the partici­ple [descending,] the full expression had been thus, ascending from, and descending upon, (or unto,) which is meant by [upon,] in this place. And which the originall word [ [...]] doth as well signi­fie, as [upon,] and might have been here so exprest, as well as it it is Luke 10.6. and chap. 19. ver. 5. (and in other places,) had there been any likelihood of a modes [...] Christians misunderstan­ding of this prophecy, by reason of the word [upon.] However the learned had need beware, that in translating the scriptures, they follow not the common liberty of speech, in the smalest word; when as the wilfull are so ready to make it an occasion of venting their vaine conceits.

Reply.

A poore proofe, you say: And surely were it not much more powerfull then the answer, it were poore indeed. For may you say as well from the order of our Saviours words, [That it is re­quisite he be in heaven, whence the Angels may descend from him, and ascend to him,] as we may, that it is requisite he be on earth, whence they may ascend from him, and descend to him? Cer­tainely nothing can be said more direct against the truth. For such a conclusion doth necessarily change and pervert our Savi­ours words into this contrary forme. Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the Angels ascending to, and descending from the Sonne of man. Whereas our Saviour said, ascending, and descending to the Sonne of man, which necessarily proves, that he is not to be in hea­ven at the accomplishment thereof; seeing he must be the termi­nus a quo, the person from whom, (and not to whom,) the An­gels shall ascend: and the terminus ad quem, the person to whom, (and not from whom) they shall descend. And therefore ta­king these words no otherwise then our Saviour spake them, they may be fulfilled on earth, as we say: but it is not possible, th [...]t they can be fulfilled both in heaven and earth, as you say.