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

Reply.

You grant first [that the foresaid Prophecies doe containe evident ar∣guments 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 restau∣ration as was to begin at the first preaching of the Gospel, and to continue to the comming of Christ: besides that it is somewhat at harsh expression, it is not true [that you have before clearely proved thi•• by the testimonies of the Apostles, and by experience,] for you have no•• brought any at all, much lesse any cleare testimonies out of the

Apostles•• 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 Isra∣elites, any of the Gentiles are to be understood: neither can experi∣ence 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 Pro∣phecies of Amos and Isaiah alledg'd by the Apostles, but you deny, 1. Our manner of restauration, for you hold (you say) that the spiritu∣all 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 an∣swer; 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 conver∣sion, but to hold their spirituall restauration? so that although you hold onely a spirituall restauration to be meant in the Pro∣phecies, 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 ho∣nour 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 ac∣complish 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 A∣mos, ver. 16.17. where there is expresse mention of building the Ta∣bernacle 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

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 pre∣sent 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 conver∣sion, or esteeme their company. But as you hold the words in the 14. vers. to have reference to Simeons Prophecy, so you must remem∣ber, that Simeon 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 day] 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 explana∣tion, 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 buil∣ding of the Tabernacle of David] of the first calling of the Gentiles? cer∣tainely 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 [vi∣siting of the Gentiles] in the 14. ver. and from the words [that the resi∣dueof men might seeke after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my

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 peo∣ple, 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 in∣stance onely out of one of them: for I am sure that this prophecy is wholly in Amos, with a little difference from this translation accor∣ding to the originall, but none according to the Septuagint, as Do∣ctor Mayer affirmeth. And why doe you say before [Lames 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 Pro∣phets, 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

read, [As it is written in the booke of the Prophets, Acts 7.42.] in∣stead 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 lit∣tle infight in Divinity, if you were not able to satisfie your selfe there∣in: 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 sub∣stituted 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 under∣stood: 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 diffe∣rence 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 con∣siderable; 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 Israell 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

the whole number of the beleeving Jewes and Gentiles formerly call'd: and therefore the blindnesse being to continue, untill the ful∣nesse of the Gentiles shall come in, and then (according to your opini∣on) 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 a∣betted 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 [there∣fore 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 conclu∣sion 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. Auditum 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 oppofition 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 Gen∣tiles

shall come in, which are added to shew the distance of time be∣twixt the blinding and saving of Israel) besides all this, it is not ge∣nerally 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 Eng∣land, 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 mea∣ning of it in this Prophecie; and how then shall the turning away of ungodlinesse from Jacob be understood, but of saving [all Israel]

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 sub∣stituted Gentiles is come in; or when the time comes in which tho∣rough 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 wonder∣full deliverance of the Jews.] Thus no doubt you would have it, al∣though you cannot thus apprehend it; for I have before in a margi∣nall note, which you would take no notice of, (nor of some others which would have given good light to the reader in the totall dis∣covery of this truth) I have there, I say, as wel as he here distinguish∣ed betwixt the full number of the elect that were successively to be cal'd out of the Nations of the substituted Gentiles before the con∣version of the Jews: and the full calling of all unbeleeving Gentiles whatsoever at and through the extraordinary restauration and de∣liverance 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 substi∣tuted 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 what∣soever, that are to be converted through their wonderfull delive∣rance 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 delive∣rance; as any one, that is not more willing to have the truth mi∣staken, then to satisfie himselfe or others therein, may easily per∣ceive: 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 witnes∣seth. 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

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 man∣ner 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 Pro∣phecie of Amos doth manifest it. For by [the building of the Taberna∣cle 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, Eóque loco apud Deum tantisper habenda, dum veteri populo suo denuò misericordian 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 com∣ming 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 ••nd 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

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 those Nations fall away, and rise in armes against the Jews, at the end of the 1000. yeares, as 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 the 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 rea∣der 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 answers that you have made to them which concerne their re∣turne, 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

Gentiles: and yet the words 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 gene∣rall, (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 be∣long 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 prophe∣cy 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 ordi∣nances 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 expoun∣ded by the others, as the others are by this, if not more. For where∣as

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 fore∣shew the Jews withall, their returne unto, and prosperity in their owne country; and so declare both where and when the new Co∣venant 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 Meta∣phor, 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 Gen∣tiles, 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 Jeel &c.] And therefore it is not yet accom∣plished, for I have shewed before, that the prophecies cited out of I••el are not to be fulfilled til the great and terrible Day of our Savi∣ours 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 powre out his Spirit upon them, that he may no more hide his face from them,

hath therein promised both their conversion from sin, and continu∣ance 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, be∣cause 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 con∣siderable answer to any of these Prophecies, you had no other way to hold up your credit, amongst your friends, but by a sub∣tle 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 asha∣med 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 like∣wise 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 un∣der 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 flour at the glory of Christs Kingdome, saying [what? is this the glory of Christs Kingdome, that sheep shall lie in his Cities?] 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

Land of Canaan, and the encrease and prosperity of man and beast upon it, shall help set forth the glory thereof also, seeing the glo∣ry 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 abun∣dance of inward and spirituall blessings, wh••reby 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 scar∣city 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 appa∣rently bely God; for although God doth in that chapter of Ezek. call the Jewes his sheep, and his flock; yet it doth not therefore fol∣low, 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 Ci∣ties of Judah shall the flocks passe againe under the hands of him that telleth them? Doth he meane that Ministers should tell their Con∣gregations, 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 fore∣said 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 habitati∣on of Shepherds causing their flocks to lie downe. Whereby it is ma∣nifest, that Shepherds shall dwell in the Cities, but not that their

flocks shall have their folds there, but by the Cities where their fee∣ding shall be; and in that there shall then be Shepherds as well is the cities as in other places, it shewes what a great increase of cat∣tle 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 my∣stically to be understood, what would you gaine by it? when 〈◊〉〈◊〉 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 after∣wards more particularly in the Cities of the Mountaines, in the Ci∣ties of the Vale, and in the Cities of the South, and in the Land of Ben∣jamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the Cities of Judah: 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 Pro∣phecies for spirituall blessings, and not temporall promises for tem∣porall 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 bee 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 be 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 Eden, and the waste and desolate and ruined Cities are become fenced and inha∣bited. 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 sh•••• the beasts of the Land devoure them, but they shall dwell safely, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 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 sinnes against me: and I will pardon all their iniquities whereby they have sin∣ned against me, and whereby they have transgressed against me. And is

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 up∣on 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 pro∣mises 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 de∣livered, 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 ••ort, your principall Ar∣gunent: 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, Judge∣ment 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 be∣ing delighted with their prayers: and of the best of their fruits, and of their cattell, in token of mens praising of, and thanksgi∣ving 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 King∣dome to be accounted more or lesse carnall and voluptuous: so nei∣ther 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 sa∣crifices

crifices 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 thanksgi∣ving may againe be required, so other sacrifices may also? but how? surely not as in time past, to shew what Christ should doe for sin∣ners, 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 pro∣cured 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 at types of a Mediator to suffer for sinne, which were to offer them ac∣cording 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 com∣ming 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

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, ra∣ther 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, ho∣ping not to be censured for that, which the importunity of an ad∣versary hath put me to, who presuming that the Prophecies touch∣ing 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.