Israel's redemption redeemed. Or, The Jewes generall and miraculous conversion to the faith of the Gospel

[ 34] Israel's Redemption. And as for those which were converted at the first preaching of the Gospel, and at other times since, they are but the first fruits, and roote (as I may say) of the branches, and lump, which shall follow after them by a generall conversion: and therefore the cal∣ling of these can no more be accounted a conversion of the Iewes, then the calling of those Gentiles which were gathered to the Church before Christs nativitie can be taken for the conversion of the Gentiles; who were (as time hath shewne us) but the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the forerunners and pledge as it were of all those Nations, which were a long time after converted, by the ministry of the Apostles and their successours.

Mr. Petrie's Answer. These who were converted at the preaching of the Gospel, howbeit they may be called the first fruits of the Gospel preached since the incarnation of Christ, yet they cannot be called the first fruits of the sheepfold, see∣ing the Patriarchs are the roote and members of the same bodie of Christ, as they are expressely call'd, Rom. 11.16. being conferred with ver. 28. They are beloved for the Fathers sake. Next, there is a vast difference twixt the calling of the Gentiles under the Old Testament, and the cal∣ling of the Jewes under the New: for very few Gentiles were converted, even nothing in comparison of the converted Jewes; and albeit not so many 1000. have been converted as may be converted, yet that is no im∣pediment of the union twixt the two people, which consists in the union of the Church under the Old and New Testament, even albeit never a Jew were converted.

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 can∣not 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 Testa∣ment, and the calling of the Jewes under the new: because the Gentiles then converted, were very few, even nothing in comparison of the conver∣ted Jewes since the Gospel.] And suppose the Jewes were more, yet seeing no one Tribe of the Jewes hath been converted since the in∣carnation 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 con∣version 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 flourish∣ing 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 mul∣titude, 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 delive∣rance doe witnesse: and it is not unlikely, that as in all these Pro∣vinces the feare of the Jewes fell upon them, so in all these Pro∣vinces 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 part∣ly 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

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 pro∣portionably 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 uni∣on 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.