Reply Against the Doctrine of the Thousand Years Middle Kingdom, Rejoinder

Reply Against the Doctrine of the Thousand Years Middle Kingdom · Rejoinder

A REPLY TO Mr. Tho. Beverley's Anſwer TO MY REASONS Againſt his Doctrine of the Thouſand Years Middle Kingdom, and of the Converſion of the Jews.

By Richard Baxter, paſſing to that World where we ſhall ſee face to face. Feb. 20. 1691.

LONDON, Printed for Tho. Parkhurſt at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapſide, near Mercers Chapel. 1690/1.

p. 1AD pag. 1. You ſay very well againſt catching at words, and ſurmiſing ſtrange Opinions: But if an excellent Divine will ſpeak ſtrange and dangerous words, the Reader muſt have an Antidote, and it is time enough to forgive the Writer when he confeſſeth the Errour of his words. He that ſpeaketh ill, and meaneth well, ſhould keep his meaning to himſelf till he can and will intelligibly expreſs it.

To your pag 2. He were malignant that would not acknowledge your Candour: And it is an encouragement to us that differ from you, that you believe our part in that Kingdom which it is not given us yet to ſee. And as you profeſs your patient bearing of Contradictions, we ſhould love each other the more for our likeneſs. Though I am noted to have too ſharp a reproving ſtyle, I do profeſs that I can bear more than I uſe; yea, that I love Reproof and my Reprovers.

To your pag. 3. And your confidence of your right Interpretation of Prophecies, and of the bleſſed 1697 year, I ſay but 1. As Jeremiah to the Prophets of his time—Amen. My wiſhes accompany you further than my belief (but not to the unhappy end of your New Earth.) 2. And I know how natural it is for every man to be over-confident of his conceptions, and his way to be right in his own Eyes.

To your pag. 4. The deſcription of your Conformity, and receſſes from it, is very modeſt and diſcreet. I named you not among Conformiſts as an Accuſer, but as excuſing the Nonconformiſts, to whom your Millenary Opinion is by unrighteous men imputed, whiles it is Conformiſts that are its ſtrongeſt Pillars.

But if it be not the Sacred Office that you diſclaim, but the bare name foreign, are not thoſe Officers Chriſt's more ſpecial foreign, though the Laity alſo are his common Lot. You love not, I hope, Controverſies about meer names and words: But if you do, let Acts 1. 17. ſilence you, foreign, yet Judas was not choſen by Lot as Matthias was.

p. 2Tho' I know not what you mean by [ſetting up that in Kingdom counterfeit] nor how men ſhould underſtand that by [Semi-Sadduces of the Apoſtacy] you meant no body, but an Abſtract Thing; yet I underſtand and accept your Retractation.

Page 5. Your [bold avouching] ſpeaketh your confidence, but is no help to convince another, that a Kingdom of One day (1000 years) aſcribed to Chriſt, doth honour him more than an Endleſs Kingdom of Glory after two thouſand (or ſix thouſand) years Kingdom of Grace.

2. I thank you for diſclaiming the Doctrines which your words did favour: And intreat you that are ſo accurate in Prophecy, hereafter to be more accurate in your words, and to ſpeak as you think, and as you would have others think, that underſtand words according to common uſage.

Pag. 6. Of your commendations of Dr. Criſpe's Book, I think ſoill, that I have written a proper Anſwer to you about it, but ſtop the publiſhing of it, becauſe I find you ſo ready to retract. But I confeſs your commending to the World, a Book ſo contrary to Chriſtianity it ſelf, doth much abate my reverence to your confidence in Prophecy.

If ſuch as Dr. Criſpe and you have no ſafer and ſounder words to Preach Juſtification and Grace by, than to tell men how bad it is to think that ſin can poſſibly do them any hurt, or duty, or any thing they can do (Faith, Hope, Love, Obedience) do them any good, and to tell them that Chriſt is the greateſt hater of God, Murderer, Adulterer, &c. in the World, and that not only the puniſhment (and guilt of puniſhment) but the very ſins themſelves of all the Elect are Chriſt's own ſins; and that if men commit Murder, Adultery, Perjury, Treaſon, it is none of their ſin but Chriſt's, for it cannot be Chriſt's and theirs too; they are for all the acts, no Murderers, no Adulterers, no Traitors, no Haters of God, &c. I ſay, if this be your excellent Preaching of Chriſt and his Kingdom, I ſhall not admire your Doctrine of the Kingdom; nor wonder if more of this Doctor's Diſciples be like that one, that would come drunk and kneel to prayer in in his Family, and cry, [Lord, all our righteouſneſs is not worth twopence, no, Lord, it is not worth a half-penny.] And I hope hereafter you will ſpeak more intelligibly of our Juſtification only by God's Eſſential Righteouſneſs.

p. 3To pag. 7, 8. The Kingdom of Grace, which you confeſs in not another, but the ſame that extendeth to the endleſs Kingdom of Glory, by degrees deſtroying Sin and Curſe, and putting down Enemies, and by the Triumphant appearing of Chriſt at the Reſurrection finiſhing the Reign of Deliverance, Conqueſt and Acquiſition, and entring on the Reign of his Reward and glorious Fruition: There being in Scripture no mention that I can find of any Thouſand years between theſe two.

I come to your four profeſſed Differences.

I. That there is, beſides all the Kingly State of Chriſt wherein we are agreed, a diſtinct Kingdom of Jeſus Chriſt as the great Son of Man, to the higheſt Noon tide Glory of which God hath aſſigned a Thouſand years: And when it hath utterly ſubdued all Enemies, it is to be delivered up to God, and the Father, and the Son, to be ſubject in that very ſenſe.

Anſ. I have recited all your words, that I may be ſure that I leave not out the ſpecifick difference: But what it is I am never the wiſer, nor know by theſe words. I had the unhappineſs from my Youth to be inclined to ſtrict definition and diſtinction, and accurate Logical Explications, and to abhor confuſed Harangues; and therefore the (now deſpiſed) Schoolmen were my pleaſant ſtudy, next to the Bible and practical Divinity. But now I have lived to ſee that kind of ſtudy and diſputing derided, (which is far eaſier than learned) and to hear Diſputes about Terms unexplained; and the Queſtion debated in the beginning, and ſcarce ſtated in the end.

Which of theſe words ſpecifie the middle Kingdom from the former and the latter? Or muſt it be none of the particulars, but all connext?

1. Is it the word [diſtinct?] That's but to beg the Queſtion, which is, whether there be any middle diſtinct Kingdom? And it tells us not what it is. A diſtinction in the exerciſe of adminiſtration between the beginning and reſignation we are agreed of.

2. Is the difference in the word [The Great Son of Man?] Is he not the Great Son of Man before and after?

3. Is it in [the higheſt Noontide Glory?] Will it be greater than the Glory after the Thouſand years?

4. Is it in the time of [1000 years?] Is the time the ſpecies of the Kingdom? And is a Thouſand years better than everlaſting?

p. 45. Is it in [the ſubduing of all Enemies] Mean you in fieri, or in facto eſſe? If the firſt, Is he not ſubduing them now? Doth he not ſubdue them in every ſanctiſied Soul? and did he not ſubdue the Grand Pagan Roman Empire, &c. If you mean in facto eſſe, as conſummate, then what needs a Thouſand years to do it, when the Reſurrection is the finiſhing of it?

6. Is the delivering up to the Father, the ſpecifying form? then it is not in being till it is paſt being. How can it be delivered up before it is in being? And then the previous Kingdom of Acquiſition and Conqueſt is the ſame, for that is delivered to the Father.

7. Is it [the Son's being ſubject in that very ſenſe?] Little know I what you mean by [that very ſenſe] But I know that the Son as Man was, and will be ſubject: In the former and the everlaſting Kingdom. And ſo here is not one ſyllable of the ſpecifick difference, but a harangue of words.

As to the Taking of God's Name in vain, I beſeech you to fear it. To father a falſhood on God is dangerous. Suſpenſion is ſafer, where you ſay that to diminiſh is equally dangerous.] Therefore I do it not: I do not ſay, that God tells us that there is no ſuch Millenary Kingdom; but only that I can find no proof of any ſuch, and therefore tell you what hindereth me from your confident Opinion.

To pag. 10. It's very true that you ſay, that there is needful a comprehenſive knowledge of the whole frame of Prophecy and Chronology to a clear Judgment of many hard points: But not to the ſuſpenſion of Judgment, nor to the confutation of every Errour.

And I believe that you have ſtudied Chronology, and Daniel and Ezekiel more than I have done: But ſhould I enter into a diſpute with your pretended Scripture Chronology, and object againſt you, all that I find in Uſher, Helvicus, Petavius, Beroaldus, Joſ. Scaliger, Carion, Bucholzer, Functius, Gutberleth, Micrelius, Mr. Talents, &c. how endleſs would be the diſpute? And yet muſt your Chronology and all its conſequents be taken for granted Truths?

3. You truly ſay, that our Infancy, that needs to be fed with Milk, maketh us leſs capable of theſe Myſteries. The Lord pity and teach us. But I muſt ſay, that the Miniſters and People that have moſt need of Milk, (but leaſt feel their need) are p. 5moſt inclined to your Opinion in this point; excepting a few Learned men (Mr. Mead, and Dr. Twiſſe, and Dr. Moore, &c.) whom he overcame.

Ad pag. 11. 1. Call it a diſtinct Kingdom, or a diſtinct part of the adminiſtration, as you pleaſe, we grant that the glorious appearance of Chriſt to Judgment is diſtinct from his inviſible Reign in Heaven. As the Aſſizes is a diſtinct exerciſe of Judicature, and as Triumph is diſtinct from Conqueſt. As it is the Triumphant end of Chriſt's Conqueſts, and the beginning of his Rewarding Kingdom of Glory, it is oft ſpoken of in Scripture. But of what more I expect your proof.

But here you pretend a deſcription of this Kingdom; but no other than before, ſine differentid ſpecificd.

1. It is a Supreme Oeconomy; and was not that before and after Supreme?

2. It was towards the Family in Heaven and Earth.] So was that before and after.

3. It was in the fulneſs of all times.] Sure then it was after your Thouſand years.

4. It was by the Great Son of Man and Lamb.] So it was before and will be after.

5. The Humanity ſhall have a Glory ſingular to it ſelf, as it had a Humiliation.] True, but not divided from the Godhead; and ſo it had before, and will have to eternity, as you confeſs.

Is this Elucidation, or an informing way of an Inſtructor?

But you ſay, The Rain-bow is a ſymbol of it. This is obſcure Information, I like not your name of [it's Glory diſtinct and diſtant from the Sun.] The Glory of Chriſt's Humanity is diſtinct, but not diſtant from the Deity; and it is as near before and after, and as glorious as you can juſtly imagine it to be in the Thouſand years.

Pag. 12. A Kingdom confined to a Thouſand years you affirm indeed, but without a word of proof. 2. You add ſeventy five years and ſome time after the Thouſand, I would you had deigned to tell us what you mean by its [Succeſſion] and what by its [Inveſtiture] whether the Succeſſion be before or after the Conflagration, and any part of the Kingdom: Or if only a preparation what that Church-ſtate of preparation is?

Pag. 13. Gog and Magog you ſay, [Are Satan and all the wicked, that had been Raiſed to lie at the footſtool of Chriſt from p. 6the very beginning of the Thouſand years] being looſed, Take to make a bold attempt on the holy City to draw it to defection.] Is this Chriſt's Goſpel or yours?

Qu. 1. Are theſe dead raiſed men inviſible bodies, or only as Devils inviſible ſpirits, or in bodies inviſible?

Qu. 2. Rev. 20. ſaith, that Satan deceiveth the Nations, to gather them againſt the holy City: But if they were Devils themſelves that do it as other Devils in malice, what need they a Satan to deceive them?

Qu. 3. Rev. 20. ſaith, They were the Nations that were in the Earth: Were all the dead wicked raiſed, dwellers on Earth in the Thouſand years?

Qu. 4. If they had bodies, where will there be room on Earth for all the wicked ſince Cain till the end, to dwell there all at once?

Qu. 5. And would there be room for them all ſo near the holy City?

Qu. 6. When the Text ſaith, Satan deceived them to gather them to Battle; why turn you [Battle] to [drawing the City to defection?]

Q. 7. Where were all theſe Dead Raiſed men when the Earth was on fire? If, in another World, how come they after to be dwellers in the New Paradiſe Earth? If they were on Earth, were they raiſed before, or in, or after the burning? And how ſcap't their new bodies? The Paradiſe Saints have bodies of fleſh, paſſible, and ſuch as muſt have food: Sure all the raiſed wicked have not bodies leſs ſenſible, patible, or that need leſs food.

Qu. 8. Is not the New City and Earth after a Thouſand years experience, worſe than weak Chriſtians are now? If by known Devils, and condemned wicked ones of all Ages raiſed, they will be drawn from Chriſt, after a Thouſand years Miracles?

Q. 9. What becometh of the bodies of all the wicked that are found alive at the Conflagration? Do they ſcape out of the fire alſo as the Saints do? And doth the New Earth at once hold all the Saints that were alive, and all the wicked alive, and all the wicked dead from Cain's time?

Qu. 10. And is that the New Earth wherein dwelleth Righteouſneſs, that hath ſo many wicked?

p. 7Qu. 11. If Grace cannot now be loſt, will not Chriſt then keep his Paradiſe Saints?

Qu. 12. Or if the New Earth fall away, did not the holy City conſiſt moſt of Hypocrites? and is that the Glory of it? We are now in ſurer keeping than Adam and the faln Angels were. None ſhall take us out of Chriſt's hands.

Qu. 13. Doth not this leave us to fear that thoſe in the New Heaven alſo may fall away as the Angels did?

Qu. 14. For will there not (after the Seventy five years preparation) be as good people found on Earth, as thoſe that died before? Why then think you that thoſe alive ſhall be ſet ſo far below the reſt, as to have but an earthly generating life, when the reſt are in Heaven? And Chriſt ſaith, The laſt ſhall be firſt, and the firſt laſt.

Qu. 15. Why ſay you that the Laodicean Apoſtaſie is no greater a wonder than Adams and the Angels? Is the New World in no better a ſtate? Then the New Jeruſalem may become Devils.

Qu. 16. You ſay, Chriſt being to put an end to a Church-ſtate on Earth, may ſuffer ſo juſt an occaſion for ſpewing out of his mouth.] But do you honour or dishonour the Glorious Kingdom, to feign it to have ſuch an end? That laſting but one day (a Thouſand years) it ſhould end in being ſpewed out for ever?

Qu. 17. What Word of God have you for your Opinion, that there ſhall never more be an Earth, or a Church on Earth? And that God who is delighted in his wondrous works, will have none of theſe Worlds, from eternity to eternity, but only for ſeven days (ſeven Thouſand years?)

Qu. 18. Peter tells us of the burning of the Earth, but not of the ending of it: How come you to know ſo much more than he ever intimated or ſeemed to know?

Qu. 19. To ſay that Heaven and Earth have ſo unhappy an end, doth it not tempt men to Manicheiſing, to think that an ill God made this world?

Qu. 20. Did not ſomething within you reluctate when you cited 2 Pet. 3. for the Thouſand years duration of the Kingdom?. As if you argued [Peter tells the unbelievers, Delay of Chriſt's coming ſhould not make you think that he will not come: For a Thouſand years delay is with God but as a year: Ergo his Kingdom will be but a Thouſand years.] Is this to expound Prophecy?

p. 8Qu. 21. Is it more faulty in a Plato, Zeno, or other Pagans to conjecture at Tranſmigrations of Souls, revolutions of Worlds, or with Ariſtotle, to think the World was an eternal Effect of an eternal Cauſe: Or for a Chriſtian to ſay, Thus ſaith the Lord, and pawn God's Word for his erroneous conjectures.

Your Arguments are too long and looſe for any Mood, and Figure, or Reaſon.

Arg. I. King of Kings is a Title fit for a great Kingdom, &c. What then? Ergo it proveth a Middle Kingdom between that of Recovering Grace, and Reſurrection Glory.) I deny the conſequence; no Kingdom is fitter for thoſe Titles than that of Grace and final Glory. This is not proving.

It's falſe that Chriſt hath not yet been an Univerſal Monarch.

Pag. 15. Your 2d Argument (as the reſt) is but a repeating of your own formally confuted Opinions, without any reply to the Confutation, as if you had nothing to do, but aſſert again what you think.

1 Cor. 15. 24. Is your proof, Then cometh the end? And is the Thouſand years the end, and not the Glorious Kingdom of fruition? Judgment will end by Triumph the Kingdom of Acquiſition: But the eternal Kingdom will be the laſt.

2. Your denial of a Diſtinct Glory of Chriſt's Humanity before and after the Thouſand years, is certainly untrue. If the Divine and Humane Nature be diſtinct, the Glory of each muſt needs be diſtinct, tho' not divided. VVhy obtrude you groſs things unproved?

3. Your intimation that [God doth then begin to be All in All, and Chriſt to be Subject, in ſome ſpecial ſenſe, hath no proof from the Text, nor if proved is it any thing for your purpoſe.

1. The Text ſpeaks of no ſuch beginning: But that though Chriſt hath done his Conquering work, yet ſtill God ſhall be All in All things, as he was.

2. Yet we grant that it ſpeaks of Chriſt's ending his Kingdom of Conqueſt and Acquiſition, and the Deity now Governing Man as reſtored, not needing any more recovery. I oft tell you, as the King's Son made General to reduce Rebels, giveth up his Generalſhip when he hath reduced them, but hath after the promiſed honour and reward, but as a Subject ſtill, & not a Captain.

Pag. 16. You ſay, that our Expoſition chargeth on the Apoſtle [Impropriety of ſpeech] but you do but ſay ſo, and we deny it. Is it not proper ſpeech to ſay, that a General giveth up his Office, p. 9and yet remaineth an honoured, rewarded Subject Ruler?] Indeed, had it been as you feign it, ſaid [to become ſubject] it would have ſeemed to ſignifie, that he then began to be ſubject: But that's your addition; & yet you before confeſt that he was ſubject before.

2. I told you Diſtinguiſhing is not Separating. And I told you wherein the difference conſiſteth, which you confute not.

3. To your 2d Reaſon, I find no ſuch Scripture as you talk of, that mentioneth any middle Kingdom, but a Triumphant Judgment perfecting the Kingdom of Grace, and beginning that of Endleſs Glory. The admirable agreement which you mention ſeemeth to me to be but an agreement of your conceit.

Your 3d Argument from Luk. 22. 29, 30. ſaith nothing of a third Kingdom: All that is there ſaid ſeemeth to me fulfilled without a third.

Pag. 17. Is not that you plead for [of the Humane Nature as united to the Eternal Word?] How can it elſe be any Kingdom of Chriſt? But both that of Grace and Glory are ſuch; but not without the Relation of Mediatorſhip. By [Conſtituted] I ſuppoſe you mean, not eſſential to the nature or perſon, without reſpect to the Office as the product of God's VVill: And ſuch is the Everlaſting Kingdom. It is the Reign of the Man Jeſus united to the Godhead, as Mediator of Acquiſition firſt, and then of Fruition, and this over creatures. I fear it is dangerouſly untrue therefore that you ſay, That the Kingdom of the Humane Nature is united to the Eternal Word, and communicating with it, is an Eſſential, and not a Conſtitutive Kingdom.

Eſſential to what? Is the Humane Nature, and a World of Creatures eſſential to God? It is eſſential to it ſelf; that is, it is what it is. But can you prove that the Humane Nature was, or ſhall ever be united to the Deity, without its Relation of Mediator? It is Chriſt's will, that thoſe given him be with him, and ſee his Glory: And that ſight is of the Mediator of Fruition; and did he limit that ſight to a Thouſand years?

To your 2d. 1. You have not proved that the Apoſtles yet ſit not on Thrones of Judgment: They are equal with Angels.

2. If yet they do not, may it not be at Judgment, and in the Kingdom of Glory?

3. The Title of [His Kingdom, and eating and drinking] are as fully anſwered without the middle Kingdom as with it; unleſs you can prove that thoſe Apoſtles with Chriſt, ſhall dwell, and eat p. 10and drink a Thouſand years on Earth, in their ſpiritual bodies, or have a middle ſort of bodies for that middle Kingdom; and had they not better before, and muſt they lay thoſe by for worſe?

Arg. 4. You know we deny not that Chriſt's Throne is diſtinguiſhed from his Fathers: You cite the Text, Rev. 3. 21. [He overcame and is ſet down] and expounded it [He knew he ſhould ſit, but was not yet ſet down] not indeed in the Throne of Triumph and of Glory, till he overcame.]

You ſay, [It cannot be a Throne he hath yet] what! when it is ſaid, He is ſet down on it?] But Saints muſt ſit with him, you ſay: And may not he ſit down before them? Muſt he ſtay till every Saint be with him?

You ſay again, It cannot be the Throne of Eternity, becauſe the Son is ſubject, and hath not a diſtinct Throne, &c.

Anſ. If you mean by the Throne of Eternity] a Kingdom from Eternity: There could be no ſuch thing, unleſs there were Eternal Subjects. If you mean only [To Eternity] the Son will have a diſtinct, but not a ſeparate Throne, tho' not diſtinct Subjects. For he ſhall ſubordinately have all power in Heaven and Earth.

P. 18. Arg. 5. Mat. 20. 20. You ſay, This is not the Kingdom of the Eternal Word. Anſ. Then it can be no Kingdom of Chriſt.

You ſay, [There is no ſitting on the right hand or left.] Anſ. Nor no Subjects from Eternity, unleſs the VVorld be eternal. But to Eternity there is.

You ſay, He that ſits on the left hand, muſt ſit next the Father. Anſ. This is your way of arguing by Allegories? You are not an Anthropomorphite: You know that by God's right hand, is but to be next him in Power, ſubordinate. And may not others be next to Chriſt?

Arg. 6. You ſay is from innumerable Scriptures: Mat. 19. 27. is before ſpoken to; who doubteth but the Throne of his Glory was future. Mat. 25. 31. confuteth you. You ſay, It's not to be till all be gathered before hi… to Judgment. Anſ. Therefore not a Thouſand years before thoſe alive be gathered before him to Judgment. Chriſt ſpeaketh of coming to Judge all (not ſome) to everlaſting life or puniſhment; but nothing of a Thouſand years.

Pag. 19. 2 Tim. 4. 1. VVe doubt not of his Judgment or Kingdom: But what word is here for a middle Kingdom?

Luke 19. 11. Chriſt went to receive a Kingdom; and did he receive none till his return at the Reſurrection? what can be plainer p. 11againſt you: He aſcended to be preſently poſſeſt of a greater Poſſeſſion of Power: All Power in Heaven and Earth was given him before his Return.

You ſay, This is not the State of the Kingdom where God ſhall be All in All. Anſ. Theſe are but your own words often anſwered and confuted.

From Mat. 16. 26, 27. One would think that it ſhould be a good Argument that Chriſt ſhall have one Kingdom, that was firſt obſcured by fleſh's weakneſs, after come in viſible Power to Judgment, and paſs into Glory, becauſe ſome then alive ſhould ſee the pledge and appearance of it. But you hence gather, that becauſe men ſhall ſee the appearance of his heavenly Glorious Reign, therefore he ſhall have none of that Reign in the Kingdom of Grace or Endleſs Glory, but in a third and middle Kingdom; ſuch Collections expound your ſelf, more than the Text.

As ſoon as Chriſt aſcended to Heaven, he was poſſeſt of the Kingdom of Power, ſeen in the Mount, and not only at the Millennium.

P. 20. Arg. 6. You fetch your moſt concluſive Argument from the one ſingle note by which the Spirit of God hath fixed the beginning of this Kingdom, that is, The ſubduing of Enemies] where your fantaſie maketh two degrees. 1. The making of Chriſt's Enemies his footſtool. And 2. Putting them Low under his feet. As if his footſtool were not low and under his feet. Can you prove that Scripture meaneth this as two States, and that at 1000 years diſtance? Yes, you ſay the ſecond is to bring them to the ſtate of no motion or action: And yet are they haters of God, and have they a ſelf-tormenting Conſcience, and when looſed are Gog and Magog; and aſſault the holy City; and yet have no motion or action? I ſuppoſe that in your next you will ſay you meant well, and not that they were made dead blocks or annihilated; but you ſhould ſpeak as you think, or ſay that you think as you ſpeak. It will comfort the wicked to hope that they ſhall have only the puniſhment of Loſs as dead inſenſible carkaſſes. You have many paſſages of this ſound.

Pag. 21. You groſly pervert Pſal. 110. 1. God ſaith not, Sit thou without Reigning at my right hand, till I all at once, or at the laſt make thine Enemies thy footſtool. He ſaith not, Sit without Reigning, and Reign only at thy laſt coming: But ſit next me in Ruling dignity while I am making thine Enemies thy footſtool, which at laſt ſhall be perfected: What word ſaith as you; I intend thee a Great and diſtinct Kingdom (of one days length) the date of its beginning ſhall not be at thy Aſcenſion, &c?] Did not God make the Pagan Empire his footſtool, and ſubdue Sin and Satan, till the day of Judgment? It is enough that all will be then finiſhed and the Kingdom of Glory begun. [He ſits and doth not Reign] is your fiction againſt full Scripture.

Heb. 2. 5. We ſee them not put under him] can mean but [We ſee not that ſubjection perfected.] But we do ſee them put under him in a great degree. The Lord reigneth; Let the people rejoice. The Kingdoms of the World are made the Kingdoms of the Lord and of his Chriſt before the day of Judgment.

If we ſee not all things put under him, do we ſee nothing ſo put? When Judgment puts all things under him, what need a Thouſand years do it?

The pag. 22d is but the repetition of what is oft anſwered.

p. 12P. 23. It's a great diſparagement to your Cauſe, to lay your chief ſtreſs on this Text: As if it were not fulfilled by Chriſt many 100 or 1000 years treading down Sin, Satan, and Empire of Enemies, and triumphing over them at his Glorious appearing, and Reigning for ever for that Conqueſt in Glory, unleſs he be a Thouſand years more between in Coquering them.

As to 2 Pet. 3. 7. I askt you before whether you feel no reluctancy in ſo groſs an abuſe of that Text that ſpeaketh of 1000 delay being before Chriſt's coming, as if it ſpake of 1000 years after. Pardon the Queſtion: The Cauſe requireth it.

P. 34. You have but one Text in all the Bible that ſpeaks of 1000 years to give you the leaſt ſhew of Countenance; and that in Prophetick Language: And can you not ſtay on the mentioning of it? What elſe ſhould all your Book have been, but your clearing of this one Text? You promiſe to prove abundantly that it cannot poſſibly be underſtood of any time paſt: But I ſee no hope of your performance.

I once more intreat the Reader to read John Fox his Oath of what God from Heaven revealed to him to the contrary Martyrol. Vol. I. p. 111. and in his Lat. Expoſ. of the Revelations, even that John Fox who was no Papiſt, and thought Prophetical, when. he told Mrs. Honiwood deſpairing in Melancholy how ſhe ſhould recover and live to be old, when in unbelief ſhe threw a Glaſs to the Wall or Ground, and took it up whole, and fulfilled his Propheſie.

But you have fitted the reſt of your Expoſition of the Revelations to your Expoſition of the 1000 years, and then you think that fitneſs proveth all your Point But if I ſhew that all theſe Texts were performed on Pagan Rome, it is not your finding Papal Rome to be like it, that will juſtifie your ſenſe.

It were an impertinent work to ſhew here that the Revelation hath a far different ſenſe, from what you give it.

Pag. 27. Your 2d Point therefore is of another Controverſie, which this in hand depends not on; unleſs you confeſs that you have no other proof of the Thouſand years Kingdom, but Rev. 20. and that it was not fulfilled heretofore. I am paſt doubt that Pagan Rome was Babylon mentioned in Rev. But whether Papal Rome be another Babylon, I leave to enquiry: But if all your Cauſe lie on that one Text, I think it hath no good foundation. Many Expoſitors think thoſe Thouſand years long ago paſt, as well as John Fox, Grotius and Hammond. I am ſure they are before the War of Gog and Magog, and you muſt ſay more yet before you can make me believe that this is another World, by all the wicked dead and raiſed.

I have by me an Anſwer to all your Arguments on this Subject, and more, not here to be repeated. Tho' your confidence by the advantage of prejudice, may ſeem to many to juſtifie all your heavy charges on the (true) Opinion, that the Thouſand years there mentioned are paſt.

Pag. 38. I find all aſſertive, and the repetition of what you have formerly ſaid, without true Argument or Anſwer.

Arg. 1. Is it not the Eternal Word in our Nature, Mediator, that is the Son of Man, and Chriſt our Lord? What a diſtinction is here!

Arg. 2. Iſa. 66 ſpeaks of the Carkaſſes of the Syrians.

The Saints ſhall to Eternity be united to Chriſt in our Nature.

Arg. 3. I am ſorry that a third time you ſo abuſe Peter's Thouſand years againſt the plain Text.

Pag. 39. Arg. 4. The New Heaven and Earth is chap. 21. mentioned as after Gog and Magog's deſtruction, and the time of Judgment: And you make it 1000 years before. If it was before, it rather ſeemeth to mean the New State of the Church as prefiguring the heavenly Glory.

p. 13Aſſert. 2. Arg. 1. The kingdom of Chriſt ſhall never ceaſe as Glorious in Fruition, but only as Victorious in Acquiſition.

Arg. 2. 1. The Text ſpeaketh of the Old Earth and Heaven flying away, and you feign it to ſpeak of the New. 2. New and Old, and all things are in the Divine Immenſity: How then doth that make the difference? 3. That no other ſhall ſucceed, is but your word, if you had proved that it is the New that flie away.

Arg. 3. Is but repetition. I believe you not that there ſhall be no uſe of a Material Heaven and Earth: Nor that the Humane Nature of Chriſt ſhall not be the Object that Saints ſhall look upon, and yet ſhall be the Medium of Conveyance. Doth not Chriſt ſay, It is his will that we ſhall be with him to ſee his Glory? Shall it not be an Object, if a Medium? Let us not feign our ſelves higher than God hath promiſed. If we be not the bigheſt creatures, why ſhould we think that we have not need of higher? Is all our promiſed Comfort in Communion with the Angels, Saints, and Chriſt's Humanity objectively confined to a Thouſand years?

Pag. 41. Obſ. 1. How prove you that God's everlaſting Communication to Humane Nature is not as free as the reſt, ſeeing he freely created and continueth Humane Nature?

2. Is not all Time in Eternity? And doth all Time end before all temporary creatures end? You may as well call one an Oeconomy as the other.

Pag. 42. Is there no Glory to Eternity but what is from Eternity? Then either Chriſt's Humane Nature, and all his Saints were from Eternity, or elſe they will not be to Eternity.

Arg. 4. That there ſhall be no uſe of the New Heaven or Earth for Saints of the firſt Reſurrection above, ſeemeth contrary to the whole ſcope of Scriptures.

Chriſt's Humane Nature and ours, had no Glory with the Father before any World began. For that which exiſted not had no Glory.

Pag. 43. Propoſ. 3. The ſpiritual heavenly Bodies will be apparent for ever; ſhall they not know and be known even as face to face?

Prop. 4. You anſwer not what is ſaid to prove that there is no Thouſand years between the Changing and the taking up.

Your Reaſons are formerly anſwered.

Pag. 44. Prop. 5. Lot was carried out of Sodom, but you hold that the Living ſhall be in the fire, and not caught out: That they ſhall be in it unburnt, you do not prove. Peter doth not ſpeak of keeping them in the fire unburnt.

Pag. 45. If the Saints changed are to be numbred with the Children of the Reſurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage. And you ſay, They both make but one New Jeruſalem.

Prop. 7. Tell us your proof of three or four ſorts of our Bodies: That the Earthly Body ſhall be turned into a Paradiſe Body, and that into a Spiritual Body, if not that alſo into a ſuperceleſtial.

Prop. 8. I have proved that the taking up is at the ſound of the Trumpet, which is the time of the Reſurrection.

Pag. 46. If all be One Reſurrection, then thoſe in Paradiſe are Children of the Reſurrection, and marry not.

Point 4. Of the Jews Reſtauration, you are pleaſed to leave almoſt all unanſwered that I brought againſt you, and ſo diſcharge me from any Reply: Though you ſay, that your words anſwer all material Objections, being themſelves what I did before invalidate.

In the concluſion to all my former Queſtions, I deſire your Anſwer to theſe few more added;

Q. 1. Seeing pag. 5. Tou dare not think of any World before that, Gen. 1. nor after the Kingdom given up, &c. what mean you by the Eternal Kingdom, when there are no Eternal Subjects?

p. 14Q. 2. If it be all the wicked that died before the Trumpet, that are Raiſed, and after aſſault the New Jeruſalem, have they not moſtly been bound many Thouſand years already, in that they aſſault us no more, unleſs you take them to be the Devils that tempt us?

Q. 3. Will their puniſhment all the Thouſand years be ſo eaſie as to allow them to cover the Earth & ſight againſt the Saints? and will it no more convince them?

Q. 4. What became of their Bodies in the Conflagration?

Q. 5. And of the Bodies of all the living wicked?

Q. 6. And of their Souls that lived then in wickedneſs?

Q. 7. Seeing you take Philadelphia to be the New Earth in its purity, before its fall, can you believe that in that World, there is but a little ſtrength, and that there is a Synagogue of Satan called Jews, that muſt come and worſhip before their feet? And that Philadelphia after the fire, is yet to be kept from an hour of temptation that ſhall come on all the World, to try them that dwell on the Earth?

Q 8. Doth the New Paradiſe World hear, Behold I come quickly hold faſt, &c after Chriſt is come?

Q. 9. Seeing Laodicea is alſo with you the New Earth and Paradiſe State, is that indeed a Changed State, and World of Righteouſneſs in which the New Jeruſalem is neither hot nor cold, and to be ſpewed out, and is wretched, and miſerable, and poor, and blind, and naked, and knoweth it not, but ſaith, I want nothing, and is yet counſelled to buy, and cover her ſhame, &c. Is that World no better than ſo?

Q. 10. Doth God reward all men according to their works, if the Beſt Saints found alive are for a thouſand years in no better a World, and the Worſt Saints that were dead ſince Abel till Chriſt's coming, are in a ſpiritual higher Body and Region all that Thouſand years? Is this God's Word?

Q. 11. Did any of the Aſian Churches, or any Chriſtians for 1300 years at leaſt (or 1500) believe that the five firſt Epiſtles were written to men of this World, and the two laſt to the men of the World to come after the Earth (and Bibles) are burnt?

Q. 12. Conſider whether you that ſo zealouſly cry down the Papal Antichriſt and Babylon, do not ignorantly maintain the Papal State which you call Antichriſtian? What is the Eſſence of Papacy, but the claim of an Univerſal Power over the Church, in the Pope, or his Counſel, he being the Head. And do not you maintain that the Seven Churches are Seven States of the Church Univerſal? And almoſt all Expoſitors agree that by the Angel is meant the Biſhop, at leaſt, as Biza ſaith, the Proeſtos with his Elders: And have even the Two Churches of the World to come ſuch an Univerſal Government? Sure then it is of Divine Inſtitution that ſuch there be: And who claimeth it but the Pope and Councils? This is the Effect of over-doing Zeal.

For my part, if I believed that by God's Inſtitution the Church Catholick muſt have one Univerſal Humane Angel or Government, Monarchical or Ariſtocratical, or mixt, I would preſently be a Papiſt.

Sir; If any words in this Paper are diſpleaſing to you for their freedom, be aſſured it is to your Words and Cauſe, and not for want of Love and great Eſteem of your Perſon; who as you are by Birth above me (the Son of a Godly Knight) ſo from my heart I believe that you are a far better man than my ſelf. And though I think you over-confident of your Apprehenſions, I love you the better while I think, How ſtrong a Faith hath that good man of God's Word in general, who is ſo confident in every hard particular. I beg your prayers for me, who look from day to day, when ſight reſolveth me of all theſe Controverſies.