A reply to Mr. Tho. Beverley's answer to my reasons against his doctrine of…

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 show that all these Texts were performed on Pagan Rome, it is not your finding Papal Rome to be like it, that will justify your sense.

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 show here that the Revelation hath a far different sense, from what you give it.

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 Controversy, 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.

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