The mystery of Israel's salvation, explained and applyed: or, A discourse concerning the general conversion of the Israelitish nation. Wherein is shewed, 1. That the Twelve Tribes shall be saved. 2. When this is to be expected. 3. Why this must be. 4. What kind of salvetion the Tribes of Israel shall partake of (viz.) a glorious, wonderful, spiritual, temporal salvation. : Being the substance of several sermons preached / by Increase Mather, M.A. teacher of a church in Boston in New England. ; [Ten lines of Scripture texts]

The Authors PREFACE To the READER.

THat there shall be a General conversion of the Tribes of Israel, is a truth which in some mea|sure hath been known, and believed in all ages of the Church of God, since the Apostles days. For proof whereof it might easi|ly be shewed that the * 1.1 Ancients (Fathers as they are called) did many of them so believe. Yea even in the dark times of Popery, sundry * 1.2 of the School-men did assert this truth. And since the glorious light of the everlasting Gospel hath (according to the Scriptures) broke forth to the consuming of the man of sin, this a|mongst many other precious and holy truths, hath been a|bundantly born witness un|to by the chief * 1.3 Refor|mers of Religion in this and the last Century. Nor is it so much doubted of at this day, as heretofore ••t hath been. But there is another thing asserted in the subsequent Discourse which seemeth a Paradox unto not a few, that is to say, the notion of the Chiliad.

Now I must confess there are many things that stick and sway with me, so as to cause me to be very slow in condemning simple Chiliasm as erroneous. One thing is,

that I find it passed for current and unquestionable truth in the very next age to the Apostles. However now there are that dare affirm, that the notion of the Chiliad is Hereti|cal, yet in the Primitive times, we read of * 1.4 none but Hereticks that questio|ned the truth of it. Justin Martyr, who flourished An. 150. saith that he did * 1.5 firmly believe the Instauration of Jerusalem, and the thousand years according to the Doctrine of the holy Prophets and Apo|stles; and moreover he saith, that no throughly Ortho|doxal Christian ever doubt|ed of it, only some Pseudo-Christians, that dis-believed the Resurrection, denyed the Chiliad also. Now (as Mr. Mede observeth) this is such a Testimony of Antiquity as is absolute, the like can|not be given again unto any extra-fundamental point of Religion. And Irenaeus, who was contemporary with Ju|stin Martyr, hath * 1.6 as|serted the Chiliad. Let it be considered, that Irenae••s was the Scholar of Poly|carp, which Polycarp was the Auditor of John the A|postle, and (as * 1.7 writers affirm) saw Christ in the flesh. Surely the blessed Disciple of such a Teacher would hardly have entertained such a notion, if there had been that Heterodoxy in it,

which some imagine. Like|wise * 1.8 Tertullian, * 1.9 Origen, * 1.10 Cyprian, * 1.11 Lactantius, who lived in the second or third Cen|tury. I might add * 1.12 Nepos, Coracion, Apol|linarius, were all of them sufficiently (and if the re|ports of adversaries may be credited more than so) Chi|liastical. Neither do I al|together slight the Testimony of Papias, who saith, he re|ceived the notion of the Chiliad from the mouth of the A|postle John. I know, but matter not, Eusebius * 1.13 his censure of Papias, any more than I would regard it, if I should hear one say of Eusebius (and indeed some * 1.14 judicious and lear|ned men say little less) that he had 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉〈in non-Latin alphabet〉. I do likewise think, that Irenaeus his testimony concerning Papias, that that John, who taught him the Doctrine of the Chiliad, was indeed the Apostle John, is rather to ••e credited than Eusebius (a man that laboured to make the world believe, that the Apocalyps is not of divine Aposto|lical Authority) history, who saith, it was another John, a private Presbyter only, which Senior John is by Jerome [lege eum de Scrip. Eccles. in verbo Johannis, & in ver|bo Papias] esteemed the Author of the second and third E|pistles of John. Be it so, that the Author of those Epistles was the same John who taught Papias the Doctrine of the Chiliad. Moreover it is of weight with me, that how|ever

many, yea, most of our Reforming Worthies have been against the Chiliad; yet some that have been inferi|our to none amongst our modern Classical Authors, have esteemed Chiliasm to be no errour (much less heresie) but a Scripture truth. Alstedius is one, whose great learning and piety is known and acknowledged amongst all impartial Iudges, yet he * 1.15 hath e|laborately asserted the Chi|liad. Piscator in Dr. * 1.16 Twiss his judgment was an incomparable Divine, yet he was for a literal Inter|pretation of the Apocalyp|tical Chiliad. And (as * 1.17 Alstedius testifyeth) not long before his death wrote more fully upon that argument. And if we con|sider our English Worthies, not a few do present them|selves, even stars of the first magnitude, to bear witness unto this truth. Such as are now living I need not insist upon, otherwise I might mention those Reverend men of God. Dr. * 1.18 Goodwin, Mr. * 1.19 Davenport, Mr. * 1.20 Greenhill, as assertors of the substance of the Chi|liastical notion. But a|mongst them that are now resting from their labours, and followed with a glorious reward of their works, there is Mr. * 1.21 Mede, Dr. * 1.22 Twiss, Mr. * 1.23 Bur|roughs, Mr. * 1.24 Burton,

(not to mention others) all of them great and famous propugners of the truth in their Generations, and these held the Chiliad.

Surely then methinks men should take heed how they judge those things to be dreams and phansies, which the most holy and eminent of the servants of God, that have had the greatest intimacy of Communion with him, & the largest discoveries of his secret and blessed Counsels, have esteemed as great and heavenly mysteries. It was a candid and ingenuous expression of Hieroms (however he were otherwise a bitter enemy to the Millenary opinion) that * 1.25 although he could not wholly approve of it,

yet he durst not condemn it, because many Martyrs and famous Doctors in the Church had so taught

If any should say, but our Divines have (some of them) termed Chiliasm * 1.26 He|resie; It might be answered, That all is not Heresie, which good and learned men have so accounted. Witness * 1.27 Austin's put|ting Aerius in the Cata|logue of Hereticks, because he opposed Prelacy, and stated fasts and festivals, and praying for the dead, &c. But the special reason

why learned and judicious men have looked upon the notion of the Chiliad, as Heretical, is, because some that were for that opinion, maintained that the Saints after their resurrection should again live a sensual life, in the enjoy|ment of carnal pleasures. And truly such Doctrine as that let it be branded with the name of Heresie, and re|jected with all abhorrency. Nevertheless to maintain that there will be heavenly and spiritual joys amongst the Saints upon earth during the great day, even Austin will ac|knowledge to be a * 1.28 tole|rable opinion, and that he had once an apprehension not much differing from that.

Again it swayeth something with me when I consider that the Chiliad was not denyed until Antichrist began to reign, and other opinions far worse than that came in the room of it. And it sticketh more with me, that the first op|posers of Chiliasm were faign to deny the divine Apostoli|cal Authority * 1.29 of the A|pocalyps, and of the * 1.30 second Epistle of Peter. In those days they acknowledg|ed that indeed the Author of the Book of the Revela|t••on was a Chiliast, and so was the writer of the second Epistle of Peter, but therefore they said (that so they might be sure to avoid Chiliasm) that neither that Epistle of Pe••er, nor the Apocalyps, were Canonical Scripture. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were desperate shifts. And it is not nothing with me, that those learned Worthies who wholly deny the Mil|lenary notion, charge them with a tincture of * 1.31 Chiliasm, who maintain that the Jews shall be re|possessed

of the Land of their Fathers, and that they shall have an external temporal glory and happiness above other people; or, that there will a time come when the Churches shall for a thou|sand years be freed from persecution. Now all these notions pass for current a|mongst us. And therefore i•• indeed it be so that they savour of Chiliasm, let those that believe them judge of what nature the notion of the Chiliad is, that they who oppose it find a necessity 〈◊〉〈◊〉 deny those other with us received notions.

But above all, that which presseth me so, as that I can|not gainsay (taking it in a sober and spiritual sence) the Chiliastical opinion, is, That I take these four thing•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Principles, and no way doubt but that they are Demon|strable.

1. That the thousand Apocalyptical years are not past, but future.

If I were of that opinion, which indeed not a few learned men are of, that that time began either at the * 1.32 birth or * 1.33 pas|sion of Christ, or at the * 1.34 destruction of the Iewish state, or at * 1.35 Constan|tines enthronization, I should then be far from be|lieving as now I do: But let me say, that the Argu|ments alleadged for those Interpretations, are ea|sily

answered, and the contrary proved irrefragably (fi quid ego judico) yea, and that I do not think it possible to make any complete (that I say not with Mr. Mede any tolerable) work of it in expounding the Apocalyps, ex|cept this be taken pro confesso, that the Chiliad is yet future.

2. I do likewise take it for a Principle, that the co|ming of Christ to raise the dead, and to judge the earth, will be within much less than this thousand years.

3. I suppose, that received Principle among Divines will hold good, that the conversion of the Jews will not be till this present state of the world is * 1.36 near unto its end. I say not until the morning of the resurrection be almost ready to dawn.

4. The Scripture is to me exceeding clear, that, after the Jews conversion, there will be a glorious day for the elect upon earth, and that this day shall be of very long continuance.

There is not time here to expatiate upon these Axioms▪ otherwise I could urge a multitude of things to prove them. And if they be, (or if the two first of them be) granted, Chiliasm followeth clearly and undeniably.

Thus have I given a summary account of what hath perswaded me to own that which is in the worlds account an incredible Paradox. Eusebius calleth it 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉〈in non-Latin alphabet〉, and 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉〈in non-Latin alphabet〉, but I trust, though the notion of the Chiliad (in the sence I accept it) be 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉〈in non-Latin alphabet〉 yet that it is not 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉〈in non-Latin alphabet〉.

The truth is, I was exceeding backward to entertain

such a notion, and did long oppose it, as conceiving it might be at best an innocent errour of some that wished well to the kingdom of Christ: But blessed be the Lord God who gave me an heart at that very time to search (according to my poor measure) the Scriptures and other Books which might be helpful in this case, both such as argued for, and such as argued against the Chiliad; and to look up to him that is in heaven and heareth on earth, that I might see and embrace the truth, and only the truth. And methinks, I would desire no more, if I could but perswade all serious and gracious men to go that way to work in this matter. But (alas) it is the great infirmity of many good men, that if any thing (though of never so circumstantial a nature, for as for fundamentals, let no one dare to question there) be voiced for an errour they fall upon it in great zeal without ever looking up to heaven, that if what they oppose be truth, they might be convinced of it, as well as if it be otherwise that they might be strengthned in bearing witness against errour, and hence the Lord never lets them see their mistakes. But as a learned and worthy Divine, * 1.37 saith concerning Inde|pendency (so called) for a man to search the Scrip|tures, and other writings impartially, and to look up to him that is the fountain of light and truth for his spirit to guide into all truth, &c. is a course that he would wish all men to beware of that would not be made Independents. So say I concerning that, and add withal, That it is a course I would have all men beware of that would not become sober Chiliasts.

All this notwithstanding, I am not of their judgment who usually pass under the notion of Millenaries. For I do not think that there are any more than two personal comings or Residencies of Christ upon the earth, spoken of in

the Scripture. Nor do I believe that Christ will reign per|sonally upon the earth a thousand years before the day of judgment. Only I conceive, that the great and last day so much celebrated by the Prophets and Apostles, will be|gin at the final destruction of Antichrist, even then when the thousand Apocalyptical years shall begin.

Neither let any one be offended with the seeming No|velism which is in these notions. ••hat hath been an old Artifice, whereby the enemy of truth hath kept the world from embracing of it. Who knoweth not that the Heathen * 1.38 pleaded Antiquity a|gainst Christians, and therefore would not receive the Gospel. And Papists are wont to charge Refor|mers with Novelism. And I do believe, that that is the reason why the spirit termeth the Gospel, Rev. 14.6. the everlasting Gospel, even on purpose to contradict and confute that popish slander which accuseth the Reformation with No|velism. What though these truths have lain obscured a great while, during the dark reign of Antichrist? yet God hath his time to bring his truth to light, and he is not wont to do it all at once, nor all in one age, but by degrees. Certainly new discoveries of old truths ought not to be branded with the odious name of Novel opinions. But enough was said before to wipe off the dirt of such a calum|ny, when we shewed, that the Primitive and purest age of the Church believed the Chiliad, however now, a|mongst some, it is deemed a new and strange Doctrine.

If any should further object that in some places in this Discourse there is too much weight laid upon Rabbinical

observations, &c. To that I would say; far be from u•• to give heed unto Jewish Fables; And since the Jews * 1.39 ceased to be the Church of God▪ and so have been forsaken of his Spirit, their writing (especially where they speak of Christ) are of far less worth than before that; yet I add, that there is a multitude of places in the New Testament (and in the old too) which no one can clearly understand, except he be acquainted with the notions, customs, phrases, &c. which were formerly in use amongst the Iews. Many terms are found in the New Testament, which are not in the old, but are in the Iewish writing•• being in use amongst the Iewish Doctors whilst there was a Iewish Church, and from them (being consonant to the mind and meaning of the spirit) borrowed by the Apostles. So are the terms of Paradise, the (essential) word of God, the kingdom of Heaven, the kindgom of God, the second death, the day of judgment, the world to come, &c. And therefore these things cannot be clearly understood, except recourse be had unto those writings, to see what they meant by them. Why should we for the sake of the ••ares, reject the wheat also? of Iewish Interpreters it hath been observed (as is also said of Origen, ubi bene nemo melius, ubi male nemo pejus) that as when they do ill, they are the worst, so when they do well, they are the best expositors. In a word, we may find in some humane Scripts of the Iews, not only the same phrases, proverbs, parabolical noti|ons, and expressions, but also the very same arguments made use of, for the very same end, which is to be seen in the blessed Scriptures of the New Testament. Therefore

surely a good and profitable use is to be made of those wri|tings, and solid Criticisms may be gathered from them. They that are acquainted with the learned works of Dru|fius, Amama, Buxtorf, Iac. Capellus, with his learn|ed Brother Lud. Capellus, Lud de Dieu, Mede, Ains|worth, Hottinger, He|insius, * 1.40 Chr. Cart|wright, &c. know full well the truth of this; let not any unlearned judge rashly, un|derstanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. If these things satisfie not, I know no other way, but we must be content to be call|ed Iudaizers: Nor is that reproach, since Aegi••••••s Hun|nius, (the Lutheran) hath written a book de Ca••vi••o Iu|daizante, much to be accounted of.

But I would not detain the Reader too long in the porch. Only remember, that this Discourse is the substance of several Lecture-Sermons preached in the ordinary course of my Ministry to a plain Auditory, and therefore not Elegancy of phrases, or wisdom of words (I thank Christ I have learned to slight such vanities in the sacred and awful things of God.) But (as far as the nature of the suctject will permit) Truths plainly delivered, are to be expected; and that (in some poor measure) I trust the Reader will find.

However, it is a satisfying thought unto me, when I consider, that, as it is true, if what is here asserted be found stubble when the day of fire cometh, I shall have no reward for all my pains, studies, and poor indeavours in seeking to understand, and to evince these things unto others; so on the other hand, if what I have affirmed or propounded, (for in some things which are more disputable, nihil affir|mo, sed propono) be built upon the golden founda|tion,

then in that day (which the Lord hasten) when every man shall receive according to his works, it will not repent me of what I have publickly taught or written, nor will they that have dis-believed and opposed these Truths, then at all rejoyce in what they have in that respect done.

Now the Lord fit us for what ever the birth may be which his divine and holy providence is travelling with at this day. Surely there is some great thing upon the wheel, and it seemeth as if it might be said, the captive exile hastneth; Do not the signs of the times begin to shew their faces very apparently? Do not the waves of the Nations begin to stir? Do not the flouds lift up their voice? The Lord hath been opening his armoury, and bringing forth the weapons of his Indignation; a sound of Battel is in the Land, and of great de|struction. Behold, they whose judgments it was not to drink of the Cup, have assuredly drunken, and art thou he (O Roman Antichrist, thou with thy up|holders and followers!) that shalt altogether go un|punished? thou shalt not go unpunished, but thou shalt surely drink of it. The Lord, the Lord of Hosts shall lop the bow with terrour, and the high ones of stature shall be hewen down, and the haughty shall be humbled. The Stars of Heaven, and the Constellations thereof shall not give their light. And although it may be, we may die in the storm, yet the Generations to come are like to see dayes of glory. Let us then give him, that turneth the shaddow of death into the Morning, no rest, till he make Ierusalem a praise in the Earth: For Sions sake, and for Ierusalems sake, let us not hold on•• peace, till the Righteousness thereof go forth as

brightness, and the salvation thereof as a Lamp that burneth, that she may be a Crown of Glory, and a Royal Diadem in the hand of the Lord.

From my Study in Boston N. E. 4^m. 21. 1667.

J. M.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Sic inter Graecos, Origines, Chrysostomus, Theophylactus, Oecumenius, Gennadius, Dio|nysius, Clemens Alex. Ac inter Latinos, Ambrotius, Primasi|us, Hilarius, Bernardus, Hay|mo, &c.
• * 1.2

  Beda, Aqui••as, Anselmus, Carthusianus, Cajetanus, &c.
• * 1.3

  Sic P. Martyr, Beza, Iu|nius, Gualter, Piscator, Da|naeus, Polanus, Pareus, Mor|naeus, Lud. Capellus, Perkin|sus, cum multis aliis quos vide citatos apud Voet. in Disp. de Generali conversione Iudaeor. p. 127, 128.
• * 1.4

  Quidam ex his qui putan|tur recte credidisse supergre|diuntur ordinem Promotionis Iusto um, sed habent haereticos conceptus. Qui universam re|p••obant Resurrectionem, quod mirum est si nec ordinem Re|sur••••ctionis sciunt. Iren. Ad|vers. Haeres. l 5. P. Penult. & 〈…〉〈…〉 etiam Justin Mar••yr Di••••. Cum Tryphone Iudaeo.
• * 1.5

  〈in non-Latin alphabet〉〈in non-Latin alphabet〉, &c. Iustin Martyr, ib.
• * 1.6

  Iren. Contra Haeres. l. 5. c. 22.
• * 1.7

  Lege Polycarpi vitam.
• * 1.8

  Contra Marcion. l. 1. c. 29. l. 3. c. 34. l. 4. c. 29. & de Re|surrectione carnis, c. 25.
• * 1.9

  Homil▪ 13. in Ierem. & contra Celsum l. 3.
• * 1.10

  Lege Cyprian. in lib. de ex|horta. Martyr. in Praefat. &c. 11.
• * 1.11

  De Divino Prae••io l. 7. c. 24, 26.
• * 1.12

  Vide Euseb. l. 3. c. 33. & 7. c. 19. & Hieron. de Script. Ec|clesiast.
• * 1.13

  Vide Euseb ubi supra.
• * 1.14

  Beza in Prolegom. ad A|pocal.
• * 1.15

  In Diatrib. de Mille Annis Apocal.
• * 1.16

  Piscator insignis Theologus, de cujus eruditione quam sub••i|miter sentiam paucis explicare non possum: vix inter Schola|sticos parem, certe superiorem, agnoscere non possum. Twiss. contra Armin de Praedest. l. 1. part. 1. Digr. 2. s. 4. c. 4. & de electione l. 1. part. 2. Sect. 25. Digr. 8.
• * 1.17

  In Libro supra citato. p. 229.
• * 1.18

  See his Sermons of the world to come, on Eph. 1.21, 22. Printed Anno 1650.
• * 1.19

  In his Sermon upon Mat. 24.30. in M. S. S.
• * 1.20

  Upon Ezekiel c. 37. v. 24. p. 478.
• * 1.21

  Lege cum in Comment. A|poc. ad finem, & a••ibi passim.
• * 1.22

  See his Letters to Mr. Mede, Printed with Mr. Medes Works.
• * 1.23

  See his Glimpse of Sions Glory: And upon Hos. 1.11. & ch. 2. v. 18. & on ch. 3. v. 5. p. 527
• * 1.24

  See his Annotations to the Translation of Alstede Dia|tribe.
• * 1.25

  Licet non sequamur, ta|men damnare non possumus; quia multi virorum Ecclesiasti|corum & Martyrum ista dixe|runt. Hieron. in Ierem. 19. ver. 10.
• * 1.26

  Vide Whitak. de Pontif. Rom p. 330 & Rainold. de lib. Apocr. Lact. 131. & Alsted Cro|nol. in Iudice in verbo Chilia|stae & Millenarii.
• * 1.27

  Aug. de Haeres. c. 53. Con|fer etiam Epiphan. Contra Ae|rian. Haeres. 75. Videsis Arno|bium, Advers. Gentes l. 4. Sub finem libri.
• * 1.28

  De Civit. Dei. l. 20. c. 7.
• * 1.29

  Sic Dionysius Alex. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 7. c. 20. Edit. Lat.
• * 1.30

  Lege Euseb. ibid. lib. 3. cap. 3.
• * 1.31

  Non satis longe (inquit C••. Voetius in Disp. de Regno Mill••nario p. 1259, 1260) recedunt a Chiliasmo qui Iu|daeorum Conversorum habita|tioni corporali & peculiaria se|paratae eorum Politiae tum Ec|clesiasticae tum civili. Vide Brightmannum, Finxam, Pan|nonium de circulo operum & judiciorum Dei. Franciscus, Lambertus Chiliasmi lacinia•• sibi servare videtur dum spon|det statum Ecclesiae sine sectis, falsis Prophetis, &c. Haec Voe|tius. S••inec••erus (apud Pri|deux. orat) p. 120. habet eos pro Fanaticis qui Iudeorum con|versionem fore credunt, &c.
• * 1.32

  Sic Ar••tius, Bilney, Wic|kleff, Walt. Brute, Chytraeus, Benno, Cardinalis, &c.
• * 1.33

  Sic Viegas, Pererius, Augu|stinus, Primasius, Beda, An|dreas.
• * 1.34

  Sic Iunius, Pareus, Deut, Broughton, Bibliander, Usserius.
• * 1.35

  Sic Brightmannus, Maje|rus, Forbesius, Alcasar, Castigli|us, Willetus, Gerhardus, Guil••, & Cartwright in Col. 1.16.
• * 1.36

  Lege Bedam in libr. de a|tatibus Mundi. Estium ad dist. 47. l 4 sent. Ios. Acostam de Temp. Noviss. l. 3. c, 11. Stellam in Luc 21.24. Ac inter nostros, Zanchium de fine saeculi, Per|kins in symbol. Apost. ubi de ultimo Iudicio, &c. Vossium in Thes. Theol. & Hist. p. 221. vide etiam Hadnanum Finum in Flagello Iudaeor.
• * 1.37

  Dr. Owen in Review of Schism against Cawdry p. 36.
• * 1.38

  V. Lactant. de Origine er|roris l. 2. c. 7, 8. Chrysost. Hom. 7. in 2 Cor. & in Orat. 2. Contr. Iudaeos & Camerarium in Cae|tal. Caesarum in Theodosio. Ac revera hanc objectionem plane Ethnicam, Clemens, Justinus, Origines, Tertullianus, Am|brosius, Augustinus, abun|de in suis Scriptis refutarunt.
• * 1.39

  Lege Owen de Nat. & stu|dio Theol. Hist. Quod aliqui de veteribus in Ecclesia Christiana doctoribus affirmarunt idem de Iudaeis dici potest Scriptoribus. Quo Seniores eo saniores, quo juniores eo jejuniores. Consu|le Scripta Fagii aliorum{que} hac de re dicentium.
• * 1.40

  Vide si libet ejus Praefat. ad Annot. in Genes. ubi Pontificios, qui dicunt Protestantes nimium Rabbinorum scriptis indulgere, refutavit. Lege etiam Authores quos citat ante Annot. in Exod.