the Seat of the Beast Rev. 16.10 i. e. his power and authority which shall be smitten with great darkness his kingdom being full thereof Rev. 16.10 compared with chap. 13.2 A smoke rising out of the pit as the smoke of a great furnace by which the Sun and Air are darkened at the sounding of the fifth Angel while-as a star falleth from Heaven on the Earth Rev. 9.1 2. whence Babylon is overthrown by violence and darkness the day of the Lord upon it being a day of wastness and desolation a day of darkness and gloominess a day of clouds and thick darkness Zeph. 1.15 Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness and not light even very dark and no brightness in it Amos 5.20 And thus with a whirlwind of violence and a cloud of darkness the Lord cometh up from the North Ezek. 1.4 to lay Babylon with all her glory in the dust for as by violence the powers of Babylon are overthrown so by darkness they are hardened in heart contemning the truth blaspheming God and not repenting of their deeds Rev. 16.9 10 11. So that the greater violence is executed against them the more obstinate in wickedness they become blaspheming God his People and Interest Rev. 16.21 Pharaoh-like the more plagued the more hardened As appeareth in some measure at this very hour among the enemies of Zion's Interest The more to day the Egyptians are plagued the more blasphemously do they reproach and are hardened in heart The sixth party plagued is the River Euphrates Rev. 16.12 Concerning which there be these things considerable 1 The up-drying of it Which cannot be understood mystically seeing in no place of Scripture the word Euphrates is taken in a mystical sense It is read twenty times only in the Scriptures and no where is it taken mystically but literally as is more then evident to any that shall enquire after it We must needs therefore say that the River Euphrates shall be dried up the Lord with his mighty wind shaking his hand over it smiting it in the seven streams and making men to go over it dry-shod Isa 11.15 2 The end for which it is dried-up Which is to prepare a way for those Kings that come up from the East or the rising of the Sun Rev. 16.12 And thus there shall be an high way for the remnant of his people which shall be left from Assyria like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up from the Land of Egypt Isa 11.16 Whence the Lord setting his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people Israel from Assyria and from Egypt Isa 11.11 shall miraculously deliver them as he did while-as he set his hand the first time in bringing them up from Egypt by the conduct of Moses for as at the first time he dried-up the Red-sea before them so at the second time of their recovery he will utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian-sea and dry up the River Euphrates before them smiting it in its seven streams that they may go over it dry-shod Now upon what accompt the people of the Jews are called the Kings of the East you may reade for this The Saints Kingdom sect 7. 3 The engagement the people of the Jews come to as they come up from the East Then do the unclean spirits like Frogs draw forth the Kings of the Earth with their Armies to a day of engagement against the Kings of the East The Paganish Mabumetan and Antichristian spirits Frog-like indeed shall engage all the Heathenish and Mahumetan powers against the four Angels which are bound in the great River Euphrates prepared for a day a month and a year for to slay the third part of men the number of the Army of the Horse-men being two hundred thousand thousand Rev. 9.14 15 16. And thus at this day of engagement Babylon the powers of the Nations with all their Potentates and glory shal be overthrown for in that time when the Lord shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem gathering all Nations bringing them into the valley of Jehoshaphat to plead with them there causing his Mighty-Ones the Kings of the East the hundred thousand thousand to come down upon them putting in his sicle the harvest being now ripe Joel 3.1 2 12 13. The Winepresse shall be troden without the City till blood come out even to the Horse-bridles by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs Rev. 14.20 Thus Gog and Magog the Beast the false-Prophet the Kings of the Earth and their Armies shall be destroyed in engaging against him who sitteth on the white horse attended with the Armies in Heaven Ezek. 39 8 9. c. Rev. 19.11 12 c. 4 the time of this up-drying and engagement Which is secret and unknown It is a time and season which the Father hath put in his own power Acts 1.7 'T is not for us to know the time when the Kingdom shall be restored again to Israel It cometh as a thief in the night Rev. 16.15 and therefore both secretly and suddenly Let us therefore watch and keep our garments lest we walk naked and they see our shame The seventh party plagued is the Air Rev. 16.17 Which in Scripture is taken three wayes 1 for one of the four Elements Gen. 1.26 2 as it signifieth that which is done in vain and to no purpose 1 Cor. 9.26 chap. 14.9 3 for the power of Satan Eph. 2.2 whose power is airy indeed because of its subtilty and vanity And thus as the Lord poureth-out the vials of his wrath upon the power of the Beast so doth he likewise upon the power of the Dragon for as in the day of vengeance in the reign of the Ancient of dayes while-as Christ reigneth in power the seat and power of the Beast is overthrown by the up-coming of the Kings of the East so in the time of Christ's Personal presence and reign Satan is chained and bound a thousand years that he may deceive the Nations no more till the thousand years be finished Rev. 20.2 3. And this is while-as a great voice cometh-out of Heaven from the Throne saying it is done Rev. 16.17 the Mysterie of God being finished and time being no longer in the dayes of the voice of the seventh Angel Rev. 10.6 7. at whose sounding there be great voices in Heaven saying The Kingdoms of this world are become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ and be shall reign for ever and ever Rev. 11.15 In the third and last part of the Chapter of which I shall speak but a little the holy Ghost recapitulateth and summeth-up in few words all that he hath spoken at length in the second part of the Chapter in order to the fall and ruin of Babylon from vers 18. to the close In vers 18. is spoken as to the shaking of Babylon by wars and rumors of wars Nation rising against Nation and Kingdom against Kingdom there being tumults and earth-quakes in divers places In vers 19. is spoken of the dividing of Babylon after its shaking into three parts Of the fall of the Nations and of Babylon's utter overthrow and desolation as it is designed in laying the Nations desolate In vers 20. is foretold the overthrow of the Forces Power and Glory of the Nations in bringing into contempt all the Honourable of the Earth In vers 21. is spoken as to the grievousnes of the plagues by which Babylon shal be shaken divided and overturned the Nations their Forces and their mighty Ones shall be destroyed together with men's blaspheming God his Truth and his People thereupon the more plagued being the more hardened as at this time in some measure doth appear FINIS
to be attended with these qualifications 1 They are meerly heroick and ambitious So were the Giants before the Flood Gen. 6. Beros Antiq. l. 1. Nimrod after the Flood Gen. 10. Bern. Antiq. l. 4. and all the rest of the great Heroes Arist pol. 3. c. 10. 2 They are meerly tyrannous and cruel So we find that Pharaoh had an arbitrary power over the People of Israel Exod. 1 and 5. Nebuchad-nezzar had the like power over his Kingdoms Dan. 2. and 3. By vertue of Ahasuerus absolute power Haman was licenced to exercise tyranny on the People of the Jews Est 3. We might alledge many examples to this purpose But the point is most clear in it self for those who are of a tyrannous disposition can endure no Law but their will Otherwise they could never get their tyranny exercised 3 Those whom we find chief pleaders for absolute Monarchy are either concerned therein themselves as Alexander M. and M. Aurelius and such like or else Flatterers and Court-Parasites as Lyricus Rom. Virgil and such like And of this sort we find none more violent in this matter than Dr. Fern Hugo Grotius Arnisaeus Spalato c. whose foot-steps with his ful-speed Salmasius doth trace But although men by way of flattery and by-respect may act and plead for arbitrary Monarchy yet let me tell you I do not imagin but they may act and plead for it through simple error and delusion And so I conclude that Aristotle Xiphilin Salust and the foresaid Lawyers do much run this way though they be more moderate in the matter then the rest And as afterward is shewed we find the Talmudick and Rabbinick Writers this way somewhat inclining to the lawless and arbitrary power of absolute Monarchy Assert 2. The King hath not a power above Law and a Prerogative Royal to dispose upon things according to his pleasure whether with or against Law and Reason Firstly Such an arbitrary and vast power is repugnant to the first Institution and Scripture-mould of Kings According to the Holy Ghost's way of moulding the King he is thus qualified 1 He is an Elective King chosen by the People in subordination to God Thou shalt in any wayes set him King over thee whom the LORD thy God shall choose Deut. 17. 2 A Brother-King and not a stranger-King One from amongst thy Brethren shalt thou set King over thee thou mayest not set a stranger over thee who is not thy Brother Ibid. 3 He must not tyrannize over the People by Leavying Forces and by strength of hand drawing them into Egyptian slavery He shall not multiply horses to himself nor cause the People to return to Egypt to the end that he should multiply horses forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you Ye shall henceforth return no more that way Ibid. These words properly and in their emphatick sense can import nothing else but a discharging of the King by Forces and Armies to tyrannize over his People that bringing them into bondage and upon their ruines he may not strengthen himself and multiply his Forces So the King of Egypt did with the People of Israel whileas they were in Egypt under his tyrannons yoke 4 Not a Leacherous King given to women for drawing him on into temptation Neither shall he multiply wives to himself that his heart turn not away Ibid. 5 Nor Covetous given to enrich himself and to build-up his own estate upon the ruins of his People Nether shall he greatly multiply to himself Silver and Gold Ibid. 6 But he must be a King acquiring the Scriptures of GOD meditating on them his whole life-time thereby learning to fear the LORD to observe his Commandments and to practise them that he may be humble and lowly not turning aside either to the right-hand or to the left And it shall be when he sitteth upon the Throne of his Kingdom that he shall write him a Copy of this Law in a Book out of that which is before the Priests the Levits And it shall be with him and he shall reade therein all the dayes of his life that he may learn to fear the LORD his God to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes to do them That his heart be not lifted up above his Brethren and that he turn not aside from the Commandment to the right-hand or to the left Ibid. Here from we draw this Argument The power of him is not Arbitrary and beyond the bounds of Law whose power according to the Law and Word of GOD is Regulated and kept within the bounds of Law But the power of the King according to the Law and Word of God is Regulated and kept within the bounds of Law Ergo the Power of the King is not Arbitrary and beyond the bounds of Law The Major cannot be denyed unlesse men will be so bold as to deny a Regulating and squaring of their Acts and Institutions according to the Word and Law of God Sure I am none will deny it but such as will contradict Scripture it self and decline it as the rule and pattern of their Actions The Minor is manifest from the Text above Cited Barclay the Royallist distinguisheth between the Office and power of the King and so the man endeavoureth to elude our Argument thus The Office of the King quoth he is set down Deut. 17. and the King's power is spoken of 1 Sam. 8 where saith he an Arbitrary power is conferred upon the King and laid upon his shoulders But this distinction serveth not for his purpose For either the power of the King is according to the Word and Law of God or not If it be then as the Office of the King is regulated in like manner his power also is kept within the compasse of Law For his Office spoken of Deut. 17. admitteth bounds and is kept within marches That which is spoken concerning the King Deut. 17. in terminis doth subject the King to Law and taketh-away Arbitrarines in his Government So then that which is spoken of the King 1 Sam. 8. doth either contradict that which is spoken Deut. 17. or else it giveth him no power and liberty of governing above Law at random If it be not then it is not a Divine but a diabolick power Moreover what the King doth according to his power either he doth it by vertue of his Office or contrary to it If by vertue of his Office Ergo the Kingly power cannot be absolute unlesse his Office be also absolute for so the exercise of his power dependeth from his Office In such a case he can do nothing according to his power but what he hath Authority for from his Office But his Office Deut. 17 is not absolute but Regulated according to Law If contrary to it Ergo it is not the Kings Office to exercise an absolute power and consequently the Kings Authority is not absolute Furthermore either the King as King is absolute or not If he be absolute as King Ergo the Royall
Office is absolute For the King is formally King by vertue of his Royall Office If not absolute as King then we gain the point For so it followeth that the Kingly Government in it-self is not absolute and illimited and if the Kingly Government in it-self be not of a vast and absolute extent we Demand in what notion the Authority of the King is Arbitrary and illimited Either ab intrinseco i. e. As it is essentially a Kingly Authority or ab extrinseco i. e. according to some cadent and accident of the Regall Office If the former ergo the Office of the King it-self is absolute which is not onely repugnant to that Deut. 17. but also to that which Barclay confesseth himself If the latter ergo the King as King and according to his Office is not absolute for quod convent rei accidentaliter ei non convenit formaliter Then we demand if the King as King be not absolute whether or not he be absolute as he is a Judge or as he is a Man If as he is a Judge ergo all Judges no lesse then Kings are of an absolute and Arbitrary power which Royallists themselves do altogether deny yea they make the King essentially different from other Judges under this notion because the Kings power is absolute and their's is not And consequently seing according to the Doctrine of Royallists the King is essentially differenced from other Judges as he is absolute then nolint velint the King as King is absolute Thus the Gentlemen do contradict themselves If as he is a Man ergo all men let-be Kings are of an Arbitrary and boundlesse power but sure I am no Royallist will say so Next to Barclay in-steppeth Salmasius on the floor as one minding to cut the knot if he cannot loose it This Gentleman labourreth though in vain to reconcile that of Deut. 17. with that which is spoken of the King 1 Sam. 8. The Israelites saith he did not seek from God one King onely but a change of the government by Judges and in stead of that they required a Regall Government But quoth he the Prophet to disswade them therefrom propounded to them these incommodities which ensue upon the Kingly government this the Prophet calleth jus Regum which I quoth he call the Arbitrary licence which is granted as a lawfull power to those who govern after a Kingly manner This jus Regum saith he the Grecians translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whereby is understood a just and reasonable way of carry-on matters And the Jews in this place call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Septuagints translate this Hebrew word sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now this pertaineth to the office of some man and albeit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth differ from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet some smal difference being between them the one is taken for the other Defens Reg. cap. 2. Ans This Gentleman is so far from loosing the knot of the difficulty as that he tieth it a great deal faster then it was before And he must give me leave to say that he mistaketh the state of the question in hand The Question is whether or not that which is spoken 1 Sam. 8. is repugnant to that which is spoken concerning the King Deut. 17. This Royallâ—st denyeth the one place to contradict the other and he rendereth no other reason for it but because the Prophet 1 Sam. 8. calleth absolutenesse and Arbitrary licence in the Royall Person 〈◊〉 Râ—gum Now the man espyeth not the lightnesse of his own inference which is this The Prophet 1 Sam. 8. calleth Arbitrary power jus Regum Ergo that which is spoken of the King 1 Sam. 8. is not repugnant to that which is spoken of him Deut. 17. Whereas this man should prove the consequence he doth nothing but playeth upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Well I desire him to learn this much in his probation of the Antecedent he standeth by that which maketh the contradiction between these places the more apparent We have shewed already and he himself doth not deny it That the holy Ghost Deut. 17. subjecteth the King to Law and disclaimeth Arbitrary Power in him And yet this Gentleman will have the holy Ghost to allow and cry-up 1 Sam. 8. absolute power in the King This he not only saith but he also endeavoureth to prove from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is translated and taken by some both in Greek and Latine But I pray you Friend what is this but to prove a contradiction upon your self Let it be so that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so taken as you will have it the contrary whereof we shal demonstrate yet shall you never reconcile these two places together but thereby you enforce the more a contradiction between them And consequently according to your way the consequence is so far from being deducible from the Antecedent that contrariwise it is directly repugnant to it So then my Friend albeit I should grant you all that you would have yet you have this to prove That though the holy Ghost Deut. 17. crieth down Arbitrary Government in the King and 1 Sam. 8. proclaimeth it and alloweth the same in the King yet notwithstanding the holy Ghost doth not contradict Himself and neither of the places is repugnant one to another Prove this Et eris mihi magnus Apollo And whereas you only prove the Antecedent you do nothing but beat the air and proceed ab ignorantia elenchi Secondly It is repugnant to the power which the holy Ghost in Scripture hath conferred upon inferiour Judges It is clear from the Book of God that the Lord investeth inferiour Judges with power to execute judgment on all without respect of persons and commandeth them to do so And consequently they are invested with power to execute judgment on Kings themselves But if the power of the King were absolute and above Law then that power which the holy Ghost in Scripture conferreth on inferiour Judges is altogether unlawful and in vain Royallists start much at this Argument They talk much against it and I wot not what Because Salmasius speaketh most against it we shall firstly begin with him This man plainly denieth inferiour Judges to have any Authoritative power over Kings But because he is very large upon this matter and for preventing tediousness to the Reader we shall therefore handle the whole substance of that which he replieth and objecteth against this Argument in a following Sub-section SUBSECT I. Salmasius his Opinion concerning the Power of Inferiour Judges examined and refuted THat we may in a methodick and square way handle his opinion and conveniently meet with these things which he replieth against our second Argument we shall lay down his mind in these Propositions Propos 1. The Jewish Sanhedrin had no power over the Kings of Israel and Judah That he may establish this Proposition he taketh
and bringing himself in sorrow to the grave This is far from the arbitrary and infinite power of kings Salmasius speaketh of And whereas he saith the Parliament is but extraordinary and pro tunc this is either because Kings were long before Parliaments or because the Parliament hath not power to intermeddle in every businesse of the Common-wealth but is conveened pro re nata for ordering the weightiest Affairs of the kingdom If you say the former we do not deny it We heartily confesse that of all Governments Monarchy was first established And Aristotle giveth the reason of it because saith he in the beginning it was hard to find-out many men fit and able to govern And therefore necessity moved them to lay the government on one for though in the beginning it was hard to finde-out many yet was it easie to finde-out one endowed with qualities and gifts for governing Polit. 3. cap. 11. lib. 4. cap. 13. But though this be granted yet doth it not follow but Senats or Parliaments being established they have even according to the custome of the Nations more power then kings as is shewed already And therefore Aristotle saith in the places fore-cited that by processe of time the number of Common-wealth's-men increasing kings at last went close out of request and were denuded of all power And Pol. 3. cap. 10. he saith that in after-times the power of kings was extremely lessened partly because of their own voluntary demitting and partly because of the people's detracting from their greatnesse Nay any king Aristotle alloweth he alloweth no more power and greatnesse to him but to be greater and more powerful then every one separatim and many conjunctim but to be of lesse power and greatnesse then the peoople Pol. 3. cap. 11. But I pray you what is the Parliament but the Representative of the people If you say the other we deny it as is shewed already And it seemeth very strange to me that the Parliament hath not power in small matters and yet hath power to manage and go about matters of highest concernment If Salmasius will ask Philosophs they can tell him Qui potest majus potest minus He imagineth that he gaineth the point because the King of England had power to conveen and dissolve the Parliament as he judged fit This is but a singing of the triumph before the victory for the Roman Consuls had the same power over the Senat. Alex. ab Alex. gen di lib. 3. cap. 3. But who will say that they had an absolute power over the Senat though they had power of convocating and dissolving it It is not unknown that their power notwithstanding was a non-absolute and limited power Alex. ab Al. ibid. Pompon Laet. de mag Rom. cap. 15. Fenest de mag Rom. cap. 7. So say Festus and Coelidus 2. What honour is given to the King And if Salmasius will consider this aright he will find that there is a vast disproportion between his honour and his power and that there is more given to him in word then in deed The King of Scotland cannot be called by Salmasius or any other an absolute Prince This afterward shall most evidently appear And yet in many Acts of Parliament he is called the Parliament's Sovereign Lord and King and what is enacted in Parliament ordinarily it is expressed under the King's name Salmasius imagineth that this maketh much for his purpose whileas it is said Dominus noster Rex ad petitionem suorum praelatorum comitum baronum congregatorum in Parlamento constituit certos articulos In praef stat voc Art sup chart temp Ed. 1. i. e. Our Lord the King at the desire of his Prelats Earles and Barons assembled in Parliament constituted certain Articles In Parlamento supremi domini Regis illius concilium convenit ita praeceptum est ab ipsomet In stat Escheat fact 29. an Edv. 1. i. e. In the Parliament of our Sovereign Lord the King his Councell conveened and so it was commanded by himself The like we have in the Acts of the Scotish Parliaments Eodem die Rex per modum statuti ordinavit Jam. 1. Parl. 6. act 83. i. e. The same day the King by way of Statute ordained Rex ex consensatotius Parlamenti statuit ordinavit act 84. i. e. The King with consent of the whole Parliament did statute and ordain But Parl. 5. act 81. the King withall getteth a very lordly stile Item the said day our sovereigne Lord the King with consent of the whole Parliament ordained The Scotish parliamentary acts are full to this purpose But can any therefore conclude that the King of Scotland is an absolute Prince No verily Kings get such honour and every thing for the most part is enacted and emitted in their name not because they have power and dignity above the Parliament but because they are the highest and chiefest Members of Parliament And let me tell you people are so much deluded with the greatnesse of the King that they cannot give him onely that which is his due but they ascribe that which is due both to him and Parliament to him alone People know better how to idolize Kings then how to honour them Yea people are more ready to obey the King then the Parliament And therefore I think Parliaments that will have Kings for effectuating their purposes do wisely to emit Acts in the King's name and set him a-work to execute them Therefore Salmasius shall not need to boast with this that the King of England is called the Parliament's Sovereigne Lord and the Parliament the Councell of the King The like he will find more then once amongst the Prefaces and Acts of the Scotish Parliaments Yet he or any for him can never prove that the King of Scotland is an absolute King He shall therefore do well lest he confound things which should be divided to distinguish carefully between that which the king hath re tenus and what is given to him but nomine tenus And so he will find that though the king of England hath as much nomine tenus as if he were an absolute Prince yet re tenus he is subjected to Law And whereas he alledgeth kings may governe by advice and counsell of Parliament and yet may be absolute and have a negative voice the like say I too But he shall give me leave to say that such have not such a vast power as he talketh-of as afterward is shewed I confesse the examples of Ahasuerus and Cambyses are to the purpose though the man fail a little concerning the jus of the kings of the Jewes as afterward is shewed Howsoever though I grant this yet shall he never prove that the king of England according to the Law of the kingdom is an absolute Prince and hath a negative voice in Parliament He can never shew me that the king of England had the same power which the king of Persia had Inst After the Conquerour saith Salmasius
and the well-fare of his people This Gentle-man needeth not boast that Moses Deut. 17. foretold the up-setting of kingly government amongst the Jews This he did not because he allowed it and preferred it to the government which he firstly instituted amongst them The LORD commanded Samuel to hearken to the peoples voice and condescend to their desire Yet it doth not follow that God allowed it He commanded Samuel positively to protest against it and disswade them therefrom by displaying the evils thereof So Moses through the Spirit of prediction infallibly forseeing the Jews in their stiff-neckednes and pride of heart would undoubtedly seek-after and set-up kingly government amongst them thereupon taketh occasion to prescribe a true plat-form of constituting and moulding kings And to this day it serveth as a morall rule according to which the structure of kingly government should be squared Thus the Holy Ghost bringeth forth a most good effect from the fore-sight of their evil and sinister purpose We can stay no longer here but only put the Reader in mind of this that it is not for nought God denied his applause and consent in setting-up Kings amongst the Jews That is a strange word They have set-up Kings but not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not Hos 8. I confesse this mainly relateth to the Kings of the ten Tribes Yet you must give me leave to say That it is spoken also in order to all the Kings of the Jews Would the authour of the exercitation conc usurp pow ch 1. compare this place with 1 Sam. 8. he would find that God as much disowned the one King as the other I suppose this is not a word of applause but dis-assent in making Saul King I gave thee a King in mine anger and took him away in my wrath Hos 13. Sure I am this is spoken against the King both of Israel and Judah It cannot be denied but the direct and main strain of this Prophet is against the ten Tribes and the Kings thereof Yet he hinteth both at Judah and Israel and their Kings as occasion serveth In things common to both he speaketh of both So he doth in the text immediatly fore-going Sure I am both Israel and Judah had hand in seeking Saul to reign over them Not only Israel but Judah said Give me a King and Princes And why shall we not think that the former text speaketh likewise of the Kings of Judah and those who did reign over both The Lord's dislike and dis-owning of Kings is as much in the one text as in the other And sure I am Jereboam was as notably called both by God and the ten Tribes to reign over them 1 Kin. 11. 12. 2 Chron. 10. as Saul was to reign over Judah and Israel Howsoever I deny not Kingly Government to be from God I confesse God effectively called Saul to reign over the Jews So did he David Solomon and others whom he called to reign in a most special way Yea he gave an hereditary assignation to David's posterity to the Crown upon conditions But what then This only saith that Kingly Government is good and in some cases much approved of God Yet it never concludeth that it is the best of Governments most approved of God and that the people of the Jews did not sin in setting-up it and shaking-off another It is laid before your eyes that of all Governments it is the most dangerous And seing the Lord did extreamly decline the setting-up of Kingly Government amongst the Jews how much more to day amongst us Beside all moral reasons there was a special typical reason for Monarchy amongst the Jews Under the Law not only Christ's Prophetical and Priestly Office Acts 3. Heb. 8.9 10. but also his Kingly-hood behoved to be typified both in substance and circumstance Gen. 49. 2 Sam. 7. 1 Kin. 8. 2 Chr. 6. Psa 2. Luke 1. Acts 2. Heb. 1. But I hope none under the Gospel can shew me such pressing grounds why Kingly Government to day should be erected None verily Well let them therefore advert That people under the Gospel have more then reason for them to shake-off and decline Monarchy They have not so much reason for it as the Jews had And yet the Lord much disowned it amongst them and much dis-assented from them in setting it up What I pray you is the language of this but that of all Governments it is most dangerous And that it is so is more then manifest from Samuel's way of charactering it Very reason it self teacheth the point Firstly because the bad consequence of Monarchy is tyranny 1 Sam. 8. I deny not but it may and doth flow also from other Governments yet not ordinarily and properly Properly and ordinarily such have for their bad consequences division and confusion But it must needs be granted that tyranny in it-self is worse then either of these And that both formally and virtually Formally because tyranny as tyranny is positive and even-down oppression But division as division and confusion as confusion cannot be so called Otherwise the division and confusion of integral parts should formally be tyranny and oppression Virtually because tyranny in its proper and rigorous acceptation presupposeth a meer and absolute passivenesse in the parts oppressed and enthralled But the case is far otherwise in respect of division and confusion As they only beget oppression and thraldom per accidens so they presuppose mutual resistance on both sides They do not imply an absolute and simple passivenesse on either of the sides Both parties fall at variance and both stand to their own defence the one against the other And so the one acting against the other neither of them doth simply suffer But absolute thraldom is worse then that which is non-absolute For acts of tyranny read Exod. 1. 5. Judg. 1. 9. 2 Sam. 21. 1 King 13.18.19 c. 2 King 21. Esth 3. Jer. 38. 39. Dan. 2. 3. Mat. 2.14 27. Mark 6. Luke 23. Acts 12. Apochryphal books Tob. 1. Jud. 2. 3. 1 Macc. 1.5.6.10 13. 2 Macc. 4.6.7 14. To this day there be many notable expressions and narrations which point-out to us that tyranny is of all evils the most dangerous and violent Herod lib. 3. Thucyd. lib. 2. Polyb. lib. 2. Tac. in vit Agric. Porn de lib. Get. lib. Antisthenes being asked why he preferred hangmen to tyrants he answered By the hangman the unjust and by the tyrant the just are cut-off Stob. serm 47. It was demanded at Diogenes after what manner the tyrant Dionysius did use his friends he answered He killeth the rich and neglecteth the poor Diog. La. lib. 6. And Bias being posed What amongst living creatures was most pernicious he answered A Tyrant Plut. We cannot passe-by a most excellent story of the tyrant Dionysius All the Syracusians excepting the old woman Himera did pray for his death Which being imparted to the tyrant he asked her why she prayed
Saul and defending himself by arms against him was extraordinary He was anointed and designed by God as successour to Saul But the man is far mistaken for if it be lawful in an extraordinary case to resist Kings no question in it self it is lawful to resist them And so it being in it self a thing lawful it may be put in action both in an extraordinary and ordinary case See subsect 2. prop. 1. And though David was designed King by the Lord yet was he not formally called thereto by the People in the time of Saul's reign Will any deny but Saul so long as he lived was King over Israel and that David was his subject Otherwise David was very far out of it in calling him The Lords Anointed his Master Lord and King We say no more but refer you to Lex Rex quaest 32. Salmasius finding-out another starting-hole saith David with arms only defended himself against Saul 's tyranny but not to cut him off as the English Rebels and bloody butchers did in cutting-off Charls 1. Def. Reg. cap. 4. This is all we say concerning David And there was very good reason for it why David did not cut him off though he was several times at his mercy Firstly because he could not do it legally Though he had power legally to resist him yet had he not power legally to cut him off The very Law of Nature teacheth self-defence though by the smallest means But the off-cutting of the Delinquent only belongeth to the Magistrate and Judge unlesse it be in an extraordinary case Nature hath alwaies Law enough for self-defence but not so for punishing Delinquents The one is natural the other political Secondly no question David by extraordinary impulsion was carried-by the off-cutting of Saul While as Abishai went about to kill him David forbade him And told him he should be cut-off and perish another way 1 Sam. 26. Where you shall find David dehorting Abishai from laying hands on Saul from these two grounds Firstly from the non-legality of the fact He is the Lords Anointed Thus he holdeth Saul as his superiour And therefore he had not power to cut him off 'T is usurpation in the inferiour to rise against the superiour Secondly from the assurance of Saul's perishing another way As the Lord liveth the Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to die or he shall descend into battel and perish Would David say It is needlesse either for me or for thee Abishai to lay hands on Saul Assure thy self he shall be cut-off another way But I beleeve this man cannot say the Representative of the English Commonwealth had such reasons for them For keeping them back from cutting-off Charles Stuart 3. Elishah commanded to shut the door upon Jehoram's teeth He calleth him the son of a murderer See ye how the son of a murderer hath sent to take-away mine head Look when the messenger cometh shut the door and hold him fast at the door 2 Kin. 6. Thus he giveth orders to the Elders those who did sit in the Sanhedrin being with him in the house violently to keep it out against Jehoram and his messenger The word in the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proporteth a most violent way of resisting It signifieth a holding fast at the door with pressing So the Seventy Chaldee paraphrast Avenarius and others do render it 'T is a vain thing in Royallists to imagine Elishah and the Elders with him did not resist the King but his messenger 1. The text maketh clear against this Is not the sound of his masters feet behind him Thus Elishah commandeth the door to be shut upon the messenger because the King was backing him and coming-in immediatly after the cut-throat This intimateth to us the shutting of the door and the out-keeping of the house was mainly against Jehoram himself His immediate approaching upon the back of the messenger is the ground of shutting the door and keeping-out the house They alleadge also this to be an extraordinary act Quasi vero self-defence were not a thing most natural and ordinary Away with this elusion 2. Because what the King's emissary doth in the King's name is done by him as in the King's person and authority And so virtualiter at least it is all one to resist the King's emissary and to resist the King himself Salmasius would loose the knot another way And saith he the impure Puritans can conclude nothing from this for cutting-off the head of Charles 1. The Prophet did not take it on him to cut-off Jehoram That was done by Jehu whom God extraordinarily stirred-up thereto Def. Reg. cap. 4. Who ever saw such a man as this He only raileth and shifteth the Question The Question between us now is not concerning the off-cutting but the simple act of resisting Kings And though Elishah did not cut-off Jehoram yet he cannot deny but he withstood him and defended himself against his violence This is all for the present we crave Neither can he deny but Elishah gave orders to one of the children of the Prophets to anoint Jehu King Whereupon he went forth and did cut-off Jehoram executing the purpose of God on the house of Ahab From which example is shewed already to be lawful to cut-off delinquent Kings It is the Magistrat's part and not the Prophet's unlesse it be by extraordinary impulsion to cut-off the delinquent And so as from the example of Elishah it is lawful to resist so from the example of Jehu whom Elishah caused to be anointed for cutting-off the house of Ahab it is lawful to cut-off delinquent Kings 4. Libnah made defection from Jehoram and revolted from him 2 Kin. 8. 2 Chr. 21. Salmasius studieth to elude this yet he saith nothing against it but what others of his own tribe said before him And saith he Libnah's revolt in respect of God the Judge of all the earth was a just punishment of Jehoram 's sins But in respect of the revolters it is no where justified in all the text Def. Reg. cap. 4. But with his leave the text insinuateth the contrary This you may learn from comparing the revolt of Libnah with the revolt of the Edomites So the Edomites revolted from under the hand of Judah unto this day There is nothing added to that The same time also did Libnah revolt from under his hand This is added as a reason because he had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers Thus is abundantly holden-out unto us that Edom and Libnab revolted from Jehoram in a different way No question in respect of God the cause and ground of the revolt of both is one God caused both to revolt to punish the sins and transgressions of Jehoram But in respect of the Revolters there are different causes The Edomites revolted because they disdained to live under the yoke of the King of Judah The text saith they chose a King of their own And from that which is added as a ground of Libnah's revolt it
is more then apparent to us it revolted from a principle of Religion And these who comment upon the text say Libnah revolted because Jehoram pressed the people of the Land to Idolatry I suppose upon good reason Libnah's revolt is far more justifiable then the defection of the ten Tribes from Rehoboam The one revolted upon a natural and the other upon a spiritual accompt And yet as is shewed already the ten Tribes revolted allowably 5. Uzziah was withstood by Azariah accompanied with fourscore valiant Priests of the Lord. And in this contrary to the doctrine of Royallists we shall make good these three things 1. That they resisted him violently 2. allowably 3. that they dethroned him The first is evident from the text Firstly because it is said they withstood him They withstood Uzziah the Kiâ—â— 2 Chron. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are words of violent resistance signifying to stand against And for this cause the fourscore Priests are called men of valour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sons of strength So the Seventy and Arius Montanus translate them It maketh us imagine they were purposely selected from amongst the rest of the Priests because of their valour and strength to withstand Uzziah in sacrificing Secondly because they did thrust Uzziah violently out of the Temple Azariah the chief Priest and all the Priests thrust him out from thence Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to thrust out with violence They hurried him out of the Temple as the word importeth The second is also manifest because the Lord attended the undertaking of the Priests with miraculous and extraordinary succesfulnesse They no sooner laid hands on the King but beyond all expectation the Lord did put hand in him also He did back them notably They no sooner did resist the King but assoon the Lord from Heaven did strike him with Leprosie And is it imaginable but the Lord one way or other had plagued them also if they had failed in their duty to the King I can see no reason why he should have spared them in failing in their duty more then he did not spare Uzziah in failing in his duty And which is more the Priests do not groundlesly withstand him They argue from the King's duty and from their duty They tell him in plain terms It did not become the King to sacrifice Num. 18. but the Priests Ex. 30. Upon these grounds they set-to to withstand him and keep him back from burning incense Which insinuat that their act of resisting him was in no part of his duty and that which was proper to his kingly charge but only in maintaining their own liberties and what according to God's Law was due to them Would they say We will withstand thee O King and have reason to do so because as thou dost that which is not incumbent to thee so thou encroachest upon the peculiar liberties of our charge The third is beyond controversie though Royallists start much at it 1. Because he was cut-off from the house of the Lord. This was because of his Leprosy for according to the Law the Leper was cut-off from the Congregation Thus the Priests spare not to execute the Law upon the King though Royallists esteem him to have exemption and immunity therefrom And Uzziah the King was a leper unto the day of his death and dwelt in a several house being a leper for he was cut-off from the house of the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie a solitary house far from resort and society Thus Uzziah was separated so long as he lived from the society of men Which is the Law concerning the Leper Levit. 13. 2. Because his son was enkinged so soon as Uzziah was separated from the Congregation And Jotham his son was over the King's house judging the people of the Land Ibid. and 2 King 15. Tell me is it likely or can it stand with reason they would have enkinged the son the father as yet remaining King And I pray you had it not been great madnesse in them to retain the kingly power in Uzziah's hand after he was cut-off from the house of the Lord because of his leprosie Firstly because he was as an excommunicate man And those who had not interest in the Church had not interest in the State the Jewish Church being national What David doth in reforming the State is in relation and subordination to the good of the Church Psa 101. Secondly the man being thus cut-off was as unfit to govern as either stock or stone I beleeve God appointed not idiots and unfit men to reign We shall speak nothing here of these examples whereby is holden-out not only the lawfulnesse of resisting but also of off-cutting of Kings this not being the proper place thereof We do only here speak of the simple act of Resistance We adde to these examples a few reasons Firstly These who have power to resist the tyranny of the King and will not offering both their bodies goods to his fury may very justly be called negative murderers and robbers of themselves Thus they expose them needlesly to the Kings mercilesse cruelty Not unlike the man who being able to preserve both his life and his goods from the robbers committeth all unto their mercilesse hands Who will not say and that justly but such an one is a self-murderer and self-robber Secondly It is against very Nature it-self men having power in their hands to defend themselves against the unjust violence and rage of the King and yet to be wanting therein Either Nature hath conferred upon them such power in vain or not You cannot say in vain unlesse you reflect upon the Authour of Nature who worketh every thing to good purpose And Nature as it is in it-self is good and perfect So it is repugnant for it considered as it is in it-self to work unsquarely and produce bad effects 'T is against the proportion that is between the cause and the effect Which maketh Aristotle say God and Nature adoe nothing in vain De Coel. lib. 1. cap. 5. Thirdly It is a negative betraying of God and his interest 'T is a denying to act for God contrary to the King's will Sure I am Christ cannot away with negatives He putteth them up in the score of enemies Mat. 12. 'T is against the practice of the Apostles not to act for God against the will of the Ruler They determine to act for him whether man will or not Man without exception They make no reservation of the King They resolve to do God's will though contrary to man's Acts 4. and 5. And I beleeve the King be but a man Inst It is altogether against that which Paul saith Rom. 13. say Royallists to resist the King This is much urged by Salmasius He concludeth the Apostles of Christ altogether to have been against the doctrine of Resistance This he gathereth not only from the place above cited but also from Tit. 3. 1 Pet. 2. Def. Reg. cap. 3.
that swareth to his own hurt and changeth not still espousing Christ's quarrel shall abide in the Lord's tabernacle and shall dwell in his holy hill Assert 2. By no Oath or Covenant can we be absolutely tied to espouse the King's interest and preserve Monarchy inviolably There is very good reason for this To stand-by and maintain Kingly power either it is a duty simply necessary or not Simply necessary it cannot be 1. Because any Civil Government in it-self is lawful And consequently as they are in themselves we may lawfully give-up our allegeance to any of them But if Monarchy were simply necessary at no time could we lawfully by Oath bind our selves to maintain any other Government for so we are absolutely and in all respects obliged to maintain Monarchy and submit our necks thereto 2. The preservation and maintenance of Monarchy is not necessary to salvation Who will say that none can be saved who act against it and do not maintain it What is every Government sinful but it and do all sin who oppose it No verily The contrary is shewed already And if the preservation of and standing by Monarchy be not in it-self simply necessary it is great rashnesse and unlawfulnesse to enter in Oath and Covenant absolutely to maintain it notwithstanding all hazards may ensue thereupon 'T is to make our duty necessary where it is not so in it-self Thus we bind the conscience where God bindeth not Whereupon I demand whether or not are we any otherwise obliged to set-to to our duty but in answerableness thereto and as it is in it self Sure I am none will say but the Oath should be suitable and proportionable to the duty And if by our Oath we swear either to adde to or diminish from our duty then are we either supererogatory or wanting therein And thus we walk not the right way but encline either to the right or the left hand Whereupon we make our duty wil-worship either freeing the conscience where God freeth not or binding where God bindeth not So then the maintenance and preservation of Monarchy being in it-self a duty not simply necessary it must needs be granted that we cannot swear absolutely to maintain it unlesse we make our duty wil-worship and supererogatory And that God never required at our hands Upon this we conclude this argument That duty which in it-self is not absolutely necessary we cannot lawfully swear absolutely to set-to to it But the maintenance and preservation of Monarchy is a duty in it-self not absolutely necessary Ergo we cannot lawfully swear absolutely to set to to it The Proposition is manifest from the proportionablenesse that should be between the Oath and the Duty sworn to The Assumption is no lesse evident from the proportionablenesse that ought to be between the duty and the object of the duty And if that be not kept entire then verily there is an enclining either to the right or to the left hand And so we either diminish from or supererogat to our duty Moreover it is to swear to an impossibility to enter in Oath and Covenant to stand absolutely by Kingly Government 'T is a matter very ordinary and possible that all power be blocked-up from thee till thou canst not so much as endeavour to maintain it much lesse actually stand in defence and preservation thereof I confesse the People of God even in the matter of Religion may be brought to this But deceive not thy self The People of God cannot swear absolutely by force and might not only to endeavour but also to act for Religion That is also a vain Oath and a swearing to impossibilities How many times have the People of God been brought so low that their power hath been wholly eclipsed They can absolutely swear no more but to employ all power God shall put in their hands in the defence and preservation of Religion and never alter nor change their faith notwithstanding they run the hazard of perishing goods lives and fortunes Tell me wilt thou say thou art obliged to swear so in standing by Monarchy Dost thou imagine thou art necessarily tied to stand by Monarchy as by Religion Thou canst not change thy faith nor decline it if it be true whether before or after thou hast sworn to maintain it unlesse thou run the hazard both of sin and condemnation Thou canst not embrace the contrary faith and Religion without sin Which draweth-on as its inevitable consequent if persevered therein the wrath and eternal displeasure of the Almighty But I pray thee thinkest thou it damnable to subject thy neck to the yoke of any other Government beside Monarchy Are not other Governments lawful as well as it Are not they consubsistent with Religion and the matter of salvation no lesse then it How darest thou absolutely tie thy self by Oath and Covenant to stand by one only kind of Government when-as thou mayest lawfully submit thy neck and give-up thy allegeance to any kind thereof Thus thou not only overchargest thy conscience but also exposest thy self needlesly to hazard And so much the rather of this because of all Governments Monarchy is most dangerous and least to be wished Art thou not of all fools the greatest to swear absolutely to maintain that Government which is least good though thou mayest obtain that which of all Governments is the sweetest The Authour of Exerc. con usurp pow cap. 3. mistaketh the matter very far whileas he saith We are equally and that same way obliged by League and Covenant to maintain the King's Person and Authority as by it we are tied to maintain Religion The contrary of this is already cleared Lastly I deny not but not only Monarchy in it-self is consistent with Religion but also secundum quid it is the best of all Governments Yet if we speak simpliciter and of the ordinary fruits and Consequences of Kingly Government the King's interest alwaies cometh in competition with Christ's interest So is proved invincibly as we suppose already Now wilt thou swear absolutely to maintain that which absolutely and ordinarily standeth in opposition to Christ and his interest Thus thou swearest to maintain that which serveth to over-turn both Church and Common-wealth And hereby thou preferrest man's interest to God's interest for so thou exposest both Church and Commonwealth to ordinary and inevitable danger and hazard in maintaining Kingly Government inviolable The foresaid Authour in the place above-cited endeavoureth to justle us out of this He taketh much upon trust but he proveth nothing He would have us to take it upon his word that Monarchy is most consubsistent with Religion and the good of the People We cannot take him in this as an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have already upon this concluded more by force of argument then he either may or doth speak by word What is it any wonder though he saith so He is not ashamed to aver against Heaven and experience it-self That Religion was consubsistent with the preservation and
as relating either to the Sea under the Law or to that which is navigable for as the one was long before the out-powring of the second vial so the other to speak properly is uncapable of being plagued Moreover it is very unheard-of that the navigable Sea should be turned into blood the third part of the living creatures in it should die c. as be competent to the Sea spoken of Rev. 16.3 compared with chap. 8.8.9 Neither can it be understood comparatively because here it is taken absolutely And none will say that it is the Glassy Sea in the new Jerusalem On such the vials of Gods wrath will never be poured It therefore remaineth to say that God in powring-out the vials upon the Sea destroyeth the Forces of the Nations and blocketh-up all their trading and traffique which he doth by casting a mountain burning with fire into the Sea Rev. 8.8 that is by stretching-out his hand upon the destroying mountain Babylon rouling her down from the rocks and making her a burnt mountain Jer. 51.2 5. The fall of Babylon is upon the powers of the Nations and her fall making them to fall for the powers and forces of the Nations be one of the pillars of the Babylonish-state the Armies of the Earth siding with the Beast and False-Prophet Rev. 19.10 against the Ancient of dayes and his Armies v. 11 12. So that the fall of Babylon can no otherwise be accomplished and brought to pass but as it bringeth along with it the ruin and the overthrow of the Forces of the Nations Hag. 2.22 compared with Rev. 19.20 21. Thus the fall of Babylon shal be upon the Forces of the Nations in so far as their overthrow is begotten as its ruin is intended and accomplished The third party plagued is the Waters and fountains of waters Rev. 16.4 I do find waters these several waies taken in the Scriptures 1 for one of the four Elements Gen. 1.6 2 for a calm and spiritual state Psa 23.2 3 for crosses and afflictions Psa 69.1 2. 4 for the vengeance and judgment of God Psa 73.10 5 for the graces and Spirit of God Isa 55.1 compared with Job 4.14 and 7.38 39. 6 for the Nations as also their Head and Glory Isa 8.7 Rev. 17.15 Moreover fountains of waters are taken diversly in the Scriptures 1 for the heads springs of the elementary and physical waters Gen. 7.11 2 for goods and possessions Pro. 5.16 3 for the springs of spiritual graces Isa 41.18 Rev. 7.17 Beside I do find the word as it is taken in the singular number more variously understood then as it is taken in the plural viz. for the spring of physical waters Gen. 16.7 a womans fountain Levit. 20.18 possession and habitation Deut. 33.28 God himself Jer. 2.13 the Law of the wise Pro. 13.14 the fear of the Lord Prov. 14.27 the Church of Christ Cant. 4.12.15 spoken of the eye of man Jer. 9.1 In this place by waters must needs be understood the Nations and by the fountains of waters the glory of the same Sure I am no man in reason will say That the plaguing of the elementary waters of spiritual graces spiritual quietness afflictions and judgment or any such like thing is intended in the out-pouring of the third vial No verily but the ruin and desolation of the Nations together with the head and glory thereof And that because the Nations and great ones of the Earth be two main pillars by which Babylon is underpropped for as the Whore doth sit upon the Nations Rev. 17.1.15 so the great men of the Earth bewail her desolation Rev. 18.9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19.23 yea and side with her as she engageth against the Saints of the Most High Rev. 19.19 A great Star from Heaven burning as a Lamp shal fall upon the waters and their fountains Rev. 8.10 by which the waters shall be enbittered as with wormwood v. 11. so that many of them shall die being turned into blood and made bitter Rev. 8.11 compared with chap. 17.4 Which waters and fountains thereof be the very destroyers and persecutors of the Saints Rev. 16.6 expounded to be Babylon and such as side with her Rev. 18.24 Behold how the Lord in overthrowing Babylon maketh its King and Lucifer Isa 14.4 compared with v. 12. to fall from his throne and dignity Whose fall seiseth upon the Nations and the great ones of the Earth by which they are enbittered and enraged making die and made to die And that because the ruin of Babylon is attended and accomplished with the fall of the Nations Rev. 16.19 and overthrow of Kings Rev. 19.20 21. the Lord of hosts staining the pride of all glory and bringing into contempt all the honourable of the Earth Isa 23.9 Whereupon the heathen shall rage and the people imagine a vain thing the Kings of the Earth shall set themselves and the Rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed Psa 2.1 2. So that as they shall be enbittered making many die many men dying of the waters because of their bitterness so they themselves shall be destroyed the waters and fountains thereof turning into blood And thus the three main props of Babylon shall be quite overturned viz. the forces of the Nations their heads and the Nations themselves the Lord overturning overturning overturning Babylon that it be no more until he come whose right it is the Lord giving unto his Son the Diadem and the Crown Ezek. 21.26 27. anointing him King on his holy Hill Zion laying the Government on his shoulders in the day of his Personal Appearance And thus there is an overturn for every pillar of Babylon The fourth party plagued is the Sun Rev. 16.8 which in Scripture is taken these several wayes 1 for the physical and visible Sun Gen. 15.12 2 God himself Psa 84.11 3 Christ Cant. 1.6 Mal. 4.2 4 by way of comparison it is taken for the Church Cant. 6.10 5 the chief though transformed light or the Lucifer of an Antichristian and Babylonish state Isa 13.10 compared with chap. 14.12 Jer. 15.9 Ezek. 32.7 Joel 2.10 31. chap. 3.15 Amos 8.9 Mic. 3.6 Matth. 24.29 Mark 13.24 Acts 2.20 Rev. 6.12 6 a main and chief light of the Church of God Isa 30.26 No man in reason will say that in the out-powring of the fourth vial is understood the plaguing of God of Christ which to aver is blasphemy or any such like thing but the darkning the Lucifer of Babylon or the main pretended light of the antichristian state with spiritual darkness So that all the transformed and pretended lights of the Babylonish state shall be in a great part thereof smitten with darknes Rev. 8.12 having their understanding darkened being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them because of the blindness of their heart Ephes 4.18 God sending them strong delusion that they should beleeve a lye 2 Thess 2.11 The fifth party plagued is