The Burning of London, Part 3 · Meditation 41
MEDITATION XLI. Upon the Retorts and Reproaches of Papiſts, occaſioned by this fire.
ME-thinks I hear ſome Reman-Catholicks, (as they are pleaſed to call themſelves,) ſaying, Some of your Proteſtants did confidently foretel, That within this preſent year 1666 Rome ſhould down; Babylon ſhould fall; Antichriſt ſhould be deſtroyed: But, now your own City is deſtroyed in the ſelfſame-year; which (according to you) doth ſhow, that London was the true-Babylon, and that the true Antichriſt is amongſt your ſelves. Yet, upon due examination, it will be found, that there is as little ſtrength in the Argument which they have brought, as there is ſenſe in the name whereby they are called, viz. Roman-Catholicks: which is as much as to ſay, Members of the particular Univerſal-Church; or of that part of the Church which is the whole; or of Rome, which is all the World. VVe read of Names of blaſphemy which were upon the heads of the Beaſt, Rev. 13.1. But, as if that were not ſufficient they have added a Name, which is perfect non-ſenſe for the reaſon aforeſaid; but, that by the way. Their deſign is, to prove, that Antichriſt is amongſt us; and, that London was that Myſtical-Balylon ſo often ſpoken of, according to what was lately found in a Seditious Libel; Do to South-Babel, &c. meaning to the Southern-part of London yet ſtanding, &c. But alaſs! How weak are the Premiſſes from which they have drawn theſe concluſions.
Their Argument put into a Syllogiſm, is this; If London were deſtroyed the ſelf-ſame-year in which ſome did Propheſie that Babylon and Antichriſt ſhould be deſtroyed; then is London that which the Scripture calls Babylon and Anti-chriſt amongſt the Proteſtants: But London was, &c. E…go. If the VVorld miſtake not, ſome of you have proved the Minor ſo ſtrongly, (viz. the deſtruction of London,) and in ſuch a year, that no body can diſprove it: But, the conſequence of the Major-Propoſition hath no force at all in it; For, what if ſome did Propheſie the deſtruction of Babylon and Antichriſt in 66, and London only was deſtroyed that year, from what Principle of Scripture, or Reaſon, can you thence infer, that London is Myſtical-Babylon? For, firſt of all, VVho were they that did Propheſie ſuch a thing? VVere they not a few inconſiderable Enthuſiaſtical Men, to whom, not one Proteſtant of a thouſand gave credit? For, believe me, Enthuſiaſts and Proteſtants are no convertible terms; foraſmuch as not every hundredth or thouſandth Proteſtant is any thing of an Enthuſiaſt. VVe do not uſe to charge upon your Church the Extravagant Bablings of one or a few particular Papiſts, but the profeſſed Doctrines and Tenets of that which yourſelves call the Church of Rome. Do us the ſame right, and forbear to charge upon Proteſtants, as ſuch, what the Proteſtant Church doth diſavow.
Poſſibly they were ſome of your own Religion, ſome Romaniſts, putting on the mask of Proteſtants (as hath bin uſual with them to do, for ſiniſter ends) who foreknowing, that London would be burnt this year (as nothing is more eaſy, than for men to know what themſelves intend to do) gave out, that Babylon and Anti-chriſt would be deſtroyed in ſixty ſix, for that very end, that when they had once effected the burying of London in aſhes, they might have ſome pretence to write this Epitaph, Here lies Babylon, here lies that which was the feat of the true Anti-chriſt; thereby rolling away the reproach of Babylon and Anti-chriſt from themſelves to whom it belongs, upon the Proteſtants whom it concerns not.
But take heed how you deny Anti-chriſt to be amongſt you, for by that means you quit one Argument, Sir. Edw. Sand. Spec. Europ.which ſome of your writers have uſed to prove Rome to be a true Church, for that it is ſaid, that Anti-chriſt ſitteth in the Temple of God, 2 Theſ. 2.4. But, if upon further conſideration, you would not be known to have Anti-chriſt amongſt you, let me tell you, that the Beaſt ſpoken of in Scripture, is ſo thoroughly markt, that it is eaſy to diſtinguiſh him from the Proteſtant Church, and from Rome heatheniſh and whatſoever elſe he would turn over his name to. Me-thinks that one Text, 2 Theſ. 2.4. would plainly enough decipher Anti-chriſt, if there were none but that, Who oppoſeth and exalteth himſelf above all that is called God, or that is worſhipped; ſo that he, as God, ſitteth in the Temple of God, ſhewing himſelf that he is God. The Emperours of Rome-heatheniſh ſate not in the Temple of God, they were not within the pales of the profeſſedly Chriſtian Church, therefore they were not the man of ſin, and Anti-chriſt there ſpoken of, but he is to be ſought and found amongſt thoſe that are called Chriſtians. Now amongſt Chriſtians there are none that exalt themſelves above all that are called God, that is, above all Magiſtrates which are called Gods, challenging a Primacy and Supremacy to themſelvs over all Chriſtians, both Subjects and Princes; I ſay there are none that do ſo, but the Popes of Rome ſucceſſively: whence it comes to paſs that Papiſts are wont to refuſe the Oath of Supremacy to their Native Prince, as believing not their own Prince to be Supream under God over his own Subjects, but the Pope of Rome over both him and them. Moreover, who is it that fitteth in the Temple of God, ſhewing himſelf to be God, that is, aſſumeth to himſelf thoſe things which are proper and particuliar to God onelyonly, as namely, To forgive ſins? For none can forgive ſins but God onelyonly: I ſay, who, but the reſpective Popes of Rome do take upon them by their own power, and in their own name to forgive ſin: the groſsneſs of which practice did firſt provoke Luther, of a ſtaff Monk, to become a zealous Proteſtant. Yea, who amognſt thoſe that were called Chriſtians, did ever exalt himſelf above all that is worſhipped (by which may be meant the true God), ſaving the reſpective Popes of Rome? And they have done it time after time in taking upon them to diſpenſe with the Commiſſion of ſin, as with the taking of unlawful Oaths, and ſuch like. Now God himſelf though he remit ſin to ſuch as truly believe, and repent; yet he never did, nor, by reaſon of the holineſs of his nature, ever could give men free leave, and licence to do that which is ſinful. It is true that God gave the Iſraelites Commiſſion to borrow the Jewels and Earings of the Egyptians, and never to return them again: but that was not a liberty to ſteal; for God, Whoſe all thoſe things were, and whoſe are all things, was pleaſed to alienate the propriety; to take thoſe things from the Egyptians, and give them to the Iſraelites.
A fourth Character of Anti-chriſt, is, that his Coming is, with lying wonders, verſ. 9. that is, with feigned miracles. Now who amongſt all that are called Chriſtians, trade ſo much (if at all) in thoſe things, as doth the Church of Rome? How do the Romaniſts (they and only they) abound with miracles; and all fictitious, and no other then groſs impoſture? Tell thoſe people that have no Bibles to conſult, but what are in an unknown language or elſe perverted by a falſe tranſlation, or a corrupt gloſs, I ſay, tell them the Anti-chriſt is amongſt the proteſtants, and that London was the Myſtical Babylon of which the Scripture ſpeaks, Sic notus Ulyſſes? Is Anti-chriſt no better known, think you, to them that have ſeen his Picture and Deſcription in holy Writ. Alas! ſuch coarſe Wares as is the ridiculous aſſerting of London to be Babylon, will go off no where, but in a dark ſhop, or by a falſe light. Your blinded Moſes, that live as it were under ground, may be made to believe that Rome is the new Jeruſalem ſpoken of Rev. 21.1. and London what ever you pleaſe to call it, or any thing elſe wherewith you ſhall think fit to delude them by thoſe artifices which you call Pious-Frands (which is as proper an expreſſion as Pious-Devils): but our people converſe with the Sun, I mean the light of Scripture. They have read the book of the Revelations of Saint John, and though they do not pretend to underſtand every thing therein conteined, yet they doubt not what is meant by the beaſt's having ſeven heads and ten horns, Rev. 13.1. becauſe they find Saint John himſelf expounding it, Rev. 17.9. The ſeven heads are ſeven mountains. And there are ſeven Kings (that is, Forms of governments) Five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come, &c. Theſe paſſages agree & quadrate to Rome exactly. It was built upon ſeven Hills yet to be ſeen, though ſome of them be now without the walls of the City. It had ſeven forms of Government, whereof five were fallen in Saints John's time, viz. Kings, Conſuls, Tribunes, Decemvir's, Dictators: one is, ſaith he, that is, Emperors were then in being, the other was not yet come, viz. Popes. But do theſe expreſsions, all or any of them, agree to London, as they agree to Rome? Doth that ſtand upon juſt ſeven hills? Hath that had juſt ſeven forms of Government, five whereof were fallen in Saint John's time, and one other in being? With what face then can you affirm London to be Babylon? But I ſee, Thoſe men have impudence enough to aſſert any thing, who have taught their followers to believe every thing they pleaſe to aſſert.
A faith of Legends (and only that) may be ſufficient to aſſure men that London was Myſtical-Babylon; for that I take to be more than a faith of Miracles: the latter being a ſaith of Poſsibles, the other of Impoſsibilities and contradictions. Therefore though ſome of the ſillier ſort of Papiſts may believe, and others may boldly aſſert the ſame though they believe it not (as they do in many other caſes): yet Proteſtants can never be perſwaded to it whilſt the world ſtands; nor any other perſons, that are from under the power of groſs Ignorance, or Prejudice: As for the name Antichriſt, Who knows not that it imports one that ſets himſelf in the ſtead or place of Chriſt, as well as againſt Chriſt; the Praepoſition foreign, ſignifying both pro, and con, that is, as well For, as Againſt. Now, Who amongſt thoſe that are called Proteſtants, can be charged with ſetting himſelf in the place of Chriſt, as if he would be taken for Chriſt himſelf? But that do the Popes of Rome ſucceſsively, whilſt they affirm to themſelves, thoſe things which are peculiar to Chriſt alone, as namely Forgiveneſs of ſin, &c. I had forborn this diſcourſe, but that I have been advertiſed of the reproaches of ſome of the Papiſts, who, after the Baptiſm of fire we have lately undergone, go about to Baptize us, and our City, with their ſpittle, by the names of Babylon and Anti-chriſt, due only to Rome, and Romaniſts: and God forbid that whilſt Papiſts do unjuſtly aſperſe Proteſtants (whoſe Religion is that which the Laws of England doth eſtabliſh) Proteſtants ſhould not have leave, and take heart enough to vindicate themſelves. In a word, if London be Myſtical Babylon (ſo confident am I it is not), let it never riſe again; if Rome be not, let it never fall: and, on the other hand, let Rome ſo fall as it proves to be Babylon the great, the Mother of Harlots, and Abominations of the Earth, Rev. 17.5: and let London ſo riſe and flouriſh again (and only ſo) as it ſhall be found to be otherwiſe.