expressed because they opened not unto him this shews what divisions and animosities there were at that time in Israel some taking part with Menahem and some with Shallum which factions were so great and boysterous among them that they could not be appeased with the death of one of the contending parties but prevailed so far that Pul King of Assyria made use of this advantage and came against the Land weakened and divided by its own intestine broils which were so great and dangerous that Menahem found himself obliged to make his peace upon the best terms he could with the Assyrian King therefore he gave him a Thousand Talents of Silver that his hand might be with him to confirm the Kingdom in his hand which was the cause of grievous taxations and arbitrary fines levied upon the Subject without any regard to Equity or Justice to the ruine and impoverishment even of the mighty men of Wealth who it seems as they had reason were very loath to part with their mony but it was too late to dispute the power of two Kings together and one of them so potent that he could force an obedience if the thing it self were but possible to whatsoever he Commanded v. 20. And Menahem exacted the mony of Israel even of all the mighty men of Wealth each man Fifty Shekels of Silver to give to the King of Assyria So the King of Assyria well payed for his journey turned back and stayed not there in the Land Menahem Reigned Ten Years and slept with his Fathers and Pekahiah his Son Reigned in his stead but his Reign was but very short he Reigned but Two Years and then Pekah the Son of Remaliah one of the Captains of his host conspired against him and smote him in Samaria in the Palace of the Kings House with Argob and Arieh and with him Fifty men of the Gileadites and he killed him and Reigned in his Room 2 Kings 15. 25. And in his days there being as it is more than probable great divisions among the People of Israel Tiglath Pileser King of Assyria layed hold on the occasion and took Ijon and Abel-beth-maachah and Janoah and Kedesh and Hazor and Gilead and Galilee all the land of Naphtali and carried them Captive to Assyria Neither was this all but Hoshea the Son of Elah likewise took the opportunity of those factions which he found among the people to set up for himself therefore v. 30. he made a conspiracy against Pekah the Son of Remaliah and smote him and slew him and Reigned in his stead in the Twentieth year of Jotham the Son of Uzziah Lastly Hoshea Reigned in Samaria Nine Years and then the great and final Captivity of Shalmaneser happened which put a fatal period to the Kingdom of Israel as it was distinguished from that of Judah 2 Kings c. 17. and thus it was exactly true of the Kings of Israel who very few of them died a natural death Ad generum Cereris sine caede sanguine pauci Descedunt reges siccâ morte Tyranni Having thus given a particular account of the state of affairs in the Kingdom of Israel from the time of its division from Benjamin and Judah till the Captivity of Shalmaneser in which the very name and memory of the Ten Tribes was lost I could now make a no less pleasant than profitable representation of the state of Judah likewise if it would not be a digression but I have done all that I designed already which was only to shew that the Kingdom of Israel after the division of the two Kingdoms from one another was governed altogether by the power of the Sword and that the factions prevailing from time to time in the Israelitish Armies and the power and interest of this or that Commander among the Souldiers were the true causes of those many and great revolutions which happened among them and of the supreme powers being so frequently translated out of one Family into another and that from hence it may seem probable that there being Armies in continual pay and the Levitical Cities being emptyed of their old Inhabitants that they were distributed among the Souldiers as well for the satisfaction of their arrears as that the Souldiery by this means being dispersed through the Land of Israel might be the more serviceable to keep the people in obedience and might be ready at hand in what quarter soever any popular tumult or insurrection should happen But I am not at all sollicitous whether this be so or no only if it be so it will serve my turn to prove that the old partition of inheritances was at this time destroyed and if it be not so yet it is certain that the Levites were expelled and we may be equally confident that these Cities were filled with new inhabitants it being the extremity of folly and dotage to imagine that they were suffered to lie Idle and Useless without any new inhabitants at all and this it self will as effectually destroy the old partition as the other way Another argument by which it will undeniably appear that the Priesthood of Jeroboam was by no means after the manner of the Levitical Priesthood may be drawn from the express words of Abijah immediately subjoyned to those other words of his which I have last produced by which the manners and customs of the one are expressly distinguished from and opposed to the manners rites and usages of the other 2 Chron. 13. v. 10 11. But as for us the Lord is our God and we have not forsaken him and the Priests which minister unto the Lord are the Sons of Aâ—â—on and the Levites wait upon their business and they burn unto the Lord every Morning and every Evening burnt Sacrifice and sweet incense the Shew-bread also set they in order upon the pure table and the Candlestick of Gold with the Lamps thereof to burn every Evening for we keep the charge of the Lord our God but ye have forsoken him A tenth consideration by which it may appear that the Priesthood of Jeroboam was not after the Levitical manner and that they were not placed by him in the Levitical Cities which the Levites themselves had been compelled to relinquish may be drawn from those words of Abijah which have been already insisted upon though not to the same purpose for which I now produce them 2 Chron. 13. 9. So that whosoever cometh to consecrate himself with a Younog Bullock and Seven Rams the same may be a Priest of them that are no Gods From which words it is plain that Jeroboams Priests were Priests properly and strictly so called they all of them did sacrifice and sprinkled the blood by way of expiation for themselves as well as for others otherwise they did not consecrate themselves as it is here expressly said they did but they were consecrated to the Priestly office by those to whom the performance of this sacrifice in their behalf appertained now it is certain that this part of the
too especially where they grow Customary and habitual in us because these are so many willful tendencies to a dissolution and they are so much the more inexcusable because they are usually more deliberate then most of the instances of self-homicide are and are committed when we have or might have had a free use and exercise of our reason Eighteenthly If self-homicide be so Unlawful as it hath been represented how much more impious and guilty must it needs be to imbrue our Hands in the Blood of our Neighbour whose person is certainly less at our disposal then our own and with whom unless it be in our own just and necessary defence we have nothing more to do then only to help and assist him what we can I shall conclude this business with saying what I am sure is true that no affection of Novelty or love of Paradox drew me into a discourse of this Subject in the following Treatise but that I insensibly light upon it before I was aware and that I should be very sorry if any thing that I have said upon that occasion should give offence to any wise or good Man though I hope in this review of that whole matter which I have endeavoured carefully to consider I have made some amends for what is amiss in the body of the Book if any man shall happen to be displeased at it The other thing which I have in my mind and which I find my self obliged to Recant is concerning the Year of Numa which I was very confident I had discovered but I have made a new discovery since that and that is that I know nothing of it and I conceive at this distance of time it is impossible to be explained however upon the whole matter I hope you will not repent the perusal of this Book nor I that I have written it Farewell THE PRINCIPAL HEADS OF THE Ensuing Treatise OF the great Antiquity of the usage in the Text and of the cause wherein it was warrantably dispensed with From Page 1. to Page 60. Of the reasons upon which it was Originally founded From p. 60. to 79. Two mistakes of Mr. Selden and the Rabbins whom he follows From p. 79. to 83. That the Marriage of Boaz and Ruth was in consequence and pursuance of that Law of Moses whereby the Brother was obliged to raise up Seed to the deceased Brother against Mr. Selden and the Rabbins From p. 83. to 119. Two other mistakes of Mr. Selden and his Rabbins discovered From p. 120. to 124. Of the signification of the word First-born in this controversie From p. 124. to 138. Two objections against what was asserted under the last head concerning the signification of the word First-born proposed and answered From p. 138. to 147. Another Argument to prove that by the First-born the Daughter or Female was not understood in the Law of Moses and in what case a Woman was to inherit From p. 147. to 149 The Heiress obliged to Marry to some of the kindred and to the next of kin if he pleased p. 150 151. The Law of the Leviratus to be understood only of Brethren by the Fathers side and in this Mr. Selden and his Rabbins are in the right From p. 151. to 158. An Answer to an objection against the last position that this Law concerned only the Paternal consanguinity From p. 158. to 161. Two objections remaining against what hath been said the first an Argument of Mr. Seldens to prove that the Marriage of Boaz and Ruth was not in consequence and by vertue of the Leviratical Law which is largly answered From p. 161. to 183. Of the true time when this Custom came to be Antiquâ—ted viz. at the division of the two Kingdoms of Israel and Judah of the nature of Jeroboams Priesthood and of the frequent revolutions that happened in the Kingdom of Israel after its division from that of Judah by reason of its Military Government and for want of a regular and subordinate Clergy From p. 183. to 237. That the Jews did not abstain from any thing meerly because the Zabii or any other nation round about them practised it and that this was no reason of any of their negative Precepts Proved largely against Dr. Cudworth and the Jewish Rabbins whom he follows From p. 237. to 292. Of the practice of Usury among the Jews and other nations and that the Romans borrowed most if not all their usages concerning it out of the East together with an explanation of many things in the Roman and Assyrian or Eastern Antiquities hitherto unknown which is concluded with two observations the First concerning the reason of Tithes being paid to the Priesthood the other concerning the Lawfulness of a moderate Usury in all but such polities as the Jewish was From p. 292. to 27. The whole is concluded with an answer to a second objection against the Paternal consanguity being only concerned in the matter of the Leviratus which is taken from the Account of our Saviours Genealogy as it is or seems to be differently Related by the two Evangelists St. Mathew and St. Luke BOAZ and RVTH Deuteronomy 25. ver 5. If Brethren dwell together and one of them dye and have no Child the Wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger her Husbands Brother shall go in unto her and take her to him to Wife and perform the duty of an Husbands Brother unto her c. THE reason of which is expressed in the next verse viz. That the name of the Brother might not perish For which cause it was that the first Child begotten in such Wedlock was not accounted the offspring of his or her natural Parent but of him whose person he did in this case sustain that is of his Brother or near Kinsman V. 6. And it shall be that the first born which she beareth shall succeed in-the name of his Brother which is dead that his name be not put out of Israel Which in the instance of a near Kinsman tho not of an immediate Brother was afterwards the case of Ruth and Boaz from whose Loins in a few generations K. David and in the fullness of time the Messias himself the Son of David was descended Which Custom tho it was afterwards as we see confirmed by an express Law of God yet it was in it self much ancienter than the delivery of the Law by Moses as is evident from the story of Er Onan and Shelah the Sons of Judah all of them successively married to Tamar for the reason already mentioned as is very plainly intimated I may say expresly asserted Gen. 38. v. 9. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his and it came to pass when he went in unto his Brothers Wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For which fact of his it is said in the next verse And the thing which he did displeased the Lord wherefore he slew him also as he had done his Brother Er for some other wickedness which
before the Law should under it be thought so heinous that no Sacrifice no Lustration no Redemption no Expiation would be admitted but the person offending must without mercy without the least reprieve or respite of his sentence immediately suffer death I conclude therefore what I design to prove that the marriage of the Brother to the Brothers Wife and much more of the Brother to to the Sister German was forbidden and abominable in the sight of God before the promulgation of the Mosaick Law which is my first argument § 8. But then Secondly That the marriage of Brother and Sister Germans and consequently of the Brother to the Brothers Wife which I have already shewn to be the same is unlawful will be sufficiently proved if I can prove there was any such thing as an incestuous or prohibited mixture before that time which besides what has been said of the Amorites and other Nations the Ancient Planters of the Land of Canaan I can prove by other instances both before and after the Floud § 9. And First before it Gen. 6. 2. We find it thus writen The Sons of God saw the Daughters of Men that they were fair and they took them Wives of all which they chose that is they made Intermarriages among one another without any regard to the prohibited degrees of Consanguinity so that they made no scruple of marrying even their own Sisters if they were such as they could set their affections upon which practice of theirs was so provoking to Almighty God that it is said in the next verse And the Lord said My Spirit shall not always strive with man His days were immediately shortned upon it and very soon after upon the continuance of this and other as it seemeth to me somewhat less horrid impieties for this is only mention'd to set the more particular mark and brand upon it that fatal Deluge happened by which the Old World and all that was in it Eight Persons and the Creatures that were with them only excepted was destroyed Now that incestuous marriages and particularly those of Sister and Brother are here understood I prove thus § 10. First They took them Wives of all whom they chose therefore it must not be understood of any Rape or Violence but it was the effect of choice which is an easy and gentle as well as a deliberat thing Secondly They took them Wives which implyes not a sudden Violence but a lasting contract between the parties by which they were obliged mutually to enter into a Matrimonial estate and live at Bed and Board together And which is a mighty confirmation of this interpretation this is described as the state and condition of the World just before the coming of the Floud by St. Matthew and St. Luke Mat. 24. 38 39. Luk. 17. 27. They did Eat and Drink they married Wives and were given in marriage untill the day that Noah entred into the Ark and the Floud came and destroyed them all So likewise 2 Pet. c. 2. v. 5 6. God spared not the Old World but saved Noah the Eighth person a Preacher of Righteousness bringing in the Floud upon the World of the ungodly and turning the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into Ashes condemned them with an overthrow making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly What is meant most especially in the latter verse by the word ungodly we know very well from the History of those wicked places but the Old World not being charged with so unnatural a crime which yet it is very probable it would have been had it been guilty of it the best as well as the most charitable way of interpreting the same word in the former verse is by expounding it of incestuous mixtures which have always in the esteem of the World been accounted the next in guilt to it § 11. The same thing is likewise wonderfully confirmed from an expression in the story of Zelophehad Num. 36. 6. Let them marry to whom they think best which answers exactly to that other place in Gen. they took them Wives of all which they chose and is of the same import and signification Let them marry into their own family for the better preservation of the inheritance without regard to those restrictions within which the Law of Moses would otherwise have circumscribed them and accordingly they all married to their Cousin Germans which were yet in other cases prohibited by the Law of Moses and by the practice of the Jewish Church as I shall prove more largely in another discourse wherein I shall state that whole case and shew that as well by the Law of Christ as that of Moses and not only so but by the Law of nature too such marriages are ex antecedenti unlawful tho after they be consummated by fruition they are upon the same reasons valid upon which before it they are prohibited and void § 12. Thus much may serve for the first part of what I undertook to prove that the place in Genesis above cited is to be understood of Incestuous Mixtures I will now shew that the Marriage of Sisters and Brothers Germans is chiefly if not only pointed at in this place by this Syllogism Either the Marriages both of Mothers and Sisters with their Sons and Brethren is to be understood in this place or of Sisters and Brothers only But the Marriage of Mothers with their Sons is not at all pointed at in this place Therefore it must of necessity be meant of the Marriage of Brothers and Sisters only The Major I prove plainly from this that all other degrees of Consanguinity before the delivery of the Law were no obstruction to Marriage for of the Marriage of Cousin Germans we have an instance in Jacob who married Rachel and Leah his Uncle Labans Daughters of the Aunt in Amram the Father of Moses himself and of the half Sister by the Fathers side in Abraham the Father of the Jewish Nation It remains therefore since the very next degrees both in the ascending and in the collateral line were permitted that this Text cannot possibly be understood of any other Incestuous Marriages but those of Brothers and Sisters Germans or of Sons and their natural Mothers together but of the Marriage of Sons with their Mothers it is absurd to understand it for this reason that it is said the Sons of God saw the Daughters of Men that they were fair in which it is plainly implyed that they were young and Virgins at least thus much is true that the Epithet of fair is by no means sutable to Women in their declining Age as they must needs be who are the Parents of marriageable Children it is therefore evident that it must be meant of the Intermarriage of Brothers and Sisters Germans together which was the thing I undertook to prove § 13. And this being so great a provocation to Almighty God that it was one of the main causes of that dismal Floud with which the Old World
was overtaken and it being inconsistent with the Justice of God to punish an offence so heavily and so universally which they themselves who did it did not know to be a sin it follows plainly that before the Floud such Marriages were and were accounted in the esteem of the World unlawful § 14. Having thus proved that before the Floud there were prohibited degrees of Consanguinity and that the transgressing those bounds by Incestuous Mixtures which did then very frequently prevail in the World was one great cause of that universal calamity with which it was overtaken it may seem an unnecessary task to go about to prove that the same prohibitions were esteemed no less sacred and inviolable after it since Noah who together with his Sons were innocent of this sin and yet knew so well as they did by the punishment of others how heavily displeasing it was in the Eyes of God could not choose together with the tradition of the Floud it self but deliver down the causes of it to their Posterity together with a caution to avoid the same iniquities for fear of being visited tho not with the same for God had made a promise that he would not drown the World any more yet with some equally terrible and dreadful judgments § 15. But yet because nothing can be too sure I will prove it by a double instance by the first of which it will appear that the marriage of Parents with their Children by the second that that of Brothers and Sisters Germans or Uterines with one another was after the Floud and before the delivery of the Law look'd upon as detestable and unlawful § 16. The First is the case of Lot who lay with his Two Daughters from which incestuous Coitions the two great people of Moab and Ammon were descended but they despaired of prevailing upon him to gratify their wicked desires till they had made him so much more than mellow that it is said he perceived not when they lay down or when they arose Gen. 19. 33. which is a plain argument that a just and righteous man which is the Character of Lot would not in his right senses and while he continued to have a due exercise of his reason have been guilty of a Congression of that nature and consequently that in those times it was esteemed and looked upon by all as an abominable and accursed thing § 17. The Second instance is that of Abraham when being charged by Abimelech the King of Gerar for having deceived him under pretence that Sarah was his Sister when she was in reality his Wife says in excuse of himself Gen. 20. 12. She is my Sister she is the Daughter of my Father but not the Daughter of my Mother and she became my Wife by which it is plain that in the opinion of Abraham her being a Sister only by the Fathers side was not an hinderance to Marriage and this being spoken by way of appeal and in his own vindication to Abimelech who had indeed injured himself for want of duly considering the true meaning of Abrahams expression it is an argument that it was the Custom of those times and that the same degrees of Consanguinity were allowed and prohibited at Gerar as well as in the family of Abraham who probably if in these matters he had differed from his neighbours it would have been in this that the allowances would have been rather more narrow than more indulgent and licentious on his side § 18. I know very well that Josephus and out of him Bishop Taylor and out of him his Transcriber T. D. the Writer of a small Treatise in behalf of the Marriage of Cousin Germans will needs have Sarah not to have been Abrahams Sister in that sense in which we usually take the word but only his Niece the Daughter of his Brother Haran and the same with Iscah Gen. 11. 29. and this he tells us p. 84 of that little piece will appear to any one who rightly considers the place but indeed whether I have rightly considered it or no I am sure I have considered it as well as I can and I can find no such thing in it but Sarah and Iscah are both of them mentioned in the very same verse which it is not likely that it would have been done without any mention of the change of the name as is usually done or without so much as intimating that she was called by both of these names if they had been both of them one and the same person Besides if a man would be understood of his half Sister or his Sister by the Fathers side how could he express himself more clearly than thus She is my Sister she is the Daughter of my Father but not the Daughter of my Mother Again that very expression she is the Daughter of my Father but not the Daughter of my Mother cannot without granting many precarious assertions and such as can no way be justifi'd be understood of the Niece or Brothers Daughter so as the sense of the place must at that rate be this She is the Daughter or Grandchild of my Father Therah but not of my Mother but she is his Grandchild by some other Wife who was the Mother of Haran so that it is plain to make this interpretation good these two things must first be granted First that Therah had two Wives either together which cannot be proved of any but Lamech before the Floud or successively which cannot be proved neither and if it could be proved yet Secondly it must be granted likewise that of these two Abraham was the Son of the one and Haran of the other but that they were not both descended of the same Mother all which is not only a shameless but also a very needless begging of the question For the reason as I conceive why this opinion was First started in the World was out of a pious design to defend Abraham from the Obloquy of an incestuous Mixture whereas if a man would consider things aright the Niece or Brothers Daughter is rather more than less a kin than the half Sister by the Fathers side and that upon two several accounts both because the Father's is of the two the more uncertain side and because in the Niece or Brothers Daughter there is at one remove if he be Brother German as it cannot be proved that Haran was not the blood of both our Parents running in her veins besides that to such an one we are parentum loco which is another hindrance to Marriage in the Mosaick as well as the Civil Law I conclude therefore upon an impartial survey of the whole matter that this conjecture let it be supported by never so great names is not only precarious but improbable into the bargain Neither do we read of any other change of Name which Sarah ever suffered but only that of Sarai by a very light mutation into Sarah which is as much as Domina Ductrix Princeps Faemina to make it
none 2 Kings 1. 17 but his Brother for Jehoram is expressly called the Son of Ahab 2. Kings 3. 1. and v. 2. it is said that he wrought evil in the sight of the Lord but not like his Father that is Ahab and like his Mother that is Jezebel for he put away the Image of Baal that his Father had made that is again Ahab for so it is said of Ahab 1 Kings 16. 31. that he went and served Baal and Worshipped him and v. 32. He reared up an Altar for Baal in the House of Baal Jehoram was succeeded by Jehu the Son of Nimshi the Captain General of all Jehorams forces a man very famous for his exploits in War and particularly for the boldness and fury of his attacks in Battel who knowing very well that expedition is the very life of business when the messengers from Jehoram came one after another to ask him is it peace would not so much as stay to give them audience but with a military roughness what hast thou said he to do with peace turn thee behind me and so drove on with all the speed he could for Jezreel where Joram lay to be healed of the Wounds which he had received in a late Battel against Hazael King of Syria at Ramah and the Watchman that stood upon an eminence to observe what became of the messengers that were sent knew that it was Jehu by the fury of his driving though neither of the Messengers that were sent returned the driving said he is like the driving of Jehu the Son of Nimshi for he driveth furiously And though it cannot be denyed that Jehu was in a most especial manner appointed by God himself for the sins of Jehoram and the House of Omri to be King and was accordingly Anointed to the Kingly Office by the prophet as hath already been shewn yet this divine designation had its effect by natural and human means by the power and interest of Jehu in the Army under his Command as it was in the case of Omri the head of that Royal family which was extinguished in the person of Jehoram and of his Seventy Brethren the Sons of Ahab 2 Kings c. 10. For so it is expressly said when Jehu had acquainted the Captains of the Host with the subject of the Prophets message to him 2 Kings 9. 12. Thus saith the Lord I have Anointed thee King over Israel that v. 13. they hasted and took every man his Garment and put it under him on the top of the Stairs and blew with Trumpets saying Jehu is King and Jehu's party that had proclaimed him was so strong that the rulers of Jezreel and the Elders that brought up Ahabs Children being Seventy in number c. 10. saw it was in vain to insist upon their right against so powerful a pretender to the Throne v. 4. behold two Kings stood not before him that is Jehoram King of Israel and Ahaziah King of Judah how then shall we stand so that they were forced though as it seems contrary to their Inclinations to comply with the Conqueror in a very cruel and sanguinary Command v. 6. take ye the heads of the men year Masters Sons and come to me to Jezreel by to morrow this time and accordingly it came to pass v. 7. when Jehu ' s letter came to them that they took the Kings Sons being seventy persons which were with the great men of the City that brought them up v. 6. and put their heads in Baskets and sent them to Jezreel and as he had served his Sons so he served likewise all that remained of the House of Ahab in Jezreel and all his great Men and his Kinsfolks and his Priests until he left him none remaining v. 11. So that this is another instance of military revolutions and of the mischiefs and calamities to which that nation is exposed where Armies are in constant pay and are either divided among themselves in the consequences of which division the State cannot be unconcerned or acted unanimously by their own discontents or by the designs the ambitions or the private and concealed resentments of their leaders or when being at leisure from any Forreign service they are at leisure likewise to do the more mischief at home as it is morally impossible so great a body of men made up for the most part as it is in all the world besides of a mixt multitude of Knaves and Fools should not brew some mischief when they are out of Employment and the Commanders have little else to do but to lay out a Scheme of greatness for themselves and then pursue the means of compassing their designs Jehu Reigned Twenty and Eight Years and at length died in peace and slept with his Fathers and Jehoahaz his Son Reigned in his stead 2 Kings 10. 35 36. And in the line of Jehu the Kingdom of Israel continued during the Reigns of the four Immediatly succeeding Princes that is to say Jehoahaz Jehoash Jeroboam the second of that name and Zachariah against whom Shallum the Son of Jabesh conspired c. 15. 10. and that it was by a publick and formed conspiracy as well as any of those other changes in the Crown of Israel which have been mentioned appears by this that it is said that he smote him before the people and that he Reigned in his stead The first of which he would not have dared to do and the last he could not possibly have effected had he not had before hand a considerable power and interest in the people before whom he is said to have slain Zachariah But to see the inconstancy of disloyal Subjects who have once forfeited their Allegiance to their Lawful Prince they can be true to no Interest no Person or Estabishment as it proved by our own experience in the late giddy times when once they have prostituted that incommunicable fidelity which is wholly and entirely due to the rightful and Lawful King and to none else besides him for Shallum Reigned but One single Mouth and then gave place to Fate and to the more powerful interest of Menahem the Son of Gadi who went up from Tirzah and came to Samaria and smote Shallum the Son of Jabesh in Samaria and slew him and Reigned in his stead 2 Kings 15. 14. And with what cruelty he mannaged that power which he had gotten and the conquest which he and his party had made over Shallum and his adherents appears immediately in the next words and is a woful example as well as the story of Jehu of those unspeakable miseries and devastations with which all publick revolutions are generally attended v. 16. he smote Tiphsah and all that were therein and the coasts thereof from Tirzah because they opened not to him therefore he smote it and as if Tipsah and Tredagh had been the same he put all the Inhabitants and the Garison to the Sword And all the Women therein that were with Child he ript up and the cause of this cruelty being