Sacræ heptades, or Seaven problems concerning Antichrist 1. of his place. 2. Of his state. 3. Of his names. 4. Of his rising. 5. Of his raigne. 6. Of his words and actions. 7. Of his times. Necessarie to be read and knowne of all men, who professe Christ Iesus, and hope to be saved by no other name. By G.S.

III. The Names.

No men est per quod, quid{que} noscitur: The name of eve∣rie thing is that, whereby it is known, or as it were not a men, it is that, whereby everie thing is noted or distin∣guished. The authoritie to giue names belongeth prima∣rily to God, as Gen. 1, Secondarily to princes and superi∣ours, as Adam Gen. 2. Thirdly, to the people, by consent, as Ioh. 13, 13. The conditions required in the imposition of names, to make them answerable to the definition and notation aforesaid, are veritie, congruitie, & certaintie. Thus being imposed and approved, they are not to be changed. For they are notes of our notions, notions of things, limits of distinctions and dignities, signes of truth, and measures of certaintie, which being violated or neglected, all knowledg turneth to error and confusion, all justice to injurie, all vertue to villanie, as Cato in Salust well noteth; I am pri∣dem nos vera rerum vocabula amissimus. And Seneca com∣playning of the wickednes of times; Prosperum & faelix sce∣lus virtus vocatur. And hereby may we see the force of the Apostles argument Heb. 1. and the ignorance and presum∣ption of Heretikes & Schismatikes, who dare take to them∣selues new names, and leaue the common name of Chri∣stians, giuen by oracle from God, & most certainly appro∣ved by God. Now if in names giuen by men, certaintie

ought to be observed, shall we think that the Spirit of God giveth uncertaine names, or will call darknes light, or light darknes? Questionlesse he doth not giue idle or uncertain names: but in this, as in all things els, useth words liuely and significant. And herein is to be noted a difference betweene the names giuen by God, & the names instituted by men. For men giue names a poste∣riori, because things are so, and men conceiue them to be so, therefore they call them so. But the names giuen by God are a priori, because God the Almightie, maker of all things, hath ordeyned that they shall be so, there∣fore he calleth them so, and because he calleth them so, therefore they must be so. Let us see therefore what names are giuen to this great enemie of Christ and his Church, and how these names are used and applied in the Scripture. And first of the name Antichrist. This name (as all men, though but meanely learned in the Greeke tongue do know) is a word composed of the preposition Anti, and the word Christ: Anti is used in Greeke, sometimes to signifie an adversarie, sometime a Deputie, or Vicar, as many learned men haue heretofore observed and proved. That it signifieth an adversarie is confessed by all, that it signifieth a deputie, substitute or vicar appeareth by the word Anthupatos, which is ex∣pounded by some Proconsull, by others Deputie. Now the names of Christ, which in Hebrue is Messiah, and in English signifieth anointed, is diversly taken in the holy Scripture. First properly, personally, and Individually, for our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ, who is God blessed for evermore.

Secondly, appellatiuely, for all that haue a similitude with him by their unction, as Kings, Priests and Prophets, in which sence it is used in the Psalme; Touch not mine

annointed, and doe my Prophets no harme: and David of king Saul sayth, The Lord keep me from doing that unto my master, the Lords annointed, to lay mine hand upon him, for he is the annointed of the Lord. Thirdly, the name of Christ is used mystically, for the mysticall bodie of our Saviour Christ, which is his church. In which sence the Apostle speaketh Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? And again,Christ is the head of everie man. for as the bodie is one, and hath many members, and all members of one bodie, so is Christ▪ for by one spirit we are all baptised into one bodie. &c. And this that divine Apostle himself learned of the words of our Saviour Christ from heauen: Saul, Saul, why perse∣cutest thou me? Now according to these different accepti∣ons of these two words, let us consider of the word Anti∣christ, and to whom it may be applied. And first for the name of Vicarship. The Pontifex max. of Rome who is the seauenth head or king of the Roman state, and confesseth and professeth himself to be head & Governour of Rome, he also confesseth, and professeth himself to be the Vicar of Christ, and of God, and in this sense the name agreeth un∣to him; and so his advocates and followers affirme him to be. But as the word Antichrist signifieth an enimie to Christ, it is by them all stoutly denied, that the Pope is that Antichrist. Let us come therefore to the touch, that is the text where Antichrist is named, and thereby learne, how the word is to be understood. The first place where it is expresly named, is in this our Apostle S. Iohn: Who is a lyer (sayth he) but he that denyeth that Iesus is the Christ, The same is the Antichrist. And againe, Everie spirit that confesseth not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God, but this is the spirit of the Antichrist. These be all the places where I can finde the verie name used in the New Testament. It may percase seeme strange to finde it in the old, and yet

there it is to be found, and that in a most excellent prophe∣cie, though not the same in letters, yet the same in sence and signification, The kings of the earth set themselues (sayth the Prophet) and the princes assembled against the Lord, and against his Anoynted. This Psalme (if we marke it well) conteyneth in brief words the summe and effect of all the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Revelation, concerning the enemies of the Church, and namely Antichrist; and that appeareth in seauen particulars. First, the rage and furie of the enemies. 2, their joyning together against God and Christ, and their intention to shake off the yoke of Christ Iesus. 3, the providence of God for his church, sitting in heauen, as in a watch-tower, watching over his enemies, & laughing them to scorne. 4, the meanes which God useth to defend them, by setting Christ to raigne in his church. 5, the anoynting of our Saviour in his eternall generation, and arming him with regall and soveraigne power to sup∣presse all his enemies. 6, a loving and serious advise to all Princes and Rulers of the earth, to beware to whom they cleaue and adhere, either to Christ, or to his enimies. And lastly, an assured promise of happines to all those that trust in him. Behold then an excellent Prophecie, and the same is touched againe in the 89 Psalme and other places. But to our purpose. The word in this Psalme is Al-Meshico, against his Anoynted, wherein Messhiah, as it is commonly known signifieth Annointed or Christ. And the preposi∣tion Al, or Gnal, in Hebrue, is taken as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greeke, not onely for adversus, but for juxta, or secundum, and some∣times super. In the second signification, that is, juxta or se∣cundum it is accepted by the Pope, neither is it denyed by him or his followers in the third signification, which is su∣per, if we take the name of Christ, either for his mysticall bodie, (for therein he affirmeth himself, to be aboue the

Church, & to be head thereof) of if we take the name Christ, for all that are anoynted, namely, kings, prophets and priests, he affirmeth himself to be superiour and aboue them also: which is a speciall note of Antichrist, as S. Paul sayth, He shall exalt himself aboue all that is called God, or that is worshiped. Neither do I finde, that ever any Emperor, Prince, Prelate, or Potentate, but onely the Pope tooke upon him the names, either of Vicarius Dei, or Christi Generalis, or Caput ecclesiae catholicae, or to be su∣per ecclesiam catholicam, not the Emperors of Rome, not the Turke, nor any other. But the onely thing that they stand upon is, as I said before, that he is not adversarius Christi, personally, and therefore not Antichrist. But how can this be? For Christ is in heauen, and Antichrist for all his malice & power cannot touch him there. Let us therefore examine the places of Scripture aforesaid, where the name of Antichrist is used, and we shall easily perceiue that the name of Christ cannot, neither ought to be taken for his person. For Christ cannot be found personally present upon earth: but either spiritually ac∣cording to his graces, or sacramentally in the Sacra∣ment, or appellatiuely, as the name is communicated to others, or mystically, as to the Church. So therefore must the name of Antichrist be taken for an enimie to the graces, Sacraments or ministers of Christ, and that not individually in one person, but spiritually in his works, or appellatiuely in succession. For otherwise it can not expresse the true intention, or effect of the thing, for the Emphasis, or principall force of the sen∣tence in all the places aforesaid, resteth upon the word Christ, that is Anointed: as in the first place, He that de∣nyeth our Saviour is the Anointed, he is Antichrist: so in the second and third places: He that denyeth that the

Anointed Saviour is come into the world, is Antichrist. So in the Psalme, The kings and princes set themselues against the Lords Anointed. Now the ointment where∣with our Saviour was anointed, was the fulnes of the graces of the H. Ghost, as the scripture testifieth. 1, that he was full of grace. 2, that he was full of truth. 3, that by himself he purged our sinnes. 4, that he is made to us wise∣dome. 5, Iustification. 6, sanctification. And 7, redemp∣tion. & such like. Now he that denieth these graces in our Saviour, and fighteth against those that ascribe these graces unto him, he or none must be the Antichrist, for other warres against Christ, who sitteth in heauen at the right hand of God cannot be made. Who then are those, that send us to other Mediators and Intercessors, namely to the virgin Marie, the Apostles, and Saints, to speak and pray for us? if it be the Pope & his followers, then I aske them, why or for what reason they will haue us so to do? if they do acknowledg our Saviour to be full of grace, why do they send us to others, if our sinnes make us unworthie to goe to him, that calleth us to himself, how many we go to the virgin Marie, or the H. Apostles who do not call us? Is he not as full of grace that calleth us, as they that call us not? Is he not as easie to be intreated now in heauen, as he was upon earth, when he did not reject Marie Magdalen, that had seauen divels, the woman of Canaan, whom he rebu∣ked by the name of a dog, nor the man possessed with a legion. Secondly, how do they acknowledg him to be full of truth, when they say, that his H. word doth not contain all truth, but it must be pieced out with the traditions, Ca∣nons and expositions of their Church? 3. How do they acknowledg him to be our wisdome, when they will not haue his word to be sufficient to interpret it self, and to in∣struct us, & make us perfect in all good works, but we must

resort to the Church and receiue her judgment from the mouth of their Pope? 4, How do they acknowledge our Saviour Christ, by himself, to haue purged all our sinnes, when they say, that we must satisfie by good works in our life, and after our death we must go to Purgatorie? 5, How do they acknowledg him to be our justification, when they say, that we are justified before God by our good works, and not onely by faith in his death and passion, al∣though it be written, if thou confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and belieue in thy heart, that God raysed him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 6, How do they confesse him to be our sanctification, or that by one sacrifice, he hath con∣secrated for ever them that are sanctified, when as they teach, that there must be offered up dayly sacrifices for us in the Masse? And lastly, how do they accept him for their Redeemer, which affirm that our poenarie works, truly & properly do satisfie God for the guilt of our punishment, which after the fault forgiuen, remaineth to be expiated? But these points, with many others which may be produ∣ced, to proue that the Pope and his Church, if not expres∣ly, yet by consequence (which is equivalent) doth deny the fulnes of all graces to be in our Saviour Christ, I leaue to our learned Divines, of whom some haue urged these things alreadie, and others I doubt not, will prosecute them more at large hereafter. The summe of all this may be reduced to this Problem: Whether any may more properly be called Antichrist, or may be called an adversarie to Christ, then he that thus denieth the graces of our Saviour?

Let us come to that which is not onely easie to our un∣derstanding, but evident to our senses, which may be seen with our eyes, and felt with our hands. For if we take the name of Christ here, as he is in the sacrament, who hath been a greater enimie to Christ, thē the Popes, one of them

poysoning it, another casting it into the fire, all chang∣ing, adding or diminishing it? But take the name as it is communicated to Kings, Priests, and Prophets, and so Antichrist to be an enimie to them, I demand, who hath in secret, (as Antichrist must be deceiueable) been a greater enimie to all christian kings and Princes, then the Popes, sometimes incensing them to fight with Pa∣gans and Saracens abroad, as de did Godfry of Bulleyn, & many Princes with him, in the meane space neglect∣ing their Christian subjects at home: our king Richard the first, and the Emperor Frederike: sometimes stirring up seditions and rebellions at home, as he did against the Emperor Henry the IIII. Henry the IIII. king of France, and Queen Elizabeth, sometimes ministring oc∣casions to make wars betwixt themselues, as Pope Iohn did by crowning another Emperor while the first was living; sometimes, by giving away their kingdomes, as Navarre and England, sometimes leaving them destitute of succour, and open to the universall professed enimie of all Christians, the Turke, as they did the Grecian Emperors: sometimes setting secret Traitors to murder them, and sometimes procuring open enimies to invade them, ever excommunicating, cursing and interdicting one or other of them. Let the histories of late times be perused, and see whether their ende and drift hath not been continually for these 900 yeeres and upwards, to maintaine and advance their own power, riches, juris∣diction and preeminence, by holding christian princes alwaies obnoxious to them, and to make them obnoxi∣ous, and to keepe them under awe, by such meanes as aforesaid? So likewise for Priests and Prophets: is he not an adversarie to all that will not submit themselues unto him? as namely to the Greek Church, and all the

bishops and learned pastors of the same, to the godly Valdenses, Albigenses, Wicklevites and others? Lastly if we take the name of Christ here for his mysticall bo∣dy, which is the Church, this is also a speciall note of Antichrist. For so it is plainly said, that the woman was drunke with the bloud of Saints and Martyrs. And who hath shed more bloud of godly men, professing the word of Christ Iesus, then the Popes haue done for these last nine hundred yeares? I referre my self to the histories and Chronicles of those times. In that one warr which they caused Christian Princes to undertake for Ierusalem, under Godfry of Bollen, it is recorded, that there were slayn two thousand millions of Christi∣ans. In Merindall, Cabriers and other places held by the poore Valdois, they murdered all, men, women, and sucking children. In the Massacre of France Anno 1572 within eight daies were murdered a hundred thousand, beside many other at other times, in England and else where. So that howsoever we take the name of Anti∣christ, either, as Vicar to Christ, or as adversarie, eyther denying his graces, or suppressing his Liuetenants and ministers, or persecuting his members; I finde this name most agreeable to Rome: and I demand, Whether it can be so well applied unto any other? But here will be deman∣ded of me a question, how this name Ho Antichristos that Antichrist (as they expound the Greeke Article, which they would perswade, is to be understood of one man) can be applied to a succession of men, especially, seeing some of the Fathers seeme to speake of him, but as one man? For the Fathers (to clear that first) it must be con∣fessed, that quaestionibus non dum motis, they spake some∣times impropriè, & incautius, as Bellarm. confesseth, or securius, as S. August. sometimes Rhetoricè as S. Ierom.

sometimes populariter, as others do affirm. This question concerning Antichrist, was not appointed for them, but for us, upon whom it must needs be confessed, that the ut∣termost ends of the world are fallen, neither did they much labour in it. And yet we see not all of them runne in one straine. Hilarie seemeth to speak more largely. He that re∣fuseth the judgment of the Scriptures, Antichristus est. Chrysoft. in opere imperfecto doth not restraine himself to one man: but we (sayth he) videmus abominationem desola∣tionis jam stantem in loco sancto, id est, populum Antichristi in locis ecclesiae. and yet confesseth that Antichrist must conti∣nue to the end. Let the whole place be considered. How∣soever it be, it can not be said, that this question was so well ventilated in those times, as it hath been of late. Then for answer I demand, what, or how much, the question will be altered if the Pope be acknowledged to be Anti∣christ, though he be not proved to be that Antichrist? what difference will it make in the end? Must not all true Christians beware, avoide, & detest everie Antichrist? But to the point. It is cōmonly known in Grammer schooles, that this particle, Ho, in Greeke, is not alwayes used signi∣ficantly; nor in a significant use, is it alwaies taken to sig∣nifie a particular and individuall person; nor yet in parti∣culars is it alwaies used to note Eminence or singularitie. Sometimes, and that verie frequent it is used indefinitely; many times it is joyned with a name of multitude, or with a name of succession. He that hath any knowledge in the Tongues may easily obserue, that Ho, in Greeke, is not so Emphaticall as Ha, in Hebrew, or the, in English, which yet is sometimes emphaticall, and sometimes not. For in the same chapter, where it is said, Ho Antichristos, in the same it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he that sayth he is in light, and hateth his brother is in darknes. And again 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

&c. The lust of the flesh, the pride of life &c. and the verie last word of that Epistle is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Keepe your selues from Idols. So in other places it is joyned with names indefinite, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in another place with the name of Christ, to signifie his mysticall body consisting of a multitude successiue, under one head im∣mortall. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (sayth he) so is Christ. And in ano∣ther place it is joyned expressely with a name of personall succession, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is ever translated, thé High-Priest once a yeare entred into the holy place, there spoken of. So in another place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Honour the King. Will any man say it was meant onely of one king? And again 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Highpriest. And the use of Ho in these places, wherein it cannot be meant of one singu∣lar Priest or King, is so like and paralell to the use of it in the name of Ho Antichristos, that I see not what difference can be made betweene them. Yet if any will not take this for a sufficient answer, let him well consider, how he can answer the problems following, by which I thinke it will appeare, that the Pope is not onely an Antichrist, but euen that Antichrist, whereof the Scripture speaketh. Foras∣much as the Prophecies can be verified of none but of him, and that not of one alone, but of the whole successi∣on. And therefore, to proceede to the Names, I desire the Reader to examine, whether any of the six names that I shall now produce, do not fully agree to the Pope, and to all the Popes that haue bèen in Rome, since the time of Pope Constantine: and if these names do agree, I must de∣mand, How it can be denied, but that they, and everie one of them, is Ho Antichristos, that Antichrist?

The second name therefore is Pontifex maximus, or sum∣mus, the Higest or Great Priest. This name I am sure they will not deny to their Pope, and likewise I am sure that,

they will deny it to any other, unlesse it be to our Saviour Christ. To our Lord it belongeth of right, & if any other take it upon himself, it must be by usurpation, and such an usurper of the right and title of our Saviour Christ, must be Antichrist. It was never given to any by God, but to our Saviour Christ. Mel••hisedeck is called a Priest of the High God, Aaron is called an High Priest, our Saviour Christ the High Priest, and the great Sheepheard of our soules, and such like titles: but the title of the Highest, or Greatest belongeth to none, but peculiarly to our Saviour Christ. I aske then first, whether the Pope of Rome do not declare himself an enimie to Christ, in that he doth exalt himself aboue all that is called God, or that is wor∣shiped, in taking a name upon him higher and greater then was ever giuen to the sonnes of men? not to Aaron the holy, not to Phinehas the zealous, not to Iehojada the worthie, not to Iehoshua the noble, not to Simeon the glorious, not to Iohn the fore-runner, nor to Melchisedek the royall and singular: everie one in his time, the type of our great and eternall High Priest, farre aboue them all, whose consecration is eternall, whose Priesthood is eter∣nall, whose entrie into the Holy place is eternall, whose oblation is eternall, whose sacrifice is eternall, whose me∣diation is eternall, and whose presence in his Church is eternall. Againe, the Apostle proveth the excellencie and divinitie of our Saviour farre aboue all Angels, because he hath received a more excellent name. Doth not the same ar∣gument proue, that the Pope in taking an equall name, maketh himself equall in dignitie? therefore never durst any of the faythfull Martyrs, or Bishops of the primitiue Church, take upon him this name of Summus, or Maximus Pontifex, never any of the Holy Patriarks, or Prophets, ne∣ver any of the divine Euangelists, never any of the most

blessed Apostles, for they all knew it belong onely to that great High Priest, whose Priesthood is for ever. And how darest thou (O miserable mortall man) take upon thee a name so divine, as to be called the Highest or Greatest Priest, whilst he is living to whom it so inseparably be∣longeth? Why dost thou not also directly call thy selfe Christ, as well as the Highest Priest, which is equivalent? I demand againe, whether in taking this name, thou dost not proclaim, that thou dost deny, that our Lord Christ Ie∣sus is now the Highest or Greatest Priest? and so professe thy self to be his enimie, and claime to be aboue him: see∣ing it must be confessed, that if the Pope be greatest, then Christ is not the greatest. For two may be great, but of two each of them cannot be greatest, no more then two can be infinite, or two principall. But (say they) Christ is in heauen Head of the Triumphant Church, the pope is onely head of the church militant upon earth. (O blaspheamer•• is not Christ Iesus truly God? in earth, as present by his power, to rule the church militant, as in heauen? How then darest thou, sitting onely at Rome, proclaim thy self Head of the universall church, as well, which is in Brittanie, Germanie, France, Spaine, Africa, America, and India, parts where thou art not, as at Rome? and yet confine him to heauen, as if he were wholly excluded from the earth, who is here, as present as there? But they say againe, the Pope claymeth onely as Vicar to Christ, O still blaspheamer! answer againe, what hath a Vicar to doe, in the presence of his su∣periour? yea of such a Superiour, who filleth heauen and earth, and hath bound himself by speciall promise, to be with his church for ever? Dost thou not, in making thy self his Vicar, deny his presence, and in denying the pre∣sence of our Lord and Saviour Christ in his church, deny him to be truly God? Quid verba audiam, cum facta vide∣am?

Againe I aske, whether thou dost not in this name usurpe the rights of our Saviour, and so also declare thy self to be his enimie? When the valiant King Edward the third, of England, intended warr against Phillip the French King, he proclaymed himself King of France, & that was the beginning of the warr, & so everie Prince taketh it for a denuntiation of war, when his neighbour Prince taketh his title. And shall not we say, that this is a publike proclamation of war, by the Pope against our Saviour Christ, when he taketh upon him the stile of Pont. Max. that properly belongeth to our Saviour, and was never giuen truly to any man, but to him? yea doth he not exalt himself aboue Christ? For Christ did not take it to himself, but received it of his Father. But the Pope taketh it to himself, without the gift of any, un∣lesse it were of Phocas the Murtherer, of whom we shall speake hereafter. Neyther yet doth he onely take this title to himself, but other titles also not inferiour, as ca∣put, and sponsus ecclesiae, &:c. which onely belong to our Saviour. I demand further, whom doth he follow in this title? Doth he follow Melchisedek, or Aaron? They were both called High Priests, and they were indeede Types of our Saviour Christ, (the onely true High-Priest) and ordeined by God for certeine signes that he should come, and so had a lawfull calling. But when the truth was come, then all types were abolished, yea and they also are abolished from Christ, & fallen from grace, whosoever do use them. Whereupon the godly Fa∣thers do affirme, that the Céremonies of the Law are now not onely mortuae, but mortiferae, not onely in use dead, but to be used deadly. And the reason is appa∣rant, for that whosoever doth use them, doth deny that our Saviour is come in the flesh, namely, by using those

Ceremonies which were Instituted to shew that he was not then come, but to be expected. But the Pope using the title of High Priest after the order of Melchisedek, or of Aa∣ron doth use a Ceremonie, instituted to shew that Christ was not come in the flesh, but was to be expected: There∣fore I aske, Whether he doth not denye that Christ Iesus is come in the fl••sh, and so also declare himself to be Antichrist? But if they will say, that in taking this title upon him, he follow∣eth our Saviour Christ: I aske by what authoritie, or who calleth him to it? No man (sayth the Apostle) taketh this title upon him, saue he that is called of God, as was Aaron. And againe, the Priesthood of Christ cannot passe from one to another. The reason, because Christ is God eternall, who can haue no successor in his offices, and therefore he that will take upon him to succeed Christ, doth deny his divi∣nitie, as he that will be his Vicar, by pretence of his ab∣sence. Well, if the Pope can shew no calling, then I ask, by what example or precedent? if it were a title lawfull to be used, why did none of the Apostles nor of the Disciples use it? not Tuus, not Timothie, not Paul nor Peter, not Iames the brother of our Lord, Bishop of Ierusalem, & Pre∣sident of the counsell of the Apostles, nor yet our Apostle S. Iohn, which outlived all the rest, and therefore might best do it. In a word, I finde none to whom this title of Summus, or Maximus Pontifex hath any wayes ben applied, but either Melchisedek, or Aaron, or to our Saviour Christ: nor any that hath taken it upon them by humain authori∣tie, but onely the Idolatrous Pontifex Maximus that was in Rome, of whom I haue spoken before. And if the Pope cannot justifie his highest and greatest Pontificalitie, by some title from one or other of the three first, it will fall out inevitable, that he is the true and undoubted successor of the last. And that is most consonant and agreeable to

the words of our prophecie, that Antichrist should be one of the seauen heads of Rome, and namely that head of whom S. Iohn sayth, He was, and is not, and yet is, as is before pro∣ved. The same also may be proved by his name Papa, whereof divers haue made divers derivations, but for my part I thinke none more probable, then to say it cometh from one of the titles, used or usurped by the old Roman Emperors, which upon their coines were wont to stampe Pa. Pa. for Pater Patriae, and now the Roman Prelate, as he succeedeth them in the name of Pont. Maximus, so he taketh that title of Papa likewise, to proue himself their undoubted Successor. I will not therefore stand here fur∣ther to confute their pretence and claime, to be Vicarius Christi, although I might say. that it cannot stand with the celsitude of a Pontifex max. to be but a Vicar, neither can a Vicar dispense with the lawes of his superiour: nor will I answer to, Tu es Petrus, and such like, which haue been so many times answered by our learned divines, neither do I think my self bound to refute the immoderate titles giuen to the Pope by S. Barnard, or other late Doctors, a pointe of this weight is not to be carried away with swelling phrases of Rhetorick, but by evident testimonies of un∣doubted truth. Certain it is that he who said Tu es Petrus, never sayd Tu eris Pontifex Maximus, nor Tu eris meus vica∣rius, no nor super hunc Petrum aedificabo &c. neither did he giue any keyes to him, more then to the rest of the Apo∣stles. But if I may speak my opinion, this name Pontifex max. is the verie name of blasphemie written in the fore∣head of that purple whore, euen that Antichrist. &c. So much therefore be spoken of this name of Pontifex Max. which the Pope taketh to himself. A third title is Servus servorum Dei. This attribute the Pope also, and he alone accepteth, acknowledgeth and useth it. But this title was

never giuen to any, but by the godly prophet and patriarch Noah, to the cursed Canaan, whose Father was the scorner of that godly patriarch, and his posteritie the mortall eni∣mies of our Saviour Christ in his Church of Israell, and so a type of Antichrist, and therefore were commanded utter∣ly to be destroyed, rooted out, and abolished, as Antichrist shall be. It will be said, that the holy man S. Grigorie used this name. I will not deny but he was an holy man, and although a man subject to some errors and infimities, yet as I verily believ a Prophet. For he prophecied of the com∣ming of Antichrist. It is the last houre (sayth he) the king of pride is at hand, an armie of Priests is prepared to attend him. But I know that the prophets by the instinct of Gods spirit did and said many things, which were in them pro∣pheticall, but in others would be absurd & inconvenient, as Esaiah and Hosea, naming their children with strange names. Ezechiel lying many dayes upon one side, baking his bread in doung, and creeping out through a wall at noone, and such like; or if these things be taken to be visi∣ons or parables, yet that cannot be denyed, that one of the prophets commanded another to strike and wound him. Iacob was by an Angell called Israel, and Salomon was na∣med by a prophet. And who knoweth whether that pro∣pheticall Bishop Gregorie did take that name in humilitie, foreseeing that his own successors would use it in pride, & as the king of pride? It might be a title holy in him, and yet accursed in them, as the name of Iudah was blessed in the patriarch, and in one of the Apostles, but most accur∣sed in the Traitor. These two names therefore used by the Pope, you see may well be applied to Antichrist. Now wil I shew forth three other names giuen in the Scripture to Antichrist, which may as well be applied to the Pope, whereof the first is the man of sin, or the Lawlesse one: for the

word Anomos in Greeke doth signifie so properly, and the word Belial in the old Testament is near to the same effect. And in this, as in the rest of the names that follow, it is worthie to be observed, that as the title of Summus Ponti∣fex, Servus servorum, & others, which the Pope doth take unto himself, and approue, do aptly agree to the types and descriptions of Antichrist in the scripture, so likewise the titles giuen to Antichrist in the scripture do most aptly a∣gree to the actions and practises of the Popes, recorded in their owne Histories. For instance, in this name of the man of sinne, or the Lawlesse man, what Monarch, prince, prelate, or potentate, did ever so much practise allow, and maintain open and notorious sinnes, as the Popes do and haue done now for these many hundred years, by their fa∣culties, pardons, licences, and dispensations? Adulterie, •• incest, Sodomie and Treason, murder & parricide, & wha•• not besides? What enormous, horrible and abhominable practises do we read of Boniface the 7. and 8. Gregorie the 7. otherwise called Hildebrand: Silvester the 2. Stephen the 6. Iohn the 8.9.10.11.12. and all the rest? It may easily be observed in their Histories, how many of them haue ben Simoniakes, Idolaters, Adulterers, incestious, mur∣derers, Traytors, Sacriligious, Sodemites, and Conjurers. Easi∣ly do I say, nay not easily, unlesse you name all since Pope Constantine. For everie one of them since his time, which was about the yeare of our Lord 707, exalted themselus aboue the Emperors, & tooke away from them their pro∣vinces and Territories, therein committing open Treason and rebellion. All of them since that time openly, & stout∣ly maintained Idolatrie, and not one of them but hath been taynted with some other of the crimes aforesaid. For proof whereof let me ask, which of them hath reformed, or dis∣avowed the wicked actions of their predecessors? namely

the Idolatries, Adulteries, Stewhouses, Luciferian Pride, and such like? And yet; who they are that will be lawlesse and subject to no mans censure, let them answer that haue read in Platina the life of Pope Leo the 3. who being ac∣cused to the Emperor, Charles the great, for certain offen∣ces, the Emperor intending to examine the matter, Respon∣sum est ab omnibus (sayth the Author) sedem apostolicam om∣nium ecclesiarum caput, à nemine, Laico praesertim, judicari de∣bere. It was answered by all the Bishops, Clergie & people of Rome, that the Sea Apostolike, the Head of all chur∣ches, ought to be judged by none, especially not by a Lay man. Which resolution they haue held, & continued ever since. Let them answer that haue read their Decree, That the Pope though he draw millions of men, catervatim, by heaps into hell, yet is to be judged by no man. Let them answer that haue read their Doctors, Canonistes, and Casuistes, deter∣mining, That the Pope may dispence with some of the Comman∣dements of the first Table, and all of the second, as (sayth my Author) Pope Martin did with him that had taken his owne sister to wife. And if consent and approbation do make a man partie, or accessorie to the sinnes of another, accord∣ing to the common Rules of all lawes; let them answer, which of them haue disadvoued or dissented from the ac∣tions of the said Pope Constantine, who erected & main∣teyned Idolatrie; and for that cause, Palam & in os (sayth the Historian) openly and to his teeth resisted the Empe∣ror, rebelled against him, and deprived him of the govern∣ment of all Italie? Which of them doth not acknowledg his succession from Silvester the 2. and Gregorie the 7, the great Necromancers: and from Iohn the 11. and 12. the great adulterers? which of them disavoweth the acti∣ons

and decrees of Boniface the 8. Benet the 12. Iulius the 2. and the rest of that rabble, that filled all Christendome with warres and bloudshed? Let us but cast our eyes upon the moniments of some of them. Of Boniface the eight it is thus written: Intravit ut vulpes, regnavit ut leo, mortuus est ut canis. Of Benet the 12. thus:

Hic situs ille Nero, Laicis mors, vipera clero, Devius a vero, cuppa repleta mero.

Of Pius 2. the learned Cardinall, that would needs take the name of Pius upon him, when he was made pope.

Vendidit aere polum, terras in morte reliquit, Styx superest Papae, quam colat una Pio.

Of Paulus the 2. thus:

Pontificis Pauli testes ne Roma requirat Filia quam genuit sat docet esse marem.

Of Sixtus called the 4. thus:

Dic unde (Alecto) pax ista repulsit, & unde Tam subitò reticent praelia? Sixtus obit.

Of Innocent the 8. thus:

Spurcities, gula, avaritia, at{que} ignavia deses Hoc (Octave) jacent, quo tegeris, tumulo.

Of Alexander his next successor, thus:

Vendit Alexander Sacramenta, altaria, Christum Emerat ille prius, vendere jure potest.

Of his daughter Lucretia thus:

Hoc jacet in tumulo Lucretia nomine, sed re Thais Alexandri filia, sponsa, nurus.

Of Iulius the 2. thus, that he threw the keyes into the ri∣ver Tibris, saying, that the sword of S. Paul should help him:

Quandoquidem clavis nil juvat ista Petri.

Such kinde of excellent Elogia are giuen to all the rest, and yet still their successors, Parasites & Sectaries call them Most holy Fathers, and the Vicars of Christ. But if I should

recite all, it would ask a just volume of it self. Let these be sufficient to shew, that these are the men to whom these titles, The Man of sinne, and The lawlesse man may most rightly be given. And if any man will yet deny or doubt of it, let him answer upon good advisement, whether ever he read, or heard of such monsters of men, among the Iewes, Turkes, Infidels, or any Pagans in the world: and whether he thinke it likely, that any man should go beyond these men in wickednesse, and yet withall obteyne such a privilege and prerogatiue to be lawlesse. And if not, then whether this be not, that man of sinne, that lawlesse man, that Antichrist?

I come to the fifth name which is giuen to Antichrist in the Scripture, which is, The Sonne of perdition. A title first giuen by our Saviour Christ to Iudas the Traytor, and after by S. Paul to Antichrist, shewing, as may easily be collected, that Antichrist should be like to Iudas, in profession a Christian, in calling a Bishop, in title an Apo∣stle, in practise a Traitour. Now, whether all these things do not most properly concurre in the Pope, let them answer, that haue read the Histories of England, Germa∣nie, France and Italie, especially of late dayes. For of his profession, Bishoprik, and Apostolate no question is made. And of his treasons: let them tell me, by whose practises Rome and Italie rebelled against the Empe∣rors, by whose practises such rebellions and treasons were set on foote in England & Ireland, against Queene Elizabeth, and in France against the late Henry IV. by whose Partisans traitors of late time haue beene most set a worke, approved and commended, and whether he be not called a Christian, a Bishop, and an Apostle.

The sixth name is Abaddon, a Destroyer, well agree∣ing with the former names. And how many millions of men the Popes haue destroyed, by setting Christian

Princes sometimes to destroy their own subjects under the names of Heretikes, sometimes to fight with Pagans and Turkes, and sometimes to fight one with another, they can best tell us, who are conversant in their histo∣ries. I will here instance but in one or two examples, in which I desire them to answer; how manie thousand Christians were slaine in the civill warres, stirred up in Germanie by the Popes, in the times of Henrie the IV. and Henrie the V. Conradus Frederick, and Adolphus of Nassau, Emperors of Germanie? Also in the warres stirred up between the two Antipapes, Vrban and Cle∣ment, when each of them sent out Bulles, to stirre up Princes to destroy the adherents one of another? How many thousand christians were destroyed by the Turks, by occasion of that wofull discomfiture at Varna, whereunto the King of Hungarie was thrust, by the im∣portunitie of the Pope, and his Cardinall Iulian, incite∣ing him to break the Truce, sworne to, with the Turke? How many in France in the civill warres there stirred up by the Legue? How manie in Germanie in these last warres, which are yet in hand? And yet herein is further to be observed, that whereas the Turke & other Tyrants do murder and kill onely mens bodies, and yet do not professe that, but desire to be called mercifull & gracious Lords: onely the Pope professeth, that if he draw millions of mens bodies and soules with him into Hell, yet he is to be judged of no man, he is to be re∣dargued of no man for it. I aske then, whom shall we call Abaddon, a destroyer, if this be not he, that professeth he may do it without controulment. Or, what Abaddon shall we looke for besides? But if any man will contend that the title of Abaddon belongeth to the Divell; yet I thinke he cannot thereupon inferr, that it ought not to

be giuen to Antichrist, at best wise if we consider of the Rule in S. August. De diabolo & eius corpore. For it is no more inconvenient, that the name of the Divel should be giuen to him, that doth the works of the divell, then the name of God to good princes, which do the works of God. And so our Saviour expressely calleth Iudas a Divell, yea the Apostle Peter he calleth Satan, & a scan∣dall, perhaps intimating, that his pretensed successors should possesse the seat of Satan, & be the greatest scan∣dall of all others, when they should begin to savour the things of men.

The seauenth and last name giuen to Antichrist in Scripture, is that which is not expressed, but signified by three Greek letters, yeelding the number of 666. which to count the H. Ghost commendeth unto us, as a point of wisedome. Neither can I easily be drawne to reject the computations of Names of this number by the Fathers, and other godly Interpreters. Let everie man bring forth his opinion without prejudice to o∣thers, and pray to God to inlighten us all. I, for my part, thinke it best to follow the ancient opinion so farr as it may stand with the Scriptures. Now it is knowne that the ancient godly Father Irenaeus seeking for names answerable to this number, findeth none so fit, as Lateinos. For although he mention other names, as Tei∣tan, &c. yet to the name of Lateinos he addeth his judg∣ment of approbation, saying that it is verie like to be the true name. For (saith he) the truest kingdome is cal∣led by that name, and Latini sunt, qui nunc dominantur. They are Latines, which now do raigne. This also su∣teth with other prophecies of Antichrist, whereof I haue spoken before, and with the interpretation that some do make of the prophecie of Balaam, where he

sayth, that Ships from Chittim shall afflict Ashur and Eber. which cannot be verified of any but the Romans, and S. Hierom there interpreteth Chittim to be Italie. And the Affliction of Eber, must be also understood of the Prince of Eber, the Starre of Iacob, and that in his My∣sticall body aswell as his Naturall. This also agreeth with other names, which godly learned men haue foūd out representing the same number, all leading and di∣recting us to the Pope, as the name of Romanus or Ro∣myth, in Hebrew letters observed by the venerable Di∣vines, Fox and Paraeus. So also Dux Cleri, by the godly Walter Brute a scholer of Wicleue our Country-man. Vicarius Dei generalis in terris in Latin, taking onely the numerall letters, & Ecclesia Italica, in Greek letters. And what shall we say to the names of divers Popes contey∣ning the same letters in effect & sound, which are used to expresse the said number of 666 in the Apocalyps. In the name of Calixtus is there not the perfect sound of all those Greeke letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? And may not the same be easily conceited in the name of Sixtus? And was not Calixtus, whom they call the second, but indeed the first of that name, that was called Summus Pontifex, he that forbad mariage to Priests, which S. Paul calleth the Doc∣trine of Divels. The ancient verse may serue for a suffici∣ent testimonie:

O bone Calixte, nunc totus Clerus odit te, O lim Presbyteri poterant uxoribus uti, Hoc destruxisti, postquam tu Papa fuisti.

And was not Calixtus the second of that name (that was called Pont. Max.) he that made such a terrible and solemn vow to persecute the Turkes by war, curses, &c. and by colour thereof levied a tenth of the Clergie, & put all into his purse? And when as afterwards the

noble Vaivod of Hungarie, Hunniades had obteyned a glorious victorie, against that publike enemie at Bel∣grade, was it Calixtus, that ever helped to advance the Christian cause, or to prosecute such a good beginning? Or did he not rather set his minde upon his own profit, by drawing to himself not onely the chiefe Bishopriks, but the whole kingdome of Naples, after the death of Alfonsus, and so labour to disinherit his sonne Frede∣rike, if the incomparable Prince Scanderbeg had not assisted him? And what shall we say of Sixtus? Do not the Latin letters X. & T. being joyned together yeeld the same sound, as all the said three numerall letters would do, if they were put in the same place? And was not Sixtus (who by them is called the fourth, but in∣deed, the first that was called Pont. Max. for those be∣fore him were called Xisti, & had no greater title then bi∣shop of Rome) was not that he that raised so many wars in Italie to advance his kinred, and in stead of a church or Hospitall, built the famous Lupanar, the bitcherie house at Rome, Vtri{que} Veneri, for which cause Agrippa called him the great bawde? Was it not he that upon a Petition exhibited unto him, for the use of Sodomie, subscribed, Fiat ut petitur? Let be as is desired? and rai∣sed the rents of the Stewes to so high a Rate, that it is now accounted for a principall revennue of their church? O excellent Father, and chast Vicar of Christ! The Primitiue Christians were half perswaded that Ne∣ro was to come againe and be Antichrist. And haue not we reason to belieue that this is he, of whom also it is written for his Elogium.

Gaude Prisce Nero: vincit te crimine Sixtus. Paedico, insignis praedo, fucosus Adulter Qui moriens nullos credidit esse Deos.

And was not Sixtus the 2. who is by them called the 5. he that sent out his blasphemous Bulles against the late King of France Henrie the third, who was shortly after most villanously murdered by one of their breeding? And was not he the same Sixtus, who most highly commended that wicked Parracide, in a solemne Panegyrick, before his Cardinals? Was not he the same that excommunicated the noble Henry the fourth of France, when he was but King of Navarre, who was afterwards also murdered by one of their Sectaries. Was not he the same who animated the Spaniards to invade this kingdome of England, in the year 1588? In setting forth of which action, it is worth the Observation, how carefull the Parasite is to perswade us, that the English and the Spaniards never came ad justam pagnam, to a just fight, as if the English did affirm any such matter. No Cicarella. Farre be it from us to challenge the glorie of that victorie to our selues. That God who gaue us the grace, upon the newes of the approch of that navie, to humble our selues before him, with fasting and prayer: (a thing howsoever neglected or forgotten by some of our Historians, yet most true and registred by others, and re∣membred by many yet living witnesses▪) That God, who detected and defeated the Treasons and Rebellions of San∣ders, Parrie, Ballard, Lopas the Powderplot, and many o∣thers, was he that fought for us, as he did sometimes against Sisera. and for Theodosius. and

Sic conjurati venere ad classica venti.

Witnesse our most excellent Soveraine, a witnesse aboue all exception, in his Sonnet worthie to be remembred:

The Nations banded gainst the Lord of might, Prepar'd a force, and set them in the way: Mars drest himself in such an awfull plight, The like whereof was never seen they say:

They forward came in such a strange array. Both sea and land beset us everie where, Their brags did threat our ruine and decay; What came thereof the issue did declare, The windes began to tosse them here and there; The sea began in foaming waues to swell, The number that escapt, it fell them faire: The rest were swallowed up in gulfes of hell. But how were all these things so strangely done? God lookt on them from out his heauenly Throne.

This Sonnet publisht with the consent and applause of all the ancient Brittain Nation, inhabitants of this kingdome, truly euen of verie ancient time, both by a king and a Saint, intituled the kingdome of God, shall be an everlast∣ing testimonie for us, that we never challenged the glorie of that action to our selues. The same also will be con∣firmed, by the ordinarie remembrances, and thanksgivings which our Preachers usually make thereof, in their prayers and Sermons. The same also is proved by the Paper lately set forth, so well accepted and bought up by all sorts of people amongst us, wherein the defeating of that invinci∣ble Armada, and the Powderplot is represented & expres∣sed. Behold then you Iesuites & Romanists against whom you fight, and who it is that fights for us. It was God who then pleaded the cause of Religion against superstition, of Pietie against Idolatrie, of Christ against Antichrist. It was he onely (for he onely searcheth, ruleth, and moveth the Hearts) who then put it into the heart of our Zenobia, and of her servants to send out those Peti-fierbotes, that made the grear Sea-castles to cut their cables, loose their Anchors and flye away. It was he that stirred up the courage of our seamen, and inflamed the hearts of our nation with incre∣dible loue and zeale, to defend their Countrie & religion.

Now also our drummes and trumpets sound nothing else against you, but God and Christ Iesus; our Martiall cryes are nothing else, but Christ Iesus; our gunnes thunder out no∣thing, but Christ Iesus against you. For him we fight, & in this quarrell, that he onely is our High Priest, our Media∣tor, our Iustification and Salvation. This was our course then, and this must be the course of all that will prevaile against Antichrist & all Antichristian forces, namely prayer to God, and unitie amongst themselues. But to returne to my purpose, this may suffice, to shew how this Sixtus not one∣ly in name, conteyning in it the sound of those three mys∣ticall letters, but in his actions represented Antichrist. What shall we say of Pope Paul the fifth, was not his pic∣ture made with the inscription of Paulo Vo. Vicedeo. com∣prehending in numerall letters the same number of 666. Neither yet will I affirme, that eyther he, or Sixtus, or Ca∣lixtus, or Gregorie the seuenth, or Boniface the third, or the eight, or any other of them was individually Anti∣christ, any more then the rest of that order. No, nor yet Pope Ioane, whose historie though they by all meanes la∣bour to suppresse, yet they cannot blot out their bookes that haue written of her, being at least six and twentie, all learned, and all Catholikes, amongst which Martinus Polo∣nus, Archbishop of Consentia, and the Popes owne Peni∣tentiarie, Marianus Scotus, monke of Fulda, Platina and Theodoricus the Popes Secretaries, Antoninus Archbishop of Florence, Baptista, Mantuanus, and Cornelius Agrippa, Nanclerus the Cardinall, and Trithemius the Abbat, were men, I think, as well thought of for learning & fidelitie in their times, as any of these our new masters, Bellarmine, Baronius, Onuphrius or Florimondus, who labour to rase out of ancient moniments and Records, that which the christian world for fiue hundred yeares or more, most un∣doubtedly

beleeved. Yet neither she, nor any of the rest do I affirme to haue been individually and exclusiuely An∣tichrist, but one of that mysticall bodie, and succession, which is called by our Apostle Antichrist, as I proved be∣fore, that the article Ho in Greek is used & applied aswell to a succession or multitude, as to a singular person. But why may not we thinke that in this succession, the All seeing spirit of God in his secret providence, and divine admini∣stration, the better to awake and stirre up his church and children, to beware of this great and yet deceitfull enimie, would haue the marks and signes of Antichrist to appeare some of them more evidently in some of them, and some in others, as the name of Pontifex Max. in Boniface the third, the person of a whore, in Pope Ioane, their filthie ad∣ulterie, Sodomie, and incest, in Sergius, Iohn the 11. and 12. Boniface the eight, and Alexander, the number of his name in those before named? It may be also demanded, who were the types of Antichrist before the comming of our Saviour? For types are a kinde of notation. And so it may seeme that the wisedome of God hath ordered the course of times, that in so great varieties nothing should be new, but that former times should be figures of the future. I dare not say but more may be found, yet I think in the Scriptures principally seauen are to be noted. 1, Cain. 2, Cam. 3, E∣sau. 4, Egypt. 5, Amalek. 6, Antiochus. 7, Babylon. which haue some things in common, & some things pro∣per and peculiar. They were all persecutors, & for the most part murderers and parricides, and that without cause, as the Prophet David speaketh, They hated me without a cause. And therefore they were all cursed of God. Yea some of them so detested, that the people of God were charged to make no peace with them: as for instance, Canaan the Issue of Cham and Amalek: & God executed his heavie wrath upon them

all. In particular, 1, Cain persecuted Christ in semine. 2, Cham in radice. 3, Esau, in stirpe. 4, Egyptus, in Ger∣mine. 5, Amalek, in frutice. 6, Antiochus, in propagine. 7, Babylon, in capite. Cain persecuted Christ in the seed. Cham in the roote, Esau in the stock, Egypt in the bud, Ama∣lek in the shrubbe, Antiochus in the spread, and Babylon in the Toppe or head. Cain is noted for murdering his onely brother, Cham for scorning his godly Father. Esau for his profanenes. Egypt for bloudinesse. Amalek for malice. An∣tiochus for Tyrannie. and Babylon for blasphemie. How these things may be applied to Rome is not hard to be un∣derstood by them who are conversant in their stories. Let me here make but one instance, that Romulus the first king, being the first head of that Seauen-headed beast, was a murderer of his brother, like to Cain. Brutus the first Consull put to death his owne Sonnes and his Brothers. Appius the Decemvir by his beastly and outragious lust forced the father to commit a Paricide upon his chaste daughter Virginia. The Tribunes, Dictators, and Caesars the fourth, fifth, and sixth Heads, what were they all, but ambitious turbulent spirits, incendiaries, & raisers of most bloudie intestine warres, wherein manie innocent & quiet citizens were wickedly murdered? And of the Pontifex Max. the seauenth head I haue sayd somewhat before, and more I shall haue occasion to say hereafter. Let this suffice for the Names of Antichrist; from all which I demand, Whether they do not fully agree to the popes, and everie one of them, since the time of Constantine, that was Pontifex Max. about the yeare of our Lord 707? And whether they can be so fitly, and so many wayes, applied to any other Prince, person or state: And whether we may looke for any other in time to come, to whom they may be more truly and fitly applied?

Notes

• Gen 1.
• Gen. 2, 19.
• Ioh. 13.13.
• Vide Platon. in Cratyl.
• In Con. Cat.
• Hebr. 1, 4.
• Acts 11, 26.
• Esa. 5.
• Hebr. 4, 12.
• Act. 19, 38. & 18, 12.
• So AntiStrate∣gos signifieth either a lieute∣nant, or the adverse cap∣teyns.
• Aug. de civ. dei l. 17, c. 4.
• Psal, 105, 15
• 1 Sam. 24,
• 1 Cor. 6.
• 1 Cor. 11.
• 1 Cor. 12.
• Act. 9.
• 1 Iohn 2, 22
• 1 Iohn 4.
• 2 Iohn 7.
• Psal. 2.
• Psal. 89, 51.
• Psal. 2, 2.
• 2 Thes. 2.
• 1 Ioh. 2,
• 1 Ioh. 4,
• Iohn. 1. Hebr. 1.
• 1 Cor. 1.
• Scriptura seip∣sam exponit. Chris. & Aug 2 Tim. 3.
• Rom. 10. Hebr. 10.
• Concil Trid. ses 14. Bellarm. de paenitent. l. 4.
• See Abb••t de∣monst. antich.
• P••••k in Prob.
• 2 Ioh. 2.
• Ephes. 5.
• Hebr. 9. Abbat. in de∣monst.
• 1 Pet. 2, 17.
• Hebr. 13, 11▪
• Hebr. 6, 20. and 8, 1.
• Ecce Pontif. sum. qui non eget alieno ex. piarisauguine Aug. medit.
• Hebr. 7, 16, 24. & 6, 8. & 9, & 10.
• Panorm,
• Enter, praesen∣ter Deus est. & ubique po∣tenter. Ps. 139 Sed familia∣rius in electis pergratiam.
• Ier 23. Matth. 28.
• Probl 2.
• Chrysost.
• Platin••.
• Dist. 40. & can. 9, q. 3.
• Sum. Angel, t. Papa.
• Onuphr. in Plat.
• See more of this lawlesnes in M. Downh. treatie of An∣tichrist, lib. 1. cap. 5, & 6. where he citeth Hostiensis and others, with these sentences: Legi non subjacet ulli. Item, potest dispensare supra jus, contra jus, & extra jus. And out of Panor. Potest omnia sacere quae Deus. Item, Papa potest dispensare contra ius Divinum. &c.
• See 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Myst.
• Iohn 17. 2 Thes. 2.
• Of Iudas see Act. 1, 20.
• See more in Fox Monim. in his deserce of the L. Cob∣ham and heye probl. 7.
• Fro••ssart.
• See more Probl. 5.
• Dedoct. christ.
• Psal. 82.
• Iohn 10, 34.
• Iohn 6, 70. Matth. 16.
• 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• Homicus A∣grippa.
• Cicarell in vita Sixti.
• Polydore
• Eccles. ••.
• 1. Gen. 4.
• 2. Gen. 9.
• 3. Gen. 27.
• 4. Exod. 1.
• 5. Exod. 17.
• 6. Dan.
• 7. Ier. 50.