A Christian Plea — Francis Johnson

A Christian Plea · Francis Johnson

CHAPTER IIII. Replies & Anſwers concerning Churches in apostaſie, and the church of Rome, more particularly. &c.

NOvv moreover, ſeing that by this occaſion we treat both of this matter, and of the Scriptures aforeſaid: whereabout there hath ben and ſtill is ſo very great oppoſition made: it is needfull, and (being thus provoked) I am not unvvilling, for the better fynding out and clearing of the trueth in this behalf, ſomevvhat more to inſiſt hereupon. For although their errors and evaſions, abuſe of Scriptures, & other abſurdities, vvho deny or labour to obſcure theſe things (what they can) are ſo very many, as every page, yea almoſt every ſentence aboundeth therevvith; and withall ſo very shifting & frivolous, as in them ſelues they are not worth the naming, much leſſe vvorth the refuting: yet conſidering that many in ſimplicity or othervviſe (& ſome not of the worſt diſpoſed) are greatly overcaried hereabout, whether by prejudice of the matter it ſelf, or by admiration of the mens perſons that oppoſe, or by ſome other ſiniſter reſpect, themſelues know beſt: I hauehave therefore thought it good here to giuegive the Reader ſome taſt of the Oppoſites dealing in this behalf: that ſo they may ſet themſelues more unpartially to conſider of theſe things, and more ſoundly to judge thereof, according to the word of God.

Now then, whereas concerning this queſtion, there had ben ſpeach & vvriting, and my ſelf (in anſwer thereof) had written thus†In anſwer of M. A. letter, as may be ſet in M. Ch…t. Advertiſ. p. 58, 59. As touching the Church of Rome, there being speach about it to be the church of God, I did alledge the ſaying of the Apoſtle, that Antichriſt ſhould ſit in the Temple of God, as the Apoſtle expreſsely teacheth, 2 Theſ. 2, 4. And by the Temple of God, underſtanding the church of God, it will follovv that Antichriſt should ſit in the church of God: and is there to be ſought and found: and not among the Jevves, Turks, Pagans or the like, as the Papiſts and others would perſwade us: neyther that Antichriſt takes away vvholy the church of God, and every trueth and ordinance of the Lord, as Anabaptiſts, and ſuch as are herein Anabaptiſtically inclined vvould beare us in hand: Thereupon one of theſe Oppoſites replying, firſt of all layeth this for a ground, that‘M. Ain. A…mad. p. 76. the church of Rome is acknovvledged by all that fear God to be the throne of Antichriſt. I anſvver, Firſt, if it vvere ſo, that all would ſay this, as here is ſet downe: yet we would hear, Thus ſaith the Lord. Secondly, although that this being but generally ſpoken, and in a good underſtanding, might be admitted: yet when men doe ſo ſpeak and underſtand it, as therevvithall to imply or infer, that the church of Rome is not the Temple and church of God, we muſt take heed hovv we admitte it, conſidering vvhat conſequences follow thereupon, for the upholding of Anabaptiſtrie and other erroneous opinions thereabout: and ſeeing alſo the Scripture teacheth that the Beaſts throne in deed is that, vvhichwhich was the*Rev. 13, 2. Dragons throne, and was by the Dragon giuen unto him (which this man himſelf acknovvledgeth†Pag. 79. here a litle after, & applieth unto Antichriſt.) & is‡Rev. 17, 9, 10, 18. that great city, which (in Iohns time reigned over the kings of the earth; which is built on ſeuen h…; and had ſeuen kings or kinds of regiment, vvhereof fine were fallen, when Iohn wrote, &c. which particulars, vvith other the like, are al found to be thus in the city (not in the church) of Rome. Of vvhichwhich point I shall hauehave occaſion to ſpeak more hereafter. Beſides that‡M. Bright mā on Rev. 13, 2. and 16, 10. and 17 ch. &c. good writers alſo, and men fearing God, underſtand the Scriptures here alledged, to ſpeak of the city of Rome. Thirdly, it is alſo …rue, that Antichriſt ſitteth in the Temple of God, and ſo in the church of Rome, and polluteth it, as Antiochus did Gods Temple at Ieruſalem: Yet his ſitting in Gods Temple, makes not it to be his throne. 2 Theſ. 2, 4. Lucifer (the king of Babylon) boaſted of his ſitting in the mount of the Congregation, on the ſides of the North, meaning the Temple of God at Ieruſalem. Yet Babylon vvas his throne, & not the Temple on mount Sion. Eſa. 14.12, 13. The Dragon is in heauen, yet heauen is not his throne. Rev. 12, 3. In the dayes of Manaſſeh, Zedechiah, Antiochus, and others, there vvere idols of ſundry ſorts ſet in the Temple of God at Ieruſalem: Yet was not Gods Sanctuarie therefore the throne of idols: but it vvas ſtill Gods houſe, and Gods ſeat, though thus polluted: and was ſo called and acknowledged by the Prophets notwithſtanding. 2 King. 21, 7. Ezec. 8, 3, 5. vvith ver. 14, and 16. Dan. 11, 31, 38. In deed the church of Rome (properly taken) being in the city of Rome, men may miſtake, or be miſtaken; and may the more be borne vvithall, and ſuch ſpeaches better be admitted, when things are not yet called in queſtion: and when men in ſimplicity ſpeak generally (as I ſaid) and not by way of oppoſition, carping, cavilling, reviling, oppugning, &c. as alſo if by ſuch ſpeaches men ſimply mean, that Antichriſt ſitteth in the church of Rome, and yet deny it not therefore to be the church and Temple of God notvvithſtanding.

Another ground he would take frō ſome vvords of mine, that I wrote heretofore, viz.‘In anſwe… to M. Jacob pref. ſect. 6 that the hierarchie and church conſtitution of Antichriſt is the moſt deteſtable annarchie of Satan that ever was. And then alſo I vvished the Reader (as ſtill I doe)”Ibid. ſec… 1. to try what I vvrite by the word of God: and as it agreeth therevvith ſo to receiue it, and no further nor otherwiſe. So let this be my anſwer (once for all) touching any thing objected that I hauehave vvritten about this, or any other matter. Secondly, I doe ſtill profeſſe, that the hierarchie of Antichriſt, both is of Sathan, & is an apoſtaſie moſt deteſtable. But this now further vvithall, that popular anarchie alſo is moſt ſinfull and miſerable. They are both of them extreems, and religiouſly to be avoyded. The middle vvay is the right vvay, namely, Gods ordinance of the Eldership, vvhichwhich should carefully be kept intire, againſt all uſurpation both of the Prelacy of the one hand, and of the people on the other. Thirdly, I doe now obſerue (more, and in ſome things othervviſe then before) a difference between the churches conſtitution, & the hierarchie of Antichriſt, brought in upon it: alſo, betvveen Antichriſt vvith his hierarchie (whereabout our queſtion is not) and the Temple or church of God, vvherein he ſitteth: whereabout our queſtion is; & whereunto this man keepeth not. Of which more hereafter: beſides that vvhichwhich hath ben ſpoken thereabout already. His reproachfull ſpeaches here and throughout his book, I leaue upon his ovvne head. And now I come unto his anſvver, which next follovveth.

Where firſt he anſwereth, that in the former allegation of 2 Theſ. 2, 4. & the reaſon deduced from thence, truth and error are cloſely cowched together. But he telleth not vvhat he acknovvledgeth for truth, and what he taketh to be error. If ſo he had done, it may be he would hauehave ben found eyther to acknowledge the trueth, vvhichwhich novv he ſets himſelf to oppugne, or that his ovvne errors vvould the ſooner and better hauehave appeared, which he vvould novv covvch and cary avvay as cloſely as he can.

But for diſcerning hereof, he ſaith, we are to conſider, firſt how Antichriſts church is deſcribed in Gods vvord: ſecondly, what the ſtate of the church of Rome is at this day. And ſo proceeding in his deſcription, he ſpeaketh of the Church and Synagogue of Antichriſt, of the Beaſt, of the great City, of the man of ſinne, of the great vvhore, of Abaddon or Apollyon, the ſonne of perdition, &c. whereas he should treat of the Temple of God, vvhereof Paul ſpeaketh, vvhoſe writings I ſuppoſe he vvill not deny to be Gods vvord. But thus it was beſt for his plea, to keep (what he could) from the point of the queſtion in hand, & therefore alſo to confound things that differ, as he doeth throughout his treatiſe. So all his plea is frivolous, and not to the purpoſe.

Likevviſe when†M. Ain. Animad. p. 77. he tels us of a Church, ſuch as Bellarmine and others deſcribe, one part vvhereof liues on earth, an other under the earth, and a third part in heauen, &c. whereas our queſtion is of the Temple of God, vvhereof Paul ſpeaketh 2 Theſ. 2, 4. and of the Court and holy City, vvhereof Iohn ſpeaketh, Revel. 11, 2. vvhichwhich heretofore*M. Ain. defence of Script. p. 12 13, 14, 15. this man himſelf acknovvledged and proved by the Scriptures to be the Church of God. Yet the writings of Bellarmine and other Papiſts were extant then, aſvvell as now: and the novv Romiſh religion (whereof he ſpeaketh) deſcribed their church then, as novv it doeth. But the caſe is altered with himſelf: vayn shifts & pretences are become his uſuall pleas in oppoſition of the truth, and for the maintenance of his errors and evill dealing.

After theſe things premiſed, comming (as he ſaith) to our arguments: he ſpeaketh as follovveth.M. Ainſw. p. 77, 78. Their firſt reaſon (ſaith he) from 2 Theſ. 2, 4. is unperfectly alledged, for the text there ſaith of the Man of ſinne, that he doth ſit as God in the Temple of God: whereupon their concluſion muſt be, that Antichriſt ſitteth as God in the Church of God. And if they can proue that he is the true God, I will yeeld that his Temple is the true Temple, and his church the true church. Otherweiſe, if he be but an Idoll and not God: his Temple church and body, will proue but an Idoll like himſelf, and his blaſphemie is vvorſe then theirs which ſaid,“Rev. 2, 9 and 3, 9. they were Ievves and were not, but did lye, and vvere the Synagogue of Sathan. Theſe are M. Ainſw. words: and this anſwer he giveth to that vvhichwhich I obſerved out of 2 Theſ. 2, 4. vvhichwhich I noted dovvne†Pag. 140. here a litle before. Now hovv full of shifts, errors, abſurdities, abuſe of Scripture, and contradiction to himſelf this anſvver is, the text and matter it ſelf declareth. Of vvhichwhich I vvill ſpeak ſtraight vvay. But firſt mark, and in ſome reſpects marvell, how all theſe should proceed from this man, in this matter, in one and ſo short a ſpeach & paſſage: if it vvere not that God would thus shew his juſt work in him, for the more humbling of himſelf, and warning of others by his example to take heed of ſuch cariage and dealing, as he is fallen into.

Novv touching the matter in hand, although I could alledge (vvhichwhich perhaps himſelf would upon like occaſion) that thoſe words (as God) where about he cavileth and uſeth his courſe of shifting, are not in the Claromontane Greek copie of the Original, neyther in the Syriack or old Latin Tranſlations,Bez. Annot. in 2 Theſ. 2, 4 as M. Beza obſerveth in his Annotations upon this place: yet vvil I not inſiſt thereupon, but keep unto the vvords, as they are in the Greek copies and tranſlations uſually.

And firſt, let this be noted & remembred, that the queſtion here treated off, vvas, vvhether the church of Rome vvere the church of God, or no: vvhereupon I alledged thoſe vvords of the Apoſtle, vvhere he ſaith that Antichriſt should ſit in the Temple of God, 2 Theſ. 2, 4. and ſo inſiſted thereon: And that the queſtion vvas not, about the maner of Antichriſts ſitting in the Temple of God, vvhether he should ſit as God therein, or no. For that was not the point in hand, nor is called in queſtion betvven us. And therefore I needed not novv alledge theſe words, or inſiſt thereupon. And this is knowen to be uſuall in all vvriters and diſputers, ſometimes not ſo much as to mention, ſometimes not to inſiſt at all upon ſuch words, whether of Scripture, or of other vvriters, as perteyn not to the argument and matter in hand, or may well be omitted in other reſpects. Which this man himſelf knovveth ſo vvell, as I need not giuegive him any inſtances thereof. Let his ovvn vvritings and other mens be obſerved hereabout. Or to let them alone, obſerue but theſe allegations in the Scripture, with the particulars there mentioned and treated off, viz. Heb. 12, 26. compared with Hag. 2, 6. Alſo Rom. 10, 6, 7, 8. with Deut. 30, 11 — 14. And Mat. 21, 8. with Zach. 9, 9. So all this anſvver is but a shift and a meer cavill.

Secondly, for the queſtion and point in hand, mark the words of the text, that the Man of ſin oppoſeth & exalteth himſelf aboue al that is called God, &c. ſo that he as God ſitteth in the Temple of God &c. In the Temple of God, ſaith the text: it ſaith not, As in the Temple of God: as this mans exception would imply, with the inferences made thereupon. In deed the Apoſtle ſpeaking of the maner of Antichriſts ſitting, ſaith, that he ſitteth as God: but ſpeaking of the ſeat where he ſitteth, he ſaith expreſſely, in the Temple of God: and ſaith not, as in the Temple of God: as the anſwer here would import: vvhichwhich therefore is meerly shifting and full of deceit.

Thirdly, he doeth not onelyonly corrupt the text with evill gloſes (one upon another) but he doeth in deed abuſe the Scripture and directly pervert it, vvhen for an inference he ſaith, If they can proue that Antichriſt is the true God, &c. as if Pauls vvords were not plaine to ſuch as will underſtand, that Antichriſt exalteth himſelf aboue all that is called God, ſo that he as God, ſitteth in the Temple of God, &c. and therefore is not the true God, but the man of ſinne, & ſonne of perdition, although that he as God ſit in the Temple of God, shewing himſelf that he is God. 2 Theſ. 2, 4.

Fourthly, difference is to be put (as I hauehave noted here before) between the man of ſinne that ſitteth, and betvveen the Temple vvherein he ſitteth. The Man of ſinne himſelf (ſaith the Apoſtle) ſitteth as God: yet the Temple wherein he ſitteth (ſaith the ſame Apoſtle) is the Temple of God. And othervviſe how is it poſſible, if he vvere in deed true God ſitting in the Temple of God, that he should alſo be the Man of ſinne, and ſonne of perdition, &c. But ſee the like in the caſes (†Pag. 125 126. &c. before mentioned) that fell out at Ieruſalem and the Temple there: vvhen Baals Idoll of indignation vvas ſet at the entry of the houſe of God, Ezech. 8, 3, 5. and vvhen Antiochus Epiphanes and his Officers profaned the Sanctuarie & city of Ieruſalem, and ſet the image of Iupiter Olympius in the Temple and ſeat of God, Dan. 11, 31, 36. &c. who vvould not novv put difference between the idols and perſons aforeſaid, on the one hand; and betvveen the Temple and city of God, vvherein they vvere ſet, & vvhichwhich they polluted, on the other. And if queſtion should be made, vvhether the Temple and city ſo polluted, vvere yet ſtill notwithſtanding the Temple and city of God: and one for proof thereof, should alledge the Scriptures aforeſaid: would any Oppoſite now reaſoning thereabout, be ſo abſurde and voyd of reaſon, as to make this or ſuch like inference thereupon, If they can proue that the idoll of Baal or Iupiter, that Antiochus or any of his Officers is the true God, then I wil yeeld that Baals Temple, Jupiters Temple, Antiochus and his Officers Temple, is the true Temple, and their city the true city. Otherwiſe &c. Or vvho vvould not rather in the feare of God reaſon thus: Although that Baal, Iupiter, Antiochus and his Officers, be idols and vile perſons, yea an abomination of deſolation: yet the Sanctuarie and city of Ieruſalem, wherein they were ſet, and which they profaned, were ſtill Gods Temple and holy city notvvithſtanding.

Fiftly, obſerue here & throughout his treatiſe, hovv ſtill he calleth that the Temple, Church and body of Antichriſt, vvhichwhich Paul expreſſely and purpoſely calleth the Temple of God. And ſo therein note ſtill his shifts, and his errours, &c. When Antiochus had polluted the Temple of God at Jeruſalem, and had ſet the image of Iupiter Olympius therein, he ſent then alſo an old man of Athens to compell the Iewes to call it the Temple of Jupiter Olympius. 2 Mach. 6, 1, 2. Antichriſt likevviſe (typed by Antiochus) hath polluted the Temple of God in the church of Rome, & other like churches, ſitting therein as God and ſhewing himſelf to be God. 2 Theſ. 2, 4. and novv cometh this man of himſelf, and (like the old man of Athens) wil needs call it, & perſwade others to eſteem and call it, the Temple of Antichriſt, the church of Antichriſt, the body of Antichriſt, the Synagogue of Sathan, &c.

Sixtly, he doeth not onelyonly pervert the Scripture, but alſo croſſe & contradict it, vvhiles that vvhichwhich the Apoſtle ſaith is the Temple of God, he ſaith it is an idoll, like Antichriſt himſelf.

Finally, hovv ever he vvould shift of, pervert, & obſcure this Scripture, and the matter in hand: yet the light of the trueth ſo shineth before his eyes, as euen here himſelf is forced to note and ſet it downe, that upon the Apoſtles words, who ſaith, the man of ſinne ſitteth as God in the Temple of God, our concluſion muſt be, that Antichriſt ſitteth as God in the church of God. Theſe are his owne words: and ſo in deed let this be our concluſion, that Antichriſt (as the Apoſtle ſaith) is exalted aboue all that is called God, or that is worshipped: ſo that he as God ſitteth in the church of God. Now then this man himſelf cannot deny, but the Apoſtles vvords will beare this inference: yea he ſaith, our concluſion muſt be thus hereupon. So notwithſtanding all his ſtrugling and oppoſition here againſt, he is now driuen (nill he, will he) to giuegive us the cauſe againſt himſelf: and to overthrovv all his ovvne writing hereabout. Which being novv done by himſelf: I may the better ſpare labour, in manifeſting the vanity and iniquity of his pretended exceptions. OnelyOnly (becauſe the point is of vvaight, and of needfull uſe againſt the Papiſts and Anabaptiſts) I will here briefly note a fevv things more, which may giuegive ſome light for the preſent, and occaſion of further ſearch hereafter, about this matter.

And firſt, ſeeing novv themſelues affirme, that our concluſion, upon the Apoſtles words, muſt be this, that Antichriſt as God ſitteth in the church of God: I aske, vvhat church of God it is, vvhereof the Apoſtle ſaith here, that Antichriſt as God ſitteth therein. If they ſay, it is the church of Rome, they giuegive us the cauſe. If they ſay, it is not the church of Rome, but ſome other, let them then shew it. But in the vvhole proceſſe of this treatiſe of theirs, they ſtill ſpeak of the church of Rome. And all the termes that here are uſed by the Apoſtle, of the man of ſinne, the ſonne of perdition, his oppoſition, his exaltation, his ſitting as God, his ſhewing himſelf to be God, &c. they apply to Antichriſt the Pope of Rome and his hierarchie. But vvhen they come to this other clauſe of the Temple of God, to expound it of the Temple body and Church of Antichriſt, the Synagogue of Sathan, the Temple of the divell, &c. as they ſpeak almoſt in every ſentence of their treatiſe hereabout; and this alſo in ſuch ſort, as they vvill not hauehave it underſtood to be the church of God; hovv ſtraunge is this? how far differing from their better and ſounder vvritings heretofore? If vve should thus expound and apply the Scripture, what outcryes should we heare, what reproach should we beare at their hands? When M. Sm. (as vve ſavv‘Pag. 133 erevvhile) applied the city & court without the Temple, (ſpoken off Rev. 11, 2.) to the confuſed aſsemblies of Antichriſt, & Antichriſtian perſecuters, M. Ainſ. could not bear it, that the Court of the Temple ſhould betoken Antichriſts church, &c. but did ſoundly convince and sharply rebuke him. Yet now loe, himſelf in this treatiſe, vvill hauehave the Temple of God, ſpoken off 2 Theſ. 2, 4. not onelyonly to ſignifie the church of Antichriſt, the Synagogue of Antichriſt, the Temple, Church and body of Antichriſt, &c. but cannot endure that others should otherwiſe underſtand it, of the church of God: as by his writing, reviling, & aſſertions may appeare.

Here therefore for the better clearing & underſtanding of the matter, let me aske moreover, whether theſe two propoſitiōs come to a like end, & agree the one vvith the other, to note out the ſame thing, or not: viz. The man of ſinne ſitteth in the Temple of God. And, Antichriſt ſitteth†or, in the Church of Rome, and other like churches of Chriſtians. in the church of Rome.

If they be alike, and accord together in one, the cauſe will be plaine. If not, let them shevv the difference between theſe propoſitions, that ſo the meaning of this Scripture may the better be found out.

And vvhereas alſo the terme (ſitting) noteth authority, and continuance (as‘M. Ainſ. Annot on Pſal. 1, 1. and 61, 8. & 102, 13. &c. himſelf othervvhere vvell obſerveth) let him tell us vvithal, whether Antichriſts authoritie and continuance, be in the church of Rome, or not: according as the Apoſtle ſpeaketh here, of the Man of ſin ſitting in the Temple of God. If he ſay, the authoritie and continuance of Antichriſt, is in the church of Rome, the caſe againe will thus alſo be evident. If he ſay, it is not there; let him then shevv us the Temple of God (ſpoken off by the Apoſtle) vvhere it is. Thus tvvo lines, keeping directly to the point in queſtion, will more clear the matter, and better convince both Papiſt and Anabaptiſt; then tvvo thouſand, full of shifts & errors, vvhichwhich doe but the more harden both of them againſt the trueth, though ſeverall wayes. But I wil proceed.

Animad. p. 78.The ſecond thing, that here he inſiſteth upon, is the word Temple. But the Apoſtles words are, the Temple of God: unto which he should hauehave kept: as vvill more appeare afterward. In the meane time, obſerue hovv he which euen novv ſaid, our reaſon was unperfitly alledged, becauſe of the omiſſion of theſe vvords (as God) vvhichwhich perteyning to another point then the queſtion in hand, might here therefore ſo be omitted: yet doth now preſently himſelf leaue out ſuch words, vvhichwhich as touching the point in queſtion may not be left out at all. The particulars follovving vvil shew it more plainly.

He ſaith, we take it for granted, that by the Temple is meant the church: & ſo goe on in obſcuritie. Advert. p. 58, 59.My vvords were theſe, ſpeaking of the Apoſtles ſpeach, vvhere he ſaith Antichriſt should ſit in the Temple of God, 2 Theſ. 2, 4. that here, by the Temple of God underſtanding the church of God, it will follovv that Antichriſt should ſit in the church of God: and is there to be ſought and found, & not among the Jewes, Turks, Pagans, &c. Where firſt mark, that I ſpake not of the Temple onelyonly, but of the Temple of God, as the Apoſtle alſo doeth Secondly, I doe in deed here deriue the reaſon from this expoſition thereof, that by the Temple of God is underſtood the church of God. Which, if it could be shevved not to be agreeable to the Scriptures otherwhere, or that this place would not bear it, I hauehave done. But it is ſo evident, that‘1 Cor. 3, 16, 17. 2 Cor. 6, 16. the Scripture thus uſeth it, as euen here, in the very next paſſage, this man himſelf graunteth it. Neyther doeth he shew any one place of the Scripture, where this phraſe of the Temple of God uſed figuratiuely, as it is here, doth ſignify any other thing, then the church and people of God. And what should I look for of an Opponent (that vvould deal ſoundly and ſyncerely) but that now he should proue that it is not here meant of the Church of God: and should alſo shevv vvhereof it is to be underſtood: and that by the word of God. Which till he doe, let the Reader obſerue his exceptions here, how idle they are, and to no purpoſe for the matter in hand.

As firſt of all, vvhen he ſaith, that the Temple did primarily figure out Chriſt, Joh. 2, 19, 21. and the Lord God almighty, & the Lamb is the Temple in the heauenly Ieruſalem Rev. 21, 22. To vvhat purpoſe is this? will it hereupon follow, that therefore by the Temple of God, 2 Theſ. 2, 4. vve may not underſtant the Church of God? Or that they vvhichwhich doe ſo, goe on in obſcuritie? But if in this ſenſe (ſaith he) we underſtand that ſpeach of Paul touching Antichriſt, then muſt vve tranſlate the vvords (as *Auguſt. de civ. Dei. l. 20, c. 19.ſome auncient Doctors hauehave done) eis ton Naon, for the Temple, or, as if himſelf vvere the Temple: &c. Where note firſt, how he ſpeaketh this with an If: & ſecondly, that he telleth not, vvhether himſelf doe think, that it is thus to be underſtood, or thus to be tranſlated, or not. Which when he reſolveth upon for himſelf, and ſo sheweth it, then may it more be conſidered of. In the mean time, let the Reader obſerue, how himſelf goeth on in obſcuritie, vvhat he can. And for the phraſe it ſelf, this onelyonly for the preſent I will here note (and leaue it to be obſerved and conſidered by the Reader): that where Matthevv hath, eis to onoma tou patros, &c. into the name of the Father &c. Mat. 28, 19. Luke hath for it, epi to onomati Jeſou Chriſtou, ‘or, uponin the name of Ieſus Chriſt, Act. 2, 37.M. Brigh… on Rev. 1… 2. & en to onomati tou Koriou, in the name of the Lord, Act. 10, 48. And a good writer treating on Rev. 16, 2. on thoſe words, eis tous anthropous, ſaith They upon vvhō this ulcer (there ſpoken off) ſeizeth, are men: there fell an ulcer againſt men, as Beza turnes it, or into men, as the vulgar reads, that is, on men, as Antichriſt is ſaid to ſit into the Temple, for in the Temple, 2 Theſ. 2, 4. But the praepoſition with an accuſatiue caſe ſoundeth, as if the ſores did vex not ſo much by † ſticking in the body, as by afflicting it from without; which doth more agree to theſe figuratiue ſores, &c. And whether ſome ſuch thing likewiſe may not here be obſerved about this phraſe, eis ton naon tou Theou os Theon cathiſai, to ſit as God ‘or, upon See Eſa. 1… 13.into the Temple of God, where the ſame praepoſition & caſe is uſed; or els moreover to note out ſome very near, deep, cloſe, or inward ſitting of Antichriſt, into or in the Temple of God; I leaue to be further conſidered: deſiring that the true meaning hereof (vvhat can be) may be ſearched and found out, for the better ending of theſe and ſundry other queſtions, vvhereunto this vvould giuegive great light and help.

As for the*Auguſtine. auncient Doctor whom here he citeth, let us heare himſelf ſpeak. His words are theſe, That which is”Note theſ… particulars the temple of any idol or Divell, the Apoſtle would not call”Notetheſ… particulars the Temple of God. Whereupon ſome will hauehave in this place, not the Prince himſelf, but after a manner his whole body, that is, the multitude of men perteyning unto him together with himſelf under the Prince, underſtood to be Antichriſt. And more rightly they think it alſo to be ſaid in Latin as in the Greek: that he ſitteth not in the Temple of God, but for the Temple of God, which is the”Notetheſ… particulars church. As we ſay he ſitteth for a friend, that is, as a friend. Auguſt. de civit. Dei, lib. 20. c. 19. Where note how farre differing Auguſtine is from this man that citeth him. 1. Auguſtine ſpeaketh not onelyonly of the Temple, as he doeth here, but of the Temple of God, keeping the Apoſtles vvords. 2. Auguſtine ſaith expreſſely, the Apoſtle would not call that the Temple of God, which were the Temple of an idol or of the Divel; whereas this man everie foot calleth it‘Animad… p. 78 — 82, 94, &c. an idoll like Antichriſt himſelf, the church and Temple of Antichriſt, the Synagogue of Sathan, ſuch as the type thereof ſhould be fetched (not from the Temple of God at Ieruſalem, but) from Jeroboams Temple, and Bels Temple in Babylon, yea ſuch as is no more the Temple of God, then the Divel which appeared to the vvitch at Endor was Samuell, &c. Would the Apoſtles (think vve) or Auguſtine eyther cal theſe or ſuch like the Temple of God? 3. Nay, Auguſtine (relating here the opinions of others about this, and the tranſlation vvithall) notes expreſſely and takes it for granted, that the Temple of God, is the Church. Which this man oppugneth. 4. Or doth Auguſtine expound it of Chriſt himſelf, as here he applyeth it? Other particulars I inſiſt not upō: of the tranſlation & interpretation I hauehave ſpoken here before, leaving it ſo to be conſidered of, as shal be found moſt agreeable to this & other Scriptures compared together.

Novv vvhere he ſaith, that Antichriſt (the Pope) proclaimeth himſelf to be the bridegrome of the church, which is the office of Chriſt; to be the Greateſt high-priſt; to hauehave power aboue all power, as well of heauen as of earth, &c. theſe things plainly perteyne to thoſe clauſes of the Apoſtle, where he deſcribeth Antichriſt, vvith his hierarchie, to the man of ſinne, the ſonne of perdition, who oppoſeth and exalteth himſelf aboue all that is called God, &c. and ſo touch not in deed the point of the controverſie betvveen us; vvhichwhich is not of Antichriſt that ſitteth, &c. but of the Temple of God, vvhere he ſitteth. OnelyOnly note this withal, that it is in ſome reſpect againſt himſelf, & may alſo giuegive ſome light to the queſtion in hand, inaſmuch as theſe things (by his ovvne graunt here) are aſcribed to Antichriſt, and the Pope; by vvhom there is no doubt, but he meaneth the Pope of Rome. Whereupon it will follow, that if there we fynd Antichriſt the man of ſinne thus ſet, there alſo muſt be ſound the Temple of God vvherein thus he ſitteth.

Next he ſaith, that ſecondarily the Temple figured the Church, but firſt the catholike or univerſall Church, Epheſ. 2, 21. then every particular Church †Note this: for proportion kept with Iſrael: which whē we speake of it, he oppugneth. Animad. p. 15. &c.by proportion, 1 Cor. 3, 16, 17. And both theſe are the church or Churches of God, as appeareth by the Scriptures here cited by himſelf. Thus alſo it is plainly manifeſt, that they who in this place apply it to the Church of God, underſtand it not othervviſe, then as himſelf graunts the type & figure may lead unto. But yet of neyther of the tvvo, would he hauehave it here to be underſtood: & therefore bringeth exceptions concerning both. Which let the Reader well obſerue and remember. And the rather, becauſe that euen here a litle after he ſaith expreſſely, that”Animad. pag. 80. when the Apoſtle telleth us, that Antichriſt ſitteth as God, in the Temple of God, it is to be underſtood of their invading and deſtroying of Gods church and people, as the heathens of old dealt vvith Jeruſalem and dwellers therein. Hovv contradictorie theſe are the one unto the other, vvho can not diſcerne? and hovv novv will he reconcile theſe two together, that by the Temple of God is meant here, Gods Church invaded and deſtroyed by Antichriſt: and yet that by the Temple of God here, is not to be underſtood the church of God, neyther univerſall, nor particular?

But he ſaith, we ſhevv not which of theſe two we intend. Neither doeth he himſelf, when he ſaith here preſently after, that Antichriſt invaded and deſtroyed Gods church here meant by the Temple of God. Neyther did he it heretofore, when vvriting againſt M. Sm. he taught, that†M. Ain. def. of Scri. p. 14, 15. by the court and holy city (ſpoken off Rev. 11, 2.) is ſignified the Church of God. And if thus he could hauehave reſted, it had ben ſomewhat. But now (to deſtroy that vvhichwhich he built before) he ſets himſelf to perſwade, that it can neyther be underſtood of a particular Church, nor of the catholick or univerſall. So as I might leaue him to mainteyne or to reverſe his ovvne expoſition hereof, vvhether he thinks to be beſt and in the meane time to conſider how all this treatiſe, vvhichwhich he intended againſt us, fals upon his owne head, and (if he think there be any waight in it) is in deed againſt himſelf.

But becauſe the point is of ſo great moment, although in reſpect of theſe Oppoſites I need not, yet in other reſpects I am not unwilling to note ſomevvhat more hereabout, leaving it ſtill to myne ovvn & others further conſideratiō, as shalbe found moſt agreable to the word of God, and to his vvork, by the event of things alreadie done and yet further to be accomplished.

By the Temple of God, properly taken, is uſually meant the Temple that was at Ieruſalem. And this (vve hauehave heard) did primarily figure out Chriſt, and ſecondarily the Church, both the catholick and univerſall, & particular Churches likewiſe. Whereunto may be annexed alſo, that it figured†1 Cor. 6, 19. vvith 2 Cor. 5, 1. and 6, 16. 1 Pet. 2, 5. & ſo may here alſo, in 2 Theſ. 2, 4. particular Chriſtians, and (in ſeverall reſpects) both their bodies and their ſoules and conſciences. Moreover in that Temple at Ieruſalem, there vvas the Courts, the holy place, and the moſt holy place. Which ſometimes all of them together, ſometimes ſome of them more particularly are called the Temple. And ſo this word is diverſely uſed and applied, as I hauehave shevved‘Pag. 128. before. Which therefore for the right underſtanding of the Scriptures, and touching the queſtion in hand, is carefully to be obſerved and remembred.

Novv touching the Scripture and queſtion ſpoken off: where the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the man of ſinne ſitting in the Temple of God, ‘Bellar. cō trov 3, l. 3. c. 13, &c. Rhem, Teſt. in 2 Theſ. 2, ſ 11.Bellarmine and the Papiſts vvill not hauehave it underſtood of the Church of God among Chiſtians: and thus farre M. Ainſ. and his followers agree with them in this place. But Bellarmine expounds it literally of the Temple of Ieruſalem; M. A. expounds*Animad. p. 78 — 82. 93, 94. &c. it ſtraungly of the Synagogue of Sathan, of the Temple of Antichriſt and the Divell, &c. And here novv they differ one from another, and both of them from the trueth, as far as darknes doth from light.

The Temple at Ieruſalem was deſtroyed long ſince: and in the new Ieruſalem (which we expect clearly & shortly to come at the converſion of the Ievves to the Chriſtian faith) there is no ſuch Temple to be looked for: the ſacrifices, shadovves, and ceremonies of the Law being now ceaſed. I ſaw no Temple therein (ſaith Iohn) for the Lord God Almighty, and the Lambe, are the Temple of it. Rev. 21, 2, 22. So vve may firſt cashier Bellarmines expoſition: And then M.A. vvhichwhich is (in ſome reſpects) a great deal more ſtraunge, that by the Temple of God the Apoſtle should meane the Synagogue of Sathan, the Temple of Antichriſt and the Divell, &c. Againſt vvhichwhich, if there vvere neyther other Scripture, nor any other thing at all, but that the Apoſtle here deſcribeth it by this Name of the Temple of God, & calleth Antichriſts ſitting therein as God,*2 Theſ. 2, 7. a myſterie of iniquity, it vvere ynough to teach us to adviſe well, and to take far more heed thereabout. For is this terme of the Temple of God, ever ſo taken in the Scripture? Would the Apoſtle (ſaith Auguſtine) call the Temple of an idoll or of the Divell, the Temple of God? Or when he deſcribeth the myſterie of Antichriſts iniquity, would he teach the Church, that the place of his ſitting is the Temple of God, if he meant that it vvere in deed the Synagogue of Sathan & the Temple of Antichriſt? For that Antichriſt should ſit in the Temple of Antichriſt; and Synagogue of Sathan, what myſterie is there in it? All the world would eaſily perceiue, that theſe agreed very vvell, and moſt fitly together. But for Antichriſt to ſit in Gods Temple and Chriſts Church, this is in deed a myſterie, and a myſterie of iniquity: ſuch as men had need open the eyes of their underſtanding, and ſet their hearts religiouſly to conſider it, if they vvould diſcerne it, as it is. Which may ſufficiently appeare by theſe ſtraunge expoſitions, and like erroneous courſes, found among the Papiſts, Anabaptiſts, theſe men, and other ſuch, vvhether Popishly or Anabaptiſtically addicted hereabout.

And what may we think is it that induceth thē hereunto? Is it not firſt, that this is a myſterie of iniquitie, which eyther is not readily perceived, or not rightly eſteemed, as it should? Is it not vvithall in the Papiſts, that they would turn away the application of this Scripture from the Pope & church of Rome: and therefore vvould ſend us to the Temple of Ieruſalem, to find out this myſterie there? Is it not alſo (on another hand) in theſe men vvith the Anabaptiſts and others like mynded, that they cannot endure that the Church of Rome should any way be eſteemed the Church of God: and therefore wil rather by the Temple of God underſtand the Synagogue of Sathan, and Temple of Antichriſt, then they vvil admit that the church of Rome, should be the Temple and church of God.

For my ſelf, my purpoſe is not to plead for the corrupt and adulterate eſtate of the church of Rome, or of any degenerate churches at all: much leſſe for any impietie or iniquitie of the Man of ſinne, of Antichriſt or his hierarchie, of the corruptions, falſe worship, or ſuperſtitions of that apoſtaſie: againſt vvhichwhich I hauehave heretofore many yeres in priſon, and now alſo (by the mercy of God) this twentie yeeres in exile witneſſed, and ſtil doe vvitneſſe the trueth of Chriſt, vvhat in me is, and in that meaſure as it pleaſeth him to manifeſt and vouchſafe unto me. But my purpoſe is to shew, that difference is to be put betvveen the Temple of God, where Antichriſt ſitteth, and betvveen Antichriſt himſelf, who as God ſitteth therein; that ſo the cauſe of the Proteſtants in general, and ours in particular, may be kept ſound and intire both againſt the Papiſts and popish corruptions on the one hand, and againſt the Anabaptiſts and Anabaptiſtical aberrations, on the other.

Now therefore to ſpeak of the church of Rome in this reſpect, & how this terme is uſed: it is taken either particularly, or more generally. If vve underſtand it of a parttcular church (as the Apoſtle wrote†Epiſt. to the Romās. his Epiſtle to the church there:) how shall we ſoundly deny eyther it to be the Temple of God, or Antichriſt to be ſet therein? Euen the Papiſts themſelues hold and tell us, that the”Anton. Sum. part. 3. tit. 21. cap. 2. … 6. Laterane Church in Rome, is the Pariſh Church of the Biſhop of Rome. Which is much to be obſerved about this queſtion. And himſelf ſaith here (as the trueth is) that the Tsmple figured every particular church: and therefore alſo the particular Church of Rome. Which thing alone might ſuffice for the controverſie in hand. And that the more, becauſe the Antichriſtian uſurpation, oppoſition, exaltation, extent of unlavvfull juriſdiction, and other ſuch corruptions, growen up ſince the firſt plantation of that church, are rather to be referred to the Bishops of that church, then to that particular church it ſelf: and doe more fitly and properly apperteyne to thoſe clauſes of the Apoſtles deſcription of Antichriſt, where he calleth him the man of ſinne, oppoſing and exalting himſelf aboue al that is called God, or is reverend, ſitting as God, and ſhewing himſelf that he is God, &c. then to this other clauſe of, the Temple of God, whereabout our queſtion is. Like as in the Revelation, they are to be referred to the Beaſt, not to the church and people of God, in and over vvhichwhich the beaſt tyrannizeth. Rev. 11, and 13, and 14, and 17, and 18 chapt.

If it be underſtood more generally, then may it be applied to all other ſuch Chriſtian churches, as ſynce the prevayling of Antichriſt (the Pope of Rome) are come under his juriſdiction and government,Rev. 11, 2. and vvherein he ſitteth, or treadeth thereon, though not in his ovvne perſon in each of them, yet by his hierarchie, authoritie, uſurpation, and juriſdiction. And if we mark it alſo, we shal find that not the Pope onelyonly, but the other hierarchicall Prelates, Dioceſan, Provinciall, & the like, hauehave the Parishes or particular churches perteyning to their juriſdictions, vvherein they ſit, although not in their owne perſons, yet by their hierarchie and authority. Yea euen at Rome to this day, the Cardinals (that are next to the Pope himſelf) are all of them Presbyters or Deacons, and hauehave each of them their particular church or parish, whereof they are named, and vvhereunto more particularly they doe apperteyne. Whereupon (to note it by the vvay) this may alſo be obſerved, that if there be any Bishop at this day in our ovvn countrey or otherwhere, vvho hath not his particular Church or parish, whereof he is overſeer, and whereunto he doeth properly appetteyne, all ſuch are more degenerate from the auncient way & order of the Primitiue Churches, then is the Pope himſelf, in this behalf. And, if the Bishops hauehave ſtil every one his ovvn peculiar parish & church to vvhichwhich they doe properly belong, it is a good print and footſtep of the auncient vvay, wherein the churches vvere planted at firſt by the Apoſtles and Euangeliſts: And is a point that vvill giuegive great light to this & other queſtions, novv much controverted about the order and government of the church.

Note here alſo, hovv the very things vvhichwhich the Prelates chalenge in the particular churches under them, are juriſdiction and ordination: And that othervviſe they leaue the particular Parishes to their ovvn peculiar Miniſters, for the miniſtration of the word and Sacraments among them ordinarily. Which is obſerved in all churches & by all Prelates, euen the moſt Popish, and under the Pope himſelf, unto this day. And is a point alſo that vvill giuegive light to the better underſtanding of the eſtate of the Prelacy, and condition of the†Pariſhionall, Dioceſan, Provinciall, &c. churches perteyning unto them, of what ſort ſoever.

But to proceed: I am not ignorant that the termes of Dioceſan, Provinciall, Nationall, & Oecumenical or univerſal churches, are alſo otherwiſe uſed and applied: and are aſcribed to repreſentatiue Churches, to Councils, Convocations, Synodes, Courts, and the like: whereof there may be ſome uſe & conſideration not unprofitable about the matter here in hand, ſo it be not otherwiſe abuſed. For vvho knoweth not that the Pope hath novv a long time ſit in Councils, Courts, and other Chriſtian aſſemblies, oppoſing and exalting himſelf aboue all that is called God, or that is worshipped, shevving himſelf that he is God; eſtablishing, confirming, and diſanulling vvhat he would, ruling & overruling vvhom, vvhen, & as he would: yet not preſent ſtil in his own perſon, but ſometimes by his deſigned ſubſtitutes, alvvaies by his uſurped povver, authoritie, and juriſdiction. But of this I vvill not inſiſt. It may ſuffice, for the point in hand, that Antichriſt is ſo ſet and exalted as hath ben ſaid, in the Chriſtian Churches aforeſaid, which (I ſuppoſe) theſe men themſelues being better adviſed vvill not deny to be the Churches and Temple of God. Or if they doe, then I hope they will shevv of vvhat other church or churches they underſtand this Scripture, and hovv that vvhichwhich the Apoſtle teacheth in this place, is by the Man of ſinne performed in the Temple of God: Alvvaies remembring to diſtinguish betvveen the man of ſinne himſelf, and between the Temple of God wherein he ſitteth, &c. And this for the preſent I thought to note hereabout.

Animadv. p. 78.Where he ſaith, if we meane a particular Church, it will not agree with the prophecies of Antichriſt, whoſe City or church is ſo great, as peoples kinreds toungues and nations doe dwell in the ſtreets thereof. Rev. 11, 8, 9. I anſvver firſt, that ſtil he cals that Antichriſts church, vvhichwhich the Apoſtle cals the Temple of God.

II. Secondly, how vvill he proue that the Beaſts city (ſpoken off, Rev. 11, 8.) is the Temple of God, ſpoken of, 2 Theſ. 2, 4. If he ſay, he ſpeaks not of the Temple of God, then he ſpeaks not of the point in hand. If he ſpeak of it, why doeth he ſtill call it the City, Church and Temple of Antichriſt, and not the Temple of God, as the Apoſtle termes it? Hath the very phraſe of the Scripture ſo much light in it, as he can not endure to look upon it? Or doth he in theſe things, louelove darknes more then light? Or is there no difference to be put between Antichriſts City, and Gods church?

III. Thirdly, having this occaſion, I vvill propound ſome things hereabout, and leaue them further to be conſidered off: being aſſured that if the true meaning of theſe Scriptures be rightly found out, the difficultie about theſe and ſundry other matters will be far the more eaſy. Whereas therefore he doth not diſtinguish betvveen the City, and the Church, but here and throughout his treatiſe uſually confounds them as all one: let us obſerue and conſider of theſe things thereabout.

1. That this City (ſpoken off in‘Rev. 11, 8. the place that he alledgeth) is spiritually called Sodome and Egypt, where alſo our Lord vvas crucified. But the church is here called the Temple of God, or the Court vvithout the Temple, or the holy City, &c. For which ſee 2 Theſ. 2, 4. and the chapter it ſelf vvhichwhich here he citeth, Revel. 11, 2.

2. That this great city is not onelyonly Sodome and Egypt spiritually, but is alſo that Sodome & Egypt, where our Lord was crucified. Rev. 11, 8. Now al know, that Chriſt our Lord vvas crucified in and under the juriſdiction of the City, not of the Church of Rome. For he vvas condemned to death by Pontius Pilate the Deputie of the Romane Emperour (under whoſe dominion and juriſdiction now the Iewes were) and vvas crucified by the Romane ſouldjours, being delivered to the Gentiles (when yet there was no church at Rome:) as Chriſt himſelf had before told his diſciples. Mat. 27, 2, 11, 26, 27, 31, 35. with 20, 17, 18, 19. Luke 18, 31, 32, 33. and 23, 1, 2, &c. Joh. 18, 28, 31. & 19, 1, 2, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 23. &c. Which is alſo acknowledged by this man himſelf here a litle after. Animadv. pag. 83.

3. That this City is that, which vvas the Dragons throne, and was by the Dragon giuen to the Beaſt. Rev. 13, 2. vvhichwhich this man himſelf alſo noteth, though to another purpoſe, Animad. pag. 79. But this was the City (not the Church) of Rome. Neyther, I think, will theſe men themſelues ſay, that the Church vvas the Dragons throne, or was by the Dragon giuen to the Beaſt.

4. That this City alſo is the throne of the Beaſt, & Babylon the great City, ſpoken of Rev. 16, 10, 19. and 17, & 18 ch. Which, that it is to be underſtood of the city of Rome, and the dominion thereof, vvill yet appeare further by the reaſons follovving. And note here how‡M. Brighon Rev. 16.19. ſome treating on Rev. 16, 19. expound great Babylon there, to be the city of Conſtantinople, called New Rome. Which then maketh the more for the point in hand.

5. That this city is the woman that ſitteth on ſeuen mountaines. Rev. 17, 9, 18. And that the City, (not the church) of Rome, is built on*Called, Palatinus, Capitolinus Qu…rinalis, Aventinus Caelius, Eſquilinus, Viminalis. ſeuen mountaines: As euen†Virgil. Geor. 2. Ovid. de Triſt. l. 1. Ele. 4. & l. 3. Eleg. 7. Propertius, &c. the heathen Poets deſcribe the ſituation thereof, before ever there vvas a Chriſtian church there.

6. That this City hath ſeuen kings, or kinds of government, whereof fiue were fallen, vvhen Iohn wrote; one was then; and the other yet to come. Rev. 17, 9, 10. Which alſo is verified in the city of Rome: where the fiue ſeverall ſorts of government by Kings, Conſuls, Dictators, Decemvirs, and Tribunes, were done & ceaſed, before Iohns time: The ſixt, by Emperours, was then when he lived and wrote this: the other by Popes, vvas not yet come. But how should this be found in the church of Rome: vvhichwhich was not before Iohns time: and therefore could not hauehave fiue kings, or kinds of government thereof then fallen, &c.

7. That this city, this Babylon, this woman, is that great city which reigned over the kings of the earth, in Iohns time. Rev. 17, 18. And that not the church, but the City of Rome ſo reigned, vvhen Iohn vvrote theſe things, all doe acknovvledge.

8. Finally, that the Lord himſelf putteth difference betweene this City Babylon, and his people therein: foretelling that this Babylon shalbe utterly burnt vvith fire, and throvvne downe with violence, ſo as it shall no more at all be found: Rev. 18, 2, 8, 9, 18, 20, 21. &c. and yet then calling his people out of her, Rev. 18, 4. Like as of old came to paſſe in the type hereof: in Babylon of Chaldea: both for the wondrous deſolation thereof; & for the calling of the Lords people out from thence. Jer. 50. and 51, 1 — 60, 61 — 64. with 50, 8, and 51, 6, 45. Eſa. 48, 20. Zach. 2, 6, 7.

Other moe reaſons hereabout might be obſerved out of theſe & other Chapters of this book of the Revelation, as alſo out of other Scriptures, and the event of things, ſome vvhereof are ſynce come to paſſe, and ſome remaine yet to be performed: But theſe may ſuffice to shevv hovv needfull it is vvell to conſider vvhat by the great city here ſpoken off, we are to underſtand; and heedfully to diſtinguish between the church, and the city it ſelf.

IIII, Fourthly, note here, that by the great city, is meant not onelyonly the city it ſelf, but the vvhole Iuriſdiction, authority, and dominion thereof, how far ſoever extended. For (as‘M. Bright on Rev. 16 19. one well writeth) the City is not onelyonly the tovvn or piece of ground conteyned within compaſſe of the walles thereof, together with the Citizens and inhabitants, having order & government among themſelues, according to the Lavves and priviledges there had: but alſo the vvhole juriſdiction and government of the City, in all places perteyning thereunto. Which being obſerved, we may thereby perceiue that the ſtreets of this City reach farre, euen to all places under the juriſdiction thereof: and comprehend ſundry peoples, and kinreds, and toungues, and nations: as here is ſaid. Whereupon it is fitly compared to the great city Babylon, whoſe dominion and extent of government was exceeding large and great. Rev. 14, 8. and 16, 19. and 17, 5. and 18, 2, 3, 4, 7 — 21. compared with Eſa. 13, 19. and 14, 6. and 47, 5. Jer. 50. and 51. Neyther is it onelyonly compared to cityes, but to Egypt alſo, that was a countrey. Which compariſons, though they hauehave other peculiar uſes and applications, yet may alſo be obſerved in this behalf. Rev. 11, 8. And the more, ſeeing that the extent of this City is ſuch, as reached euen to Ieruſalem, where our Lord was crucified, as is noted alſo in this place. Rev. 11, 8.

Where yet obſerue further, that the Church of Rome being fallen into deep apoſtaſie, and having the man of ſinne ſitting therein as God, who hath that city for his throne, &c. the things that are ſpoken of this city, are alſo applied to the apoſtate eſtate of that church of Rome, and the other churches that are under the juriſdictiō of the Prelacy of that Sea, whereſoever, and of vvhatſoever people, kinred, toungue, or nation they be. Which application thereof I doe alſo acknowledge, as it is obſerved by and according to the vvord of God. Rev. 11, 8. with Eſa. 1, 10. Jer. 23, 14. Ezech. 16, 2 — 46. &c. and Rev. 14, 8. and 17, and 18, &c. with Eſa. 21, 9. and 48, 20. Jer. 50. and 51, 1 — 45. &c. Ezech. 16, 2 — 35, &c. and 23 chap. Zach. 2, 6, 7. But shal we therefore conclude, that by the Temple of God (ſpoken off 2 Theſ. 2, 4.) may not be underſtood the Church of God. This is the point to be inſiſted upon: as alſo, whether we can ſoundly, and by vvarrant of the Scriptures deny the Church of Rome (though in defection) and other Churches in apoſtaſie to be the Churches of God; and not to be under his covenant; nor to hauehave his ſignes and ſeales thereof; nor any of his ordinances remayning among them: but that euen the Baptiſme there had is an idoll, a fiction, a lying and deceitfull ſigne, a curſed and deteſtable Sacrament. Which hath ben and yet is a great occaſion and mayne ground of Anabaptiſtrie: beſides that it hardneth the Papiſts and others in their errours much the more, when the Churches themſelues, and the ordinances of God (though corrupted, yet) ſtill continued unto and among them, are not ſo acknowledged by us, as they ought to be: Neyther ſo onelyonly, but are eyther utterly denyed and diſanulled; or ſo ſpoken and accounted off, as doth in deed neceſſarily imply the deniall and diſanulling thereof. When the Temple of God at Ieruſalem was polluted and profaned, and that ſo exceeding ſinfully, as God gaue it up vvith Ieruſalem into the enemies hand, yet vvhenas then Nebucadnezar burnt it, the Lord tooke upon him the vengeance of his Temple vvith great ſeverity: becauſe though it vvas polluted, yet it was ſtill the Lords Temple: vvhichwhich he accordingly should hauehave regarded. Jer. 50, 28, and 51, 11. Which should teach all to take heed, hovv we eſteeme and deale with the churches of God, though ſinfully polluted and profaned. If the Lord were ſo carefull of the figure: shall we think he vvill hauehave no regard of the figured thing: vvhichwhich this man himſelf here acknowledgeth every particular church to be: & therefore alſo the church of Rome.

But now he ſaith next, that to underſtand by the Temple of God a particular Church, is not anſwerable to the Temple of God in Iſraell, which was not for one Synagogue, but for *Deut. 16, 16.the whole nation of the Jevves, and for †1 Kin. 8, 41, 42. Ioh. 12, 20. Act. 8, 27.the Gentiles that came to the faith, through the world: Hovv greatly forgets he himſelf, and hovv preſently, ſeing that here but a line before he ſaid, the Temple figured not onelyonly the catholike or univerſall Church, Epheſ. 2, 21. but alſo every particular church by proportion. 1 Cor. 3, 16, 17. And may we not then apply it unto that, vvhereof it vvas a figure, and accordingly underſtand it? Or may not vve ſo underſtand and apply it, as the Apoſtle doeth: vvho (as himſelf ſaith here) applies it to a particular church: 1 Cor. 3, 16, 17. vvith which place may be joyned, 2 Cor. 6.16. though that may alſo be further extended. Beſides, was not the Temple in Iſraell, for any and every Synagogue, familie, and perſon among them? And may not we now accordingly apply it to the Churches and Chriſtians of the Gentiles? And that the more, ſeeing that then alſo it vvas for them, cōming to the faith of Iſrael, vvhether mo or fevver? Or vvere not the Ievves, diſtributed into ſeverall and particular Synagogues: which being joyntly conſidered, vvere and might be eſteemed as one people? And are not the Chriſtians (euen thoſe among whom Antichriſt hath moſt prevayled) diſtributed likewiſe into particular churches or parishes? Which if any would (in ſome good reſpect) conſider joyntly as one people: vvho would ſtriue about it; ſo as it were not any way abuſed for maintenance of any errour againſt the trueth or vvord of God? But of this I will not inſiſt: neyther alledge other things that here might be obſerved. That alone may ſuffice, vvhichwhich I noted here before.

By reaſon whereof alſo I need not ſtand on that, vvhichwhich he ſpeaketh about the catholick or univerſall church, ſeing it is ynough for the matter in hand, to find it in the particular churches, ſo as is aforeſaid. Yet ſome things by this occaſion may here be noted vvithall. As namely, that the Church of Chriſt is ſometimes accounted as one‘Sal. Song. 4, 12, 16. and 5, 1. & 6, 2, 11 garden, being conſidered joyntly in one; ſometimes as many or ſundry*Sal. Song 4, 15. & 6, 2. & 8, 13 gardens, in reſpect of the divers particular congregations thereof. Each of which particular ones, both is a garden it ſelf, and is alſo a part of that one or univerſal garden of the Lord. So as he vvhichwhich dwelleth, & the trees & herbes vvhichwhich grovv, in any one of theſe, may be ſaid to dwell and grovv not onelyonly in that particular garden alone, but alſo in the general or univerſall garden, as it compriſeth al the particular gardens within it; they being al of them parts of the generall. Likevviſe the Church is ſometimes reſembled by‘Exod. 25, 31. 2 Chr. 13, 11. Zac. 4, 2, 11. one Candleſtick, having one shank or shaft, out of which come divers branches, vvherein are*Exod. 25 37. with Rev. 1, 11, 12, 20. and 2, & 3 ch. ſeuen ſeverall lampes: ſo as the light vvhichwhich is ſet in any one of the lampes, ſtandeth not onelyonly in that particular lampe, but in the generall candleſtick: ſometimes by“2 King. 7, 49. 2 Chron. 4, 7.. ten candleſticks, ſometimes by‡Rev. 11, 4. two, &c. ſo noting both one catholick Church in generall, & divers particular Congregations in ſpeciall: ſometimes moe, ſometimes fewer; yet ſo as they are alwaies parts and members of the generall or univerſall, vvhether they be moe in number and more florishing, or fevver & more decaying.

Where note moreover, that the Candleſticks and Lampes were ſet in the Temple of God: and that the church of Rome, vvas a golden Candleſtick, as well as the reſt of the Primitiue Churches: & that this man himſelf ſaith definitely,†Animad. p. 103. the true churches were many of them apoſtate, when John wrote, whom yet notwithſtanding the Scripture calleth, & Chriſt acknowledgeth them to be”Rev. 1, 11 12, 20. and 2, 1. golden candleſticks. In any of vvhichwhich, if Antichriſt the man of ſinne had ſit, as in the church of Rome, I ſuppoſe this man vvould not deny, but his fitting then should hauehave ben in the Temple of God: whether it vvere cō ſidered as a particular Lampe and Candleſtick it ſelf,’‘M. Brig. on Rev. 11 4. or as a branch alſo and part of the great and generall Candleſtick: vvhichwhich is”Rev. 1, 11 12, 20. and 2, 1. obſerved (in the reſpects aforeſaid) to be a type both of the Catholick church, and of the particular Congregations thereof: like as here the Temple is by this man himſelf acknowledged (and rightly) alſo to be a type of both. Animad. pag. 78.

As for the catholick or univerſall Church, which the Pope claymeth for his Temple, what is that to us, vvho ſpeak of the Temple of God, ſpoken off by the Apoſtle, 2 Theſ. 2, 4. And vvhereas he vvould be taught hovv that vvhoriſh company that worſhip the Beaſt and Dragon, can be the true catholike church & spouſe of Chriſt: although that which I hauehave noted before, be ſufficient for the point in hand: neither meane I now to inſiſt on other things: yet ſeeing thus he ſpeaketh here, let him firſt remember hovv but a litle before he told us,‘Animad. p. 77. the catholike church of the novv Romiſh religion (as themſelues deſcribe it) hath one part thereof on earth, another under the earth, and a third part in heauen: & now here himſelf ſpeaketh onelyonly of ſuch as are on earth: and thoſe alſo ſuch as vvorship the Dragon and the Beaſt, ſpoken off, Rev. 13, 4. whereas the Catholick Church in deed conteyneth al the Churches and people of God, that hauehave ben from the beginning of the world, (before ever there vvas a church, yea or a city at Rome) and that shalbe to the end of the vvorld, in any and every age thereof; and (in another reſpect) all and onelyonly the elect of God, both Angels and men.

2. And let himſelf now tell us, vvhether he think there was no other church or churches of Chriſtians, catholick or particular, vvherein Antichriſt ſate, ſynce the apoſtaſie of the Man of ſinne, but ſuch as worſhipped the Dragon which gaue power unto the Beaſt, and the beaſt alſo himſelf withall? Rev. 13, 4. And who then were the Tabernacle, & thoſe that dwelt in heauen, whom the beaſt blaſphemed, and the Saints with whom he made vvarre, tvvo and fourty moneths. Rev. 13, 5, 6, 7. and of vvhat church, or churches they were; conſidering alſo, that the apoſtaſie began ſo ſoone, and ſpread ſo far, and continued ſo long. 2 Theſ. 2, 3 — 7. with Rev. 11, 1, 2, &c.

3. Let him alſo remember how Ieruſalem, came to be‘Ezec. 16, 2, 35, &c. and 23, 2 — 43. &c an harlot, old in adulteries, and the Ievves, to be”Eſa. 1, 4, 5, &c. a ſinfull nation, laden with iniquitie, forſaking the Lord, and revolting more and more; yea*Eſa. 57, 3 4, 5. &c. ſonnes of the ſo…cereſse, the ſeed of the adulterer, and the whore; “Eſa. 65, 2 3, &c.a rebellious people, which walked in a way not good, after their ovvne thoughts; ‡2 Chron. 36, 14. &c.tranſgreſſing after all the abominations of the heathen, and polluting the houſe of the Lord, which he had hallowed in Ieruſalem, &c. vvhenas yet they vvere ſtill notwithſtanding the city, people, and temple of the Lord. Eſa. 1, 3. and 3, 12. vvith Jer. 50, 28. and 51, 11, 35, 36, 45, 50, 51.

4. And as for the true catholick church and spouſe of Chriſt, vvhereof he ſpeaketh, beſides that it conteyneth onelyonly the elect, and all of them in all ages and places of the vvorld (as is aforeſaid) himſelf alſo knoweth that it is a church inviſible unto us; whereas our queſtion is of the Temple of God, vvherein the Man of ſinne ſitteth, and ſo of the viſible Church polluted and profaned by Antichriſt, as the Temple of God at Ieruſalem vvas of old both by the Iewes themſelues, and by Antiochus, &c. 2 Theſ. 2, 4. & Rev. 11, 2. compared with 2 Chron. 36, 14. &c. and Dan. 8, 9 — 14. and 11, 31. &c.

5. Laſtly, obſerue here, how ſtill he ſpeaketh and uſeth the terme of Antichriſts Temple; vvhereas vve ſpeak of the Temple of God, vvhereof the Apoſtle ſpeaketh 2 Theſ. 2, 4. and ſo of the Lords Court and City, ſpoken of, Rev. 11, 2. vvhichwhich hovv ever he cannot now admit to ſignifie the church of God; yet he hath both taught it‘Def. of Script. p. 14. &c. heretofore, ſo as he need not now be taught it again, if he will but peruſe what himſelf formerly vvrote about this matter; and here againe he teacheth it”Animad. p. 80. in the very next page follovving, vvhere he interpreteth the Temple of God (*2 Theſ. 2 4. here ſpoken off) to be Gods church and people: thus ſtill forgetting and contradicting himſelf: of vvhetherſoever he meane it, vvhether of the church catholick, or particular. Let him chuſe vvhichwhich he vvill, to expound it of, and apply it unto. And then let him tell us, vvhether it be no othervviſe the church of God, but as the Divell himſelf is an Angell of light: expounding his own words as shal pleaſe him beſt.

In the next place, vvhere he ſaith, that“Animad p. 79. the very word Temple, leadeth us to underſtand Antichriſts church to be but a counterfeyt, &c. mark firſt, how he keeps not the words of the Text. The Apoſtle ſaith not onelyonly, the Temple, but the Temple of God. So his exception and aſſertion here (keeping to the Apoſtles vvords, and the point in hand) is this in deed, & thus to be propounded: that the very phraſe of the Temple of God, leadeth us to underſtand Antichriſts church to be but a counterfeyt. Which if ſo it were, then alſo when the Apoſtle ſaith to the Church of Corinth, in the Scripture that himſelf cited‘Animad. p. 78. here but a litle before,’‘1 Cor. 3, 16. know ye not that ye are the Temple of God, his meaning should be according to this gloſe, know ye not that ye are a counterfeyt church? Againe,‘ver. 17. If any man defile the Temple of God, him ſhall God deſtroy: that is, according to his collection here, If any man defile a counterfeyt church, him ſhall God deſtroy. And again,“2 Cor. 6, 16. What agreement hath the Temple of God with idols? for ye are the Temple of the living God: that is, according to this underſtanding here, What agreement hath a counterfeyt church vvith idols? for ye are a counterfeyt church, &c.

Or to keep to the word Temple alone, as himſelf here chuſeth to doe, let him remember, hovv he ſaid here, in‘Animad. p. 78. the next page before, that the Temple figured out Chriſt primarily. Like as Chriſt ſpeaking of his body ſaid to the Ievves, Deſtroy this Temple, and in three dayes I vvill raiſe it up: ſpeaking of the Temple of his body. Ioh. 2, 19, 21. Will this man therefore novv thereupon gather, as here he doeth, that the very vvord Temple, leadeth us to underſtand Chriſts body to be but a counterfeyt? So in deed‘Daenaeus in Auguſtin. de haereſ. the Marcionites, and other hereticks of old held, that Chriſt was not truly man, but had a feyned and fantaſticall body, vvhichwhich he brought from heauen, and took not of the ſubſtance of the Virgin Marie: Wherefore alſo they put out of the Goſpels, the genealogie of Chriſt deſcribed by Mathevv and Luke, &c. What a ſtrength now ſuch collections as this man maketh, giues to theſe hereſies (revived again by ſome Anabaptiſts) let the wiſe judge: and let the weak take heed of ſuch counterfeit gloſes.

Moreover, in’‘Animad. p. 80. the very next page following, he tels us, that Antichriſts ſitting as God in the Temple of God, ſpoken off, 2 Theſ. 2, 4. is to be underſtood of his invading and deſtroying Gods church and people, as the heathens of old dealt vvith Jeruſalem and the dvvellers therein. And novv here he tels us, the vvord Temple leadeth us to a counterfeyt. So as then by his doctrine eyther Antichriſt hath invaded and deſtroyed but a counterfeyt: and therefore not the church & people of God in deed: neyther is his dealing like the heathens of old, vvho invaded and deſtroyed Ieruſalem (the Lords city) and the dvvellers therein, in very deed: or els he doeth ſtill contradict himſelf, as in deed he doeth. By which alſo may appeare, hovv notably this man himſelf playeth the counterfeyt: & ſo might be left, vvith all his counterfeyt gloſes, till God giuegive him better grace: vvere it not that the trueth and good of others alſo are to be reſpected vvithall.

Where he ſaith, the Temple and tabernacle in Iſraell vvas not the church & congregation of Gods people ‘properly. See vvhat he ſaith to M. Sm. hereabout. Def. of Scrip. p. 5, 8, &c.properly, but a ſacramentall ſigne of Gods dvvelling vvith them, &c. What then? vvere they therefore but counterfeyts, & not a Temple and Tabernacle in deed and in trueth? Or did they not in Gods ordinance figure out the church (as himſelf affirmed here a litle before) & ſo were the church figuratiuely? Or doeth not the Apoſtle ſo underſtand and apply them, in the places before mentioned? 1 Cor. 3, 16, 17. 2 Cor. 6, 16. Epheſ. 2, 21. Circumciſion alſo, and the Paſſeover in Iſraell, vvere ſignes of Gods covenant, leading unto Chriſt: were they therefore but counterfeyts; and not a cutting of the foreskin, and a lambe in very deed? Or were they not Gods holy Sacraments, and fit antitypes of ours, in deed and in trueth? Thus by his doctrine, might all Gods ordinances and types in Iſraell be eſteemed but counterfeyts: and all the doctrines, comforts, directions, that throughout the Scriptures (& in‘Annot. on Gen. Exo. Pſal. &c. his owne Annotations) are derived from them, might be turned avvay, as being taken but from counterfeyts. Hovv this again may ſtrengthen the Anabaptiſts in their errors, vvho vvould not hauehave us to reaſon from circumciſion to baptiſme, from Iſraell to the church now, &c. all of judgment vvill eaſily diſcerne.

But novv at length, after he hath made a great florish to shevv that the Temple is a counterfeyt, and beſtowed needles labour to note ſome ſeverall things about the church of God, and the Beaſt (which in deed differ much the one from the other) in the end, he ſaith plainly,Animad. p. 79, 80. and would bring it in as his concluſion, that ” vvhen the Apoſtle telleth us, that Antichriſt ſitteth as God in the Temple of God, it is to be underſtood firſt of their invading and deſtroying of Gods church and people, as the heathens of old dealt vvith Ieruſalem and the dvvellers therein; ſecondly, of their ovvne vaine oſtenſtation, vvhiles they vvill hauehave it called the Chriſtian catholick church, and the Pope the head of the ſame. That now at length, he ſpeaketh thus plainely, it is vvell done; and is directly againſt himſelf, though he thinks not ſo: but whereas he vvould inferre this as a concluſion upon the premiſes, if he doe but offer to bring it into forme of reaſoning, himſelf vvill ſoone perceiue how far he comes short.

Yet novv a litle to inſiſt upon this interpretation of his, as himſelf hath ſet it dovvne: firſt he ſaith, that vvhen the Apoſtle telleth us, that Antichriſt ſitteth as God in the Temple of God, it is to be underſtood, of their invading and deſtroying of Gods church and people, as the heathens of old dealt vvith Jeruſalem and the dvvellers therein. What hauehave we here? Doth himſelf now by the Temple of God, ſpoken of 2 The. 2, 4. underſtand Gods church and people, yea ſuch as was anſvverable to Ieruſalem and the dvvellers therein of old? Why then hath he ſo eagerly oppugned us hereabout? Why hath he ſo much‘Animad. p. 78, and 79. here before pretended, that the temple of God vvhere Antichriſt ſitteth, is not the church of God, but an Idoll, like Antichriſt himſelf, the Temple church and body of Antichriſt, a counterfeyt, &c. And vvhy doeth he”Ibid. p. 82 — 93, 94. &c. hereafter again pretend, that it is the Synagogue of Sathan, that Ieroboams Idoll Temples, & Bels Temple in Babylon, vvere the figures of it, that is no more the Temple of God, then the Divel which appeared to the witch at Endor, was Samuell, &c. Doeth he not extreemly forget and contradict himſelf? Or hath he“Ezec. 14, 3 — 10. an Idoll (of mainteyning an errour, and pleaſing his followers thereby) ſet up in his own heart: vvhichwhich whiles he vvould giuegive homage unto, he is confounded in him ſelf by the juſt judgment of God: yea driuen to giuegive us the cauſe againſt himſelf, nill he will he? For vvhat can be more plaine, then that by the Temple of God ”2 Theſ. 2 4.here, is to be underſtood Gods church and people?

Well then, ſeing now he affirmeth, that it is to be underſtood of Gods church and people, it remaineth that he conſider with himſelf, vvhether it be the catholick and univerſall church of God, or ſome particular church or churches, that here is underſtood. Which he muſt the more carefully regard, becauſe but‡Pag. 78. erewhile he ſaid, the temple figured both the catholick church, and every particular church alſo: and yet would then perſwade, that here it could be underſtood of neyther. But novv (no doubt) he vvill expound it of one or other, ſeing himſelf ſaith, the Apoſtles meaning is, by the Temple of God here to underſtand Gods church and people: and (that which is more) ſuch as is anſvverable to Jeruſalem and the dwellers therein: I ſuppoſe, he would ſay, the Temple in Ieruſalem, unles, perhaps he hauehave ſome ſpeciall purpoſe or pretence in ſpeaking othervviſe. As I doubt not but he hath, vvhen he ſaith here that Antichriſts ſitting as God in the Temple of God is to be underſtood of their invading and deſtroying Gods church and people, &c. Of vvhichwhich I come now to ſpeak next.

And firſt I aske, vvhere he can shew in the Scriptures, that ſitting is put for inuading and deſtroying: and more particularly, that by ſitting as God in the Temple of God, is to be underſtood the invading and deſtroying of Gods church and people?

Secondly, I wish him and all to obſerve, hovv othervvhere ſtill he teacheth, according to the Scripture phraſe, that by ſitting is meant abiding, continuing, dvvelling; or companying, and having familiaritie together; or ruling, and reigning with continuance, &c. As may be ſeen in his Annotations on Pſal. 1, 1. and 9, 5. and 61, 8. and 69, 13. and 99, 1. and 102, 13. and 110, 1. and 122, 5. and 141, 14, &c. From all which expoſitions, and the like, how far novv himſelf differeth, let the vviſe judge.

Ibid.Thirdly, here a litle before, and afterward again, he vvould perſvvade that the Temple of God vvhere Antichriſt ſitteth as God, is an Idoll like himſelf, the Temple church and body of Antichriſt, the Synagogue of Sathan, a counterfeyt, &c. If then by ſitting in it as God, should be underſtood the invading and deſtroying thereof: the meaning should be this, that Antichriſt should invade & deſtroy an Idoll like himſelf, his owne Temple church and body, the Synagogue of Sathan, a counterfeyt, &c. And vvere this then evill in him ſo to doe? For ſure the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of his ſinfulnes. Or think they, that Antichriſt hath done, or vvill doe thus?

Ibid.Fourthly, he ſaid alſo here before, that the Temple of God figured the church catholick, and particular. If then by ſitting in it as God, be underſtood the invading and deſtroying of it: he muſt shew vvhichwhich of them he meaneth to be invaded and deſtroyed by Antichriſt, the one or both of them.

Fiftly, though it be true, that Antichriſt invades Gods church and deſtroyes many of his people (as both experience, and the deſcription of the Beaſt, and of the man of ſinne, and the types thereof in Nebuchadnezar and Antiochus doe manifeſt) yet here (for the point in hand) muſt be found out whether by ſitting in the Temple of God, be underſtood the invading and deſtroying thereof. And yet then alſo vvill follovv ſtill, that by the Temple of God here, muſt be underſtood Gods church and people, anſwerable to the Temple and to Ieruſalem and the dwellers therein: which is ſtill againſt himſelf, as is noted before.

And note further, that not onelyonly Nebuchadnezar and Antiochus (ſpoken off in the Scriptures here alledged) were types of Antichriſt: but alſo Pharaoh, Corah, Dathan, Abiram, Saul, Abſalon, Ieroboam, Ahaz, Iehojakim, the perſecuting and apoſtate Prieſts, the falſe prophets, and divers others, both in Iudah and Iſraell and othervvhere: ſome in one reſpect, ſome in another: And that therefore to diſcerne the eſtate and dealing of Antichriſt, we should not look alone at ſome one thing, type, or event; but at the many things, types, and events, that the Scripture shevveth, & which time and experience hath novv already manifeſted ſundry waies, and will yet make more manifeſt hereafter, concerning this matter. Othervviſe, great difference might be obſerved in the tipes and things ſpoken off in the Scriptures here alledged. For Ieremie ſpeaketh of Nebuzaradan a chief captain under Nebuchadnezar the king of Babylon, how he burnt the houſe of the Lord, and the houſes of Ieruſalem, and brake dovvne the walles thereof, &c. Jer. 52, 12, 13. &c. Lam. 2, 7, 9. To vvhichwhich time the 97 Pſalme alſo here alledged may be referred. Daniel ſpeaketh of Antiochus king of Syria, who magnified himſelf againſt God, took avvay the dayly ſacrifice, caſt avvay the place of Gods ſanctuarie, trode it & the hoſt of God under foot, and (as it is in another place of the ſame prophecy) polluted the Sanctuarie of ſtrength, (or, the Sanctuarie and munition, meaning the Temple and city of Ieruſalem) and placed the abomination that maketh deſolate. So as though the Temple and City of Ieruſalem novv remayned, yet they were polluted, ſpoiled, caſt avvay, and trode under foot. Dan. 8, 11, 13. and 11, 36. with ver. 31. Beſides, the Iewes in the captivitie of Babylon, acknowledge that their ſinnes deſerved it, as the Prophets alſo for their ſinnes had denounced it, Dan. 9, 5 — 14. Pſal. 79, 8, 9. with Jeremies prophecy throughout. Whereas the Iewes in the perſecution of Antiochus, alledge their integritie and faithfull conſtancie in the vvorship & ſervice of God, euen unto death, Pſal. 44, 17 — 22. Albeit that divers alſo then eyther by the perſecution of Antiochus, or by his flatteries, or both, were corrupted and dealt vvickedly againſt the covenant of the Lord. Dan. 11, 32, 33, 34, 35. Wherein likevviſe there was a fit type both of Antichriſts dealing, and of the churches eſtate, in this behalf. And in all theſe times, the Iewes notvvithſtanding, vvere the church & people of God; & though ſome of them were ſlayne and deſtroyed, yet among them ſtill God preſerved his Church and people from the deſtruction intended by their adverſaries: Both vvhichwhich as touching the queſtion and Scripture in hand, should carefully be obſerved.

Finally, this Scripture is ſo to be underſtood, as it may not contradict but agree with that which is written, Rev. 11, 2, 3. where the Court of the Temple is giuen to the Gentiles, and the holy City trode upon, two and fourty moneths; (whether this be underſtood†Reſēbling the times of Eliah, of Antiochus of Chriſt among the Phariſees, &c. of shorter or longer times, which yet should hauehave an end, or (vvith ver. 3. of 1260 yeeres, putting a day for a yere. And afterward the Temple of God is opened in heauen, and therein is ſeen the Ark of his Teſtament, or covenant, &c. Rev. 11, 19. and 14, 15, 17. and 15, 5, 6, 8. and 16, 1. And God hath his people ſtil in Babylon. Rev. 18, 4. So Gods church and people then remayne ſtill undeſtroyed, notvvithſtanding all the oppoſition and exaltation of the Man of ſinne, with all his tyranny, cruelty, and perſecution, had in over and againſt the church and people of God, from time to time, untill himſelf (being the ſonne of perdition) come to be conſumed and deſtroyed in the end.

Othervviſe alſo the Anabaptiſts plea should here againe be ſtrengthned, who hold†M.S. charact. of the Beaſt. p. 56 &c. that Antichriſt hath utterly deſtroyed the true Temple, the true church; and hath aboliſhed the true baptiſme of Chriſt: and that therefore they muſt reare up a new church, and get themſelues a new baptiſme, &c. And ſo they proceed from one errour and evill to another. Wherein this mans erroneous opinions and corrupt gloſes may harden them much the more. And hitherto of the firſt expoſition of the vvords aforeſaid, that here is giuen.

His other expoſition is, that vvhen the Apoſtle ſaith, Antichriſt ſitteth as God in the Temple of God, it is to be underſtood of their owne vaine oſtentation, vvhiles they vvill hauehave ‘Doth he meane the church of Rome? or vvhat els speaketh he off.it (what I pray you) called the Chriſtian catholick church, and the Pope the head of the ſame. Firſt I ask, vvhereof he ſpeaketh this, that they vvill hauehave it ſo called.? If of the Temple of God, himſelf in his very laſt vvords, told us, that by it is underſtood Gods church & people in deed. If he ſpeak of ſome other thing, he ſpeaketh not to the point in hand. And beſides vvhat is it, that he ſpeaketh off? And why doeth he not name it? Is it becauſe if ſo he did, his expoſition vvould be found eyther contradictorie to the former, or ſome other way to no purpoſe at all, but againſt himſelf?

Secondly, if the Apoſtle had meant that it vvas not the temple of God in deed, but onelyonly that they would hauehave it ſo called: could he not ſo hauehave expreſſed his mynd for this clauſe of the Temple of God, as he doeth in the next vvords touching Antichriſt himſelf, vvhen he ſaith, he ſhevveth himſelf or pretendeth that he is God: and as the Scripture ſpeaketh othervvhere, vvhen it noteth the blasphemie of them, which ſay they are Jewes, & are not, but are the Synagogue of Sathan, and ſo doe lye. Rev. 2, 9. and 3, 9.

Thirdly, if it be thus to be underſtood, as now he ſaith, that it is not the Temple of God in deed, but onelyonly that they vvill hauehave it ſo called in vain oſtentation, making the Pope the head thereof: then (beſides his ſtrengthning again of the Anabaptiſts opinion aforeſaid) his owne former expoſition here giuen, can not ſtand, vvhere he ſaid (in the laſt vvords before) that it is to be underſtood of Gods church and people invaded and deſtroyed by Antichriſt, as Jeruſalem and the dvvellers therein were dealt vvith by the heathens of old. For theſe were in deed the church and people of God (though ſinfully corrupted) & not onelyonly in their owne vaine oſtentation, that they vvould be ſo called.

Laſtly, many often boaſt vainly of that, vvhichwhich notvvithſtanding they hauehave or may hauehave in deed, but yet abuſe it or vvalk not worthy thereof: as I shevved‘Pag. 106. 107. heretofore, by the example of the Ievves here ſpoken off, out of Eſa. 48, 1, 2. Zeph. 3, 11. Matth. 3, 9. Ioh. 8, 37, 39. as likevviſe the church of Rome hath a long time boaſted, that it is the church of God, and as other churches and people alſo doe, vvhen yet they abuſe and vvalk not vvorthy of that mercy of God unto them. Beſides that Lucifer the king of Babylons vain boaſting of his ſitting on the mount of the Congregation, &c. did not hinder, but that it vvas in deed the Temple of God, and the Mount of the congregation in the ſides of the North, &c. Eſa. 14, 13. Other things here I omitt, as being meerly vaine in deed: that a particular church ſhould challenge to be the catholick church (vvhichwhich cannot be, as they underſtand it) & the Pope to be the head of the ſame: vvhichwhich Chriſt onelyonly is, and no other can be, Epheſ. 1, 22, 23. Let theſe clauſes therefore & all by-matters be omitted, that perteyn not to the point in hand, & let the thing be ſimply propounded as it should be, thus, vvhether the church of Rome and other churches be Chriſtian churches, or not: and then let all conſider thereof indifferently, that ſo the trueth may be found out according to the vvord of God, whatſoever other opinions or prejudice vve hauehave had to the cōtrarie heretofore. And hitherto of theſe expoſitions of this Scripture.

Next, whereas upon the underſtanding of this Scripture aforeſaid, I brought in tvvo conſequences: shevving hovv it would meet vvith and convince the errors both of the Papiſts and Anabaptiſts, &c. this Oppoſite ſetteth himſelf to withſtand in both, what he can. The firſt was this, that by the Temple of God (2 Theſ. 2, 4.) underſtanding the church of God, it vvil follovv, that Antichriſt ſhould ſit in the church of God, and is there to be ſought & found, and not among the Ievves, Turks, Pagans, and the like, as the Papiſts and others vvould perſwade us: To this he oppoſeth, ſaying, it is a fallacie from an inſufficient diviſion, becauſe all out of the true church are not Ievves, or Turks, or Pagans, but there is a fourth to make up the meaſe, euen popish Antichriſtians, among whom the man of ſinne is to be found, &c. Where (omitting, that he ſetteth not down all my vvords) firſt I obſerue, that now he maketh the Popiſh Antichriſtians to be the Temple of God, vvhere Antichriſt is to be found: and but erewhile he told us, that by the Temple of God, vvhere Antichriſt ſitteth as God, is to be underſtood Gods church and people invaded and deſtroyed by Antichriſt. So as eyther he thinketh the popish Antichriſtians to be Gods church and people: or els he forgetteth and contradicteth himſelf extreemely.

Secondly, let him tell us, vvhether the popish Antichriſtians, of whom he ſpeaketh, be Chriſtians, & in the church of God, or not. If he ſay, they are Chriſtians, and in the church of God, he giveth us the cauſe, and doth but uſe fallacie to deceiue the ſimple, by the terme of popiſh Antichriſtians: our queſtion now being of the Temple of God, vvhere Antichriſt ſitteth: and ſo of fynding him there, among†How in other reſpects, they are or may be termed popiſh Antichriſtians or otherwiſe, I doe not here ſtand upon. Chriſtians, and not among the Ievves, Turks, Pagans, and the like. If he ſay, they are not Chriſtians, nor in the church of God: hovv then will he shevv that Antichriſt is to be ſought & found among them, ſeing he is to be ſought and found in the Temple of God.

Thirdly, I aske vvhen and vvhere thoſe popiſh Antichriſtians begun & yet are, of vvhom he ſpeaketh? Alſo, whether they vvere popish Antichriſtians, and not the churches of God, before Antichriſt invaded and ſate among them, or became to be ſuch aftervvard. If he ſay, they were ſo before, let him tell us vvho they vvere, and shevv that ſuch then was their eſtate. If he ſay, they became ſo aftervvard, let him then tel us, what they vvere before, whether Chriſtians and the church of God, or not: & how long it vvas aftervvard, ere they ceaſed ſo to be: and vvho they are, of whom thus he ſpeaketh: remembring ſtill to diſtinguish betvveen Antichriſt, and the Temple of God vvhere he ſitteth.

Fourthly, let him remember, how yll he took it, when M. Sm. (ſpeaking of Rev. 11, 2.) applied the Court of the Temple, to the aſſemblies of Antichriſt. Which interpretation then he called‘Def. of Scrip. p. 12 13, 14, 15. impietie, dotage, his fancie, blyndnes of heart, abuſe of the …ord of God, &c. If he could not endure, that he should ſo interpret the court of the Temple, (ſpoken of by Iohn) how is it that now himſelf thus expounds the Temple of God (ſpoken of by Paul) to be popiſh Antichriſtians? If it were then impietie, dotage, a fancie, blyndnes, and abuſe of Gods word, ſo to expound & apply it, what thinks he it is novv?

Fiftly, where he ſaith further, that in the true church Antichriſt the man of ſin hath ſometimes ben found raunging as a wolf, but not reigning as a God, which in his own Temple he doeth: Firſt I aske, what true church it is, whereof thus he ſpeaketh, that the man of ſinne Antichriſt hath ben found raunging therein as a wolf. Secondly, note how now he underſtands ſitting as God, to be reigning as a God: vvhichwhich here before he underſtood to be invading and deſtroying. Thirdly, how that vvhichwhich the Apoſtle calleth the Temple of God, he ſtil calleth the Temple of the man of ſinne, Antichriſts ovvn Temple, &c. Where in, vvhether he doe not uſe fallacie, let himſelf conſider, & others judge.

Finally, touching this Scripture, & this clauſe thereof, how ever he oppugne what we propound, let him yet obſerue how others doe underſtand and apply it. Whereof I will here giuegive but one inſtance. More may be produced hereafter. M. Calvin vvriting upon theſe vvords, in the Temple of God, noteth this:‘Calv. in 2 Theſ 2, 4. By this one vvord is their errour, yea their ſluggishnes, ſufficiently refuted, who doe therefore account the Pope to be the Vicar of Chriſt, becauſe he hath his fear in the church, howſoever he cary himſelf. For Paul placeth Antichriſt no other vvhere, then in the very Sanctuarie of God. For he is no outward enemie, but an homebred or houſehold enemy, which under the very name of Chriſt oppugneth Chriſt. But it is demaunded, how a denne of ſo many ſuperſtitions may be called the church, which ought to be the pillar of trueth. I anſwer that ſo it is called, not becauſe it reteyneth all the qualities of the church, but becauſe it hath ſomewhat remayning. Therefore I acknowledge it to be the Temple of God, wherein the Pope ruleth, but profaned with innumerable ſacriledges. Calv. in 2 Theſ. 2.4. And thus doe other the beſt vvriters both old and new underſtand this Scripture, of the Church of God, So as his oppoſition is not onelyonly againſt us, but in deed againſt the beſt vvriters in all ages. And hitherto of the firſt conſequence, which I inferred upon the underſtanding of this Scripture aforeſaid, vvhichwhich more ſpecially concerneth the Papiſts, and others likewiſe mynded thereabout.

Another conſequence alſo I inferred upon the ſame ground againſt the Anabaptiſts and ſuch as incline unto them herein: Namely, that by the Temple of God (ſpoken off 2 Theſ. 2, 4.) underſtanding the church of God, it wil follovv, that Antichriſt ſhould ſit in the church of God, and that therefore he is there to be found, and doth not wholly take avvay the church of God, & every truth & ordinance of the Lord, as Anabaptiſts, and ſuch as are herein Anabaptiſtically inclined, would bear us in hand. To this he anſwereth, Neyther did the Divel take away vvholly every trueth and ordinance of God from among the heathens: but they reteyned many rites of Gods worſhip received from their Fathers, as ‘Animad. p. 70.before is noted. But vvhy now ſaith he not that the Divell took not away vvholly the church of God from among the heathens? Why leaveth he out this clauſe, vvhichwhich he ſavv I mentioned about Antichriſt, that he takes not away wholly the church of God, &c. Is it becauſe he can fynd no anſwer, and yet vvill not yeeld to the trueth: and therefore rather then he vvill not oppoſe, uſeth theſe shifts and ſlye conveyances: thinking that his followers vvil not obſerue theſe ſleights of his. Hovv ever it be, let the reader obſerue, that himſelf ſeeth the heathens hauehave not the church of God, as the church of Rome, vvhere Antichriſt ſitteth hath: and that therefore fetching his anſwer from the heathens, he doth vvholly leaue out this clauſe of the Church of God, which they hauehave not among them in their eſtate: and ſo in deed giues us the cauſe, whiles he would ſeem to oppugne it.

And whereas he ſaith, the Divel hath not taken avvay vvholly every trueth & ordinance of God among the heathens: it is nothing to the purpoſe, ſeing they are not the church and people of God, under his covenant: neyther doe ſo enjoy any of them. Take an inſtance in one of the particulars which he mentioned before, where he ſaid, that the heathens reteyne baptiſmes or waſhings among them: yet vvhen any of them leaue that eſtate, and come to the faith and church of Chriſt, they are to be baptized into the Lords name, and to receiue the ſeale of his covenant giuen to his church, vvhichwhich they had not before. But ſo may not be done, vvith thoſe that hauehave received baptiſme in the church of Rome, or any other apoſtate churches, when they leaue ſuch eſtate: becauſe they are already baptized into the name of Chriſt, and hauehave in thoſe Churches received the ſeale of Gods covenant, which the heathens hauehave not: As I hauehave shewed‘Pag. 27, &c. here before more particularly. And this is alwaies a ſure ground and firme rule to be obſerved, The Lord ſhevveth his vvord unto Jacob, his ſtatutes and his judgements unto Iſrael: He hath not dealt ſo vvith any nation: and as for his judgements, they hauehave not knovven them. Pſal. 147, 19, 20. That which (he ſaith) he noted here before, is”Pag. 94, &c. before anſvvered: vvhither I refer the Reader.

And vvhere he ſaith next, that the Divel and Antichriſt, ſo much as in them lay, and as ſtood vvith the ſafetie of their deceitfull kingdome, hauehave ſought wholly to take avvay the church and trueth of God, and to put lyes in the place: this is againſt him ſelf: both implying that it vvas not vvholly done (which is the thing that vve ſay, and he oppugneth) and manifeſtly shevving that Gods goodnes and power ſuperabounded aboue all the malice and iniquitie of the Divell and Antichriſt: vvhichwhich therefore vve should all obſerue vvith thankfulnes to God, & not obſcure or oppugne, as the Anabaptiſts & this man doth, what they can. Beſides that Gods goodnes and power did yet more appeare, in nourishing the vvoman (his church) in the vvildernes, from the preſence of the ſerpent, Rev. 12, 14. Like as before, the Lord meaſured the Temple and Altar and vvorshippers therein: vvhichwhich were moſt inward and ſecret to himſelf: vvhenas he gaue the Court of the Temple (reſembling the outward viſible eſtate of the church) into the hands of the Gentiles, (the Antichriſtian apoſtates and perſecuters) and the holy City to be troden upon by them: which Court & City notwithſtanding vvere ſtil the Lords, though thus expoſed & dealt vvith, for the time appointed. Whereabout I hauehave noted ſome fevv things‘Pag. 128, 129, 130, &c. here before: which the Reader may make uſe off concerning this matter. Other things that might be obſerved thereabout, I doe not now enter into, or inſiſt upon.

For the laſt thing, which he alledgeth, out of that which I vvrote heretofore: euen in it alſo there is ſufficient for confirmation of this matter againſt himſelf & for us, inaſmuch as the apoſtaſie of Antichriſt the man of ſinne‡Anſw. to M. Ja. p. 137. could not juſtly be accounted a myſterie of iniquitie, and truely ſaid to ſpeak lyes in hypocriſy, alſo privily to bring in damnable hereſies, and to hauehave a shew of godlynes, if they did abſolutely and vvholy depart from the faith, and not onelyonly from ſome points thereof, &c. And hitherto of the underſtanding of the Apoſtles vvords, where he ſpeaketh of Antichriſts ſitting in the Temple of God, 2 Theſ. 2, 4. and of the tvvo inferences thereupon, againſt the Papiſts & Anabaptiſts, &c. In all which, this man oppoſeth, what he can: thus chuſing rather to ſtrengthen ſuch in their errors, then he vvill ſeem to hauehave erred himſelf, or ceaſe to oppoſe us thereabout.

A Christian Plea, Treatise 1 · Chapter 4

p. 139CHAPTER IIII. Replies & Anſwers concerning Churches in apostaſie, and the church of Rome, more particularly. &c.

CHAPTER IIII. Replies & Anſwers concerning Churches in apostaſie, and the church of Rome, more particularly. &c.