A Revelation of the Apocalypse, Chapter 17 · Commentary · Refutation · Chapter 13
Chapt. 13. Of Antichriſts ſeat.
IN expounding the words of the Propheſie, we concluded by moſt firm arguments taken therfrom, that Rome is the ſeat of Antichriſt; and that forthwith, after the Empire is taken from the Hethen Emperours. For the heads of the Beaſt, abide fixed to Rome, where are both thoſe Hills and Kings that the Angel ſpeaketh of. And wher theſe heads abide fixed; there muſt the ſeat of Antichriſt needs be. Moreover ſeing Antichriſt then alſo shewed himſelfe, when Conſtantine began to reign, as before is proved at large: he hath no other ſeat than Rome. For wheras he abode a few yeres at Avenion: he did that with purpoſe to ſojourn for a time, not with a mind to change his ſeat.
But on the contrarie, you Bellarmine doo contend, that Antichriſts ſeat shalbe Ieruſalem, not Rome: and Solomons Temple, and Davids Throne: not S. Peters Temple, or the ſeat Apoſtolical. Which you endevour to prove two wayes: Firſt, by an argument unto the man; then, by the Scriptures and Fathers. The argument is this: If the Pope of Rome be Antichriſt, ſitting in the Church of Chriſt: then the Lutherans and Calviniſts, and as manie as are aliens from the Church which is under the Pope, doo live out of the true Church of Chriſt. For Chriſts Church can be but one, as Chriſt is one. And our men doo affirm the Pope of Rome to be Antichriſt: therfore our men all doo live out of the Church. I anſwer, the Propoſition is falſe, and relyeth onelyonly upon the Churches unitie miſunderſtood. For the Church is both commonly ſo caled, and properly. The firſt, hath pietie corrupted; the word adulterated; the Sacraments depraved; is ful of ſuperſtition, and humane deviſes, reteyning Chriſts name onelyonly, and boaſting in the title therof: and alſo commonly ſo accounted, whiles any whit of the foundation is remaining. The other is chaſt, pure, entire, clean, hearkning to Chriſts voice in al things, and not departing from his praeſcribed rule any whit at all, ſo farr as mortal infirmitie ſuffereth; and this alwayes is the onelyonly and true ſpouſe of Chriſt: how ever the whore alſo taketh this name to her ſelfe. So before, the Temple & Altar was proper to the elect, and meſured by the Angel: but the Court was not ſet forth with any deſcription, but caſt out, and permitted to the Gentils, to weet, the prophane multitude, which for their neernes, falſly chalenged the name of the Temple. To whom the holy city alſo was given; which having their ſeat in the ſayd court, they trode under foot at their pleaſure, during the appointed time. Apoc. 11.1.2. More plainly in the 7. Churches, which all ar Chriſts, though Sardis lived but in name onelyonly: and the Angel of Laodicea was neither hot nor cold, forthwith to be ſpued out, unleſſe he repented. chap. 3.1.16. Therfore that is not rightly transferred unto the common Church, which perteineth unto it properly ſo caled. One may be an alien from the Church commonly ſo caled: and yet be a true citizen of the true Church. If you could shew that the Pope of Rome hath his chair in this, which properly inioyeth this name: you might rightly conclude us all to be fugitives and very miſerable. But whiles you ſhuffle togither things disjoined, and contrarie; and dally, as your manner is, with a playn aequivocation; the abſurditie which you thought to throw againſt us, is lighted upon your own head. So your argument unto the mā is lying, like him, whoſe cauſe you have in hand.
Secondly you prove it from three Scriptures, the firſt wherof is Apoc. 11.8. where, you ſay, John ſaith that Henoch and Elias ſhal fight with Antichriſt in Ieruſalem, and there be killed. I anſwer, that which is ſpoken of Henoch and Elias to come. and fight with Antichriſt, is altogither vain; as I have proved in the 6. chapter, againſt your third Demonſtration. But becauſe it skilleth nothing, for the force of this argument, what the names of theſe Prophets be: we let that paſſe for the preſent, and doo ſay, that that which you tell us how they are to be killed in Jeruſalem, is falſe. For the Spirit deſigneth not Ieruſalem by name, but onelyonly by this circumlocution, where our Lord was crucified: which agreeth as wel unto Rome, ſeing Chriſt was crucified by the ſentēce of Pilate the Romā Deputie. By which fact, he made his Citie guilty of this bloud, which was ſhed by this cities authoritie; as we have shewed on chap. 11.8. This argument therfore is worthleſſe and weak, aſſuming that which cannot be proved, yea the contrary wherof is plainly evident by the Scriptures. Neither was ther anie cauſe, why either Chytraeus ſhould purpoſely paſſe by theſe words, as you feyn, where the Lord alſo was crucified; or why you should ſo trouble your ſelfe, to prove againſt Ierom, that Ieruſalem may be caled Sodome: which we acknowledge to be ſo caled otherwhere. Although in the Apocalypſe your Rome onelyonly is Sodom; & you ſhould rather have ſtreyned your ſinewes to acquitt your ſelves of this than have ſpent your ſtrength in a matter for which ther is no fight. The ſecond place is Apoc. 17. where Iohn ſaith, that the ten Kings which ſhal divide the Roman Empire to themſelves, and in the time of whoſe reign Antichriſt ſhould come, ſhal hate the purpled whore, that is, Rome, and make her deſolate, and burn her cke with fire. How then, ſay you, ſhall it be Antichriſts ſeat, if at the ſelf ſame time it muſt be overthrown and burnt? I anſwer, the Apocalypſe eaſily taketh from you this ſcruple. You ask, how Antichriſts ſeate can be burnt, he being alive and ſeing it. The Apocalypſe telleth, that the fift vial ſhalbe powred out on the Beaſts throne, and his kingdome shalbe made dark, ſo that they shal gnaw their tongues for ſo row, chap. 16.10.11. which vial verily, is no other thing, than this burning, wherby the ten Kings shal conſume the whore to ashes. For you ſee that this citie which is to be conſumed with fire, is Queen of the nations; which agreeth not to Ieruſalem, that hath been laid even with the groūd now manie ages ſince. And if you doubt how the ten Kings should be inflamed with ſuch hatred, who ſo dearly loved the whore before: hear how the Angel ſaith, that for a time they would yeild themſelves wholly to the Beaſt, but should at length be ſtirred up of God to deſtroy her, whom they moſt honoured before, ver. 16.17. This hatred therfore, wil afford your Rome no comfort. The other things which you heap up to exaggerate this argument, are of no weight at all. For that Antichriſt the Iewe, we have chaſed away in the former diſputation: and thoſe things that are mentioned of the Kingdome of Aſia, are ſome ſmal peeces of truth, shining clearly in the fabulous heap of confuſe earth. Certayn it is that the Empire shal return thither again; but which Antichriſt shal not conſtitute, but Chriſt himſelfe shal build, taking pitie on his people, and declaring himſelfe in his Church, to be King of al nations.
The third place is in thoſe words, ſo that he ſitteth in the Temple of God: 2. Theſſ. 2.4. wher you bring four expoſitions of the Temple. The firſt is theirs that by the Temple, underſtand the minds of the faithfull. The ſecond is Auguſtines, who interpreteth the Temple to be Antichriſt himſelfe, with his whole people, which wil have himſelfe and his, to be thought the true ſpiritual Temple of God. The third is Chryſoſtoms, that takes the Temple for Chriſtian Churches. The fourth is theirs that underſtand it of Salomons Temple. Of theſe four expoſitiōs you choſe this laſt, worſt, and furtheſt from the truth: even as women when they ar troubled with the green ſicknes, doo long for coles & lether more then for wholſome meats. The Temple in this place, muſt needs be that peoples, whoſe the apoſtaſie is, for which Antichriſt is ſent: and this we have shewed to be the Gentiles onelyonly, which came in deede unto Chriſt, but ſerved him not with ſuch affection as was meet: and that it can not by anie means agree to the Iewes, who never would be writtē citizens of this Kingdome. Moreover, neither did Antichriſt come, while the old Temple ſtood; neither shal he ſit therin afterwards, ſeing it was overthrown long ſince, never to be reedified more, as the Angel teacheth, And the deſolatiō ſhal continue even to the conſummation and end. Dan. 9.27. Beſides, how could the Apoſtle cal that Gods temple, which God would deteſt, and which shal not be founded by anie authoritie of his, but by Antichriſts commandement alone; as you wil have it, vaūting himſelfe for the onelyonly God? Theſe and many other things doo teach, that it is leaſt of al to be underſtood of Salomons Temple. Yet you ſay, this opinion is the more common, probable and learned. But by what reaſon, I pray you? Beeauſe, ſay you, in the Scripture of the New Teſtament, by the Temple of God, is never meant the Chriſtian Churches, but alwayes the temple of Jeruſalem. VVhichWhich short ſentence conteineth two notable falshoods. The firſt is, that you ſay, by the temple of God, is never meant in the Apoſtles writings, the Chriſtian Churches. For, Paul in Epheſ. 2.21.22. ſpeaketh thus of the Chriſtian Church, Jn whom al the building fitly coupled togither, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye alſo are built togither, to be the habitation of God by the Spirit. And what other thing dooth the Apocalypſe mean by that ſo often name of the temple: but the holy Chriſtian aſſemblies? Ariſe and meaſure the temple of God, chap. 11.1. Then was the temple of God opened, chap. 11.9. And they came out of the temple: neither could any enter into temple, chap. 15.6.8. The temple of Ieruſalem was deſtroyed, before this Revelation was made: leaſt perhaps yow should think, that that is meant by theſe words. This is the firſt falshood. The ſecond is, wher you ſay, the temple of God evermore ſignifieth the temple of Jeruſalem, in the new teſtament. For what? Are ther ſo manie Ieruſalem temples, as ther are faithful perſons? VntoUnto the Corinthians Paul ſpeaketh in words commō to everie Chriſtian, Know you not that ye are the temple of God? And if anie deſtroy the temple of God &c. 1 Cor. 3.16.17. Know you not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghoſt? 1 Cor. 6.19. To let paſſe the things I mentioned a litle before. You certes are a more ſpeedy builder than Salomon, which can build ſo manie temples in ſo short a ſpace: but what cā not you doo, which make a Chriſt everie day of Bread? But this is a ſmal matter, you ſay, that the Scriptures doo ſo ſpeak. Therfore you bring ſome greater thing, namely that the ancient Fathers Latin and Greek, for manie ages, never caled the Churches of Chriſtians, temples; but Oratories, the Kings-houſes, or howſes of Martyrs. I anſwer, the ancient Fathers both Greek and Latine, did ſpeak ſo as the Scripture ſpeaketh: as Clemēs Alexand. Strom. lib. 7. One temple, ſaith he, is great, as the Church: an other litle, as the man, who reteyneth Abrahams ſeed. And Cyprian in his firſt book againſt the Iewes, chap. 15. that Chriſt was to be the houſe and temple of God, and he had ended the old temple, & begun a new. And lib. 5. Epiſt. 8. Although love ſhould no leſſe enforce us to help our brethren, yet it was to be conſidered in this place, that they are the temples of God which are taken; and that we ought not to ſuffer by long delay and neglect of ſorow, the temples of God to be holden captives long. But, you wil ſay, that you mean not either Chriſtian aſſemblies, or particular faithful perſons, but howſes and aedifices wherin they meet togither for publik worship. I anſwer, you diſpute therfore bravely, who now conclude not the queſtion. For thus you reaſon. No howſes of publik worship were caled temples among Chriſtians for many ages: but ſome tē ple of God are howſes of publik worship; therfore ſome temple was not among Chriſtians for many ages. And what then, I pray you? For though ſome temple was not, yet ſome temple was among Chriſtians alſo in theſe ages you mention; even ſuch a temple as Antichriſt afterward should ſit in. Vnleſſe perhaps you think that holy howſes onelyonly are temples: which if it be ſo, then Antichriſt shalbe no longuer Antichriſt, than he shal ſit in theſe material howſes: or if ſo he shalbe out of the holy howſes alſo, the great Antichriſt may alſo be out of the temple of God, and thouh he doo not shew himſelf as if he were God. For this ſacrilegious vaunting of him ſelfe, shalbe onelyonly whiles he ſitteth in the temple of God, as is evident by the Apoſtles words. And ſo we shal have a new great Antichriſt, ſuch as the Apoſtles never ſaw by the Spirit of Propheſie. Great is the force of your argumentations, which everie where bring forth ſuch monſters: but let us goe forward. Wheras you ſay, that the howſes of prayer had not the name of temple given unto them, til Ieroms time, whom you cite: you may underſtād that Euſebius who was before Ieroms age, abſteyned not from this name lib. Hiſt. 10. c. 2. whom Ruffinus maketh to ſpeak thus, lib. 9, Hiſt. Eccl. cap. 10. Renewed places by building to riſe up more high and excellent, and high tē ples to be lifted up, for the low meeting howſes, And again Euſeb. lib. 10. cap. 13. by whoſe induſtrie a ſumptuous temple was builded in Tyrus, the moſt famous throughout al the nation of Phaenicia. So alſo in a publick oration which one made of the building of Churches, aſcribed to Paulinus Bishop of the Tyrians, And thou ô great praiſe of the new holy temple of God; and afterwards againe, he conſtituted this maieſtical temple of the moſt high God. And certainly the Spirit moſt wiſely meeting with your fraud, would have the name of temple, about that time when Antichriſt should appear, to be given even to the holy Chriſtian aedifices: that every way it might be evident how he ſitteth in the Temple of God. Wheras therfore concluding this point you ſay, it ſemeth certayn that the Apoſtle ſpeaks of Jeruſalems temple; that writing how Antichriſt should ſit in the temple of God, he would ſay ſomthing which he would have underſtood by them to whom he wrote, and they then would underſtand and well perceive the name of the temple, nothing but the temple of Ieruſalem: you may eaſily now ſee how falſe it is, that I ſay no more, though I ſpeak truly. The Theſſalonians might underſtand that he should ſit in the minds and conſcience of men, whom he should ſeduce by his guile and hypocriſie, as Anſelmus dooth interpret it; or that he should reign in Chriſtiā aſſemblies, as Chryſoſtom, Theodoret, Theophilact & Oecumenius doo expound it: or that he should boaſt himſelfe to be the temple & Church, as Auguſtine explaineth it: But Ieruſalems temple could not come into their mind, which they knew by Chriſts words should utterly be deſtroyed, Mat. 23.39. &. 2. and never be builded agayn, ſeing wrath was come upon the Jewes even to the utmoſt, as 1 Theſ. 2.16.
VntoUnto theſe you adjoin, as you ſpeak, the common expoſition of the Fathers; but the contrarie iudgment of thoſe before mentioned, wil not ſuffer it to be common: neither ought the ignorance of a few, to hurt the clear truth. Thus have we ſeen your arguments, whoſe force I now leave to be iudged by the reader: and in a word I wil conſider thoſe your anſwers, wherby again you indevour to put away the reaſons of ſome of our ſide. Firſt, wher our men doo obiect from Apoc. 17. that the chief ſeat of Antichriſt is Rome; becauſe this ſeat is the great citie, which ſitteth upon 7. hills, and which hath reigne over the Kings of the earth, al which ar found in Rome; You anſwer three wayes. Firſt that by this citie is not meant Rome, but the univerſal citie of the Divil. But in this anſwer you reſt not, neither is it in deed of anie moment, ſeing it is not the univerſal citie of the Divil, which shalbe burned by the ten Kings, eſpecially the wicked remaining alive, which ſhal lament her fall, Apoc. 18.9. For how shal the whole citie perish, whoſe citizens ſhal afterwards remayn? Leaving therfore this, you betake you to an other, and you grant that by the whore is meant Rome, but hetheniſh Rome reigning, worſhiping Jdols, & perſecuting Chriſtians: but not Chriſtian Rome. I anſwer, you doo evil disjoin, what the Spirit hath coupled. For Rome is then the whore and ſeat of Antichriſt, when it is caried of the Beaſt: and it was not caried of the Beaſt whiles the Hethens reigned. For it is caried of the ſeventh head, which was not yet come, when Iohn received this Propheſie: Apoc. 17.9.10. Moreover, if Hethenish Rome reigning, be the whore: then Antichriſt came during that Hethenish Empire. For the Spirit would have th…ſe two to be undevided companions, until the burning of the whore. The Beaſt caried; the whore ſitteh: neither of them hath vital life without the other. Again, if that be true, now ſhe hath plainly left to be the whore, nor ſhould she be found ſuch, when Antichriſt should come; becauſe as afterward you tell us, Peters chaire cannot be ſeparated from Rome, lib. 4. de Rom. Pon. cap. 4. And how agreeth this, I pray you, that Rome being Chriſtian, holy, Catholik, Peters chair, as you wil have her; should at laſt ſuffer the punishment of a whore; which when she was Hethenish, and according to your opinion, played the whore moſt lavishly, bare no punishment for it? Apoc. 17.16. Surely Ierom ſeemeth not wel to have affirmed, ſpeaking to Rome, I ſpeak unto thee, which by confeſſing of Chriſt, haſt wiped out the blaſphemie written on thy forehead, lib. 2. contra Iovinian. For Rome hath not wiped away her blaſphemie, but imprinted it deeper after she became Chriſtian, ſeing now she shal bear the punisment of her fornication. Your ſeſond anſwer therfore, is no leſſe infirm than the firſt. Let us ſee the third. And this ſaith, Although that woman were Chriſtian Rome, yet our argument ſhould have no force at al: becauſe Antichriſt ſhal hate Rome, & fight with her, and make her d…ſolate, & burn her. Therfore Rome is not Antichriſts ſeat. I anſwer, that which you ſpeak of Antichriſts hatred, & fight againſt Rome, is plainly falſe. You borow this from Ap. 17.16. wher you read thus; and the ten horns which thou ſaweſt, & the Beaſt, theſe ſhal hate the whore &c. which reading we hav proved, in handling that place, to be faultie. The true reading is, & the ten horns which thou ſaweſt on the Beaſt, theſe ſhal hate &c. The difference is, that the true reading teacheth, that onelyonly the horns of the Beaſt, ſhal hate the whore; the falſe would hav it, that both the horns, & the Beaſt, that is, both the Kings & Antichr. should hate the whore. Aretas readeth ſo as I ſay; the Vulg. Latine, (to which you ar bound by the decree of Trent,) hath it alſo; manie other copies have it ſo, to which the reſt of the Apocalypſe giveth approbation, moſt adverſe to that which you bring. Whetfore unleſſ you can find a better anſwer, you muſt needs confeſſe that Chriſtian Rome is the ſeat of Antichriſt.
VntoUnto the ſecond place which our men bring, from 2 Theſ. 2.4 that Antichriſt ſhal ſit in the temple of God; you anſwer, that Paul ſpeaks of Solomons temple: and you referr us to the things that you ſaid before: and ſo doo I the the reader, to the refutation of them. Then, unto that reaſon, that the Iewes temple was in deed Gods, but it is now ceaſed, when the Iewiſh Sacrifice and Preiſthood ceaſed▪ you anſwer, that it ceaſed not by and by to be Gods temple: for the ſame tē ple might have bin the temple of Chriſtians, and ſo in deede was, whiles it remained, for the Apoſtles preached and prayed in it. Luk 24.53. Act. 3.1. and 5.20. I anſwer, and ask, what all theſe things doo make to confirm the ſitting of your Antichriſt, in Solomons Temple? Becauſe the Temple of Ieruſalem wherin the Apoſtles preached and prayed, was whiles it continued, the Temple of God: shal therfore the Temple of God wherin Antichriſt shal ſit, be the Temple of Ieruſalem? Surely I could shew you, how after the old ordinances of religion were abrogated, a titular ſanctitie at leaſt might remayn for a time in that temple of Solomōs: evē as a boat dooth not by and by ceaſe to move, after the oars be ſtayed: if it were not vain to ſpend labour in a thing of no cōſequēce. For you might with as much certaintie conclude, that the temple of God wherin Antichriſt shal ſit, is Ieruſalems temple, becauſe (with a litle change of the Poets words) Yee freinds, admitted auditours, can yee forbear to laugh? as from the antecedent which you have ſet down.
VntoUnto that of Daniel chap. 9. And the deſolation ſhal continue until the cō ſummation and end, wherby our men prove that the tēple shal not be built again: You anſwer; it is not in deed to be built again, but in the end of the world; or though it ſhould be built again, yet would it never be but prophane; or finally that it ſhal not be built again perfectly, but onelyonly begun, and in it being begun, Antichriſt ſhal ſit. I anſwer, we had need of ſome Gerion, that with his hundred hāds may take this ſlipperie eel. How doo you wreath your ſelf into manifold boughts & circles? yet though you should change your ſelf into a 1000. saps, you shal not ſlip away. who taught you, I pray, ſo to diſtinguish againſt Daniel? It is not to be built again, ſay in the end of the world: or being built again, it shal abide prophane, or it shalt be built again not perfectly, but begun. Did you fet theſe things out of the Popes chappel? Surely the truth inſpired of God afforded not this unto you. For, that teacheth that wrath is come upō the Jewes evē to the utmoſt 1 Theſ. 2.16. & that it is in part of this wrath, that God hath bowed down their backs alwayes, Rom. 11.10. Therfore the Iewes shal never ſo lift up themſelves under Antichriſt, as to have the leaſt power to entrepriſe anie ſuch thing: but shal alwayes remaine deſolate and oppreſſed, until they shal ſay, Bleſſed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; that is, until Chriſt ſhal come, and not Antichriſt. Mat. 23.39.
Fourthly, wheras our men bring forth ſome places out of the Fathers, affirming that Antichriſt shal ſit in the Churches of Chriſtians, you grant it is true, and not againſt you; becauſe the Fathers would not ſay, that Antichriſt ſhall ſit in the Church as a Biſhop, but as a God. I anſwer, your Pope ſhal not ſcape away by this ridiculous diſtinction. The ſame man may ſit in the Church, both as a Bishop and as a God. Antichriſt shal ſuſtein the perſon of both: as we ſee in your Pope: in word he wil humbly feyn himſelfe a Bishop; but he wil arrogate the authoritie of God in deede. He wil forgive ſynns by ſome more ſuperiour power than a Miniſter can; he wil let out of Purgatorie: he wil put into the Kalender of Saincts, whom he wil at his pleaſure; he wil command new articles of faith; and manie ſuch like things wil he doo that appertein not to this mortal condition, but to the higheſt Maieſtie. Why should the Fathers ſpeak of his Bishops office, in this ſo great a loftines? When great things are mentioned, the ſmaller matters ar wōt to be hidden with the exceding greatnes of the more excellent. By their ſilence they denied not that he should ſit in the Church as a Bishop: but when the higheſt pinnacle of pride was to be ſpoken of, they thought they were not to inſiſt in the lower ſtepps.
VntoUnto our mens fift argument, taken from the words of Gregorie lib. 4. Epiſt. 38. The King of pride is nigh, and (though it be heighnous to be ſpoken,) an armie of Preiſts is prepared for him: you ſay, from hence the contrarie is gathered, to that which we collect. For it foloweth not that Antichriſt ſhalbe an univerſal Biſhop: but the contrary, becauſe the forerunner is not al one with him, whom he runneth before. I anſwer, neyther is an univerſal Bishop alone with him that would be univerſal. The Bishop of Conſtantinople would have been; but he obteyned not his deſire: the Bishop of Rome, asked it of Phocas, and got it. The contrarie therfore is not gathered from hence, as you ſay, but it is rightly collected that Antichriſt shalbe an univerſal Bishop, which dignitie, none beſide Antichriſt could obteyn. And to the armie of Prieſts, you anſwer, that Gregorie would not ſay, that the Prieſts as Prieſts perteyned unto Antichriſts name: but that the Preiſts as being proud, prepared him an armie. VntoUnto this, I ſay, that now the matter is paſt danger: the Popiſh Preiſts cā not be proud. I trow when Antichriſt shal come, the Preiſts then wilbe either Popiſh or proud. What? Shal pride make a new order of Preiſts? Or if this haughtines be required in Antichriſts ſoldiers, wil ther be anie natiō under the Sun, prouder than Popish Preiſts? Cardinals doo excel Kings: Archbishops and Bishops are ſuperiour to Barons and Earls; al in their order, doo goe before the civil honours; neither is ther anie of the baſeſt rowt of ſhavelings, that wil be under the civil Magiſtrate. Let Antichriſt therfore, ſeeke him ſoldjers otherwhere: he shal finde none in this lowlie flock of Popiſh Preiſts. Gregorie notwithſtanding verie expreſſly biddeth that Antichriſt be looked for as cheif Captain & Emperour of the Preiſts. And other Preiſts ther are none on earth, by their own vaunting, beſides the Popish Preiſts. By his iudgment therfore the Bishop of Rome ſhould neceſſarilie be Antichriſt; and not farr from his time, ſeing by his confeſſion, armies were then prepared for him. Surely as Gaiphas propheſied that which himſelfe knew not: ſo Gregorie ſemeth unwares to have told the truth; not by anie power of his ſeat, but by the mercy of God ſo governing his tongue, that men might take heed by this admonition, & the wicked world be made inexcuſable, as is obſerved Apoc. 8.13. Vayn therfore is that which is affirmed of Antichriſt to ſit in the temple of Ieruſalem: and ſo farr is it off, that the Pope is not Antichriſt, becauſe he continually tarieth at Rome: as ſo much the more he may therupon be concluded to be Antichriſt.