Popery Anatomized, Section 28 · Reply 4 – Reply 5
Maſter John Welſch his Reply.
Your ſecond reaſon is, the Antichriſt is but one ſingular perſon. The Popes have been many: therefore they are not the Antichriſt. I deny your propoſition; for there lyes all the controverſie. We ſay, the Antichriſt is not this Pope, or that Pope, a certain perſon: but we aſcribe this name to the whole ſeat and the ſucceſſion of your Popes: We ſay, the body & the Kingdom of your Roman Church, whereof your Popes are the heads, is that Antichriſt which was to come. So if you prove that the Antichriſt ſhould be but a particular perſon, and not a body, a Kingdom, a ſeat and ſucceſſion of men that are adverſaries to God and to Jeſus Chriſt, I will grant you have ſufficiently cleared your Pope from being Antichriſt. But content your ſelf, M. Gilbert, this ye will never prove by the Scripture: and therefore ye muſt let your Popes be accounted the Antichriſt ſtill. And if this reaſon of yours be good, the Antichriſt is one certain perſon: therefore the Popes, becauſe they are many, are not the Antichriſt: wherefore, I pray you, ſhal not this alſo be good; The Vicar of Chriſt is one certain man, but the Popes are many: therefore they are not Chriſt his Vicar? What difference, I pray you, is there between the one and the other? And if ye will ſay, the Vicar of Chriſt is not one ſingular man, but a ſucceſſion of many in one office: why will ye not alſo grant, that the Antichriſt is not a ſingular man, but the ſucceſſion of many in the ſelf-ſame impiety? So either chooſe you, whether will ye grant that the Antichriſt is not one ſingular man, but a ſucceſſion of many; or elſe that the Popes are not Chriſt his Vicar: For the one ye muſt do, if this reaſon of yours hold forth But how do ye prove that the Antichriſt is but one ſingular perſon? You ſay, that S. Paul tells that he ſhal be but one. How would ye have cryed out, if I had fathered ſuch a falſhood upon the Spirit of God, as you do here? But let ſuch be far from me. You ſay, S. Paul calls him the ſon of perdition, and puts him in the ſingular number: therefore ye ſay, the Antichriſt ſhal be but one ſingular perſon. I fear ye take pleaſure to deceive the ſimple with ſuch ſilly reaſons. Our Savior ſaith, That a good man, foreign, out of the treaſure of his heart, brings forth good things, Matth. 12.35. And he ſaith, The Sabbath was made, foreign, for man, and not foreign, man for the Sabbath, Mark 2.27. And alſo he ſaith, foreign, man ſhal not live of bread only, Luke 4 4. Alſo that foreign, the man of God may be made perfect, 2. Tim. 3.17. And, For it behoves, foreign, a Biſhop, or over-ſeer, &c. Here are the ſame phraſes of ſpeach: they ſpeak all of a man in the ſingular number, with that ſame Greek article foreign, as the Apoſtle ſpeaks here in deſcribing the Antichriſt; and yet I ſuppoſe ye will not be ſo ignorant or impudent, as to ſay, that our Savior, and the Apoſtle, ſpeak of one ſingular perſon in theſe places. So what warrant have you to gather that here, which you dare not gather out of the like phraſes of the Scripture? If then in theſe places there is not a ſingular man underſtood, ſuppoſe they ſpeak of a man in the ſingular number; it will not follow that the Antichriſt muſt be one ſingular perſon, becauſe the Apoſtle ſpeaks of him as of one man, in the ſingular number; for the phraſes are all one: But the firſt ye muſt grant, therefore the next will follow. Secondly, in the 16. of Matthew 18. our Savior ſaith, foreign, Upon this rock I will build my Church: he ſpeaks here in the ſingular number, with the ſame article foreign, that the Apoſtle ſpeaks of, in deſcribing the Antichriſt. Now let me uſe this ſame argument againſt your Popes, that they are not this rock upon the which the Church is built, as you ſay, as you have uſed here to prove that he is not the Antichriſt. This rock upon the which Chriſt promiſed to build his Church, is but one ſingular perſon, becauſe our Savior puts him in the ſingular number (foreign) upon this rock: But your Popes of Rome are not one ſingular perſon, but many: Therefore your Popes of Rome are not this rock upon the which Chriſt promiſed to build his Church. What difference is there between your argument for the Pope, and this argument againſt the Pope, ſeeing both are grounded upon the like phraſe? Chooſe you then (M. Gilbert) whether will you have the Antichriſt not to be one ſingular perſon, but a ſucceſſion of many? Or will you have the Popes not to be the rock whereupon the Church is built? For the one ye muſt. Thirdly, I ſay the Apoſtle Paul ſaith, ſpeaking of the Antichriſt, That the mystery of iniquity is begun even now to work, 2. Theſſ. 2.7. And John ſaith, This is the ſpirit of that Antichriſt which ye heard was to come, and is even now preſent in the world, 1. John 4.3. And the Apoſtle ſaith, The Lord ſhal deſtroy him with his preſence. 2. Theſſ. 2.8. And your doctrine is, that he ſhal not come while the end of the world. Now what a monſtrous man will you make him, whoſe ſpirit was in the dayes of the Apoſtles, and who muſt continue till the end of the world, if the Scripture be true, a man of fifteen hundred years of age already? Is this credible? Or are you able to perſwade men that have but the leaſt drop of reaſon left in them, and believe the Scripture, that the Antichriſt ſhould be but one ſingular man, ſince the Scripture ſaith, that his ſpirit was preſent in the world, and his iniquity even then began to work in the Apoſtles dayes, that is … 1500. years ſince, and he ſhal continue to the end of the world? Fourthly, is it poſſible that one ſingular perſon can perform all theſe things, which either the Scripture or your own doctrine tell he ſhal do? For the Scripture ſaith, He ſhal reſemble the Lamb with horns: He ſhal ſpeak like the Dragon: He ſhal do all the power of the former Beast. He ſhal make all men to worſhip the beasts image: He ſhal make all, both rich and ſmal, &c. to receive his mark, &c. ſo that no man ſhal buy or ſell, but he that hath his mark, &c. ſo that all Nations ſhal be drunken with the wine of her fornication, Rev. 13 and 14. and 17. and 18. And your doctrine is, that he ſhal build the Temple of Jeruſalem, which the Turks have now in poſſeſſion: that he ſhal deſtroy Rome: that he ſhal aboliſh all Religion, and all the outward ceremonies thereof: that he ſhal conquer and overcome the ſtrongeſt Empires in the earth, and be Monarch of the whole world, Bellarm. lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. and Rhemiſts annot. upon 2. Theſſ. 2. and Sanderus in his demonſtrations. Now, is it likely, or can it be, that any one mortal man is able to perform ſo great and ſo wonderful things? Was there ever yet any King, Emperor, or any other creature under heaven, that ever performed ſo great and wonderful things, and ſpecially in ſo ſhort a time, as ye aſſign to your imaginary Antichriſt, as of three years and an half? That one city of Troy kept all the Grecians for the ſpace of ten years almoſt beſieging it, before they could overcome it. The Temple of Jeruſalem was ſeven years in building by Solomon, who had riches and wealth above all the Kings in the earth who had an hundred fifty three thouſand and ſix hundred workmen for the ſame, 2. Chron. 2. That great Conqueror Alexander, with whom no Monarch is comparable, neither in power, nor happy ſucceſs was not able to conquer all Aſia the ſpace of ten years, which was the fourth part of the world. And ſhal we think that a miſerable Jew by the help of their ſcattered people, being an enemy to God, and all good men, ſhal be able to overcome that great Monarchy of the Turks, againſt whom all the power of Chriſtendom hath not prevailed: & not only to overcome them, but alſo to overcome all the Empires and Kingdoms in the earth, and to reſtore the city of Jeruſalem, and build the Temple again from the foundation, and aboliſh all Religion, both true and falſe, except his own: (For this is the doctrine of your Church concerning the Antichriſt) and that in ſo ſhort a time as three years and an half, as you aſcribe unto him? Who will believe you, M. Gilbert? Will any Turk, Chriſtian, or Jew himſelf believe, that any one man, ſuppoſe his age were never ſo long, and his perſon never ſo ſtrong, can be able to accompliſh and perform ſo many, and ſo wonderful things, as your own doctrine affirms ſhal be done by the Antichriſt? So this doctrine of yours, that the Antichriſt ſhal be but one ſingular perſon, can neither ſtand with the Scripture, nor yet with your own doctrine concerning the Antichriſt. Fifthly, as partly hath been proved, this is the common phraſe of the Scripture, in the perſon of one to underſtand a multitude. And therefore Daniel in the deſcribing of the Monarchies, he compares them to ſundry beaſts in the ſingular number, to a Lyon, a Bear, a Leopard, &c. and yet by them was not ſignified one certain perſon, but a ſucceſſion of Kings in the ſelf-ſame Kingdom: and therefore the Antichriſt is likened to a beaſt, to ſignifie a Kingdom and ſucceſſion of perſons in that Kingdom, Rev. 13. Tertullian calls the Antichriſt, A City which proſtituts its ſelf to fornication, to wit, ſpiritual, de reſurrectione carnis. Ambroſe in Apoc. 17 calls the woman clad with purple (who is Antichriſt) the city of the Devil. Auguſtin calls that beaſt which is the Antichriſt, the ungodly and body of the wicked, who fights againſt the Lamb: a people contrary the people of God, which joyntly with their head, is called the Antichriſt: an heretical Church, which is called Babylon. Nonnulli non ipſum Principem, ſed univerſum quodammodo corpus ejus, id eſt, ad eum pertinentem hominùm multitudinem, ſimul cum ſuo Principe, hoc loco Antichriſtum intelligi volunt: Homil. 10. in Apoc. & homil. 13. & de civitate Dei, lib. 18. cap. 2. & lib. 20. cap. 19. Gregory a Pope, ſaith, in moralibus, lib. 33. cap. 26 The beaſt is a multitude of them who preach the Antichriſt. And Thomas a Papiſt ſaith, The beaſt (which is the Antichriſt) is a body: and ſo not a ſingular perſon. And the ordinar Gloſs ſaith, The head and the body together, make the Antichriſt. And Hugo a Cardinal, calls him, an univerſity, or commonality. So not only the Scripture and reaſon, but alſo the teſtimonies of theſe Fathers, and ſome of your ſelves concurr all in this, that the Antichriſt is not a ſingular perſon, but a body, an eſtat, a ſucceſſion. So, I hope, the Reader hath ſeen nothing, either by Scripture, or by reaſon alledged by M. Gilbert, wherefore the Pope may not be the Antichriſt.
Maſter Gilbert Brown.
Thirdly, S. Paul ſaith, He ſhal be an adverſary, and is extolled above all that is called God, or that is worſhipped, &c. which no manner of way can agree with the Pope. For he calls himſelf, the ſervant of God, and prays moſt humbly to Chriſt, and deſires ſupport at his holy Mother and Saints. If he deny this, I cannot tell what any man can ſay to him, but whether God will or not, he will have the Pope to be the Antichriſt, albeit it be repugnant to the Word of God. Theſe are no dark propheſies, but manifeſt ſayings of Chriſt and his Apoſtles. I would wiſh M. John to read S. Auguſtin de Antichriſto, Tom. 9.