Brightman - BS2823 B85 1644

C A P.1. touchingAnSichrift 615' pe rceive how hee bath fpent his arength in vain,in fighting againft the truth. 'thef r.ft Head, is touching the name ofAntichriít, which .`+ _ ftri- r-eth to prove, that itfsnifaethforte one that id contrary to Chrift and not any Way howfoever contrary, but fo as befrivethWithhim for his Seat and Dignity ; that is, one that is in emulation of (brilt,that Would be accountedC'brisrt, andWould cafi doWn him that is truly Chrift. The Ñ1part of which interpretation I do grant readily, that AntichrifsL is force that is contrary to Chrift ; but whereas not being content herewith,he requirethfuch a contrariety, as was between Mari.c: 6. Sylla, Pompey,and Cçfar that fought battels one againft the other; the Holy Chofl convinceth that to be falfe,when he teacheth, that the 'Beaft bath tWo Horns like to a Lamb, Chap.I3. I I . That he is a fal_ò prophet, Chap. 16. 13. And that it is apart of fin ular W/dome, to now this Bear? rhroughly, Chap. 17.9. Can any be foblockith, as that he fhouldnot know Chrifts enemy, that fhould make open war againft him? Hath any man eaufe to be deceived by him, when as he oppofeth chi-íg with profeffed malice and force ? 1he great Antichriít fhall deceive men more then compel! them, be!hall came With alldeceiveable nnrighteoufne ffc in thofe that perifi, as the Apcftle faith, 2 The z. i o. Whereunto agreeth that in the '1e- velation, andhelhall(educe tbelnhabitantsofthe earth, Chap.i 3. 14+ Shall this Seducer carry his deceits and juggling tricks openly and in view? There is nothingmore contrary ro the difpofition of this fel- low. Therefore let force one be Antichrift; who fhould boaft ofhim- kif openly, as ifhe were Chrift; but this belongethnot to thegreat Antichrift. And yet we may not think that any man goeth before hint in wickedneffe; the Devil! Both more mifchief when he makes them as ifhe were anAngel oflight, then when he looks horpibly like a Dra;on. But you labour to prove the matter threewaves. Firft,becaure the Word (Antichrift) cannot by any means f cnifie the Vicar of Chrif, for the Çreck propoftion ANT I, doth neverfssnifie in compo/ition anyfub- crdination, asyou fay it clothplainly appear.by theexamples of allfoci, Words compoundedWith ANTI.But asfortheWerdVicar,thatfi%mfieth no oppo(itian, but rubordination;and therefore youconclude,that ¡eeing the Pope is ChrifsVicar,be is not Antichrift. i anfwer,that howfoever I fhould grant,that Antichrift cannot lignifie Chrtfs Vicar, the Pepe (hail not be awhit farther off from being Antichri/t..For the _argu- - mentis made ofan equivocation,and therefore it eoncludeth nothing. !iii a tai

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=