tels us, 'That amongst the Orders of Priefts, Numa Pompilius made fome, which he called Flamens; whofe chief Enfigne was 'an Hat,as the Bishops now, wherein there was a thread of white wool; whence they were called Filamines from fila lane. And then as for the Apex, which Auguftin makes mention of, Ludovicus Vives gives us this account, That it was in the Flamen, that 'which covered the Head, namely the fila lanea or Cap. This 'Apex, addes he, the Romans gave to none but their chiefeft Priests, as now the Mitres. So Lucan, Et tollens Apicem generofo vertice flamen. And has not the Roman Bishop the very fame dignitie and primatie, as it has been already obferved, §. 1? Is he not the Proto-Flamen? and has he not his Mitre exactly anfwering to the Proto-flamen's Apex? But to carrie on this parallel a little farther; the Roman Emperor, (as we just now obferved of Numa Pompilius) referved to himself the Title and Dignitie of Pontifex Maximus, the Great High-Prieft; by virtue whereof he was Head in al maters, Ecclefiaftic, as wel as Civil; and had an abfolute difpofition of the Pontific Hierarchie, College, and Law. This Title and Dignitie the Emperors affected 'til the diffolution of the Empire. Yea after Pagan Rome turned Christian, the Christian Emperors for fome while retained the Title and Dignitie of Pontifex Maximus, both Name and Thing, 'til the Bishop of Rome, upon the declenfion of the Empire, ufurped the fame. Which is a good Clavis to that prediction of Paul, 2 Thef. 2.7. He who now letteth; i.e. The Roman Emperor, 2 Thef. 2. 7, who had the very Title and Dignitie of the Pontifex Maximus, which Antichrift was to be invefted with, but could not obtain 'til after the diffolution of the Empire. And the event has made this evident, that the Rife and Growth of Antichrist, and his Tyrannic Empire, was according to the Declenfion and Diffolution of the Civil Empire; yea in the fame measure and proportion that the later decreafed, the former encreased, as it was foretold, Revel. 13. 1. That he should receive his power at the fame time with the ten Hornes: which were to rife up out of the broken parts of the Empire. Thus was the generation of Antichrift out of the corruption of the Empire. Yea, that Antichrift exerciseth al the power which was exercifed by the Pagan Emperor, feems clear from that part of his Character, Rev. 13. 12. And he exerciseth Antichrist's al the power of the first Befte before him. So v. 15.

Character by

But al this wil more fully appear by that Character which Paul Paul

Gg

gives

+1

a Thef. 2.3.4. gives him, 2 Thef. 2. 3,4. That man of fin, &c. I know Hammond,in his Annotations on this Text, [Note E] underftandes by this Man of Sin, Simon Magus, and that exclufively, without any refpect to the Roman Antichrift. So Bellarmine alfo underftandes it of a fingle perfon, as Grotius after him. But this fond conceit has been already refuted fufficiently out of Mede,S.2.§. 3. of this Chapter, and the vanitie of it wil farther appear by an amosasia, explication of the parts. It is faid first, exon n Sagadia, there shal That Apoftafie, come a falling away, or an Apoftafie; i.e. a total, univerfal, horrid Detection of the vifible Church. Which cannot be meant of any particular Heretics, or Herefie in those times: (1) Because he fpeakes of it Propheticly as a thing to come, not then exiftent. (2) He here fpeakes of an univerfal and total Apoftafie of the visible Church, which can't be applied to any Herefie then in being; because al the Herefies of the Gnostics and others then on foot were but particular,and generally disowned by the Churches of Christ, &c.

That man of

Sin.

2. He defcribes this general revolt by its Head; whom he cals, i avʊgwr☺ Ts aμagrias, That man of fin. (1) We may con2 Thef 2. 3. fider him as a Man, and fo he is ftiled, That Man, in a way of ess Eminence and fingularitie, which denotes him to be fuch a mon

ἁμαρτίας.

fre, as never had, nor fhal have his parallel. If we have a curiofitie to know [1] his Names, he is ftiled ver. 4. Artixeiμer, one that opposes Chrift, or a counter-Chrift, i.e. Antichrift. He is ftiled alfo Rev. 13. 11. The two-horned Befte; and Rev. 16. 13, 19, 20. The falfe Prophet. [2] As for his Ancestors, we may run up his Gnealogie to Cain, and the Pharifees, from whom he received his Doctrine of Juftification by Workes; to Nimrod, Pharaoh, and Antiochus Epiphanes, from whom he derived his Tyrannic perfecution; to Balaam, Barchozba, Apollonius Tyaneus, and Simon Magus, from whom he received his Impoftures and Lying Wonders; to the Gnostics, from whom he received his Pythagorean Infufions and Superftitions. Yet his immediate Parents were the Old Serpent, Rev. 12.9, 15. and Babylon the mother of Harlots, or the Apoftate Church, Rev. 17. 1,-5. [3] As for his first conception, it was very early, even in Paul's time, as 2 Thef. 2.7. which John was more fully inftructed in,as 1 Joh. 2. 18. [4] His Nativitie and Birth, Cluverus on Revel. 11. Tom.3. pag. 29,&c. refers to An. 440, or thereabouts: and fo he makes Pope Leo Magnus, the firft of the Antichriftian line, in whom

the

1

the Number of the Befte began. And indeed his Arguments to begin the Antichriftian Tyrannie with Leo Magnus feem weighty, because he was the first that affumed an Universal Domination, by virtue of the power of the Keyes given to Peter, Math. 16. 18, 19. Of which fee more Cluverus. And if we begin the Birth of this Man of Sin with Leo Magnus, then his Destruction wil be about An. 1700. acccording to the Prophetic determination, Rev. 12.6, 14. where Antichrift's Duration is confined unto 1260 years. But (2) if we confider him as That man of fin, then obferve here the abftract for the concrete, which implies an univerfalitie or perfection both of Parts and Degrees. He is a perfect man of fin, both Extensively and Intenfively. [1 Exten fively, or as to the parts and kinds of fin, he is the complexe of al manner of fins. What fin is there fo flagitiofe and monftrofe, whereof we have not fome Idea in this Man of fin? Doth not his Head contain al the Herefies that were ever found in the Church? Are not the Pelagian Infufions the vital fpirits of his heart? Is he not alfo a man of Schifmes? Has not his Tyrannic Domination proved the wombe of the greatest Schifmes in the Church? Is he not alfo a man of Idolatries and Superstitions? Are not al the Demon-fuperftitions to be found in him, as S. 3? Is not his mother-Church ftiled, Rev. 17. 1. the mother of Harlots, i.e. Idolatries? Yea is he not a man of Blafphemies, as Rev. 13. 1, 5, 6? Doth he not blafpheme the Tabernacle or Bodie of our Lord,by his Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation? Are not the Heavenly Inhabitants, ie. Angels and glorified Saints, blafphemed by his argeía, or Saint-worship? Is not alfo the Name of God, i.e. his Soverain Nature, Attributes, and Perfections, blafphemed by his Idolatrie and Wil-worship? What is Blafphemie, according to its formal Idea,but the diminishing or blemishing the Name and Honor of God? (1) By taking that from God that belonges to him. (2) By afcribing that to God, that belonges not to him. (3) By afcribing that to the Creature that belonges to God? Is he not alfo a man of Pride, Ambition, and Ufurpation? Can there be a more Hel-bred piece of pride, than for a poor beggerly Prieft to exalt himself above al the Princes of the world, as 2 Thef. 2. 4? May he not alfo be juftly stiled a man of blood, as Revel. 17. 6? Yea is not al the blood of Saints that was ever shed from Abel to this day approved by him? Was there ever fuch a Murderer found as this man of fin, Rev. Gg 2

*

11.73

Rev. 14. 8.
Rev. 18 23.

11.7? And is he not likewife a man of avarice or covetonf
neffe? was there ever fuch an avariciofe mifer found as this, who
meafures al Godlineffe by Gain? Is not the Chamber of Rome
wel Characterised by one,who ftiles it an Infernal Golphe,which
fwallows up al that comes to it, without ever refunding any part?
May we not alfo defervedly terme him a Man of Sorceries, and
Witchcrafts? Is not Exorcifime or Conjuration one of the prin
cipal Offices of his Church? Do we not read, Revel, 18. 2 3. of
his Sorceries? which we find explicated, Revel. 14. 8. The wins
of the wrath of her fornication. Suuds here fignifies not wrath,
but poison, the fame with paguancia, Revel. 18.-23. namely thote
poifonous Philtres, or bewitching charmes, whereby the Whore
of Babylon bewitches the Nations, in allufion to Whores, who
were wont to drinke Philtres to their Paramors in a Golden
cup, thereby to charme their affections, as Mede. Again, is he
not a man of fenfualities and impurities? was there ever any guil-
ty of fuch uncleanneffes both corporal and fpiritual? O! what
Luxurie, Sodomie, and al manner of Senfualitie is to be found
at Rome, under the Throne of this Antichriftian Befte? And
doth not al this procede from the juft judgement of God, who
ufually punifheth fpiritual fornication with corporal, as before?
Is he not alfo a man of Ignorance? Is not his Kingdome fubor-
dinate to that of Satan, a Kingdome of Darkneffe? Is not Igno-
rance ftiled by him the mother of his Devotion? How many in-
trigues has he to keep his fubjects in darkneffe? Doth not the
power of his Sceptre confifte in the power of darknesse ? With
what black Curfes doth he feal up the holy Scriptures from the
peoples view? How do al his Devoti flie from the, light of life,
and turne their backes on the Sun of Righteoufneffe? Is not Ig-
norance the main pillar of his Throne? What black darkneffes
covered Europe fo long as this man of Sin gave Laws to it? Yea
farther, may we not with juftice terme him a man of Atheisme ?
Whence fprang al that Machiavellian Atheifine,which like a de-
luge hath overflowen al Europe, but from the Doctrines and
Practices of this man of fin? What more potent to make men
Atheists, than fuch a ridiculofe fuperftitiofe Religion, as that o
this man of fin? Doth not carnal Policie, which is the quinte f
fence of Poperie, naturally tend to Atheifme? Moreover, is he
not a man of Irreligion and Profaneneffe? Hath he not for more
than 1000 years profaned the Temple of God by his Abominati

on of Defolation? how has he polluted al the Ordinances, Sacraments, and holy things of God? Again, may we not without injurie terme him a man of Hypocrifie, Lies, and Deceit? Are not Lying wonders and fabulofe Legends the main foundation of his Kingdome, as 2 Thef. 2. 7, 10? Is he not faid, Rev. 13. 11. To have two hornes like a lambe; i.e. to counterfeit the power of Chrift? So 1 Tim. 4. 2. he is faid to introduce al his Doctrines of Demons, ir nelou Jeudorógar, by the hypocrifie, &c. as before S. 3. §. 1, &c. Yea what is al Poperie but a profunde Mysterie of Iniquitie, a complexe of Pharifaic ranke hypocrifie, a mere carnal fie? Laftly, to fum up the Idea's of Antichrift, is he not a man of Apoftafie? Are not al the Apoftafies of the Church in al Ages to be found in this man of fin? Is not this the principal reafon why Babylon is filed the mother of Harlots, Rev. 17.5? Thus we fee how he is That man of fin extenfively; ie. of al kinds of fin; the fyfteme and complexe of al Herefies, fins, and blafphemies, &c. It's true, there were many errors and corruptions in the Primitive Churches,and many Antichrifts, as 1 Joh. 2. 18. yet none of them were this man of fin; but he is the aggregate and compende of al of them; he is as it were the Ocean, into which al thofe foregoing Herefies and Abominations did flow. Thus he is faid to be that man of fin; ie. of al kinds or forts of Sin and Herefie, in whom al Herefies met as lines in their centre. [2.]This phrafe, That man of fin, implies an intenfive univerfalitie, or perfection of degrees; ie. in whom al fins meet in their highest degree; for it is wel known, that Abstracte's Speak, formes,effences,and quinteffence's of things. So that Man of fin, implies the most notorious fins, abominations, and blafphemies, enormities in the moft foverain degree. Some conceive this character given Antichrift to be borrowed from the like given by the fewes to Antiochus his Type, 1 Maccab. 2. 48, 62. who is there ftiled, That finner; i.e. fuch a finner as outwent al that ever were. Hence the prodigiofe fin of Antichrift is termed, 2 Thef.2.7. a myfterie of iniquitie; i.e. a profunde infinite abyffe of iniquitie. So it's faid of Babylon, the royal feat of this man of fin, Revel. 18.5. For her fins have reached unto heaven; nonowy, Rev. 18. 5 i.e. her fins following each other, and arifing each from other grew fo numerofe and great, as that at laft they reached up to Heaven, juft like a pile of Wood, &c. Again, there is fome emphasis in the article that man; i.e. na ox, he who is not only a disloyal fervant,or a declared enemie, but a Traitor and Ufurper of Chrifts

Empire: