A64635:169
Certain discourses, viz. of Babylon (Rev. 18. 4.) being the present See of Rome…
Certain discourses, viz. of Babylon (Rev. 18. 4.) being the present See of Rome (with a sermon of Bishop Beadles upon the same words) of laying on of hands (Heb. 6. 2.) to be an ordained ministry, of the old form of words in ordination, of a set form of prayer : each being the judgment of the late Arch-bishop of Armagh, and Primate of Ireland / published and enlarged by Nicholas Bernard ... : unto which is added a character of Bishop Bedel, and an answer to Mr. Pierces fifth letter concerning the late Primate.Certain discourses, viz. of Babylon (Rev. 18. 4.) being the present See of Rome (with a sermon of Bishop Bedels upon the same words) of laying on of hands (Heb. 6. 2.) to be an ordained ministry, of the old form of words in ordination, of a set form of prayer : each being the judgment of the late Arch-bishop of Armagh, and Primate of Ireland / published and enlarged by Nicholas Bernard ... : unto which is added a character of Bishop Bedel, and an answer to Mr. Pierces fifth letter concerning the late Primate.
London: printed for John Crook, 1659
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
This latter passage is only produced by Doctor Heylene, as an evidence, that the Pope is not declared to be Antichrist, either here, or any where else, in the book of Articles or Homilies, which how the force of it can be ⟨p. 159⟩extended so far beyond its own sphere, both not appear: For his principal argument, that he finds here the Pope and Antichrist, distinguished as much as the Devil and the Pope. 'Tis answered, The distinction here is not between the Pope and Antichrist, but between him and his Antichristian kingdom; for the words are not, the Pope, the Devil, and Antichrist; but, and all the kingdom of Antichrist. That Universality (all) comprehending both head and members. And if we should allow a Duumvirate, (in the Pope and Devil) for the government of that kingdom, one as the visible head, the other as the invisible, or the one him that reigneth; the other by whom he receiveth power so to do: (Rev. 13. 4.) both might be thus owned ⟨p. 160⟩without infringing the title of either: Howsoever 'tis not the arguings from such niceties in the placing of words (which the book of Homilies, are not strict in, as might be showed in several instances) but the observation of the scope and drift of the place, the comparing it with others, the concurrence of the judgement of several eminent Bishops afore-cited, (who cannot be imagined to declare against the doctrine of it) will carry the sense of it accordingly, with the judicious and unbiased Reader: and so much for the book of Homilies.
This latter passage is only produced by Doctor Heylene, as an evidence, that the Pope is not declared to be Antichrist, either here, or any where else, in the book of Articles or Homilies, which how the force of it can be ⟨p. 159⟩extended so farre beyond its own sphere, both not appeare: For his principal argument, that he finds here the Pope and Antichrist, distinguished as much as the Devil and the Pope. 'Tis answered, The destiuction here is not between the Pope and Antichrist, but between him and his Antichristian kingdom; for the words are not, the Pope, the Divell, and Antichrist; but, and all the kingdome of Antichrist. That Universality (all) comprehending both head and members. And if we should allow a Duumvirate, (in the Pope and Devill) for the government of that kingdom, one as the visible head, the other as the invisible, or the one him that reigneth; the other by whom he receiveth power so to do: (