CHAP. 1. The probability of the following interpretation is briefly and generally proposed; that opinion of numerall letters being almost wholly rejected.

AMONGST those many and sundry opinions which divers men of different judgements & apprehensions have utte­red concerning this num­ber 666. there is not a­ny one which either seems more probable, or is more true in it selfe, [Page 2] then the opinion of those Interpreters, who well considering that, Oppositorum eadem est ra­tio, have therefore endeavoured to find out the true interpretation of this number by compa­ring it with the number144, to which this num­ber of the beast is evidently opposed. And this ground of theirs, for the manner of the inter­pretation, is to be esteemed so much the more probable, by how much the lesse successe they found in it. For if this manner of interpretati­on seemed probable to them, to whom the truth of its application was unknown; how much more would they have stuck unto it, had they but known how many and how great mi­steries their farther prosecution of it might have revealed both to themselves and others.

As for that opinion concerning the nume­rall letters of the Valdè à sco­po aberrant, meo judicio, qui putant Sp. Sanctum his verbis de nu­mero NOMI­NIS Anti­christi age [...]e. Alchasar in 13. cap. Apo­calyp. Si quis ha­bet sapienti­am, computet Numerum; nullam de NOMINE facit mentio­nem, sed tan­tummodò, computet NVMERVM Bestiae. At de­inde, Et NV­MERVS ejus (a [...]s (que) ulla NOMINIS interpositione) [...]st 666. Pe­trus Bongus de numcrorum mysterus. pag. 156, name [...], although it have some clearenesse and evidence in respect of the truth of its application, yet it is most uncertain and obscure inrespect of the manner of the in­terpretation; there being no example in the Scriptures of any number so counted, or any name so characterized▪ & also the words of the text seem plainly to crosse all such interpretati­ons of any name whatsoever, in that it is ex­presly said, Let him that hath Ʋnderstanding [Page 3] count the number of the beast. It is not said (as it is observed by many) let him count the name of the beast, or the numerall letters in his name: but this manner of speaking is rather pur­posely avoided by S. John, as Cotterius affirmeth saying, quemadmodum loqui, NOLUISSE Johan­nem certissimum est. Besides it is observed, that the number of the Beast, and the name of the Beast, are two things plainly distinguished in the text; and therefore it is not likely the coun­ting of the number, and the counting of the name should be all one; much lesse, that the name ought to be counted, & not the number: whereas they that have understanding are advi­sed by expresse words of the text to count the number, not the name. Wherefore, although I will not deny but that the holy Ghost may in a second sense (as it were) indirectly and ob­liquely glance at the name of the Beast by this number; yet that this should be the chiefe and maine mystery which is to be found out by this number, there is no probabilitie at all, as Quia ut Hi­eronymus in ea Christi verba, Mat. 24 Qui legit, in­telligat, sapi­enter ait, Quando ad intelligen­dum provoca­mur, mysticú monstratur esse quod scri­ptum est. Si­militer ergo in praesenti, verba illa, Hic sapientia est, non pati­untur, sen­sus Antichri­sti nomen re­sp [...]iat. Alcha­sar in 13. c. Apo. Et quiden: reverá non tam nominis Bestiae, quàm Bestiae ipsius numerus est: quomod [...] e­tiam statim vocatur. Numerus autem nominis ide [...] tantùm dicitur, quòd nominis Bestiae li [...]e [...]is in nume­ros relatis (Deoita disponen [...]e) contineatur. Com Apocal. Cantabrigrae nup [...]r editus. No­men [...] numerum conficit à Sp sancto notatum; numerum autem mysticum quo indi­catur cusus prosapiae si [...] Bestia, Idem pag. 216. divers learned Interpreters doe willingly acknow­ledge.

[Page 4]But as touching the chiefe and principall meaning, that there may be found out such a kinde of interpretation as may be warranted by an expresse Example in the holy Scriptures; And such an Interpretation, as the precedent & subsequent words of the text, may, not onely seem to admit of, but necessarily to inforce; and such an interpretation, as doth essentially and accurately describe that state of government, to which all other notes of Antichrist agree; there is no way more probable, or more agreeable to reason, nor any way lesse repugnant to the wri­tings of the chiefest interpreters, then to prose­cute the grounds already laid by those, who haue indeavoured to finde out the mystery con­tained in this number, by comparing it with the number 144, to which this number 666, is (as it were) the anti-numerus, & must therefore be interpreted after the same manner, and in the same particulars applyed to the Synagogue of Antichrist, as the number 144 ought to be inter­preted, and as it is in the Scriptures applied to the Church of Christ.

CAP. 2. That the mystery of the number 144, which is the number opposed to 666, consists in the square root of it, which is 12; and that therefore the mystery of 666 must be in the square root of it also.

ANd now concerning the manner how this number 144 ought to be interpre­ted, it is already agreed upon, as it were, by a general consent as well of the ancient as of the later interpreters, that the only, or at least, the chief cause why this number was chosen rather then any other to be the measure of the wall of the celestiall Jerusalem, is, because this number is raised, and built upon the number 12, which being multiplied into it selfe, produceth this square number 144. For as this number 144 is raised and built upon the number of 12 onely, and cannot possibly admit of any other number to be the root and basis of it (as is evidently knowne to all that have skill in Arithmetick to count numbers, and extract the roots of them) so neither can the Church of Christ admit of a­ny other foundation then that which is already laid by the 12 Apostles. As therefore this num­ber 144 is built upon 12 unities, so is the Church [Page 6] of Christ upon the 12 Apostles. And as the num­ber of 12 is more conspicuous and remarkable in this number 144, then any other number, be­cause it measureth not onely the bottome or root, but the sides and rankes of it also, as will plainly appeare to any one that considereth and counteth the sides and unities of this square fi­gure following, where the number 144 is set down in due order, the unities being placed ac­cording to right angles and equall distances one from another.

[Page 7]I say therefore, as the number of 12 is more conspicuous and remarkeable in this figurated number consisting of 144 vnities, then any o­ther number: soe it is evident, that the number of 12 is more conspicuous and remarkeable in the Church of God, then any other number whatsoever. And hence it is that this number 12 is rehearsed and repeated above one hun­dred forty and foure times in the Scriptures, and is in them so often used, and in so ma­ny and so diverse particulars applied by the spirit to things pertaining to the Church, that we cannot but acknowledge this num­ber to be chosen, and as it were affected by the Holy Ghost rather then any other. And although the number 144, may truly bee said to be Gods number in a more particular manner, then many other numbers used in the Scriptures, because it representeth the figure of the Citty, and in generall, the forme and structure of the Church, and Hierarchie there­of, (as shall be shewed) yet it cannot so proper­ly be called Gods number, as the number 12, which almost in all materiall respects is appli­cable to the Church, and is used in the Scrip­tures alwaies, as numerus certus pro certo, and not as numerus certus proincerto: in which sense [Page 8] it must needs be granted that the number 144 doth signify and represent the Church in gene­rall. For, it is not, in it selfe, being wholy con­sidered, applicable, as the number 12 is, to any particular times, persons, or places, or other particular things, mentioned in the Scriptures; but only in respect of the root or basis of it, which is 12. For there were 12 Tribes, not 144; and 12 gates in Jerusalem, not 144; and 12 A­postles, not 144. And so it may be said of many other things. And, whereas the number 144 is no where mentioned in the Scriptures, but only in the 21 of the Revelation, it must needs be granted, that it is not there said to be the measure of the Wall (which doth in that place signify the spirituall building of Gods Church) because there then were, or, at any time should be precisely so many, & no more faithfull Chri­stians, or living stones built upon the 12 foun­dations there named; but that we might thence learne, that how great or how little soever the number of faithfull Christians should be, yet they must be all built upon the foundation of the 12 Apostles, as the number 144 is built up­on 12 unities. And hence, that is evident, which most interpreters grant, that this num­ber 144 was chosen to be the measure of the [Page 9] wall of the new Ierusalem for this reason only, or for this reason chiefly, because it is the only square number which can be raised and built upon 12 unities, as is clearly known to all those that haue understanding to extract the roots of numbers.

CHAP. 3. The manner of the interpretation more clearely, yet cursorily proposed. An introduction to the true interpretation of the number 144 and the mea­sures of the new Hierusalem.

AND now, although I may take this for granted, (for the reasons above re­hearsed,) that this number 144 is not in it selfe any way particularly to be applied to Gods Church and people, but only in respect of the number 12, which is the root and basis of it; and so might accordingly proceed, shewing, that the number 666, is not in it selfe applicable to any Times, Names, Persons, Places, or other circumstances belonging to Antichrist (as ma­ny vainely and fruitlessely have endeavoured to find out) but only, that the root of this number 666 (whatsoever number it be) must be the number, which is, in many particular respects, [Page 10] applicable to the kingdome of Antichrist; and that, as the number 12, which is the square root of 144, is more properly said to be Gods num­ber then the number 144, because it is a number which God would have conspicuous and re­markable in the founding of his Church, and divers other respects, both above that and all o­ther numbers: so in like manner that number which is the square root of the number 666, must more properly belong to Antichrist, then the number 666, as a number which Anti­christ would have conspicuous & remarkable both in the founding of his Kingdome, and al­so in divers other respects, above any other number whatsoever: although, I say, I might proceed to prosecute these grounds already laid, and taken for granted by learned interpre­ters, to shew what number is the root of the number 666, and how it doth accurately and essentially describe, and characterize the Citty, State, and Hierarchie of Antichrist; yet least J might seem to some to build that, which I am fully perswaded and resolved to be a certaine & infallible truth, upon weake & unsure grounds; I will therefore yet farther cleare the manner of this interpretation, before J touch the truth of its application.

[Page 11]And first, that I may not rely upon the bare authority of others, concerning the true and na­turall exposition of the number 144, which in the 21 of the Revelation (in which place onely it is named) is said to be the measure of the wall of the new Ierusalem; J will endeavour to make it manifest to such as have understan­ding, and to such as will not shut their eyes a­gainst it, that, howsoever the number 144 is there expressed, yet the number 12 is chiefly in­tended.

And that I may make this to appeare, it is ne­cessary that I say something of the Vision it selfe in generall, pointing at that which this glorious structure of the new Jerusalem doth shadow forth unto us. Concerning which, although I am not ignorant, that many ancient interpre­ters have affirmed, that the glorious and happy estate of the Church triumphant in heaven is here set forth unto us▪ yet as M^r Forbes and very R [...]pertus in Apoc. Victo­rinus. Pictavi­ensis qui scri­psit Commē ­taria in Apoc. vixit anno 300. B. B. 1. 2. 10. Tom. 3. pag. 142. Andreas Epi­scop Caesariae in his Commē ­taries on the R [...]vel▪ saith, that this vi­sion is typus p [...]aesen [...]is Ec­clesiae. many other writers both ancient and modern have observed all things in this Vision mentio­ned,, are so exactly applicable to the Church militant here on earth, that, almost from every line & word, there may be an argument drawn to prove that the Church militant, and not the Church triumphant, is chiefly by this descrip­tion [Page 12] to be understood. J should digresse too farr if I should stay to make this truth evident, by such particular instances, as might be brought out of the text. And because J suppose it is suffi­ciently knowne to all those who have seriously studied to find out the true meaning of this Vi­sion, I will therefore instance only in the mea­sures and numbers (which as they seem most to disagree from this my interpretation, so are they most to my purpose) endeavouring to find out such a true and naturall exposition of them, as shall not only be agreeable to the scope of the Vision in generall, but also necessarily inforced by the words of the text immediatly going be­fore and following after. And although I know that this exposition which I shall bring, will not seem probable to many that read it, yet will I set it down howsoever, lest upon their second and better consideration of such reasons & pro­babilities as are brought for it, they should judge it rather to be received then any other. Especially, being, all other interpretations, which are usually given of these measures, are for the most part frivolous, and frigid, and such as carry such a kinde of emptinesse with them, as is not agreeable to that weight of matter which seems to ballance the other parts of this Vision.

CHAP. 4. A disquisition concerning the Interpretation of the 16, and 17 verses of the 21 Chapter of the Reve­lation, and a new exposition of the measures of the new Hierusalem.

THE words of the Text, in which these measures of the City and Wall are ex­pressed, are these which follow in the 21 of the Revelation.

First, it is to be considered, that the furlongs and cubits, here used by the Angell, are, in the last words, said to be the measure of a man. Wherefore it is diligently to be considered, and enquired, how many kindes of measuring by furlongs and cubits are used by men. For, there can no other cause be imagined▪ why these words, mensura hominis quae est angeli, should [Page 14] have been added, but that they should be an ex­position to the former, and as it were an answer to such doubts and objections as might arise from them. It is likely therefore that the true in­terpretation of these words, will be as a key to open all that is spoken concerning the mea­sures above named. Now, if it had been said, the cubits are the cubits of a man; or, the fur­longs are the furlongs of a man; then it had been probable that these words were added, lest the just length of the furlongs or cubits should have been mistaken; but forasmuch as it is said, [...], it is the Measure of a man which the Angell useth. The words seem to intimate, that the danger of mis­taking lieth rather in misunderstanding the manner of measuring by furlongs and cubits, then in mistaking the true length of the mea­sures which are named. And if so; then that manner of measuring which is here meant, is not that which is most commonly used among men, or in the scriptures. For then there had been no danger of mistaking it, or cause why this exposition should have been added. It seems therefore, that, this kinde of measuring by furlongs and cubits, which the Angell doth in this place use, doth properly belong to a man; [Page 15] and yet so, that it is not that kinde of measuring which is most commonly and most ordinarily used, either by men, or in the scriptures. And now to finde out, what this not so usuall, al­though most proper kinde of measuring is; it is diligently to be enquired, how many kindes of measuring by furlongs, or cubits, or by any o­ther such like measures, are at all vsed among men. And upon this inquirie there are three kindes of measures, and three only, which will offer themselves to our consideration. For as there are onely three severall kindes of quanti­ties, which are commonly called, linea, superfi­cies, & corpus, that is, Length, Breadth, and Thicknesse: so there are three kindes of mea­sures, used by men, which are properly answe­rable to these three kindes of quantities, and are called Lineall measure, Square measure, and So­lid measure; and without these measures, the quantities above named, can neither be truly ex­pressed nor rightly understood.

And now, being there are but these three waies by which a man may measure such a so­lid figure as this City is here described to be, it must needs be granted, that this measure of 12000 furlongs, is either the Lineall, or the Su­perficial, or the Solid measure of this Citie: and [Page 16] if that measure of these three, which is most commonly used among men and in the Scrip­tures, must be rejected in this place, for the rea­son above said, then in all probability Lineal measure, the first of these three above named, which is far more commonly used in the Scri­ptures and among men then either of the other, must not be understood in this place; and so by consequence these 12000 furlongs can neither be the measure of one of the sides of this Citie, nor of the compasse of it.

But supposing that the holy Ghost speaketh properly, in setting downe the measures of this Citie, and after the manner of men, (as the words of the text last above recited doe inti­mate and evince) it is no hard matter, even by the words themselves to determine, not onely which of these three measures is not, but which of them is, here to be understood. For first, it is diligently to be considered, what kind of quan­titie that is, which is here said to be measured by the Angell. And secondly, it is accuratly to be observed, that the measure of 12000 fur­longs, is not here said to be the measure of the Length, nor of the Breadth, nor of the compasse, nor of the ground-plat or Area, nor of the sides of the Citie; but only of the Citie it selfe, which [Page 17] is here set downe plainly to be a solid Cubicall figure, containing three dimensions. This mea­sure therefore of 12000 furlongs, is the mea­sure of a solid Cubicall figure, and therefore in proprietie of speech, and according to the man­ner of men, it must of necessity be under­stood to be a solid measure. If the measure of the length, or of the breadth, or of the compasse of this Citie, had been said to have been 12000 furlongs, then who would, or who could have understood it of any other measure but lineall measure onely? so likewise being the Citie it selfe is said to be measured 12000 furlongs, or as the Rhemists translation hath it, for twelve thousand furlongs; who will, or who can, especi­ally according to the manner of men, under­stand the measure of a solid figure to be any o­ther then a solid measure? And although it may seeme unprobable, that an Angell should ex­presse the magnitude of this Citie, by a phrase and a measure borrowed rather from the schooles of geometry (which hath taught men to measure plaine and solid figures with square and solid measures) then from the book of the Scriptures, wherein this kind of measuring is seldome or obscurely used; yet for this very cause, is this interpretation the rather to be em­braced. [Page 18] For the holy Ghost would never have vouchsafed to have answered this objection so appositely by these words following, mensura hominis quae est Angeli, except humane reason might with probability have urged it.

From the words of the text therefore, and from that manner of measuring which proper­ly belongs to men, and is commonly used by them, it followeth that the measure of 12000 furlongs here named, must needs be understood of solid furlongs, there being no other manner of measuring solid figures, either possible or u­suall among men, but only by solid measures. For it is not possible for a man to finde out, and to know the true quantity of a solid body, ei­ther intuitivè, as Angels doe; or, applicativè, as in lineall measures, but onely discursivè, and per ratiocinium, by the discursive faculty, and by counting and calculating numbers, which as it is the proper Act of mans reason onely, so is it here, for this reason onely, or for this reason chiefly said to be the measure of a man.

CAP. 5. A farther confirmation of the precedent interpreta­tion of the Measures of the new Hierusalem.

AND this interpretation of these 12000 furlongs, may farther and evidently be confirmed, because according to this interpretation, the compasse of this new Hie­rusalem, doth in all probabilitie, and for all that can be shewed to the contrary, exactly agree with the compasse of the ancient and literall Hierusalem; and also with the compasse of that Citie, which is by the Prophet Ezekiel in his last Chapter measured and described. Of which Citie, as also of the heavenly Hierusalem, the words of Villalpandus, lib. 2. cap. 21. pag. 118. upon the 48. chap. of Ezekiel are very probable and remarkable, where, speaking of that Citie described by Ezekiel, he saith as followeth, quo loco nulli dubium esse debet, nove Hierosolymae men­tionem fieri, ex latere Christi olim fundandae, nunc verò fundatae, super fundamentum Apostolorum & Prophetarum, ipso summo angulari lapide Jesu Christo; at in omnibus antiquae urbis, respexisse di­spositionem, partes, earum (que) nomina & Mensuras, nulli vel mediocriter ea perpendenti, dubium esse ul­lâ [Page 20] ratione poterit. Jn which words Villalpand confidently affirmes two things. First, that that Citie, described by the Prophet Ezekiel, is the same with this new Hierusalem of which Saint John speaketh. And this is also affirmed by Ad Prophe­tiam Ezechi­clis quod at­tinet, de novo templo & no­vo Jerusalem omnes con­textûs circū ­stantiae lo­quuntur, Pro­phetam non de materiali aedificio, sed de mystico templo agere.—Deinde Apocalypsis Johannis ubi hane Ezechielis Prophetiam imitatur & ex professo explicat, apertissimè dicit hanc novam Hierusalem à Deo ex coelis descendere paratam, ut sponsam ornatam viro suo.—Nomen Civitatis ab Ezechicle dicitur Iehovah ibi non quòd talis urbs aliquando futura sit, quae vul­gò sic appelletur; sed quòd propheticè indicetur Deum Opt. Max. in aeternâ illá Hierusalem Ecclesiae suae semper praestò futurum; sive ut Johannes noster in Apocal. hoc rectè exponat & explicet, 'Deum & Agnum in eâ: hronum habiturum. Quod etiam Thargum Ionathan in praedicto Ezechielis loco agnoscit. Gracerus in 9. cap Danielis. Gra­cerus, by In Commentariis fusè ostendimus templum & Civitatem Ezechielis non ad materialem illam Hyerosolymorum, sed ad Ecclesiam in Christo in terris fundatam pertinere, at (que) adeò non mysticè sed secundùm li­teram omnia quae de ejusmodi aedificiis à Propheta describuntur, de Ecclesia esse intelligen­da, quod sufficiat ut certum posuisse. Blasius Viegas in 12. Cap Apocal. Viegas, Urbem hanc sanctam & Catholicam Ecclesiam figurasse docuit B. Iohannes Apoc. 21. ea quae hic Pro­pheta praedixerat testificando: quod argumento irrefragabili est, quae de templo, possessio­nibus, urbe, imo omnia quae in hoc Propheta continentur ad Ecclesiae aedisicationem & am­plitudinem Sp sancto suggerente, spectâsle: & ita de sua Ecclesia Dominus loquens ad hanc urbem allasit dicens, Non potest civitas abscondi supra montem posita. Quod etiam quae de ipsá [...]ic tradit manifestant. Nam quorsum tam accurata mensura laterum? quorsum annu­meratio Pertarum, & ingredientium? quorsum nova civitatis nomenclatura?—proculdubio haec novam civitatem, Ecclesiam nempe Catholicam, ut novam Hie­rusalem illustratione coelestium virtutum descendentem de coelo adumbrarunt. Pet. Serranus in ult cap Ezechiclis p. 288. Serranus, Hic est murus ille de quo ait D. Iohannes in cap. 21. Apo [...] Ubi Ecclesiae militantis civitatem describit, (etiamsi nonnulla interdum misceat ad Ec­clesium triumphantem pertinentia) & habebat civitas haec murum magnum & altum. Sed dices fortasse, Qui sieri potest ut hi duo loci Iohannis & Ezechielis cohaereant? cùm Iohan­nes unum tantùm murum describat, Ezechiel tres? Hector Pintus in 40. Cap. Ezechiclis. Hector Pintus, Unde Alchasar in Apoc. cap. 3. v. 12. notatione secund. pag. 318. censet Iudaeam hic esse Ecclesiam U [...]em quam in illa vidit Ezechiel esse Romam non Hierusalem. Unde ejus no­men est Dominus ibidem, scilicet in suo Vicario Romano Pontisice; Templum esse monaste­ria virosa; religiosos. Cor. à Lapide in 40 cap. Ezech. But Alchasar else where in cap. 21 Apoc. interpreteth the new Hierusalem to be Rome, and therefore these two Cities in his opinion are all one. Cor­nelius à Lapide, Gaspar à Melo, and divers others, as a certaine and undoubted truth. Secondly, [Page 21] (which doth also follow out of this former as­sertion) he observes that the Angel in the de­scription of this heavenly Hierusalem, hath not only respect unto the figure, names, and parts of the ancient literall Hierusalem, but also to the measures of it. For, if the reason, why S. Iohn & the Prophet Ezekiel doe describe this heavenly Hierusalem to have been of a square figure, and to have had twelve gates, and twelve Tribes, and twelve names of twelve Apostles, be, be­cause these things, had sometimes a reall and actuall existence in the literall Hierusalem; then why should there not be the like reason, and foundation of truth why this measure of 12000 furlongs, should be fetcht & derived from such measures, as had sometime actuall existence in the ancient and literall Hierusalem? I say there­fore if that Citie described by Ezekiel by the same with this new Hierusalem, then this new Hierusalem must agree with that description, not onely in figure, and in the number of the gates and tribes, but also in the measure, and compasse of it. And [...]orasmuch as the compasse of that City in the last of Ezekiel, is in the text ex­presly said to be 8000 cubits, it is evident that the measure of 12000 furlongs cannot be un­derstood to be the lineall measure, either of one [Page 22] side, or of the whole compasse of the new Hierusalem. For supposing that this measure of Ezekiel (which is but a Cubit and an hand breadth (as shall be shewed) were five foote long, yet 18000 of these measures would make but 144 furlongs, which is not the 84 part of 12000 furlongs. Wherefore there is no possibi­lity that 12000 furlongs ought to be understood to be the measure, either of one side, or of the whole compasse of the new Hierusalem.

In like manner, if any one were willing, (as some interpreters have endeavoured) to under­stand this measure of 12000 furlongs, to be the square measure of the Area or plat-forme of the new Hierusalem; he must then grant that the perimeter or compasse of such an Area must be 436 furlongs lat the least, as may be plainly proved by extracting the square roote of 12000: but the compasse of the same City, as Ezekiel describes it, cannot exceed 144 fur­longs as it is above shewed. Therefore neither can these 12000 furlongs be the square or su­perficiall measure, either of all, or of any one of the sides of this new Hierusalem.

It remaineth then that if this City doe agree in measures (as of necessity it must) with that City measured by Ezekiel, that this measure of [Page 23] 12000 furlongs, must needs be understood, of solid furlongs. For according to this measure only it is possible to reconcile these two divers measures of the same City. It must needs be therefore, that that Cube, whose content or solid measure is 12000 furlongs, must be in compasse 18000 Cubits, according as it is set downe by Ezekiel.

And that this may appeare, something must be said of the true length of Ezekiels Cubits, and S. Johns furlongs; Concerning the Cubit used by Ezekiel in the description of his last Vi­sion, it is evident out of the 40 chap. and 5. vers. and out of the 41. chap. 8. vers. and out of the 43. chap. and 13. vers. that his Cubit is longer then other Cubits ordinarily used in the Scrip­tures by one spanne or hand breadth, which is the 4 part of the usuall Cubit, as Villalpandus &Tomo 3. ap­paratus urbis Pag 68, 69. other interpreters, upon this place of Ezekiel, not without good reason, doe affirme. But the com­mon and usuall Cubit mentioned in the Scrip­tures was about two foote and an halfe. And therefore in some of our English translations, the marginall note equalleth 2000 Cubits to a mile, And so doth Ʋillalpand also in his map of Hierusalem, intituled, vera Hierosolymae vete­ris imago, Romae superiorum permissu, cum privi­legio [Page 24] Summi Pontificis, Imperatoris, Regis Ca­tholici, ac senatûs veneti &c: edita. And a mile containes 1000 Paces, every Pace being five foote. If therefore this Cubit of Ezekiel be bigger by one fourth part then other Cubits, it followeth then, that 22500 true or ordinary cubits are equall unto 18000 of these great Cubits; for as 4 are to 5, so are 18000▪ 22500. If then 22500 cubits, euery cubit being two foote and an halfe, be the true compasse of the new Hierusalem, as by Ezekiel it is measured, it must be granted, that if 625 foote make one furlong, then the compasse of this City, re­duced to such furlongs must be 90 furlongs. Which measure, how neere it comes to agree with the solid measure set downe by S. John, may easily be demonstrated by extracting the solid roote of 12000: which if I have rightly performed, the compasse of this Cubicall Ci­ty, by necessary consequence, must needs be be­tweene 91 and 92 furlongs. And although it91. stad. 71. pass. 2. ped. 11. un. doth not exactly and precisely agree with the former, yet one or two furlongs are not to be regarded in so large a compasse; yet not there­fore not to be regarded, because a difference, if it could be proved, were not to be regarded, but because it is beyond all comparison farre [Page 25] more probable that these two measures doe ex­actly agree because the Cityes are both one, then that any writer can now exactly set downe the just length both of the Jewish Cubit, & of the Roman furlongs. For I suppose it were great ignorance for any man to affirme that the just lengths of both these measures can be now proved by any unquestionable monument of antiquity, or undeniable authority. For being there is nothing in this sublunarie world im­mortall and unchangeable, but only wordes written that can be without alteration trans­mitted to posterity; it hath been therefore ac­counted a thing unpossible untill this age to finde out any meanes demonstrative, how the exact length of any knowne measure, may without sensible errour be exactly and infalli­bly transmitted to all succeeding generations. But howsoever the just length of the Iewish Cubit be uncertaine and utterly lost, yet the Roman furlongs and the Roman foote are not yet so forgotten, but that we may come very neere unto the truth, as Snellius in his book de terrae ambitu hath probably defined it. And sup­posing 22500 Cubits, which is the measure of the City measurd by Ezechiel, to be equall unto 57233 Roman feete, which is neere unto the [Page 26] Compasse of the new Ierusalem, if I have cast it right, we may know the true length of the Jewish Cubit to have beene neere about two foote and an halfe, and halfe an inch, and one and one quarter of a quarter of an inch, and a little more, and by this meanes I believe the true length of the Iewes Cubits many be better knowen then by any other. Wherefore I sup­pose that these reasons above alleaged, and rightly understood, are abundantly sufficient to shew, not onely a probability, that this mea­sure of 12000 furlongs may, but a necessity, that it must be understood to be the Solid mea­sure of this City; and therefore such a measure, which, Fo [...]tassis per 12 Apostolo­rum nume­rum [...]ctà quadam Cal­culatione & resolutione quod quaeri­tur inve [...]tur. And a little after he saith, [...]2000 st [...]d [...] ­orum Civita­tis [...]or san magnitudinem d [...]notant▪ An­dreas Episco­pus C [...]sa [...]ae Cappadociae in Apocal. Andreas Caesariensis rightly conjectures, is not lineally applicable to the compasse or height of it, before mans reason by the discur­sive faculty, as by its proper act, doe resolue this number into some other numbers, as in the ex­tracting of the solid roote is necessarily requi­red. And thus much of the measure of the City.

CHAP. 6 The interpretation of the measure of the wall of the new Hierusalem; or of the 144 Cubits.

THE measure of the Wall now fol­loweth, which is in the next words said to be 144 cubits: which measure cannot be understood of the length of the wall, because it is not possible that 144 cubits should compasse that City, whose compasse is above 91 furlongs as hath been shewed. Be­sides, if it were possible, yet it were a kinde of tautologie, to set downe againe in the next words that measure of the wall, which may be evidently and certainly knowne by the mea­sure of the City before declared. This mea­sure then must be understood, either of the height of this wall, or of the thicknes of this wall, or of both: and the meaning must be, that either the wall was 144 cubits high or 144 cubits broad, or else that, according to both these dimentions of height and breadth, the wall was 144 cubits of square measure. And this last kinde of interpretation of these words howsoever it may seeme intricate an [...] un­usuall to those that either are not acquainted [Page 28] with this kinde of measure; or else have not observed▪ that the same kinde of measure is e­vidently and expresly spoken of in other places of Scripture, yet according to this measure only, are walls usually measured by such as make them. And that this kinde of square measure is to be understood in this place, I take it to be more then probable for these reasons.

First, that measure of the wall (caeteris pari­bus, other respects being equall) is to be recei­ved before any other, by which the un­knowne quantity of the wall may be most per­fectly, and according to most dimentions, made knowne and discerned▪ but supposing that 144 cubits are the square measure of this wall according to its height and thicknesse, it will follow, that not the height onely, nor the thicknesse onely, but that all the unknowne dimentions of this wall may be found out by this number. Whereas contrariwise, if wee understand this measure of 144 cubits to be the thicknesse of the wall, then the height of the wall remaines unknowne, and if we under­stand it of the height of the wall, then the thicknesse remaines unknowne. And although it were certaine, that it were meant of one of these measures onely, yet it is ambiguous, [Page 29] and unpossible to be knowne by the words of the text, which of them is here intended. And although it were knowne which of these two measures is here meant, yet the figure and proportion of the wall would still be un­knowne. But if, as it is above saide, this mea­sure be understood of square cubits, then all these uncertainties and ambiguities are avoyd­ed and extinguished; and it must be granted that this one number doth represent the figure of the wall, and is the measure of both these, otherwaies unknowne, dimentions. For, as this number is a square number, having 4 e­quall sides, each of them consisting of 12 u­nities▪ so this wall must be conceived to be of a square figure, each side being 12 cubits. The foundation then of this wall was 12 cubits broad, the height of the wall on the inside next unto the City was 12 cubits, and the height of the wall on the outside was 12 cubits, and the breadth of the wall on the top was 12 cubits, so these foure lines contained and ter­minated the figure of the wall; Or, to speake more properly, these 4 lines contained and ter­minated that continuating superficies and ima­ginary plaine, which did cut the length of the wall according to right Angles: and in respect [Page 30] of the figure and capacitie of this plaine, the measure of the wall it selfe (according to all dimentions not hitherto expressed) may be most truely, most properly, and most signifi­cantly said to be 144 cubits.

And after this manner Ʋillalpand under­stands and interprets this measure, as may be ga­thered out of his words parte 1. Apparatûs vrbis & Templi, libro 2. cap. 20. where he saith, Muri Hierusalem crassitudo magnâ ex parte 12 cubito­rum, ad quem numerum respexisse videtur Angelus, Apoc. 21. & Mensus est murum 144 cubitorum, qui numerus ex duodenario in se ducto efficitur. That is to say; the thicknesse of the wall of Hierusa­lem was for the most part 12 cubits, unto which number the Angell seemes to allude in the 21. cap. of the Revelation. and he measured the wall 144 Cubits, which number is made by multiply­ing the number of 12 into itselfe. And a litle af­ter he saith plainly, assumpt [...] veteris urbis tan­quam linearibus numeris, eos insuperficiales redegit, that is, and taking, as it were, the lineal numbers of the old Hierusalem, he reduced them into su­perficiall in the new. If then according to the opinion of Villalpand, and for the reasons above alleaged, the number of 144 cubits be a Superfi­ciall measure, and therefore such a measure as is [Page 31] not lineally applicable to the wall of the new Hierusalem, then it follows, that mans reason by the discursive faculty must first count & extract the root of this number, before he can knowe and understand what the lineal measure of the thicknesse and height of the wall is. And this is the reason that the next words are added, [...], that is, mensura hominis quae est Angeli, it is the measure of a man which the Angel useth. For so these words ought to be translated, and so doth Villalpand rightly inter­pret them out of Ribera upon the Revelation; for they are (as it must needs be granted) an ex­position of those measures of the City and wall set down by the Angel in the words before. Neither doe they import any thing concerning the shape of the Angell, or any other meaning; but only this, that although the measurer were an Angel, yet he measured the City & the wall, after the same manner that men use to measure such quantities, and by such measures as have been invented by men, and are commonly used among them. Now if there be no other way in­vented by men, by which men usually doe, or truly can measure quanties containing three di­mentions, but only by solid measure; nor no o­ther way by which men either usually doe, or [Page 32] possibly can, measure quantities containing on­ly two dimentions, but onely by superficiall or square measure; then it must needs follow, that the measure of the City must be understood to be a solid measure, because it is the measure of a solid figure containing three dimentions, as it is above proved: and the measure of the wall, must be understood to be a superficiall, or square measure, because it is the measure of two dimentions onely, it being above shewed, that it is altogether unprobable, that it ought to be understood of one dimention only, and abso­lutely unpossible to understand it of three.

CHAP. 7. A farther confirmation of the solid and square mea­sures above mentioned, shewing that the like measures are used in other places of Scripture.

THere remaineth one thing yet for the farther clearing of these measures, and that is to shew, that in other places of the holy Scriptures, the like phrases and mea­sures are used by the holy Ghost. And first for the solid measure, J see not how it can be an­swered or avoided but that the same measure and phrase is used in the 7 chapter of the first [Page 33] book of Kings, where the stones with which the wall of the Court was built, are said to be stones of 8 cubits, and stones of 10 cubits. It is certaine that these stones were squared stones, cut (as it is said in the text) according to the measures of hewed stones. And it is certain also that the cubit was about two foot and an halfe long. If therefore 10 cubits be the measure of the length, or of the breadth, or of the thicknes of one of these stones: it must be granted that one of these stones, if he were every way square was 25 foot long, and 25 foot broad, and 25 foot high, & therefore did containe 15625 solid foot of stone, which is above 240 waine loads. But it is incredible and against reason, and the truth of the story, that these stones were so exceeding great. And it must also follow, that the wall which was built with 3 rowes of such stones, was 20 foot thick and more, and 60 foot high and upward, all which is so farre from the truth of the story, and so disagreeing to reason, that there is no man (as I am perswaded) so vainely credulous, as to beleeve it. It remaineth there­fore that this measure is to be understood of so­lid measure, by which measure stone and tim­ber are commonly and usually measured. Ac­cording to which measure, a squared stone of 8 [Page 34] cubits, is but two cubits long, and two cubits broad and two cubits in height: and 3 ranks of such stones, with one ranke of Cedar beames, will make a wall of such a probable and conve­nient height and thicknesse as was requisite for the walls which are mentioned in the first book of Kings cap. 6. and the 36 verse, and in the 10, 11, and 12 verse of the chapter next fol­lowing. I say therefore that as in this place of Scripture the measure of 8 or 10 cubits must in all probability be understood of solid measure▪ so likewise the measure of 12000 furlongs, mentioned in the 21 chap. of the Revelation, may be understood after the same manner, espe­cially being the phrase is not unlike, and that as in the one place, 8 or 10 cubits are said to be the measure of the stone it selfe, and not of the length or breadth, or thicknesse▪ or compasse of it▪ so also in the other place, 12000 furlongs are said to be the measure of the City it selfe; and not of the length or breadth, or thicknes, or compasse of it.

As concerning square and superficiall mea­sure invented and used by men, it is evident that the holy Ghost in the Scriptures vouchsafeth to allude unto this also, and as it were directly and plainly to point at it. And this may in some sort [Page 35] appeare out of the 43 chap. and 16 V. of Ezekiel, but most evidently out of the 20 V. of the last chap. of Ezekiel, where it said, all the oblation shall be 25 thousand by 25 thousand, &c. Concerning which place of Scripture, I will here set down the words of Haffenrefferus in his Commenta­ries upon Ezekiel, pag. 102, and 103. where he saith as followeth; Notanda est phrasis geometri­ca quam demonstrator Prophetae ex mediis Mathe­maticorum scholis huic suae descriptioni adhibuit, & Spiritus Sanctus phrasi Geometricâ ex media schola Mathematicorum desumptâ expressè loquitur, [Area 25000 Cubitorum Per 25000 Cubito­rum quadrata,] quae res & Mathematicas discipli­nas commendat, & quod Theologiae studiosus earun­dem non prorsus ignarus esse debeat non obscurè de­monstrat, that is, the Geometricall phrase is to be noted, which is taken out of the midst of the Schooles of the Mathematitians, andin this de­scription used by him that shewed this vision to the Prophet; and the holy Ghost speaketh expresly by such a Geometricall phrase as is ta­ken out of the midst of the Mathematick Schooles, [an Area of 25000 Cubits, squared by 25 thousand Cubits] which as it doth much com­mend the Mathematicall sciences, so doth it not obscurely intimate, that a student in divini­tie [Page 36] ought not to be altogether ignorant of them. If in this place of Ezekiel, the holy Ghost useth a circumlocution, that he might by a geometri­call phrase, and by a number multiplied by it selfe, expresse and intimate the square and plain measure of a peece of ground; why may he not then in another place set downe the square measure it selfe, by one number, without any circumlocution at all? If in the first place the sides of a square number be given, and yet the square number be not expressed, but left to be found by him that will multiply the sides into themselves, as S. Hierome hath done on this place, why may not then the square number it selfe be given in another place of Scripture, and yet the sides of it be left unexpressed, to be found out by him that will extract the roote of it? As therefore it was needlesse that the square number it selfe should be expressed to Ezekiel▪ because by multiplying 25000 by it selfe we may certainly know that the square measure of the holy oblation was 625 Millions of square cubits, or 667 miles as S Hierome counteth it: so it was needlesse that the lineall measures of the wall should be expressed by the Angell to S. Iohn, because by extracting the square roote of 144, we may certainely [Page 37] know that the lineall measure of the wall, ac­cording to its thicknesse and height was pre­cisely 12 cubits.

CHAP. 8. The reason why the new Hierusalem is measured by the sollid and square measures onely; That the measure and structure of the wall and the number by which it is expressed, doe both typi­cally represent the Hierarchy of the Church of Christ. The conclusion of this digression concern­ing the measures and numbers of the new Hie­rusalem.

IF a reason be demanded, why the Angel did not set downe the line­all measures onely of this new Hierusalem, as the manner is, in E­zekiels visions, and in other places of Scripture, where the like descriptions are used; I an­swere, that although the same quantity might have as perfectly (and in respect of the ignorance of many men, more perspicuously) been made knowne by the lineall measures; yet then it had not been possible to have retain­ed the same numbers. For being the holy Ghost affecteth (as it were) this number of 12 [Page 38] more then any other, (as it is above shewed;) and keepeth this number constantly through the whole description of this new Hierusa­lem; as if nothing were pleasing and accepta­ble unto him (as indeed it is not) but that which is either numbred with this number of 12, or built upon it; it was therefore con­venient that the same number should be re­tained (if it were posible) in the measures al­so. But it was not possible to set downe the true, & yet the same length, or breadth, or com­passe of this City, by the number of 12; either in unities, Tens, Hundreds, Thousands, or Millions: either by Reeds, Cubits, furlongs, handbreadthes, spans, or any other measure named in the Scriptures. For neither 12 fur­longs, nor 12 hundred furlongs, nor 12000 furlongs, are equall either to one side of this City, or to the compasse, or to the Area, but onely 12000 furlongs to the solid content. So likewise neither are 12 cubits, nor 1200 cubits, nor 12000 cubits, nor 120000, nor 1200000, nor 12000000 of cubits, or the same numbers of any other measures named in the Scriptures, equall to any measures of this City above na­med, excepting only the solid measure, as is a­bove said. As therefore there was a necessity [Page 39] that the Solid measure should be set downe, because that only could be expressed by the number of 12 having thousands added to it; so was it necessary also that of all other solid measures, furlongs should be taken for the same reason. For as no other number with this measure, so is it certaine that no other mea­sure with this number could expresse the just quantity of this City.

A second reason (and perhaps the chiefe reason) why the holy Ghost would have the magnitude of this new Hierusalem expressed by the solid measure, is, that there might be an ex­presse and evident example in the Scriptures, how to count and apply the number of the beast; that so having found out that number which is opposed unto 12, and having added thousands and furlongs to it, we might have the solid measure and content of that Cube gi­ven, whose perimeter is equall to the compasse of the Romish Babylon: as 12000 furlongs are the solid measure of that Cube, whose perimeter is equall to the compasse of the new Hierusalem. But of this in its due place.

As concerning the reason why the measure of the wall is not expressed by lineall measures, it may be answered, that although the number [Page 40] of 12 might have been retained, and by it the true, and the same lineall measures of this wall described, yet it cannot be denied, but that the true measures of the wall, and the number of 12 are both necessarily, although mystically implied, and as purposely intended by the ho­ly Ghost in the number 144, as if they had been many times expresly named. For this number is so significantly applicable, not only to the measures and structure of the wall here descri­bed, but also to that which is by the wall sig­nified; that it may be truely said, that this number considered absolutely in it selfe, (and not as it doth by Cubits here in this place shew the square measure of the wall,) is (as it were) an idaea of the hierarchy of the Church: the wisdome of God having purposely linked two types together, that the one might unfold the other: the one being an imaginary struct­ure of a materiall building; the other an in­telligible forme of an immateriall number: both of them signifying, that as the number 12 was the measure, number, and foundation of the Citty, Gates, and wall of the ancient and literall Hierusalem; and was, in respect of the 12 Patriarks, the root from whence the 12 Tribes had their originall according to the [Page 41] flesh; so the same number of 12 should be the only conspicuous & remarkable number in the foundation & structure of the spirituall & new Hierusalem: in which the 12 Apostles [...]are 12 spi­rituall fathers answereable to the 12 Patriarks: and are 12 foundation-stones layd by our Sa­viour Christ, upon which foundation, and according to which foundation, (that is, by multiplying the doctrine of the Apostles by it selfe onely,) all the spirituall builders of Gods Church in the times to come, ought to erect and square their buildings. And they are also placed as 12 Angels at the 12 gates, to keep out (as it were) with a two edged sword every thing that defileth; and to admit into this City by the gates of Baptisme, com­mitted first and originally unto them, and pre­figured by the 12 oxen under the brasen Sea, 12000 of every tribe; that is all those faithfull Christians and true Jsraelites which can de­rive their spirituall genealogy from the faith and doctrine of the 12 Apostles. And this is without all question, the true and naturall in­terpretation of the numbers and measures of this new Hierusalem.

Concerning which it is to be observed, that those interpreters which did not understand [Page 42] the measures and proportion of the wall, and therefore could not discerne how exactly that ecclesiasticall state and Hierarchy, which our Sav [...]our Christ built on the 12 Apostles, was typed out by it; yet by the onely contemplati­on, and computation of this number 144, they have discerned, that the number of 12 was not onely mystically and virtually con­tained in it, but also chiefly intended by it, and so they attained unto the same truth in effect, which by the structure and measures of the wall, being rightly understood, ought first to have been apprehended by them.

And thus having been willing to build my opinion, as well upon reason, as upon the au­thority of others, J have long laboured (al­though by a tedious and intricate digression) to finde out and to prove by the Scriptures, what is the true manner of the interpretation of that number, which is opposed to the number of the Beast. And herein J have but followed the ad­vise and counsell of Rupertus, who writing of the number 666 hath these words, Quia sapiens ad computandum citatur, fortè in numero problema est, sanctam igitur Scripturam consulamus, sine quâ nihil constans aut certum sive de numero Dei, sive de numero Bestiae: nam sicutille Sampson veracitèr [Page 43] dicere potuit, Si non arassetis in vitulâ meâ, non in­venissetis propositionem meam: sic Dom: noster Je­sus Christus, cujus propositiones sive problematasunt omnia, quae in hoc libro continentur, profunda myste­ria, veraciter nobis dicat: Si non araverîtis in alià Scriptur à non invenietis solutionem numeri huius, quem praesens signavit Scriptura. The effect of which words is, that except the true meaning and interpretation of Gods number, be found out by diligent search of other places of Scrip­ture, there is little hope o [...] possibility to finde out the mystery contained in the number of the Beast.

CHAP. 9. That those writers who make the mystery of the number 144 to consist in the roote of it, ought also to have extracted the square Roote of the number 666. That the Extraction of the square root is an ancient and vsefull invention by which many famous mysteries haue been found out.

WHat hath been hitherto said, differeth little from the grounds which the la­test interpreters haue layed for the fin­ding out of the mystery. J haue as yet but bea­ten and made plaine the same path, which Mr [Page 44] Forbes and other commentators upon the Re­velation haue trodden out before me, but I am now come to that place, where they either stood still, or turned out of the way. It is true M^r Forbes and others affirme, that the number 144 is the number which is opposed to the number of the Beast; and that, as it is a square and perfect number, built and raised upon the number 12 onely, which is the roote of it; so the Church of Christ is a square and perfect building, built upon the doctrine of the 12 A­postles. It is also true, that as the number 666 is neither a square nor perfect number, nor built upon the number 12: so neither is the Romish Hierarchy a square and perfect building, neither is it built upon the doctrine of the 12 Apostles. All this is true, but this is not all that is true; nor the tenth part of that which may be found out by this number. All this is but a ne­gative description, shewing rather, what An­tichrist is not, then truly defining what he is. And those interpreters which rest satisfied with so imperfect a description, must confesse that they know no more of Antichrist by this num­ber then what is plaine and evident by many places of the Sriptures. Why doe they not there­fore upon the grounds, which they themselues [Page 45] have laid, farther prosecute their owne interpretations? Why doe they not seeke out the roote of the beasts number, as well as the roote of Gods number, that so they may know, not only negatively, what is not the foundation of the Romish Hierarchy, but also positively, what it is? Were they so unaquain­ted in Arithmetick, that they knew not what the square roote of a number is, nor how it ought to be extracted? I dare not accuse such learned men of this nescience, much lesse of their ignorance in this kinde. Perhaps some of them through incogitancy, not rightly con­sidering these words in the text, numerus enim hominis est, did thinke it unbeseeming the wise­dome of God, and the majesty of the scriptures, to wrap up such divine mysteries in humane and heathenish inventions. True it is indeed, The extraction of the rootes of numbers is an humane, and perhaps an heathenish invention; but it is a lawfull, a profitable and an usefull in­vention. It is the very ground, and foundati­on of Arithmeticke and Geometry, and so ne­cessary, and essentiall a part of these Sciences, that neither of them can well subsist without it. By it was found out that famous invention, for which it is said, that Pythagoras sacrificed [Page 46] an Hecatombe unto the Gods; and why may not Christians finde out as great a mystery by it as ever Heathens did? Certainely if the wise­dome of God will at any time vouchsafe to un­lock this numbers mystery by any humane in­vention, (as the words themselves seeme to in­timate) there is none in respect of it selfe more probable, then this, by which so many, and so famous mysteryes have been, and dayly are re­vealed. I say therefore, why doe not those la­ter writers, which in part have rightly discern­ed wherein the mystery of Gods number doth consist, extract the roote of 666 also? For had they extracted the square roote of this number of the beast, then had they truly endeavoured to interpret this number, after the same man­ner, that they themselves do interpret that number, which is opposed unto it; then had they found out that number, which is mystical­ly implied in 666, as 12 is in 144; then had they found out that number, which is chiefely in­tended by 666, as 12 is by 144; then had they found out that nmber, which is the measure, number, and foundation, as well of that mate­riall City, wherein Antichrist doth reside, as also of that state and government, by which he ruleth in it. For as the number 12 is not [Page 47] onely exquisitely applicable to that ecclesiasti­call government, and Hierarchy, which Christ did first institute in Hierusalem, but doth also describe, and measure the materiall City it selfe, as is partly above shewed: so the roote of the Beasts number, which is the number op­posed to 12, is not only exquisitely and miracu­lously applicable to that government, and Hie­rarchy, which was by Antichrist first institu­ted, but doth also describe, and characterize that materiall City, in which this government was first erected. And all this, by that which followeth shall be clearly and evidently pro­ved.

But first, for as much as this opinion, which I shall here set downe, doth differ from all o­ther in this respect, namely, in that it affirm­eth, that the chiefe mystery doth not consist in the application of the number 666 unto Anti­christ, but in finding out another number, by counting of this number, which other num­ber is most properly, and most remarkably ap­plicable unto him; I thinke it therefore necess­ary not to passe over such proofes as the text it selfe affordeth for the full confirmation of this point, wherein the difference consisteth. For although it cannot be denied, but that the [Page 48] like interpretation of the opposite number (as it is above shewed) is a strong, and violentpre­sumption, why the Beasts number should be thus interpreted; yet the words of the text are so apposite, and do so necessarily inforce this interpretation, that I see not how it can bee pos­sibly avoided, although there were no example in the Scripture for it.

CHAP. 10. What the counting of the number is. What is meant by the first Beast, the second Beast, and the I­mage of the Beast mentioned, Revel. 13. That by counting the Beasts number some other num­ber ought to be found out besides the number 666.

THE words are these in the 13 chap. of the Revel.

Here, is wisdome, let him that hath un­derstanding count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is six hundred sixty six.

It is expresly said in these words, that the number 666 must be counted; now after what manner should this number be counted, but, after some such manner, as is commonly used [Page 49] among men? And least any man should un­derstand it of a meerely speculative, or angeli­call, or of any intricate and unusuall kind of computation, therefore it is added, Numerus enim hominis est, for it is the number of a man, or of Man, that is, as Hic sapien­tia denotat ingenij acri­moniâ & per­spi [...]acitate o­pus esse, ad ea quae sequun­tur percipien­da▪ Conveni­niens est Ri­chardi con­structio, vide­licet, Nume­rum hominis appella [...]i eum numerum, qui ab homine observari pos­sit; quasi dica­tur ejusmodi esse enume­randi ratio & computatio qu [...]m humani ingenij vis assequi & ini [...]e possit. Quá ratione nec phrasis est insolens, nec in­epta ratio: immo aptissima est [...], Qui [...]bet sapienti [...], computet numerum Bestiae, humani enim ingenij viribus haec fieri valet computatio—Numerus eni [...] hominis est (1) quia ejusmodi supputatio est quam possit humano more [...] [...] in 13 cap Apoc. Alchazar, Coterius, Numerus [...] est (1), ut Areta [...] ait consu [...]us est calculus & inter homines cog­nitus; vel aliter, Qui habet intellectum computet ben [...] ▪ n [...]m proprium est hominis intellect­um h [...]ben [...]is, numerare. Gasper [...] in 21 cap. Ap. Gas­per à Melo, and many Dicit enim numerus hominis est, id est, ut alibi alià de re, & mensus est murum ejus 144 cubitorum. Mensura hominis que est Angeli.—Sic quando ait simpliciter Numerus hominis est, intelligi [...] Hu [...]es numeri & [...]ecipi­endi & intelligendi hominem esse capacem. Scripter Anonimus in Commentari [...]s de Bestia Apo­calyptica pag, 140 & 141. Bibliotheca B [...]d. Oxon. M. 12, 16. Tho. others expound it, not onely such a number, but such a computation, and counting, as is knowne unto men, & such as is cōmonly used among them. And that these words were not added to signifie, that Anti­christ should be a man, and one individuall per­son, as the Papists would have it, not only Cotte­riu [...], but even Alchazar the Jesuite doth very well reason out of the words of the text. His words are these, Constructio illa non aptum videtur red­dere sensum, sienimideò dictumfuit, [NUMERUS HOMINIS EST] ut Antichristus verus homo fu­turus [Page 50] affirmaretur, connexio literae haec erit; Qui habet sapientiam computet numerum nominis be­stiae, quia Antichristus erit homo, at (que) adeò nume­rus eius erit numerus hominis, quae ratio minimè vi­detur apta. Nam quòd Antichristus sit homo futu­rus, nil deservit ad hoc, ut computetur, vel non com­putetur numerus eius. That is, that manner of construction seemes not agreeable to reason; for if it were therefore said, it is the number of a man, that it might be affirmed that Antichrist was a very man, then the coherence, and sense must be this, Let him that hath wisdome, count the number of the name of the beast, because Antichrist shall be a man, & so his number shall be a mans num­ber. Which kinde of reasoning seemes not at all to be probable; for that Antichrist shall be a man, it conduceth nothing either to the coun­ting, or to the not counting of his number. Thus much Alchasa [...] in 13 cap. Apoc. By whose words it may be observed, that the evidence of truth made him so bold, as to confute that interpreta­tion of th [...]se words which most Papists would have generally to be received. And here with all submission to better judgements, J hope I may without offence to any man, set downe curso­rily, that opinion which I suppose most proba­ble, concerning the two Beasts, and the image [Page 51] of the Beast, mentioned in this 13 cap. of the Re­velation. I conceive the first Beast with the wounded head, not to be that temporall power of the Roman Emperours, which they have ex­ercised since the time of Constantine the great: but to be that temporall power of the Roman Emperours, which since that time hath beene usurped by the Popes. For I believe that the Bi­shop and clergy of Rome shortly after the daies of Constantine the great, did either by his dona­tion, or by their own usurpation, when the Em­perour was absent and taken out of the way, hold & usurpe, for a short time at the least, even a temporall principalitie in and over the city of Rome, and the territories adjoyning; and this temporall principalitie, wealth, and riches which the Popes and clergy of Rome then had, was the beginning of their greatnesse. And by this temperall greatnesse, I doe not meane such subordinate Titles, Dignities, and maintenance, as were in those times by Emperours & Kings bestowed upon many other Christian Bishops, but such dominion and principality as is in­compatible with the ministers of the Gospell, & such as Bellarmine speakes of, when he saith, that the same Ecclesiasticall person may be both an Ecclesiasticall and a temporall Prince. Many [Page 52] reasons and Rab Abra­ham Levita, dicit Constan­tinum Româ c [...]ssisse cam (que) Sacerdotibus E l [...]mcorum reliquisse▪ Et Ab [...]n Ezrain Dan. dicit, Constantinus dec [...]ravit lo [...]ii Romae quae e­rat sedes ejus & reliquit c­um iniquitati quae voca [...]ur Petrus, &c. Angel: Rocca in Bib. Vatic. pag. 183. E piscopatus Romanus non aliter at (que) A­lexandrinus quasi extra Sa cerdotii sines egr [...]ssus, ad secularem principa [...]um erat jam ante delapsus. So­crat Histor. Eccles. lib. 7. cap. 11. probabilities may be alleaged to prove that the Bishops of Rome had such tem­porall dominion before the Gothes and Vandals did overrunne Italy. Most Papistsdoe willingly acknowledge it, and it is easily proved against all those that doe acknowledge the donation of Constantine. And although the donation of Constantine be forged in many things, yet not perhaps in all. And if it be wholly forged, yet it is an argument that the Bishops of Rome had possession of some such temporall power in those ancienter times: for why else was it for­ged, but to prove that their ancesters had right to such things, as it was then undeniable, that they did formerly possesse?

This temporall power and principalitie over the city of Rome, did succeed the government of the Roman Emperours in Rome (who were the sixth head, that was in the time of S. John) and did receive a deadly wound, perhaps part­ly by some Emperours, and perhaps partly by some seditious tumults of the Citizens, but chiefly by the incursions of the Gothes and Van­dals, who endeavoured to erect a new forme of goverment in Rome, and did so far effect it, as was necessary for the deadly wounding of the Popes dominion, but yet could not so utterly [Page 53] abolish it, but that it revived againe afterwards. This temporall dominion being revived and having the Exarchie of Ravenna, and many o­ther things added unto it, became formidable to all other temporall Princes, and to the Empe­rour himselfe, whom I account one of those ten Kings which was to give his power to this Beast. Of this temporall power Funecius speaks where he saith, Ex hoc tempore Papae in Italia do­mini, subinde quaesiverunt, quo modo potentiam su­am stabilirent: donèc tandem à Pipino, maximam Italiae partem, quam vi subegerant, dono acceperint. After which time the Bishop & clergy of Rome usurping and enjoying without controlement this temporall principalitie, and being assisted with the obedience of other temporall Princes (some of whom they forced to obey them by their dragon-like power, and some they decea­ved by working miracles, and by the efficacie of errour) began now to seek out some better title then his own usurpation and the donation of Princes, by which he might now establish himselfe and the Sea of Rome in his temporall principality. And considering that some of his predec [...]ssors having mouthes speaking great things, did begin to clay me to themselves uni­versall Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction over the [Page 54] whole world, he resolved that it was his onely way actually to settle such universall Ecclesia­sticall power on himselfe, as was rather clay­med then possessed by his predecessors. And seeing that he could have no good title to such an universall Ecclesiasticall power as he aymed at, either as he was a Bishop, or as he was an Archbishop, or as he was a Patriarke, he was therefore necessitated to make the people be­leeve that he was the Vicar of Christ, and that in this he succeeded S. Peter, who derived from Christ this great authority peculiar to himselfe and his successors. And now having derived this great power to himselfe by authority of the holy Scriptures & by divine right, (as he makes the world believe,) he is now become a Beast having two hornes like the Lambe, that is, two powers both Temporall, and Ecclesiasticall; Ec­clesiasticall directè, and Temporall indirectè over all kingdomes in the world. First there­fore, this unlawfull temporall power which the Bishop of Rome first usurped I conceive to be the first Beast whose head was wounded, & I believe that the Bishops of Rome were even in those times, before they usurped any unlawfull Ecclesiasticall power, the Antichrist, not in re­spect of their Ecclesiasticall or Episcopall pow­er, [Page 55] but in respect of that their unlawfull tempo­rall power above mentioned. Secondly, I con­ceive the second Beast mentioned, Revel. 13. 11. to be that unlawfull universall Ecclesiasticall power which these latter times have setled up­on the Pope; and I believe that he is the Anti­christ, not as Bishop, or as Archbishop, or Patri­arch, but as he pretends himselfe to be Pope & Vicar of Christ having such a transcendent Ec­clesiasticall power as is incommunicable to any other upon earth. This Ecclesiasticall power doth now include in it efficaciter although in­directè, all that temporall power which the first Beast had, and all other temporall power be­sides it. And for this reason the second Beast is said to exercise all the power of the first Beast in his presence. For so the Pope continuing still a temporall Prince and Bishop of Rome, hold­eth now all that temporall power and domi­nion, by vertue of his unlawfull Ecclesiasticall power, which for divers hundreds of yeares, the Bishops his predecessors were formerly content to hold, onely by the pretended and perhaps forged donations of Constantine and o­ther Princes.

Now lastly, as touching the Image of the Beast, I suppose that to be the person of the [Page 56] Pope for the time being: especially he being considered as he is Vicarius Christi; for in this respect the Cardinals and others his followers doe flatly adore him when he is elected, and doe teach such Adoration to be due unto him. And this worship and adoration which is gi­ven unto him, although it be not sufficient toQui singit sacros auro vel mar­more vultus Non facit ille deos, Qui regat ille facit. transforme him really and truely into such a Vicar of Christ as they pretend him to be: yet it is sufficient to transforme him really and truely into such an Jmage and such an Idoll as is in the text described. These things J have set downe Obiter, and breifly to shew that these two Beasts, and the Image of the Beast doe all concurre to the making up of that one great Antichrist, whose city, State, and King­dome are described by the Beasts number, and to shew how unprobable it is that all these things should be meant of one particular man as the papists would have Antichrist to be.

It were an easy thing to confirme the same truth by many testimonies, both of protestants, and papists. But because it is certaine and evi­dently proved by many learned writers that the great and chiefe Antichrist should not be one person only, but a state of government, or body politick, I will therefore recite here the words [Page 57] of Cotterius only, a late writer, who as J con­ceivereasoneth unanswerably to the same pur­pose in his commentaries upon the 13 cap. of the Apoc. where he speaketh in these words, Numerus enim hominis est: [...], non [...] quasi hic appellatio hominis Antichristo tri­bueretur; De bestiâ agitur, cui appellationem bo­minis competere repugnat; vult igitur Scriptura numerum bestiae ejusdem esse speciei cum nostrate; numeri enim ratio una non est: nos res nostras ad decadum, & centuriarum, & chiliadum, & myria­dum rationes exigimus, quid ni veró angeli alias nu­merorum contabulationes sequantur? That is, for it is the number of a man, or of Man, not of this man, or that man, or any particular man, as if the name of a man were here attributed to An­tichrist. The Prophet speaketh of the Beast, to whom the name and appellation of a man can­not agree. The meaning therefore is, that this number of the Beast is of the same kinde, that other numbers are, which are used by us, that are men, and inhabitants of this world. For all numbering is not after the same manner; we that are men number our things by tens, & by hundreds, & by thousands, and by tens of thou­sands; but why may not Angels rank and dis­pose unities according to other progressions & [Page 58] proportions? For as much then, as this number is the number of a man, that is, a number of the same kinde that other numbers are, that are U­sed by men, therefore we cannot doubt, but the computation, and counting of this number is such a kind of computation, as is usuall among men▪

I aske therefore what it is, to count a num­ber after the manner of men? And, what literall and grammaticall sense can be given of these words, except they be understood of such a kinde of computation, as is both usuall among men, and proper to numbers only? but there is no other way whereby men usually doe, or properly can be said to count numbers, but by such a kinde of computation, which either is, or is reducible unto one of these following; namely either by Addition, or Substraction, or Multiplication, or Division, or by the extracti­on of Roots: and therefore it is absolutely ne­cessary, that the number of the Beast must be counted according to one of these kindes of computation. But in all these kinds of compu­tation, and in every one of them, the end and scope is, by one or more numbers given, to find out one other number, which was not known nor could be expressed before the computation [Page 59] was performed. And hence it followeth neces­sarily, that if the number of the Beast must be counted, then there must be some other number found out by it, beside the number it selfe, which is named and expressed. And this infe­rence is so evident, & necessary, that some lear­ned interpreters (although they aymed not atIa [...]s B [...]c [...]rd▪ any particular application) have by the words of the text, and by their own well grounded conjectures, and great sagacity fore▪ seen, and fore-told, that there was some other number beside the number 666 to be understood in this place, by the number of the Beast. And this may appeare by the words of Rupertus upon this place, where he writeth thus, Hic sapientia est, qui habet intellectum computet, &c. Quid hoc est, quod & numerum praescribit ipse, & tamen dicit, qui h [...]bet sapientiam computet numerum bestiae? qualem numerum? vel quare computet numerum Bestiae? numerus enim, inquit, hominis est, & nu­merus eius 666▪ quid hoc est quod & numerum prae­scribit ipse, & tamen dicit, qui habet sapi [...]ntiam computet numerum Bestiae? Num hoc intendit, ut computando sapientèr hoc totum perquiras, quot in isto numero fint monades, aut certè decades, &c. And a litle after this anxious disquisition about counting this number, he concludes in these [Page 60] words, Duos ergo numeros hic intelligi oportet, al­terum nominis eius, five Dei: alterum Bestiae, five ho­minis. That is, Two numbers therefore must be understood in this place, one being the num­ber of the Beasts name, or of God; the other of the Beast, or of man, for Gods number is not the same with mans number. By which words I know not what else can be understood, but this; That the number 666 is not only the num­ber of the Beasts name, but also the number of God, that is, it is a number which God hath pleased to name, and reveale to men, that by counting of this number, they might finde out that other number, which it pleased not God, expressely to name in this place, but rather my­stically to conceale, because it is more properly the number of the Beast, then this, which is the number of his name. To these words of Ruper­tus may be added the like testimony of Pet. Bon­gus in his booke de numerorum mysteriis, where writing of the same place of Scripture, and of the number 666 he hath the like words, Duos ergo numeros hic intelligi oportet, &c. two num­bers therefore must here be understood, &c.

Now therefore it being evident, that by counting of this number there ought some o­ther number to be found out, the next thing to [Page 61] be inquired after, is, what kinde of computati­on ought here to be used. For although it be granted, that this number must be counted, and that it cannot be counted, but that there must some other number be found out by it, yet for as much as numbers may be counted divers wayes, (as is above said) and there may be di­vers numbers found out by them, a reason may well be demanded, why this counting of the number should be restrained to the extraction of the root only, rather then to any other kinde of computation? To which I might answer, that the example of the opposite number (which is to be counted after this manner) is a sufficient reason; but I doe rather answer that this restriction is not only probable, but abso­lutely necessary, because there is only one num­ber named and expressed in the text. For if any other kind of computation had been intended, two numbers at the least ought to have been expressed. For neither Addition, nor Substracti­on, nor Multiplication, nor Division can be per­formed, but there must be two numbers at the least given; that by them a third, that is, either a Totum, or a Remainder, or a Product, or a Quotient may be found out; but in the extra­ction of Roots, one number only ought to be [Page 62] expressed whose root is to be extracted: and for this cause it is flatly against the literall, and the grammaticall sense of the words of the text, to understand any other immediate computation or calculation by them. It were an imperfect speech to say, here is wisdome, let him that hath understanding adde the number of the Beast, for it is the number of a man, & his num­ber is 666, and yet not to declare what number it is to which this should be added. So likewise if it had been said, Let him that hath understan­ding subtract the number of the Beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666; it would be demanded from what number it should be subtracted: or if it had been said, Here is wisdome, let him that hath understan­ding multiply the number of the Beast, or di­vide the number of the Beast, for it is the num­ber of a man, and his number is 666; who see­eth not how ambiguous, and imperfect the speech is; because there is no number expressed or intimated by which it should be multiplied or divided? But if it had been said, Here is wis­dome, let him that hath understanding extract the root of the number of the Beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666, this is an intire and perfect speech of it selfe, and such [Page 63] as must of necessity be understood in this place: because there is no other way by which men either properly can, or usually doe count one number onely, but onely by the extraction of the roote of it.

CHAP. 11. What it is to extract the square roote of a number? That 25 is the number that is the roote of 666; and remarkablely opposed unto 12. Some objections answered concerning the fractions of the roote of 666.

AND thus having hitherto proved by the example of the opposite number, and by the wordes of the text, that the roote of this number ought to be extracted; I come now from quod fit, to quid fit, from pro­ving that is to be extracted, to shew what it is to extract it.

To extract the square roote of a number gi­ven, is to find out the greatest number, which being multiplied into it selfe and having the fractions added to the product, (if there be any fraction remaining) maketh the first number. And how this is to be performed I need not here relate; it is sufficiently declared by such as [Page 64] have written of Arithmeticke. And although many learned, and worthy Divines (whose bookes I account my selfe not worthy to beare) are perhaps ignorant of it: yet is this kind of Mathematicall learning called wisedome inMoses was learned in all the wisdome of the Egyp­tians, Act. 7. 22. the Scriptures, and in this may consist one part of that wisedome and understanding, which is in the wordes of the text required for the fin­ding out of this mystery. Let him therefore that hath this skill in humane Arts, and Scien­ces, and let him that hath understanding to ex­tract the rootes of numbers, extract the roote of the Beasts number, and he shall find that fatall number to be 25, and that the fractions remai­ning are 41: and that this is proved by multi­plying 25 by it selfe, which makes 625, and by adding the fractions which are 41 unto 625, both which numbers added together, make the just summe 666. And although the roote of this number, not being a simple roote, as the roote of 144 is, must in strictnesse of speech be expressed by more of which the first i [...] Cardinall number, and the fractions are expresse [...] by an ordinall number. numbers then one, yet there can be no doubt or question which of those numbers must be the number answerable and opposite to 12. The roote of 666 may be said to be 25 41 / 51 or else, to expresse it more exactly, it may be said to be 25 25 / 31: or it may be said to be [Page 65] 25 806 / 1000 or 25 8069758 / 10000000 nay any number whatso­ever may be made one of those numbers by which the fractions may be expressed. But howsoever the number of the fractions be va­riable, yet the number [...]5 is alwayes constant and the same, as 12 is in the opposite roote. And as 12 is the greatest number, and the least number, and the only number of unities of the same denomination with the number 144, (which is or can be contained in) the roote of 144: so 25 is the greatest number, and the least number, and the only number of unities of the same denomination with the number 666, (which is or can be contained in) the roote of the number 666. And this sicut similitudinis is suffi­cient to establish an evident antithesis between the two great Cardinall numbers of these two rootes, although in respect of the fractions there be no sicut aequalitatis between them. And whe­ther the fractions be added or not added to 25, yet they can neither augment, nor diminish the roote, no not so much as by one unite, as it is sufficiently knowne to those that know what fractions are. It is no good argument to say that 25 is not opposed to 12, because 2 [...] hath fracti­ons appendant to it, and 12 hath not; for, Omne simile est etiam dissimile, and by the same reason [Page 66] it might be said, that the 12 Apostles are not an­swerable to the 12 Patriarches, because the A­postles had some priviledges or defects which the Patriarches had not. Or that the Cardinals are not answerable to the Apostles in the Ro­mish Hierarchy, because they have red hats, which Jbelieve the Apostles had not. Besides, it is often times an usuall and ordinary thing, etiam praxi mathematicâ, in many arithmeticall operations, to cast away, and not to regard the fractions of roots, because the root or Cardi­nall number it selfe is of sufficient exactnesse to prove or effect the conclusion, which is desired; nay sometimes and in some cases, when rootes of numbers are to be extracted, they cannot make the fractions to be usefull to their purpo­ses, though they would. For suppose a captaine haue 666 men under his command, and would reduce them to a square figure of equall sides and ranks: to effect his purpose he must extract the root of 666, which he would finde to be 25 41 / 51, and by that he would conclude that he must of necessity take the number 25 to be the number of rankes, and the number of men in euery ranke, and no other number would serve his turne. As for the 41 odd men he must reject them as unusefull, if he will have his ar­my [Page 67] exactly square. The number 50 is no equi­laterall square number, and yet S. Augustine upon the 150 Psalme & else where maketh the mystery of this number to consist in the roote of it which is 7 without any scruple of any fraction: and it were easie to set downe many authors which interpret the same and other numbers after the same manner. Seeing there­fore it is usuall among men in many cases, and necessary in some, not to regard the fractions, but onely the Cardinall number in the extracti­on of rootes; why then may we not doe like­wise in extracting the roote of 666? why may we not consider the number 25 first by it selfe, and as it is the only Cardinall number opposed to 12, by which the roote of 666 can be truely expressed; and afterwards as it hath relation to the fractions, especially being the unities of the roote of this number are sometimes to be ap­plied to Persons, who are things indivisible in­to parts or fractions, as are also the unities of numbers essentially and absolutely considered. And the truth is, that no number of fractions, as fractions, is properly a part of any roote ess­entially considered: for howsoever it be true that fractions, being reduced to some certaine denomination, doe more exactly shew the side [Page 68] of a [...]quare figure as it is quantitas continua, yet it cannot be proved that they are any proper essentiall part of the roote it selfe as it is quanti­tas discreta. For the fractions of a roote doe sup­pose every unitie in the roote to be divided in­to many parts, and the number it selfe, whose roote is to be extracted, to be resolved into ano­ther number farre greater then it selfe. And the fractions (if it be well considered) are rather part of the roote of the second number into which the first is supposed to be resolved, then of the roote of the first number which was to be extracted. As for example the roote of 666 is 25 806 / 1000 which fractions doe suppose every u­nitie of 666, to be multiplied into one million; and every unite of the roote 25 to be multiplied into one thousand: for if the figures of the roote and of the fractions be joyned together they doe make 25806. which number is the true roote of 666000000 so that 806, (being now unities of the same denomination with the number 666000000,) are more proper­ly a part of the roote of 666 millions, then of the roote of 666 unities. And by this it may be observed and understood, that while w [...] doe [...]e [...]ke after Ordinall numbers, more exactly to expresse that roote whose Cardinall number [Page 69] we have already found out, we doe nothing els in effect (although many times we consi­der it not) but seeke after the Cardinall num­ber of another roote whose fractions, being now the fractions of a greater number, are not at all, or not so much to be regarded. By these considerations it may sufficiently appeare, that that Cardinall number which is the ex­acte roote of the greatest square number con­tained in any number given, whose roote is to be extracted, is the number which is most re­markeable and chiefly sought after in the ex­tr [...]ction of every roote; for this number is, and is to be reputed, not only the roote of the grea­test square number contayned in the number given, but al [...]o of divers other numbers which doe exceede it, but yet with this difference, that it is the roote of the square number without fractions, and o [...] o [...]he [...] numbers with fracti­ons added to it. A [...]d that the same Cardinall number with a little difference of fractious, should be the ro [...]t [...] o [...] [...] numbers then one and of [...]ny nu [...]be [...]s▪ [...] i [...] a thingth [...]ose which are not [...] ver [...] in the [...]t [...]action of rootes, doe neith [...] co [...]r nor well under­stand: and this [...]s them [...], that be­cause 25 is the [...]oo [...] o [...] [...] th [...]t therefore it i [...] [Page 70] not the roote of 666. But such should consider that one reason why these kinds of numbers are called rootes, is, because every such num­ber, is in this respect like unto the roote of a tree; for as one roote hath many branches growing upon it, and issuing from it, although some grow nearer the roote then others: so the same number may be the root of divers other numbers, which have all a reall, and yet a diff­ering dependance upon it. And although as­cending upward, there be no infallible directi­on from the roote to any one particular branch, yet descending from the top of any one branch, there is certaine and infallible di­rection to the same roote: and so whosoever shall goe to extract the roote of any number greater then 624 and lesse then 676, according to such rules of art as are, and have hitherto been commonly taught, and generally received, shall be infallibly directed, not to the number 26, but to the number 25, & to that number only, as unto the only Cardinall number first sought after in the extraction of all rootes; & this num­ber either by it selfe, or having some fractions appendant to it, is the true root of all such num­bers as are included between those two num­bers above mentioned Neither is it usual or pos­sible [Page 71] truly to expresse any root that hath fracti­ons, by any other Cardinall number, but only by that number which being multiplied into it selfe produceth the greatest square number contained in that number, whose roote is to be extracted. And although there be divers o­ther numbers besides this number 666, by any one of which we might have been infallibly directed to this number 25, as unto the only Cardinall number by which their roots could have been expressed: yet there is no one of those numbers but only the number 666, whose most perfect figure doth represent the figure of Rome, as the most perfect figure of the number 144 doth represent the figure of Hieru­salem: and for this reason chiefly, and for di­vers others (as shall be shewed abundantly in due place) it was both convenient, and neces­sary, that this number 666 should be chosen ra­ther then any other. But if it be objected, that the roote of 666 is nearer to 26, then 25; yet I answere that it cannot be truely said to be 26, but is truely said to be 25: and that not only be­cause 25 is contained in this roote, as are also all other numbers lesse then 25, but because 25 is the greatest number of unities of the same denomination with the number 666, contain­ed [Page 72] in this roote. And that I may expresse this the more clearly I will make it plaine by an in­stance, and because there is only a threefold ambiguity incident to the expression of such rootes as have fractions, I will therefore sup­pose the same question to be proposed to three severall men concerning the length of one side of an exactly square figure containing pre­cisely 666 foote of square measure. The fi [...]st being asked how many foote in length one side of this figure must be, would perhaps say 25, because that is the greatest number of feet contained in it. The second being asked how many foote in length one side of this figure must be, would perhaps say 26, because the exact length is nee [...]est unto it. The third being asked the same question, would perhaps say, that it was neither 25 foote long nor 26, but that it was nine or ten inches more then 25, [...]nd two or three inches lesse then 26. The first of these three answers is clearly and evidently true, for 25 is the greatest number and the least number, and the only number of feet by which that length can be expressed. The second an­swere is clearly and evidently false, for if that length, which wanteth above two inches of 26 foote, had lacked but one inch or one small [Page 73] part of an inch, it could not then have been [...]ru­ly said to have been 26 foot long, and who [...]oe­ver taketh proximum vero, pro vero, in this kinde, 'tis plain that he taketh falsum pro vero, falshood for truth. The third answer is impertinent, and not to the purpose, for the question propoun­ded, was not how many inches, but how many foot long one side of that figure was. Neither ought the question to have been any other waies propounded; because in the extraction of all roots, the first number sought after, is a Cardinall number, and not an ordinall number, a number of such parts of which every one may be said to be an integrum, and not a number of fractions, which result of themselves without seeking after, when this first number is found out. And as [...]for the fractions, I have already shewed, that they cannot darken the remarka­blenesse of the number 25, nor disanull that an­tithesis, which is and ought to be between this number and that number, which is opposite un­to it. Yet if any number, by which the fractions of this root may be expressed, be more remark­able and rather to be chosen then another: then without question it is that number, by which the fractions may be most exactly expressed by fewest figures, and by such numbers as doe [Page 74] leave fewest fractions of fractions remaining. And certainly it seemeth strange and wonder­full to me, neither doe J think it meerely acci­dentall, that the number 25, should so exactly expresse the fractions of the root of 666, as that no other number lesse then it or neere unto it, can so perfectly expresse them. For neither 41 / [...]1 nor 806 / 1000 doe so exactly expresse the fractions of the root of 666 as 25. 25 / 31 nay although those25. 25 / [...]1. [...] / 60. numbers be infinite by which the fractions of this root may be expressed, yet I believe there is not any one of them which leaveth so small a number of fractions, as this number doth. And although numbers and their roots be infinite in number, yet that there should be any other number besides this number 666, the fractions of whose root may be so exactly ex­pressed by the Cardinal number of its own root with any denominator whatsoever, as the frac­tions of the root of 666, are by 25; this is such a thing as I conceive to be [...], a thing that cannot happen to be found out, although I will not say 'tis absolutly unpossible. But in the mean time untill some such number shall be produ­ced, whose root may be after the same manner, and with the like exactuesse expressed, shall be farre from thinking that this happeneth ca [...]ual­ly [Page 75] and accidentally; but shall believe rather, that as the doubling of Pharaohs dreame was an ar­gument of the certainty of that which was sig­nified by it: so because this number 25 is in a double respect remarkable in the root of 666, (first, in that it is the onely Cardinall number of the prime or Cardinall unities: and secondly, in that it is the onely number of ordinall unities or fractions, by which that root can be by fewest figures most exactly expressed) I doe there­fore conclude, that it is a certaine and esta­blished truth, that this number twenty five is that fatall and unfortunate number of Anti­christ opposed to the number 12, and that in an higher nature, & in a greater degree of oppositi­on then 666 is opposed to 144, it being that very number which as it is most apparently and re­markably applicable to the City and Hierarchy of Antichrist, so is it also chiefly intended by the number 666: although it pleased the wis­dome of God to seale it up in a mystery, and as it were to lock it up in the cabinet of a greater number, untill that time came which God had appointed for mans reason to unlock this cabi­net, by the key of computation, and so to take out this so long hidden number, by which An­tichrist is (as it shall be shewed) most evident­ly, [Page 76] and miraculously described. For if this num­ber had been expressely named in this place to have been the number of the Beast, or if that mysticall Babylon, in which Antichrist raign­eth, had been measured in the Scriptures by this number 25, as the new Jerusalem is by the number 12, then there had been no mystery at all contained in it; then it had been so plainely set downe, that Antichrist would have preven­ted it. For as it is not probable that ever any Pope will now chuse such a name, whose nu­merall letters shall make the just [...]umme 666, (because some men suppose that this number is so to be applied:) so neither is it likely that An­tichrist would ever have chosen and affected this number 25 above, and before any other number, to be the only conspicuous, and remar­kable number in the foundation of his Hierar­chy, except the wisdome of God, who taketh the wise in their own craftinesse, had sealed it up in a mystery in such sort that they should not understand it, as long as they had any possibility either to alter it or to deny it. For even so hath it come to passe in the Hierarchy of the Romish Clergy, that their ancesters have fatally, and un­wittingly laid the foundation of the Papacy up­on this number 25, and have made this number [Page 77] so particularly applicable to their City, and to themselves in all those materiall circumstances, in which the number 12 is applicable either li­terally to the city Jerusalem, or spiritually to the Church of God, and Hierarchy thereof; that no pollicy is now sufficient to cover it, nor their own impudence (with any shew of probabili­ty) to deny it.

CHAP. 12. That the number 25 hath been conceived to be a fa­tall and [...]nfortunate number, by such, as knew no relation that it h [...]d to Antichrist, or to the num­ber 666.

AND now that I may come neerer to [...] this number to the Papacy, I will first shew [...]hat as 12 is a good, and per­fect number alw [...]ies taken in a good sense, in the Scriptu [...]es: [...]o 25 is an unfortunate number in it [...]lfe, and that it hath been branded for an evill and unluckie number both by prophane, and sacred writers, although they knew no re­lation that it had either to Antichrist, or the number 666. It is observed by Vince [...]tius that this number 25 is imparitèr impar [...]rus qui impari numero imparitè [...] mensuratur, that is, an [Page 78] odly uneven number, which is unevenly mea­sured by an odde number. Others have obser­ved, and proved both by reason and authoritie that the number of five is a fatall number, and that all numbers either ending in five, or made by it are evill, and unhappy also. Petrus Bongus, in his book de numerorum mysteriis, observeth & sheweth that this number 25, which doth not only end in five, but is made by the multiplica­tion of five by five, is mysteriously evill. His words are these, Hinc factum est, ut hoc numero 25 Hieroglyphicè notarentur qui illecebris, & vo­luptatibus hujus vitae dediti semetipsos rebus creatis manciparunt:—porrò, constat hic numerus de qui­nario, qui ne (que) tetragonus, ne (que) triangulus, ne (que) cu­bus, ne (que) perfectus est. And in another place he saith, numerus 25 duas duntaxat habet partes ali­quotas nempe 1, & 5: pari modo quinarius cùm sit primus incompositus solâ numerabilis est unitate. Sic etiam ex diametro distans à perfectione, unde in vineâ domini infructuosos significat. But it is yet more remarkable which S. Hierome observes out of the Scriptures, concerning this number 25, in his commentaries upon the 11 cap. of Eze­kiel, where speaking of this number he saith, Et quantum non subterfugit memoriam meam, nun­quam in bonam partem potui hunc numerum repe­rire; [Page 79] licet in numeris ad sacerdotale ministerium à 25 annis eligantur; In Hebraeoenim non habent hunc numerum, sedtricenarium. And not S. Hie­rome only, but divers other interpreters upon the 8 and 11 cap. of Ezekiel, have made the like observations of this number. Lyra of the 25 men their mentioned, saith, Per quos significan­tur Apostatae à fide, vel à religione, maximè quan­dò sunt in suà maliti â firmati, quae significatur per numerum 25, qui numerus est quadratus, quià resul­tat ex ductu quinarii in seipsum. And Petrus Ser­ranus, in his commentaries upon the same visi­on of Ezekiel, writeth after this manner; Ita ut potestati libidinum & cupiditatum vita omnis per­missa sit: hoc autem malum signat sacer Propheta cùm 25 viros in portà orientali se vidisse asserit. Numerum enim quinarium, quo sensus hominis clauduntur, nunquam in bonam partem accipi legi­tur in Scriptur â, ut Divus Hieronymus testatu [...]; etsi pluriès indifferenter inveniatur, undè totius po­puli lapsus vigesimoquinto numero hoc l [...]co signifi­catur. If it be demanded what universall defe­ction and what Apostacy this is from faith and religion by men confirmed in their own ma­lice, which [...]yra, and Serranus acknowledge to be typed out by this number 25, it may be well answered that there is none more probable [Page 80] then that defection, and universall Apostacy which was to come upon the Church of Christ at that time, when Antichrist was to sit in it. For because this vision was not literally fulfil­led, or not fully terminated in the Jewish Church (as it cannot but appeare to those that seriously consider it) therefore S. Hierome (as in this following treatise shall be shewed) and many others doe not onely understand it of some defection, and Apostacy, which was to be among Christians, but doe also apply it even particularly to the Synagogue of Rome. John Husse, in his book de revelatione Christi & Anti­christi, saith of this vision after this manner: Mysticam meretricem Scriptura describens, eius excessum notificat, Ezek. 8. cap. de viris in templo qui stabant ante picturas. And Ecolampadius, af­ter a particular application of the chiefe things contained in this vision, to the Monkes, Friars, and Nunnes of the Romish Church, hath these words, Et quid sibi vult haec visio, quàm quòd in Episcopis & doctoribus abominationes maximas ul­timò cernat? And of those words, Et sunt circitèr viginti quin (que), he saith,—Quid aliud his doce [...]ur, quàm nihilillos perfecto animo agere? understan­ding by the word illos, those Prelates of the Church of Rome, of whom he had before spo­ken. [Page 81] I might here adde the words of Gaspar Sanctius, and others concerning this number upon the same occasion; but, as I conceive, these are sufficient to make it evident, that this num­ber Twenty five is not only (even by the testi­mony of the Scriptures) an Hieroglyphicall cha­racter of some unhappy, desperate, and deplo­red estate of God's Church, but also hath been conceived by religious, wise, and learned men, mystically and typically to foreshew that quin­tessence of impietie and malice, which these latter times have discovered in the Church of Rome. Now therefore for as much as it is a­greeable to other places of Scripture that this number 25 should be in some speciall manner applicable, both to Antichrist, and the Church of Rome: I may with the greater confidence proceed to the particular application, hoping by it, and upon the grounds above proved, to finde out such an accurate and essentiall discri­ption of the Papacie, as shall not seem unpro­bable to have been intended by the holy Ghost: much lesse shall it be prejudiciall to any man's wisdome to believe it.

CHAP. 13. Of the nature, and qualitie, of those particulars, in which the root and the figure of the Beasts number is to be applied to the Papacie.

AND now concerning those particu­lars in which this number is to be ap­plied to the Papacie; it is to be remem­bred what is above said of the number 12, and of those things to which it is applied. For as Antichrist is opposed to Christ, and as 666 is opposed to 144; so is 25 opposed to 12, and so must those things which are chiefly to be mea­sured or numbred by this number 25 be [...], ex adverso respondentia, that is correspon­dent, answerable on the other side, and in some sort opposed to, or set over against those things which are measured, numbred, or described by the number 12. And (as I am perswaded) for this Cause partly is the Church militant, in the 21 Chapter of the Revel: measured, num­bred, and described by these two numbers only 144 and 12, that there might be an expresse ex­ample in the Scriptures not onely shewing in generall how the number 666, ought to be in­terpreted; but also leading us (as it were) by the [Page 83] hand to those particulars, in which the root of this number ought principally to be applyed. And although perhaps it were a sufficient ap­plication, and as much as some Readers would expect, and more then any Papist can confute, to heap together a greater number of particulars, in which this number 25 is ra­ther applicable unto the Romanists, then it is to any other estate, Church, or sect; or then a­ny other number is to themselves, and to their state: yet this is farre short of that most exact and exquisite application, which seemeth chiefly to be intended by the Holy Ghost. In­deed the frequent occurring of this number in things pertaining to the state, and Religion of the Romanists (as shall be shewed in the se­cond place, after I have proved the first, and chiefe application) may well be an argument, that either some secret destiny, which is in it; or their affectation of it, hath made it more proper to them, and more common among them, then any other number. Yet, if it were applicable to them in no more, nor in no other particulars, but in those only which are [...] to those things, which are measured, numbred, or described by the number 12 in the 21 Chap. of the Revel. those onely are abundantly and su­perabundantly [Page 84] sufficient, not only for an evident description, but for a remarkable, essentiall, and incommunicable definition as well of their City, as of their state and Hierarchy. For what can be either said, or imagined to be more essen­tiall, or remarkable either to, or in any city then the figure of it, the circuit of the walls, or com­passe of it, the number of the Gates, the number of the Churches, the number of Tribes, Wards, or Parishes into which it was first divided? And concerning the forme of government (which is more properly a City, then the mate­riall structures) what can be said, or imagined, to be more essentiall to it, or remarkable in it: then the number, time, place, office, and in some sort the very name also of those persons, who are the very Basis and foundation of it, and the very hinges (as they themselves confesse) on which their whole Hierarchy depends, and moves it selfe? As therefore the number 12 in the 21 Chap. of the Revel. is applied to the Church and Hierarchy thereof in such things as are most essentiall to it, and in such circumstances, as are most apparently remarkable in it: so the number 25 in like manner must be applied to the Papacie, and Pseudo-Hierarchy thereof, in such things, as are most essentiall to it, and in [Page 85] such circumstances, as are most apparently re­markable in it.

And as the number 12 is in that chapter after such an admirable and wonderfull manner applied to the spirituall Hierusalem, that is to the Church and Hierarchy thereof, that the literall and materiall City, in which that Eccle­siasticall Hierarchy was first established, is also by the same number plainly measured, and manifestly described: so ought also the num­ber 25 to be in such sort applied to the mysti­call and spirituall Babylon; that the materiall City it selfe, in which that Pseudo-apostolicall Hierarchy hath been long since established, may be by the same number both truly mea­sured, and evidently described. And for this cause it is absolutely necessary, that the Beast mentioned in the 13 Chap: of the Revel: which is Antichrist, must not be one person only (as the Papistsfalsly teach) but (as the latest Although certaine of the Scholasticall Divines do say, that An­tichrist shall be borne of the nation of the Iewes, and of the tribe of Dan &c. yet great learned men which with deepe judgements have read the Scriptures, doe write, that he shall not be one personall man only, but that under the name of Anti­christ is meant and compre­hended the whole king­dome of false teachers, bear­ing rule in the temple of God, and that in a great City which hath rule and domi­nion over the kings of the earth, Rapso­diae G. A. Bi­shop. of Exe­ter. pagina 287. Mis [...]el­lan 25. and best writers doe agree) must essen­tially consist of a certaine number of such per­sons, as may be fitly answerable, Antichristus habitu [...]us est suos Pseudo-apoilolos. Anselmus in 13. cap. Apoc. and op­posite to Christ's Apostles, residing in some City answerable and opposite to Hierusalem. For how is it otherwise possible to interpret [Page 86] this number of the Beast, after the same man­ner, that that number which is opposed unto it is, and ought to be interpreted? How can we by counting the Beast's number finde out the number of his Apostles, and the number of his Tribes, & the number both of the spirituall & materiall gates of his Church and City, & the figure and compasse of it; except Antichrist shall have some City answerable to Hierusalem, and some Persons answerable to the Apostles, and essentiall to his Hierarchy ruling, and residing in it?

CHAP. 14. That Rome is answerable to Hierusalem, and the Popes Cardinalls to Christ's Apostles.

AND as this assertion must necessarily follow out of that which is above said, concerning the manner how this number ought to be interpreted, so is it evi­dently and apparently verified in the Papacy. Alchasar up­on the 21 cap. of the Rev. saith, Totam hujus prophetiae summam devolui ad Romae comparationem theologicam cum HIERUSALEM; nomen Hierusalem hoc loco Romanae Ecclesiae attribui, veterem Hierusolimam nomen suum amisisse, illudquè novam ROMAM, id est, Ro­manam Ecclesiam comparâsse, utpote quae antiquae successit Hierysolimae, in eo quod fidelium omnium CAPUT & METROPOLIS sit effecta. Alchasar in dispu­tat. de argumento 21. cap. For as Hierusalem truly was Caput, mater, gremium & ostium omnium Ecclesiarum, [Page 87] Ex quo uni­vers [...] [...] secunda Hie­rusalem [...] ­ [...]uit appellati, apud quam & Dominus (ad illius Robur sider) in Petro iterum crucifi­gi voluit, ubi­què unius Dei veneratio ac fi­des indefici­ens, & Do­mini precibus & Petri favore ad ultimum usquè judi­cantis Domi­ni adven­tum, in ur­be sublimi & valente, ac in de veriore Hi­erusalem cre­ditur perman­sura. O [...]phri­us Panvinius de praecipuis Urbis Romae basi [...]eis, pagina 265. Coloniae, 1584. And the same Onuphrius saith, pag. 138. that at Rome supra perist [...] extetiotis Basilicae Lateranensis porticus hi versus sunt, Dogmate Papali datur ac simul Imperiali,Quòd sim cunctarum ma [...]er, Caput Ecclesiarum. so doth Rome falsly pretend her selfe to be, and so Rome really, and truly is the mother of all spirituall whoredome, and abominations in re­spect of all those Churches which have been seduced by her.

And as there is a cleere and eminent Anti­thesis betweene Hierusalem and Rome, Isidorus Moseonius lib. 1 [...] de Cardinalibus (ubi enumerat appellationes Cardinalium ma­gis proprias,) Cardinales, inquit, primo [...]n loco appellantur vi [...]m gerentes Apostolorum. so is there also between Christs Apostles, and the Popes Cardinalls; there being no persons in the whole world, of what ranke, order, or degree soever stiling themselves [...] vi­cem gerentes Apostolorum, as they do. They are the very substance, Soule, and Essence of the Papacie, and so neerly united to the Pope, that he accounts them as parts of his owne body, De donatis Papae Cardinales debent habere d [...]midium; Et Papa dimidium corum quae dantur Cardinalibus. Jacobatius de Concilijs, num. 173. Non possunt testari sine licentia Papae, & quia sunt pars corporis Papae non praestant juramentum fidelitatis, tanquam invis­ [...]rati Papae. Jdem ibid. Item Papa habet singular em diligentiam de salute corporali Cardina­lium: unde si Cardinalis infirmetur, non minuitur ei sanguis sine speciali Papae licentia. Idem, Numero 176. Cardinales in Ecclesia Romanâ unum corpus mysticum effecti sunt, & unum Collegium satro sanctum cum summo Pontifice constituunt. Hieronimus Manfredus de Cardinalibus cap. 5. Ecce illud Collegium, [...] Apostolorum, Actuum 15, cu­jus in locum sacer Cardinalium Senatus submissus est, utroque consiliative & deliberativo mu­nere praefultum. Alexander à Turre. lib 2^o, 2^ae. Partis. pag. 82. Collegium Cardinali­um dicitur Sacrosanctum Collegium Apostolorum, Ecclesiae gremium. Iacobatius de con­cilijs. Num. 170. and they together with him make one com­pleat [Page 88] Colledge and Corporation, and one myst­icall Body, actually and eminently containing, upholding, and representing all power, and Ec­clesiasticall jurisdiction. They were instituted in the first most remarkeable foundation of the Papacy by the Pope in the City of Rome, about the time of Constantine the great, in Institutio Cardinalium figuralitèr ha­buit ortam ab institutione divinâ, exem­plaritèr autem à Christo; ex­pressa autem fuit facta tem­pore Pontia­ni & Marcel­li Rom. Pont. propter bap­tisma. Gondis­alvus Villadeigo tausarum olim Palatij Auditoris, in initio libelli de Origine Cardinalatûs. imitati­on of our Saviour Christ, who did in the first most remarkeable foundation of his Church, erect the Colledge of Apostles at Hierusalem, giving them a The name which Christ gave to his Disciples was to be called Apostles, Luc. 6. 13. And the name which the Pope giveth to his best beloved disciples, is to be called Cardinalls. For as Christ in his Church gave some to be Apostles, some Teachers, some Prophets, &c. 1. Cor. 12. 28. And, Ephes. 4. 11. So the Pope in the Romish Church hath given some to be called Cardinalls, some Iesuites, some Abbats; some Monkes, some Friars, some Exorcists, some Acol [...]uts, &c. name, prefining their The first limited number which Christ gave to his Apostles, was according to the number of the gates, and Tribes of Hierusalem; so the first limited and pre­fined number of the Cardinal [...]s was according to the number of the gates of ROME, and according to the number of those Divisions of the City and People of Rome, which the Popes have made answerable to the tribes of HIERUSALEM, as shall be proved in due place. number, and declaring their The Offi [...], and Commission, which Christ gave to his Apostles consisted in three things. First, The Administration of Baptisme was committed chiefly and originally unto them. And although they did afterward commit this function unto others, yet they were first commanded to goe and Baptize all nations, and as it were by the 12 gates of their Bap­tisme to bring all true Israelites into the spirituall Hierusalem. So at the first institution of the Cardinalls, their Office, and Commi [...]sion was chiefly to baptize, and they were affixed to certaine chiefe Churches in ROME, in which, and in which onely baptisme was to be cele­brated. Secondly, the Apostles were to preach Christ, and to propagate and plant Christian Religion in all the world. So the Cardinalls having quickly committed the celebration of Bap­tisme unto others, imployed themselves wholy to preach the Pope, and to plant and propagate Poperie in all kingdomes of the world. Thirdly, Christ gave unto the Apostles the chiefe power to forgive and to detaine sinnes; so likewise the Pope committeth the chiefe [...]are and dispensation of his selling of pardons & indulgences unto the Cardinalls, saying unto them as Christ to his Apostles, Whosesoever sinnes yee remitt, they are remi [...]tted, and whosesoever sinnes yee retayne they are retayned. office, as the Pope hath [Page 89] since done to his Cardinals at Rome. As the Apostles truely were, and are the root and foun­dation of the Christian Church and of all Ec­clesiasticall Jurisdiction: so the Cardinals For the or­der of Cardi­nalls is a con­fessed innova­tion, as B. Morton shew­eth. And An­tonius de Pra­tis affirmeth, CARDINA­LATUS non dicitur gradus nec Ordo Ec­clesiasticae Hi­rarchiae à Chri­sto institutae, nec gradui A­postolo [...]um succedens si­cut Episcopa­tus & saccrdo­tium. De ju­risdictione E­piscopali, Num. 3^o. Tom 3^o Par­te 2 [...]. pag. 36 [...]. fals­lypretend themselves to be, and so they truely are, and doe in expresse words declare them­selves to be the very Cardinales sunt Bases Ecclesiae Ga­briel Paleot­tus de descrip­tione Con­sistorii. Cardinales vniversi orbis regendi pondera sustinent, & super corum humeros totius Ecclesiae machin [...] imponitur Hieronymus Albanus de Cardinalibus, Questione [...]. Basis and Alchasar in his Commentaries on the Revel: saith, The Pope useth to s [...]nd a Saphire stone to every new made Cardinall, to put him in mind that he is now one of those f [...]un [...]ation-stones which are mentioned in the description of the new HIERUSALEM. foundation of the Romish Hierarchy. And therefore the Root and foundation of all that Superstition and Impiety, which being derived originally from Rome, hath been transfused through the whole body of the Christian Church. As it is the Priviledge of the Apostles, to be as it were 12 stars set in that Crowne, which is mentio­ned in the 12 Chapter of the Revelation; so is it an especiall Priviledge belonging to the Cardi­nals, to haue their names written in the Crown of their Prince, as witnesseth Cardinales sunt patri­ci [...] scripti in diade mate Principis. Iacobatius. Iacobatius de con­cil. num. 153. There was a two fold state and Condition of the Apostles, first they were Apo­stoli vrbis, affixed as it were to the City Hieru­salem, where they were to abide untill they were endowed with power frome above: but [Page 90] afterwards they were Apostoli orbis, and were sent from thence into all kingdomes of the world: So likewise the Cardinalls in imitati­on and affectation of the like honour are stiled Cardinales Ʋrbis, & Orbis, and they remaine, as it were affixed to the City of Rome, untill they are indewed with power from above, that is, untill they are sent by the Pope as his Nuntio's and legates into all kingdomes of the world. As the Apostles in respect of their spi­rituall fatherhood are fitly answerable to the 12 Patriarches, who are the fathers of all the Israelites according to the flesh: so the Car­dinalls are likewise called Patres Spirituales, affecting the like honour. As the Apostles, having supreme Authority in the Church, may in some sense be said to be the judges of the world, and to sit upon 12 Thrones to judge the 12 tribes of Israell; so the Cardinalls make their Cardinal. dicit Papa, Esto srater noster, & mua [...]i prin­ceps—Consist orium enim Christi & Papae idem est censendum. Alexand▪ à Turte lib 1^o 2 ae Partis. pag. 35. Honour Re­gius human [...]s; Pontificius certè divinus: Regum, terres­tre de cus; Pontificum coeleste▪ Maie­st [...]s R [...]g [...]s mi­nimè comple­ta; Pontificis, numeris om­nibus exple­ta: illa civilis & politica, haec super coelestis & san­cta▪ Al [...]x. a Tur [...]e lib. 4^o. pag 272. Idem pag 36. visionem thro­ni Apo. 4^o. Papae & Car­dinalibus appheat, & coe­lesti Cherub. S [...]raphin. Consistory of their Apostolicall Sea to admit of no appeale, but to be of such a ce­lestiall sublimity, that it is equall to the tribunall seat of God. And therefore they are stiled Ju­dices Orbis, and they do exercise all civill, & Ec­clesiasticall power over the city, and people of Rome: which either the Patriarches and Princes of the Tribes did in the literall, or the Apostles [Page 91] in the spirituall Hierusalem. Many other things might here be alleaged to shew how exact, and exquisite an Antythesis and Contra position there is between the Apostles, and Cardinalls. It might be observed, that there is not one of those proper Appellations and Titles, which are usually attributed to the Cardinalls: such as are these following.

• Patres Spirituales
• Vicem-gerentes Apostolorum.
• Senatores Papae
• Patres Purpurati.
• Patricij
• Mundi Principes
• Iudices Orbis
• Cardinales Vrbis & Orbis, and the like:

There is not, I say any one of these Titles but the Cardinalls may by it be proved either to be emulous of the like honour, which the Apostles had, or else to be the Image of such a kinde of government, as was before their lives remarkable in the City of Rome. Both which Considerations (as by the way may be observed) are necessarily incident to the right discerning of that great Antichrist, who is not only to resemble some ancient government of [Page 92] Rome, but also To be, or to be like that Synagogue of Satan as some interpreters conceive, Re­vel: 2, 2. 3. 9. to be that Synagogue of Satan mentioned in the Revel: which say they are Apostles, and are not. For as much therefore as there hath not been in any City answerable to Hierusalem, or in any other place, at any time since the Apostles lived, any state, Hierar­thy, sect, or society of men, so confidently and yet so falsly, pretending, and arrogating themselves to have all fullnesse of power A­postolicall annexed, and as it were appropria­ted unto themselves, as the Colledge of Car­dinalls doth: I may therefore conclude that there are persons in the Papacy answerable to the Apostles, as Rome is to Hierusalem, & that if the Papacy be Antichrist, and if the number 666 be to be interpreted and applied after the same manner, which is above proved that it ought to be; then the first originall number, and foundation of this Colledge of Cardinalls, must be typed out unto us by the square root of the number 666, as the first limited, and established number of the Apostles, is typed out by the square root of the number 144.

CHAP. 15. That the first number of Cardinals according to their first institution and foundation is chiefly to be considered, as that which doth most remarkably characterize Antichrist in his originall.

AND that only the first decreed, and e­stablished number of the Colledge of Cardinals is typed out unto us, and plainly foretold by the root of the Beast's num­ber: this is a farre more evident and remarka­ble description of Antichrist, then if any other number had been declared which should at a­ny other time have been applicable unto them. For (as it is usually said) scire, is, per causas cog­noscere, and as we cannot perfectly know any thing untill we know what were the first ori­ginall causes and beginnings of it, so this order of Cardinals (which beareth now so much sway in the Romish Church) and which is the very body and corporation of Antichrist) may be then perfectly discerned, when we know what it was in it's first originall and beginning. And for this cause it is that the holy Ghost in the description of the new Hierusalem useth chiefly such numbers and measures as were [Page 94] conspicuous and remarkable in the first appa­rent foundation of Christian Religion. For the wall of the new Hierusalem is said to have 12 foundations, not because the number 12, either in respect of the Apostles themselves, or in re­spect of Christian Bishops themselves (who are their lawfull successours in so much of their authority as is necessary for the perpetuall go­vernment of the Church) should be, at all times following, actually existent, and remark­able in the Church; but that by this one num­ber, which is the root & Basis of another num­ber, there might be an evident & strong allusion not only to the number, but also to the nature, qualitie, and office of those persons, from whom, as from the Root, the Churches Hierar­chy doth originally proceed, upon whom it is fundamentally built, and in whom it was first apparently to be discerned. As therefore the number 12 is not applicable to the Hierarchy of the Church in respect of any one perpetuall and constant number of Persons, which was alwaies to continue, so neither ought the num­ber 25 to be after this manner applicable to the Romish Hierarchy, but the true and exact ap­plication of it, ought chiefly to be terminated in the discovery, not onely of the number, but [Page 95] also, of the nature, quality, & office of those Per­sons from whom their Pseudo-hierarchy did originally proceed, upon whom it was funda­mentally built, and in whom and with whom it was first apparently to be discerned. Howso­ever therefore it may perhaps at the first appre­hension seeme requisite, that according to this application which I am at, the number 25 ought to be the onely constant, setled, and perpetuall number of the Popes Cardinalls, or Apostles, which should at all times during the time of Antichrists continuance be actually applicable unto them; yet upon due consideration it must be granted, that such an application can nei­ther be warranted by the example of the oppo­site number, which is applicable to the first number of the Apostles only; nor be agreeable to the nature of this type, which aymes, not on­ly at a certaine number of unities, but also of such unities as are the root and Basis of other unities, which were to proceed from them, and to be built upon them; I say therefore, that it: must be granted that there is no necessity, nor any probability, that this number ought other­wise to be applied unto them, then in respect of that first decreed & established number, which was most conspicuous, and remarkable, & most [Page 96] exactly applicable unto them, in, and at the first foundation of their Colledge, and in the first apparent and actuall institution of their order. And that, not only the number of the 10 crow­ned hornes mentioned in the Revelation, may be thus interpreted in respect of their first origi­nall onely; but that also the number of the Beast ought to have speciall reference to the first ori­ginal stock and image of Antichrist's Anti-Apo­stles, is a truth clearely discerned, and in general tearmes plainly expressed by a late learned in­terpreter of the Revelations, although he aimed not at the same particular application which I doe.

These things being now thus cleared and discussed in generall, concerning the time, the place, and the persons which this number ought chiefly to characterize; and it being pro­ved that Rome is answerable to Hierusalem; and that the Cardinalls of Rome are those persons which may be fitly stiled Anti-Apostles in the Romish Hierarchy; and lastly, that the time in which the root of the Beast's number ought to be applied to the Pseudohierarchy of Anti­christ, must be in the first apparent and remark­able emersion of his Hierarchy: that so it may be like and answerable to that very nick of [Page 97] time, in which, and in which only, the root of the opposite number is actually applicable to the Hierarchy of the Church; these things, I say, being thus cleared and discussed, it remaineth now that J shew by cleare and evident testi­monies, that as the Colledge of Apostles did o­riginally consiste of 12 persons and no more, so the Colledge and corporation of Cardinals in Rome, according to it's first institution, & in the first apparent and remarkable foundation of the That the first remarka­ble foundation of the Papacie was about 300 yeares after Christ, in or about the time of Con­stantine, is out of question. Then was that voice heard, hodiè semina­tum est virus in Ecclesia. Then was the seat of the Empire taken out of the way, and removed from Rome to Cō ­stantinople, and then was Antichrist to come when the Roman Emperour was taken out of the way. Then doe they pretend Constantines donation to have been made. Then was the ancient purity of the Primitive Church decayed, then was the visible Hierarchie of the Christian Church almost quite extinguished by the violence of persecutions; for then as Baronius relates Anno 304. The persecuting Princes, velut gloriosae victoriae titulis de suba actis deletis (que) peni­tus Christianis columnas erexetunt. Cluniae enim in Hispania in nobili columnâ haec inscrip­tio legitur? DIOCLESIAN: JOVIUS &c. AMPLIFICATO por ORI­ENT. & OCCIDENT. IMPERIO ROMANO, & nomine Christiano­rum deleto. Rursus ibidem altera inscriptio. DIOCLESIAN. CAESAR AU­GUST. SUPERSTITIONE CHRISTI UBI QUE deletá. i But because the Papacie began then suddenly to start up after these persecutions, therefore Baronius saith, fe­fellit planè spes vana principes, &c. Papacy, did consist of 25 persons and no more.

CHAP. 16. A disquisition concerning other particulars, to which the number 12 is applied in the description of the new Hierusalem, and particularly of the 12 Gates, 12 Tribes, and 12 Angels.

THat this truth may more plainely ap­peare, it is requisite that something be first said briefly, and in generall of those other particulars, to which the same num­ber is also to be applied; for (as it is above inti­mated) all those particulars, to which the num­ber 12 is applied in the description of the new Hierusalem, must have so many other particu­lars answerable and opposite to them, in that mysticall Babylon to which the number 25 must be in like manner applicable. Now the number 12 is actually and expresly applied un­to six severall things, in the description of the new Hierusalem, which are these.

• 1 Twelve Gates.
• 2 Twelve Angels at the Gates.
• 3 Twelve Tribes written on the Gates.
• 4 Twelve foundations with names written on them.
• 5 Twelve thousand furlongs, the measure of the City.
• [Page 99]6 Twelve manner of fruits of the tree of life.

Notwithstanding that there is great difference among Interpreters, what these 6 things are, which are hereso expresly numbred, & descri­bed, and howthey ought to be applyed to the Church: yet their divers interpretations (ac­cording to which every man aboundeth in his own sense) are rather helps thē hinderances, for the right discerning and finding out of those things, which in the Romish Hierarchy are an­swerable unto thē. For which way soever these things are to be understood, and according to what possible probabilitie soever they may be interpreted, there are things in all senses answe­rable unto them in the Romish Babylon. If these Gates be literally to be understood of the gates of the materiall city Hierusalem; then the ma­teriall gates of the City of Rome must be answe­rable unto them. And for a full application, in this sense, it shall be shewed, that as the gates of Hierusalem were 12 in number, so the gates of Rome were 25 in number.

But if those gates be also to be understood in a spirituall sense, which without all question is chiefly intended, and most exactly verified, then these gates must be understood to be the gates of the Church signified by Hierusalem. Now [Page 100] the gates of the Catholique Church (which is really and truly the Heavenly Hierusalem, may be said to be 12 divers waies. First, the Apostles themselves may be said to have been the 12 gates of the Church in respect of their faith and doctrine in generall, because by their examples, and by the sincerity and truth of their life and doctrine, all other Christians have been conver­ted to the true Religion. And in this respect the Cardinals of Rome, who make themselves an­swerable to the Apostles, and whose originall number was 25, may be also said to have beene the 25 gates of spirituall Babylon; because chief­ly and originally, by their policy and hypocrisy, in laying the first foundation of Poperie, all o­ther Papists have been since perswaded, and in­vited to believe, and to embrace the Heresies and superstitions of the Church of Rome.

But secondly, and in a more particular and proper sense, there may be said to have been 12 gates of the Church, because the administrati­on of the Sacraments, & especially of Baptisme (which is literally, and properly the gate of the celestiall Hierusalem) was chiefly, & original­ly Although others did ba­ptize in the Primitiue Church be­sides the 12 Apostles, yet they cannot be properly called the first gates of the Church, be­cause these to whom this power was de­rived from the Apostles, were first bap­tized them­selves by the Apostles. So that as Christ is truly and e­minently said to be the foū ­dation of that foundation which was laid by the A­postles, so the Apostles thē ­selves are truly and emi­nently the first & chiefe gates of the Church, even in respect of those who have beene since made (as it were) gates of the Church by their appointment, & by the fulnesse of their Commission & authority, which they di [...] all equally, and immediatly receive from Christ as it appeareth in the Gospell. committed unto the 12 Apostles. And in this [Page 101] sense it shall be shewed, that as in the first appa­rent beginning of Christianity, the administra­tion of Baptisme was originally committed un­to 12 Apostles in the City of Hierusalem, which is therefore truly called Mater, gremium, & osti­um omnium Ecclesiarum, the mother, the wombe and the gate of all Churches; so in the first ap­parent beginning of Popery, the administration of Baptisme was originally committed unto 25 Cardinals in the City of Rome, which city doth also stile her selfe Mater, gremium, & ostium om­nium Ecclesiarum, the Mother, the wombe, and the gate of all Churches.

Thirdly, these gates of the new Hierusalem seem to have speciall reference to those materi­all Churches (or to those places which were then answerable to our Churches) wherein the Apostles did usually administer the word & Sacraments while they were in Hierusalem; for, as the Apostles are called gates, because ad­ministration of the word and Sacraments was performed by them, so Churches may be called gates, because these functions were performed in them. And as Baptisme is truly said to be the gate of the Church, so according to the phrase of the Scriptures, that may be truly said of every particular Church or congregation which Ia­cob [Page 102] once spake of Bethel, Haec est domus Dei, haec Gen. 28. 17. est porta coeli: this is the house of God, this is the gate of heaven. And although those places in Hierusalem, wherein Christians first assembled themselves, were not such as our Churches now are (as neither was Bethel at that time when Jacob called it the gate of Heaven) yet it cannot be imagined, but that there were set congregations, which had some certaine pla­ces to meet in, and severall Pastors to instruct them: for as the Apostles divided the world as it were by line among themselves, so that one would not meddle within the compasse of an­others line, so it is to be conceived that the same Apostles, by whose precept or example Parishes and Diocesses in all places began to be erected, first in Cities, and then in Villages, did not con­fusedly and promiscuously performe all duties & Ecclesiasticall functions among themselves; but that they did divide the City Hierusalem in­to 12 severall Jurisdictions, Parishes or Divisi­ons, and that they did in 12 severall places ad­minister the Sacrament of Baptisme, and doe all other religious duties which are now usually performed in Churches. These places were for the most part large upper roomes; such as that was which the Apostles prepared for our Savi­our [Page 103] Christ to eat the Paschall Lamb in; these in those times were usually called Ecclesia an­te consecrati­onem propriè dicitur Basili­ca. Basilicae (which name hath been ever since retained, & sheweth the true originall from whence Chri­stian Churches had their beginning) and these places were in those times really and truly Christian Churches, although, in respect of those which we now have, they were so but onely as it were in semine & origine. Now for­asmuch as this coelestiall Hierusalem is the type of the Christian Church universall, into which no man can have his entrance & admission, ex­cept it be by baptisme, which ought alwaies to be performed in some particular Church, or congregation, therefore every particular Church or Congregation, wherein this Sacra­ment is usually administred, may in this re­spect (as also in divers others) be truly said to be agate, by which men do usually and ordinari­ly enter into the spirituall Hierusalem. And be­cause the first Christian Churches or congrega­tions, which were at once and the same time instituted, and erected in Hierusalem by the A­postles, as patterns and platformes to all suc­ceeding times and Cities, are presumed to have been 12 in number, according to the number of the 12 Apostles: therefore the number of the [Page 104] gates of the Christian Church vniversall, accor­ding to it's first originall and beginning (which time is chiefly aymed at in this whole descrip­tion) are truly said to be twelve. And this I take chiefly, to be that literall veritie, really and actu­ally existing in the primitive Church, to which the twelve Gates of the new Hierusalem, have a plaine and evident allusion.

And this is farther cleared, because it follow­eth in the Text, that these Gates had 12 Angells placed at them, and the names of the twelve Tribes written on them. For first concerning the Angels, it is evident in this book of the Re­velation that the Ministers of the Gospell are called the Angels of those Churches, which are committed unto them. If therefore these twelve gates be the first christian Churches, then the 12 Angels may fitly be said to be those 12 Pastors, to whom the charge of these twelve Churches was committed. For as touching Angels pro­perly so called, which are ministring spirits, it is certaine that the dispensation of the Gospell, is not committed unto Angels, but unto men; and that men, and not Angels, have power, and are appointed to baptize, and to excommuni­cate, that is, to admit in, and to cast out of the Church, and to open, and shut the gates of the [Page 105] heavenly Hierusalem. And for this cause it is plainly said in the 2 chap. of the Hebrews, verse 5. that God hath not unto Angells put in subjection the world to come; in which place the world to come, signifieth the renewed estate of the Church under the Gospell.

Secondly, concerning the 12 Tribes, if the Gates be the first 12 Churches, and the Angells the 12 first Pastors, then questionlesse these Tribes, are the 12 first Ecclesiasticall divisions, Titles, Iurisdictions, or Parishes, into which the City and people of Hierusalem, in some sort were, and should in processe of time haue been more perfectly divided, if that City had not been destroyed, nor the Passage of the Gos­pell hindered. For it is to be considered, that this description of the new Hierusalem, is ap­plicable to those times, by way of anticipation as it were, and rather in respect of that beauty and perfection, at which the primative Church then aymed, then in respect of that, unto which it had in those times attained. Neverthelesse because it is evident by the Scriptures, that there was so great a number of beleeving Christians in Hierusalem at that time, that every Apostle might have had the charge of neare 500 soules, it cannot therefore with any probability be [Page 106] imagined, but that they did distribute, and dis­pose themselves, and those beleevers, in as de­cent and convenient order, as those times would permitt, and according to such Divisions, as did not only resemble, the 12 Tribes of the Jsrae­lites, (which were typicall predictions of the Apostles times) but were also exemplary cau­ses of the like Ecclesiasticall divisions, namely, of Diocesses, and Parishes, which began im­mediately after the Apostles times to be erected in other Cityes, and haue been ever since conti­nued in the Church.

CHAP. 17. Of such Particulars in the mysticall Babylon as are [...], to the Gates, Tribes, Angells, and Foundations of the new Hierusalem.

I Hope it is now sufficiently declared, what those things were in the pri­mitive Church, to which the twelve Gates, the twelve Angells, and the twelve Tribes have a speciall allusion. The 12 Gates are 12 Churches or Congregations, in which the Sacraments and especially Baptisme was administred. The 12 Angells are those 12 Pastors, to whom these 12 Churches were com­mitted [Page 107] The 12 Tribes are those 12 Titles, or Pa­rishes, or other divisions, into which the City and people of Hierusalem were divided. And all these things will be farther cleared, by that, which I shall now say, concerning those things, which are answerable, and opposite unto them in the Romish Babylon. And that not only, because—Contrariajuxta seposita ma­gis elucescunt, contraries being placed toge­ther are the more easily discerned; but also, be­cause the Church of Rome, by a pretended Im­itation, but by a true and reall Emulation, pre­tended her selfe to have been framed, and e­rected, after the example of the Church of Hierusalem, and to be a continuall and perfect expression of it, even in respect of those things, which are above recited. Onuphrius de praeci­puis Vrbis Rom: basilicis, in the second chap­ter, where he writes of the first Parishes, Churches, and Pastors, which were institu­ted and erected in the City of Rome, saith that Saint Peter came to Rome, and there founded the Church of Rome, and instituted the Cleargy in that City, Hierosolimitanae caeter arum (que) orien­talium Ecclesiarum exemplo, according to the ex­ample of the Church of Hierusalem, and other Orientall Churches. And concerning the in­stitution [Page 108] of Cardinalls, who were the first Pa­rish Priestes of the first Churches erected in Rome, Gondisal­vus Villadiego Causarum olim palati [...] Auditor in initio libell▪ de Origine Cardina [...]us. Gondisalvus Villadiego sayeth, Jnsti­tutio Cardinalium figuraliter habuit ortum ab in­stitutione divinà, exemplariter autem a Christo, expressa autem fuit facta tempore Pontiani & Marcelli Rom. Pontif. that is, the institution of Cardinalls, had it's institution figuratively, from divine institution, exemplarily from Christ, but ex­pressely from the Popes Pontianus and Marcellus. By these and many other like testimonyes, which are frequent in their owne writers, it is evident that the Romanists are not likely to de­ny, either that their Church and City of Rome, hath such things in it, as are fitly answerable to those particulars, which are above rehearsed in the description of the new Hierusalem; or that the literall Hierusalem, in the time of the Apostles, bad not such Churches, such Pastors, and such Ecclesiasticall divisions, as I haue a­bove described. But supposing, that which will not be graunted, that these things mentioned in the description of the new Hierusalem, haue no allusion to things actually existing in the pri­mative Church, and in the literall Hierusalem; yet it may be plainly proved, that all these things whether reall or imaginary, which are menti­oned [Page 109] in the description of the new Hierusalem, may very fitly mutatis mutandis, that is, chang­ing the Names, and the Number onely, be applyed to such things as had reall and actuall existence in the City, and in the Church of Rome. For it may be proved by a cloud of wit­nesses, that the Popes, about the time of Con­stantine the great, did divide the City and peo­ple of Rome into a certaine number of Ecclesi­asticall divisions, Iurisdictions, Titles, or Pa­rishes; and that in every one of these divisions, there was a Church erected for the administra­tion of Baptisme, and to every one of these Churches a severall Presbyter assigned and ap­pointed. Of this first division of the City and people of Rome, Onuphrius writeth after this manner. Ne Presbyterorum administratio in promiscuo esset, Evaristus Titulos, vel, ut nunc dicimus, Paraecias in Ʋrbe primus presbyteris di­visit, ut singuli à se invicem secreti in suâ vrbis regione, Titulo, vel paraciâ, sacramenta Christi­anis exhiberent, singulos (que) presbyteros in unoquo­que Titulo collocavit. which words doe in effect intimate thus much, That Evaristus first divided the City of Rome into Titles, or, as we now say, Parishes, and appointed to every Priest his severall Region, Title or Parish. [Page 110] And afterwards in the same chapter Onuphrius writeth thus, Dionisius vicesimus sextus Roma­nus Pont: Evaristi exemplum secutus, cùm jam Christiana pietas mirum in modum in e â vrbe auct a esset, denuò Titulos, vel Paroecias Romae, cúm eas ampliasset, presbyteris divisit, ipsas (que) quo quis (que) suis limitibus, finibus (que) contineretur, distribuit: that is, Dionisius the 26 Pope of Rome, following the ex­ample of Evaristus, when as Christian Religion was much increased in that City, did againe divide the Titles or Parishes (after that he had enlarged them) among the Priestes, and did so distribute them, that every one might be contained within his owne bounds and limits. Jsodorus Mosconius speaking of the Cardinalls, writeth to the same purpose, saying, Nonnulli tutiùs ausi sunt affir­mare, hb 1⁰. parte 1. cap. 5. tempore Silvestri primi, hoc est anno 314, creatos esse, qui (ut aiunt) primò Cardinalium Col­legium ad similitudinem Romanorum procerum or­dinavit; nam sicuti servabatur ut in Vrbe cuili­bet Regioni, quae in plures divisa erat, plures Cu­ratores deputarentur ad perficiendum ea, quae ad civium incolumitatem pertinerent, sub praefecti po­testate; Jta Silvester Papaut indemnitati Eccle­siae commodiùs consuleret, singulis regionibus Vr­bis singulos destinaverat Cardinales, That is, Others more waryly have affirmed that they were [Page 111] first created in the time of Silvester the first, in the yeare 314, who (as they say) ordained a Colledge of Cardinalls according to the similitude of the Se­nators of Rome. For as anciently it was observed, that (the City being divided into many Regions) there were certaine Curators appointed to every Region, who being subjected vnder the authority of him, that was the chiefe governour of the City, were to performe such things as pertained to the welfare of the Citizens. So Pope Silvester, for the good, and for the more convenient government of the Church, destinated severall Cardinalls to every severall Region of the City. These divisi­ons which by Onuphrius and Mosconius are called Regions and Parishes, are by other wri­ters called by divers other names. Some call them Diocaeses, some Jurisdictiones, some Gu­bernationes, some Tituli, some Ecclesiae parocbi­ales, some Curiae. By all which it is evident, that they were certaine locall divisions of the City and people, having Churches or publicke places of meeting erected in them, (as the Gates were to the auncient Tribes of the Israelites) & a power of Jurisdiction & government annex­ed to them: and being such, it cannot be denied but that these titles are fitly answerable to those Tribes of the Israelites, into which the [Page 112] City and people of the literall Hierusalem were anciently divided: and also unto those Ecclesi­asticall divisions aboue mentioned, by which in the times of the Apostles, the Citizens of the new Hierusalem, either were, or began to be, or shall yet be, or by the description of the new Hierusalem are supposed to have been distingui­shed. And it may be here observed, that these ti­tles or parishes, into which the City of Rome was divided about the time of Constantine, suc­ceeded, and came in the places, and were in­steed of those 30 or 35 Tribes, into which Rome was anciently divided. For the Cardinalls, as they increased in power, and grew into credit, so being not content with that spirituall autho­rity, and Episcopall jurisdiction which they had in their Titles, they began by little and little, to u­surpe upon the temporall dominion of the Ci­ty, untill they had ingrossed all that authority unto themselves, which either the Curiales Fla­mines had over the Tribes in matters of religi­on, or the Senatours in humane affaires. And by this meanes it did quickly come to passe, that the new division of Rome into 25 Titles, caused that ancient division to be antiquated and ex­tinguished. S. Austine in his enarration upon the 122 Psalme, writing of the Tribes there men­tioned [Page 113] (which both by himselfe and S. Hierome, are interpreted to be the same Tribes, which are spoken of in the description of the new Hierusalem) taketh occasion to speake, not on­ly of those 35 Tribes, into which the City of Rome Ethnick was anciently divided, but also of certaine divisions, which he calleth Curiae, into which Cities in his time were usually di­vided; his words are these. Tribus alio nomine dici possunt Curiae, sed non propriè, ita (que) Tribus uno nomine vicino, alio propriè dici possunt: sed vicino dicuntur Curiae,—Sunt autem, vel crant in istis quo (que) aliquando civitatibus Curiae etiam populo­rum, & una civitas multas Curias habet, sicut Roma 35 Curias habet populi. Hae dicuntur Tribus: has populus Israel duodecem habebat secundum filios Iacob. The effect of which words is, that Tribes properly so called may by another name be cal­led Parishes: and that all cities are usually divi­ded into such wards or parishes, as are answe­rable to those Tribes, into which the Cities of Hierusalem and Rome were anciently divided. I might here adde, that as a late The word Curia is tran­slated to sig­nisie a Parish by a late wri­ter of the Ro­man Anti­quities. Writer of the Roman Antiquities, calleth those ancient Curiae or Tribes of Rome, Parishes, because of the great likenesse which they had to such Eccle­siasticall divisions: so those first Titles or Pari­shes [Page 114] into which Rome Christian was divided, may by the same reason be called Tribes: but it matters not by what name they are called, so long as they are fitly answerable, to those anci­ent Tribes of Hierusalem and Rome, although called by another name, and changed to ano­ther number. And thus much of things, an­swering to the Tribes of the new Hierusalem.

Jn the next place it is to be observed, that in every one of these Parishes, there was some publique place of meeting appointed, or some Church erected, for the administration of Bap­tisme; & these places or Churches in the City of Rome, are fitly answerable to those Churches in the literall Hierusalem, which were the first Gates of the spirituall Hierusalem. For as it is above declared, that every particular Church, may for divers reasons be said, to be a gate of the Church universall, but especially in respect of the administration of baptisme, which literal­ly and properly is the Gate of the Church: so these Churches in the City of Rome, which are named Baptismall Churches (as it is By D. Field observed) because in these only, Baptisme was originally administred, are in this respect, as also in di­vers others, properly and exactly answerable to those Gates of the Spirituall Hierusalem. [Page 115] That there were such Churches as these, and that to every one of these Churches there was at the first but one Priest appointed, as there was one Angell placed at every Gate of the ce­lestiall Hierusalem, is evident by that which Onuphrius hath written, and by the testimo­nies of divers other writers, whose words J shall have occasion to set downe, when I come to speake of the number of these Churches. But when these Parish Preists degenerated into Cardinalls, and were made a Colledge, and Corporation, exercising a new kind of super­episcopall jurisdiction, in, and over these churches; then was the birth of Antichrist, then did Antichrist really, and truly, and li­terally, and locally sit, first in these christian churches at Rome, and from thence his pseu­do-apostolicall Authority, hath been obtrud­ed and imposed upon other churches. By which it is evident, that, as some interpreters doe make the Apostles themselves, although in divers respects, to be the Gates, the Angells, and the foundations of the celestiall Hierusalem; so the Cardinalls in one respect may be said to be the first Gates of the Church of Rome because at their first institution, the administration of Ba­ptisme, was committed unto them only: and in [Page 116] another respect they may be called Angels, be­cause they were Pastors of the first parish chur­ches in Rome; and lastly, they may be truly said to have been the first Foundation stones, on which the Popish Hierarchie hath been ever since erected, as it is above more fully and parti­cularly declared. I doe not forget that some writers doe interpret these twelve Foundati­ons, to be the twelve Articles of the Creed, but I passe over this interpretation in this place, not because the Pope hath not a Creed consisting of twentie and five Articles answerable to those of the Apostles, but because I conceive the 12 Articles of the Creed, to be chiefly and directly aymed at, by the twelve manner of fruits grow­ing on the tree of life, as in the sixth and last place shall be observed. And thus much in ge­nerall of things sometime actually existing in Rome, answerable to the Gates, Tribes, Angels, and Foundations, sometime actually existing in the new Hierusalem, and that, according to all senses, which way soever they may with any probability be interpreted: concerning all which I doe oblige my selfe to prove, that there were 25 Gates in Rome according to the sense literall, & 25 Churches for Baptisme according to the sense spirituall, and 25 Pastors placed at [Page 117] these Churches, and 25 Cardinals sitting and ruling in them, and 25 Titles, Tribes, or Parishes belonging to them.

CHAP. 18. Of such things as are answerable to the measure of 12000 furlongs, and the 12 manner of fruits growing on the tree of life. The conclusion of all that hath been said concerning the Antithe­sis of things in generall, as it is distinguished from that Antithesis of numbers which is next to be proved.

IN the next place it comes to be inqui­red, what that is in the City of Anti­christ, which is answerable to the measure of 12 thousand furlongs, by which, as it is above shewed, the true compasse of that City, in which Christ did first and chiefly erect his Church and Hierarchie, is truly, although mystically declared. To which J answer that as the number 12, having thousands of furlongs added unto it, is the truesolid measure of an imaginarie Cube, whose compasse is equall to the compasse of the city Hierusalem; so the num­ber 25 having thousands of furlongs added to it, is the true solid measure of that imaginary [Page 118] Cube, whose compasse is equall to the com­passe of the city of Rome. I will not here trou­ble the reader with Arithmeticall computati­ons; let those that have understanding to extract the Roots of numbers, either believe me, or else finde out themselves, what is the solid root of 25000, and they shall be then resolved that a Cube of 25 thousand Furlongs, is in compasse 116 furlongs, and above 3 quarters of a furlong, that is, 14 miles and an halfe, and almost halfe a quarter of a mile, which measure, how fitly it agreeth, with the circuit and compasse of the city of Rome, shall in it's place be evidently de­clared.

It remaineth now in the sixth and last place to be considered, what is meant by the 12 man­ner of Fruits growing on the tree of life, and what those things are in the Church of Rome, answerable unto them. This tree of life in the midst of the city, is Christ in the midst of his Church: these 12 Fruits, are that food, by which Christians live, and are nourished up unto ever­lasting life; and that food by which Christians live is Faith. For all just men live by Faith (as it is written) and by every word that proccedeth out of the mouth of God: but the Apostles creed is the only true faith, because it is the materiall [Page 119] object of every Christian man's faith, and a per­fect summe of the doctrine of Christian religi­on, gathered out of the Scriptures, and contai­ning all truthes necessary to be believed: and therefore whosoever confesseth with his mouth, and believeth with his heart all the Articles of the creed, he doth truly eat of all those fruits which grow on this tree of life. Now because the creed of the Apostles, did ori­ginally proceed from 12 persons, & doth natu­rally branch it selfe into 12 Articles, as it hath been long since actually divided: therefore J doubt not but that this is that particular truth really and actually existing in the Church, to which these 12 manner of Fruits have a speciall and evident allusion.

Now as touching the Romish faith, J shall make it evident, that the Papists have added new Articles to the Apostles creed, and have in­creased the number from 12 unto 25, For whe­ther we take the councell of Trent it selfe, to be the faith and doctrine of the Church of Rome, or that Creed which was composed and set forth by Pope Pius the fourth, according to the doctrine decreed in that Councell; in either of these, the number 25 is as remarkably applica­ble to the Romish faith, as the number 12 to the [Page 120] Apostles Creed: but J pitch chiefly upon that forme and profession of the Romish faith, which Pope Pius the fourth hath set forth according to that Councell, to be generally received by all men, or as the Bull it selfe witnesseth, ut unius ejusdem fidei professio uniformiter ab omnibus ex­hibeatur, unica (que) & certaillius forma cunctis inno­tescat. That this Councell of Trent, doth fully containe, the whole faith and doctrine of the Romish Religion, the Papists themselves are nei­ther able, nor willing to deny. Thus much is te­stified by the eight and ninth acclamations at the end of this Councell, which runne after this manner;

I say therefore, as the 12 Apostles after that Christian religion began to be believed in the world, did assemble themselves together, and composed a Creed, consisting of 12 Articles, for the preservation of unity in matters of religion, and for the suppressing of heresies: so the chiefe Prelats of the Popish Church, after their Romish religion began to be received and believed in the world, did for the advancement of their su­perstitions, & for the suppressing of that which they call heresie, assemble themselves together at the Councell of Trent: which Councell was begun by 25 Prelates, continued 25 Sessions, and ended with the subscription of 25 Popish Arch­bishops: and last of all (which is the thing J chiefly ayme at) the doctrine and faith decreed in this Councell, was afterwards by the Pope and his Cardinals, reduced to a set forme of words, so naturally branching themselves into 25 Articles, that they cannot with any conveni­encie be divided into any other number, as it shallbe declared.

[Page 122]I have now spoken in generall, of all those six things to which the number 12 is applied in the description of the new Hierusalem; and I have shewed that there were things actually existing in the city Hierusalem, and in the Primitive Church, to which every one of these things hath an evident allusion. And I have also shew­ed that there were, and are things actually exi­sting in the City, and in the Church of Rome, fit­ly answerable and opposite to every one of those six things above mentioned; and that, ac­cording to all senses, and interpretations, which may, with any probability, be put upon them. If I have spoken more, then needs concerning the opposition, or contraposition of Things in generall, I have therefore done it, because I am fully perswaded, that this description of the new Hierusalem, is not for this reason onely set downe in the Scriptures, that by it the true Church of Christ might be described; but also, that the false Church of Antichrist by way of Antithesis, and opposition, might by the same description (mutatis mutandis) be manifestly re­vealed. For there is not intended by this descri­ption an opposition of Numbers only, and not of those things also, which are numbred▪ nor an opposition of Things only, and not of those [Page 123] Numbers also, which are joyned with them, but a double Antithesis and contraposition, both of Things and Numbers: so that from this de­scription of the new Hierusalem, we may make two severall inferences concerning Antichrist▪ the one drawne from the consideration of Things opposite, the other from the considerati­on of Numbers opposite. By the first, may be found out the Genus: by the second, the Diffe­rentia, by which Antichrist may be defined. From the first consideration it followeth, that Antichrist ought to have such things belonging to his state and Hierarchy, as I have already proved to have been actually existing in the Pa­pacie: as namely, persons answerable to the Apo­stles, a City answerable to Hierusalem; having certaine measures, and a certaine number of Gates, Churches, Pastors, Parishes, professing their faith and religion under a certain number of heads and Articles. But from the second con­sideration, (which consists in the application of that number, which is opposed to 12, unto all these things above mentioned) it may be con­cluded, not only that Antichrist must have a Ci­tie answerable to Hierusalem, but precisely, how many furlongs in compasse his City must be, how many Gates it must have about it: how [Page 124] many chiefe Churches in it; into how many Parishes it was first divided: what the first ori­ginall decreed number of these persons must be, who must pretend themselves to be the Ba­sis, and foundation of that Hierarchie which An­tichrist was to erect in it. And lastly, by this num­ber may be concluded, into how many heads or Articles, the Faith and Religion of Antichrist, actually should, or conveniently might be di­vided.

It remaineth now in the last place, that I make the truth of all these things to appeare by particular application, and that I make good, what I have above promised by shewing out of history, that the number 25, is as evidently ap­plicable, in all these particulars above mentio­ned, to the City, State, and Hierarchie of Rome, as the number 12 is, in all like and answerable respects, to the Church of Christ and to the new Hierusalem.

CHAP. 19. That the first decree'd, and limited number of Car­dinalls, and Parish preists in Rome was 25. And that the first number of Churches for Bap­tisme, and Parishes, was 25 also.

I will first begin this application with the Cardinalls of Rome, and with those Titles, and Churches in sepera­bly united unto them. And, as I first shewed that in the Romish Church, Cardinalls were answerable to the Apostles; so I will first shew, that their first originall decreed number in the City of Rome was 25: as the first number of Apostles was 12 at Hierusalem.

It is a truth generally received, and as I be­lieve not contradicted by any writer, that the Cardinalls sprang originally from being parish Priests in the City of Rome. Tom 2. [...] Clericis. cap. 16. Bellarmine ac­knowledgeth that Cardinalis in suo Titulo est ve­luti Parochus, that a Cardinall is as it were a Parish Priest in his owne Title. li [...]ro 1. [...]. pag 31. Alexander a Turre, writeth to the same purpose in these words, Nec aliud profectò erat ab Ecclesiae p [...] mordijs agere Cardineas partes, quam obire [...]uram animarum, cujus rei in argumentum ad huc in [Page 126] urbe retinent Parochialium Ecclesiarum Titulos. that is, neither was it any thing else in the Churches begining to execute the office of a Cardinall, but only to discharge the cure of soules. For which cause the Cardinalls even to this day doe still retaine the Titles of the Pa­rish Churches of the City. Of those Pari­shes, which were also called Tituli Cardinales, Cadinall Titles, De praeci­puis Urbis ROMAE Ba­silicis. cap. 2. Onuphrius writeth thus, Tituli igitur erant sacrae aedes, vel (ut nunc dici­mus) Ecclesiae five loca consecrata, in Dei, beatae vir­ginis, & sanctorum hominum honorem vel memori­am, à fidelibus Christianis erecta, & per varias ur­bis regiones à Pont: Romanis antiquitùs distincta, in quibus animarum cura â presbyteris, qui in ijs commorabantur, habebatur: quibus qui praeerant, Presbyteri vocabantur Cardinales. And a little after in the same chap: he saith,—Hinc Presby­terorum Cardinalium nomen manâsse crediderim, vt is scilicet esset Presbyter Cardinalis, id est, Prin­cipalis, qui caeteris Presbyteris ejusdem Tituli (—) praeesset. Quum antea eo nomine opus non esset, quòd nisi [...]nus per singulos Titulos Presbyter lectus fu­isset. It is cleare by these testimonies, and by that which I have above said, and shall say con­cerning these titles, and by many other things that might be here alleaged out of the same, and [Page 127] other authors; that every one of these Titles, in­to which the City of Rome was first divided, did necessarily imply and suppose three things. First, a Church in which the Sacraments, and especially Baptisme was to be administred. Se­condly, a Diocesse, or Parish belonging to it. And thirdly, a Presbyter Cardinall placed in it. And as every Cardinall had his title, and every Title his Cardinall; so it is certaine that origi­nally, and at the first institution every Cardi­nall had but one Title; and every Title but one Cardinall. This necessary coherence, and de­pendance, which originally was betweene the Cardinalls and their Titles, caused S [...]t [...] correlativa antiquo more Praesbyter Cardinalis, & Titulus, ut alterum si­ne altero est▪ non valeat. Baronius, Anno [...]. Baronius to say, that according to the auncient custome, a Priest Cardinall and his Title, are in the Pre­dicament of Relation, so that one could not subsist without the other. By all which things it is evident, that whatsoever was the number of the first Parishes in Rome, and of those Chur­ches, which were called Tituli Cardinales, Car­dinall Titles; the same number must also of ne­cessity be the first number of the Cardinalls, es­pecially at their first institution, when these Ti­tles were first setled on them: but the first cer­taine number, and first decreed number either of such Priests, as were in the City of Rome, or [Page 128] of such Parishes as were in Rome, or (which is sufficient for my purpose) of such Cardinall Titles as were in Rome, was 25; and therefore, whether the Cardinalls had their originall from the first Presbyters in Rome, or from the first Parishes in Rome, or from the first Chur­ches in Rome, their first number was 25. The Minor proposition, or so much of it as is neces­sary, J prove by many witnesses. First Baronius anno 309 saith expressely of these Titles after this manner. Marcellus xxv Titulos in vrbe con­stituit quasi Dioeceses, that is Marcellus did con­stitute 25 Titles in the city as it were Diocesses.in vita Mar­celli.

Secondly, Alphonsus Ciaconius, who hath written the lives of the Popes, affirmeth the same in these words. Anno circiter 305. Mar­celli Pontificatus 2^o viginti quin (que) Titulos idem Pontifex instituit. And a little afterwards saith, Marcellus de quo nunc agitur Certum numerum praefinivit Titulorum, nempe xxv: that is, about the yeare 305 Marcellus, in the second yeare of his Popeship, did institute 25 Titles. Marcellus of whom we now speake prefined a certaine number of Titles to wit 25.

Isidorus Mosconius witnesseth the same in these words. Successivè Marcellus anno 305 DECRETO statuit Titulos datos esse tantùm [Page 129] xxv. in quibus Baptisma dispensaretur. that is, Successively Marcellus in the yeare 305, did make a Decree, that the Titles given to the Car­dinals should be only 25, in which Baptisme was to be administred.

In like manner Hieronymus Platus in his book de Cardinalis dignitate & officio, saith of these Cardinall Titles, si quis numerum quaer at horum Ti­tulorum jam ante dictum est xxv ab Euaristo insti­tutos esse: that is, If any one seek after the num­ber of these Titles, it is above said that Euaristus did institute xxv.

Polidor Ʋirgil in his fourth book de invento­ribus rerum, and ninth chap. hath many things concerning the Cardinals, and their originall: and among the rest he hath these words. Nec ita multò post Marcellus, titulos urbis ab Euaristo primum Presbyteris datos numero limitavit, decre­to statuens quin (que) & viginti: ac quasi dioeceses esse ad Baptizandum eos, qui ex gentibus externis in Chri­stianorum coetum quotidi [...] venirent, & ad sepelien­dum mortuos: Haec ex Bibliothecario, Damaso, Platina, ac aliis vel recentioribus sacrae historiae scriptoribus; quos miror ne (que) hoc ne (que) alio quod sciam loco, non explicuisse, qui essent ii Praesbyteri quibus Titulos in urbe datos tradunt, unde haud-dubiè pri­ma Cardinalium origo est: that is, Not long after [Page 130] Marcellus limited the number of Parishes in the City, which Evaristus first gave to the Priests, and did by Decree constitute that there should be 25, and that they should be as Dioeceses, to baptise those unbeleiving Gentils, which came daily to be of the number of Christians, and to bury the dead. These things are taken out of Bibliothecarius, Damasus and Platina, and out of other later writers of sacred History: but it is marvell (saith Polidor Ʋirgil) that these wri­ters neither here, nor elsewhere (that I know) doe declare who those Priests were, to whom they affirme these Titles in the City to have been given; from whence, without all doubt is the first originall of the Cardinals. Afterwards in the same chapter, the same Author hath these words also, Faciunt praeterea sidem Tituli, quos hodiè habent Cardinales, quos vocamus, in locum il­lorum perpetuo tenore successisse Presbyterorum, quibus prout declaratum est, Evaristus primûm ti­tutulos, deinde Marcellus velut dioeceses digesse­rat, that is, farthermore these titles, with those whom we call Cardinals doe at this day enjoy, doe witnesse, that the Cardinals by a perpetuall and never discontinued succession, have succee­ded in the places of those Priests, to whom (as it is above declared) Evaristus first distributed [Page 131] those Parishes, which were afterward made Diocesses by Marcellus. When these Parishes were made Diocesses, then were these Priests made Cardinals, by having a formall power, & jurisdiction added unto them, as it also ap­peares by the like testimony of Volater anu [...], who saith, Marcellus titulos xxv, sicuti Dioeceses, id est, Gubernationes ad Baptismi commoditatem instituit, that is, Marcellus made 25 Titles in the City as it were, Diocesses, that is, Goverments or Dominions for the more convenient admi­nistration of Baptisme.

But of all other writers, Onuphrius Panvinius de praecipuis urbis Romae Basilicis, setteth downe these things most fully, the effect of whose words is thus in briefe. That whereas original­ly there was a small uncertain number of Pres­byters at Rome, they were brought to a certaine number & order by Cletus and Evaristus, Popes of Rome; first Cletus reduced the Presbyters of Rome to the number 25; afterward Evaristus, a­bout the yeare of Christ 100, appointed & pre­scribed a severall Parish to every one of those Presbyters; which Parishes were afterwards inlarged, and had their bounds and limits more perfectly and more exactly prescribed un­to them, by Pope Dionysius about the yeare of [Page 132] Christ 260; after which time Marcellus about the yeare of Christ 305, limited the number of those Titles, which anciently were first given to the Presbyters by Evaristus, and did by de­cree constitute that there should be in Rome 25, as it were so many Dioceses for the more con­venient Baptising of such Gentils, as were daily converted to Christian religion. And this is the summe of that which Onuphrius saith, concer­ning the first number of Cardinall Titles, which were at one, and the same time institu­ted, and decreed. After the time of Marcellus, when the Church was freed from persecuti­ons, those Titles were increased by divers Popes, as the same Author writes, some adding one, and some another; but as Saint Paul is not numbred among the twelve Apostles, because he was not one of those twelve, who were all at once, and at the same time first named, and chosen to be Apostles; so those Titles and Car­dinals, who were afterward added one after another, to this first established and decreed number of 25 at one and the same time institu­ted, cannot, neither ought to be numbred a­mong them: because the mystery consisteth (as it is above clearely and evidently proved) in that number only, which was truly applicable [Page 133] unto them at the time of their first institution, and actuall emersion of their order.

And this first number 25 may be yet farther proved by the testimony of Hieronymus Albanus, who maketh mention of 25 Cardinals created by Marcellus. Jt may be confirmed also by the testimony of Platina who writeth to the same purpose in these words. Marcellus divino cultui intendens, ubi Priscillam matronam Romanam im­pulisset coeme [...]terium suis sumptibus via salaria con­stituere, Titulos quin (que) & viginti in urbe Roma constituit quasi Dioeceses, ad commoditatem Baptis­mi, & opportunitatem eorum qui ad sidem ex genti­bus uotidiè veniebant. To the same effect wri­teth Damasus in these words. Marcellus Papa xxv Titulos Romae constituit quasi Dioeceses prop­ter Baptismum & paenitentiam multorum qui con­vertebantur ex Paganis. The same is also wit­nessed by Anastatius, who saith of the same Pope Mercellus; Hic xxv. Titulos in vrbe Romana constituit quasi Dioceses.

By the generall consent of those testimonies and Authors above recited, it is evident and un­questionable; (especially untill the contrary shall be proved by better Authors, as J believe it will For if there had been any considerable objection in all antiquity by which the cō trary could have been ef­fectually pro­ved: I cannot thinke that these authors were ignorant of it; nor ima­gine any rea­son, why they should con­ceale it. never be) that the first number of Car­dinall Titles, at one and the same time erected, [Page 134] established and decreed, was 25. And from hence it followeth necessarily (as it is above declared) not only that the first originall num­ber of the Cardinals was 25; but also, that at the first apparent foundation of Popery, the first re­markable division of the City and People of Rome, into Tribes, Wards, Parishes, or Dioceses was 25, and that at the same time the first num­ber of Churches for the administration of Bap­tisme was 25 also. If it be true which Onuphri­us writeth, that there were 25 Priests in Rome before that there were 25 Parishes, and that there were 25 Parishes in Rome, before they were actually made 25 Cardinall Titles, or Di­ocesses by Marcellus; then it followeth, that al­though the order of Cardinals had been actual­ly instituted before the time of Marcellus (as J believe it was not) yet their originall number would have been 25. But as it is certaine that the As the first foundation of that Ecclesia­stical Hierar­chy, which Christ did build upon the 12 Apostles, was laid by Christ, before Christian re­ligion was re­markably ap­parent in the world, and countenanced by supreame authority: so the first foun­dation of the Popish Hie­rarchy, might he, and was laid, before the main errors of Popery were remarkable in the world, and countenanced by supreame authority. first remarkable foundation of the Popish Hierarchy was about the time of Constantine the great, after the first 300 yeares were ended: so it is evident, and not unworthy to be observed, that these Authors, and many more whose words J have not recited, doe testifie by a more then ordinary consent, that at that very time the established and decreed number of Titles, (and [Page 135] therefore of Cardinals also and of Churches appointed for Baptisme) was 25 as it is above declared.

How long this first number of Cardinals & Titles continued without alteration, it is not materiall to enquire. For as the Colledge of A­postles and their successours, did not long conti­nue in their first number; so there is no neces­sity in respect of this mystery, that this Col­ledge of Anti-apostles ought to doe. Yet never­thelesse it seemes probable by that which Saint Cum (que) se­cundum lue­ram mani­festum sit quod dicituro­missis parùm­per Iezoniae. & Azur hoc, dicendum est, quod us (que) ho die in Ecclesiâ quae est do­mus Domini, & ante por­tā in introitu sunt 25 viri ad sensus cuncta referē ­tes. Hieron. in 11. cap. L. zechielis. S. Hierome could not be ignorant than Rome in these daies did call her selfe Ianuam & o­sthum omni­um Ecclesi [...]rū. & by that which he adds afterward in his Comment on this Chapter, it seems he interprets this Gate to be a City which he calls praetenta & perdita, as Rome then was. Sunt multi in hujus portae introitu qui desperant salutem & dicunt, Cavitas in quá versamur, lebes est, & nos [...] ­nes—propterea audiunt quod non ipsi sint Carnes p [...]ae [...]eri [...]ae & perditae Civitas, sed li quos scandalizaverint & interfeceim. Ideirco super eos gladius indacitur, u [...] in si [...] [...], nequaquam intergentes, sed inter Christianos fuerint judicati Hieren. [...]id. Hierome hath written upon Ezekiel, that the same number continued unto his daies. If it were afterward augmented before the time of Gregory the great, it seemes it was de facto and not de jure: because in the time of Gregory (I [...] in vita Gregorii lib. 3. cap. 11. who is said to have reduced the Cardinall Ti­tles to their ancient institution) there were on­ly 25 Cardinals and no more, as they are nomina­tim recited by Onuphrius in his book de Pontisi­cum & Cardinalium creatione.

Concerning Deacon Cardinals of the City [Page 136] of Rome their number is not to be considered. For it is certaine that they were not instituted by Marcellus, nor at the same time that the Pres­byter Cardinals were, nor in many ages after them. Yet if there had been Cardinall Deocons in Rome from the beginning, they should have been [...], answerable to those 7 Deacons in the Primitive Church, (as Evaristus verò Aposto­lorum insticu­to ad septena­rium numerū Diaconos in Ec [...]lesiâ Ro­manâ auxit. Onuphrius de praecipuis ur­bis Basilicis cap 2. Onuphrius intima­teth) and not to the 12 Apostles. The like may be said of Cardinall Bishops, that they were not thought upon, when the Presbyter Cardinals and their titles were first instituted; Wherefore Isidorus Mosconius saith thus of them; Episcopi tunc non erant in Collegio Cardinalium, ideò primus Episcopus ad Cardinalitiam dignitatem assumptus, fuit Conradus Suenns, Archiepiscopus Moguntinus, creatus ab Alexandro tertio Ann. 1163: that is▪ Bi­shops were not then in the Colledge of Cardinals, therefore the first Bishop promoted to this dignity was Conradus Suenus, Archbishop of Mentz, crea­ted by Alexander the third in the yeare 1163. There was for many ages, a great difference and di­stinction, between the Presbyter Cardinals of the ancient foundation, and between the Bi­shop, and Deacon Cardinals, which were of a la­ter institution; these were not capable of any of those ancient titles, given first to the Parish [Page 137] Priests of Rome. And although the Sixtus quar­tus, quod nun quam antea factum sue­rat, Deaconias Praesbyteris, Titulos Dia­conis assigna­re non dubi­tavit. Hieron. Piatus. pag. 19 Popes om­nipotency, hath since brought this anciently observed order, unto a promilcuous confusion, by giving these titles to Bishops, Deacons, and all sorts of Cardinals: yet there is in stiling them, & writing of their In lite [...]is Domini Pa­pae nunquam ponitur Car­dinalis Pres­byter, quin additur. Ti­tulus, nec E­piscopus vel Diaconus cū Titulo. Alva­rus Pelagius de planctu Ec­clesiae lib. 2. Nota, Om­nes Presbyte­ri Cardinales intitulantur hoc modo: Dil. Fill. F. T [...]. S. Laure­tii &c. Praes­bytero Cardi­nali, excepto uno videlicet, 12 Apostolorum qui intitulatur hoc modo. N. Basilicae Apostolorum Praesbytero Cardinali. ut in Capite, Cùm olim de Privilegiis. Episcopi autem Cardinales intitulantur hoc modo: F. Episcopo Portune. Et non fit mentio de Titulis, Diacom, Cardinales similitèr sine titulis hoc modo. N. Sancti Georgi [...] ad velum aureum Dracono Cardinali. Practica Cancellatiae Apo­stolicae à Petro Rebusso edita pag. 475. names, a distinction still ob­served, to testifie the ancient difference which was between them. Forasmuch therefore as these Cardinall Bishops, and Deacons were not originally in the Colledge of Cardinals, when their first number was decreed, but are rather redundant extuberancies of the Papacie, built upon, and dangerously overhanging that anci­ent foundation of the Presbyter Cardinals; I say therefore that whatsoever the number of Cardinals, either Bishops, Priests, or Deacons, ei­ther now is, or hath been at anytime since their first institution, either de facto, or de iure, it can no way prejudice, or infringe (howsoever, it may perhaps De omnibus Christianitatis regionibus Cardina­les assumantur, sic tamen quod numerum 24 non. excedant. praedicto autem numero pro ma­gna Ecclesiae necessitate, ant utilitate duo alii aduci poterunt. Concil. Basil. Oecumenicum Ses. 23. sub Eugen. 4. By this decree there must not be above 26, nor under 24: therefore there may be 25. And if the Pope be numbred among them, there must be 25 at the least. confirme) the truth of that which is above said concerning their first ori­ginall [Page 138] number. I doe therefore now conclude according to that which I suppose I have above evidently and sufficiently proved by many wit­nesses; first.

That there were in Rome originally, at the first remarkable foundation of the Papacie 25 Churches, in which, and in no other Baptisme was to be administred; which 25 Churches ac­cording to a First in a ge­nerall sense, as it may be said of every Church, that it is Domus Dei & porta coeli. Secondly▪ as they were Ba­ptismal Chur­ches. Thirdly, that as the Gates of the City, were seats of iudge­ment to the Israelites, so there was an Ecclesiastical iurisdiction annexed to these Cardinal Titles as per­haps it is inti­mated in the [...] 22 Psalme, that there shall be to the Churches in the n [...]w Hie­ [...]usalem. treble sense are answerable to the 12 Gates of the new Hierusalem.

Secondly, that there were 25 Titles, Parishes, Wards, Dioceses, or other divisions of persons and places, belonging to these 25 Churches: which 25 Titles, are answerable to those 12 Tribes of the new Hierusalem.

Thirdly, that there were 25 Priests or Pastors, to whom these 25 Churches were assigned; which 25 Pastors, are answerable to the 12 An­gels placed at the Gates of the new Hierusalem. Lastly, I conclude that these 25 Priests were changed (which change was the first great and remarkable degree of the great Antichristian Apostasie) into 25 Cardinals; & so became the Basis and foundation, of a then newly erected Romish Hierarchy, which hath ever since conti­nued, clayming and usurping supreame power and authority in the Church. And this Romish [Page 139] Hierarchie properly and essentially consists of the Pope and Cardinals onely, who are a diffe­rent kinde of goverment from all that ever were before them, pretending themselves to be the sea Apostolique, and resembling an ancient goverment of Rome, but being nothing else in the truth of their being, but a reall and continu­all emulation, and opposition of Christ and his Apostles: even in respect of that transcendencie of Authority, & infallibilitie of Doctrine, which was proper unto Christ and his Apostles onely, and absolutely incommunicable to any of their successors. And herein especially (as I conceive) consisteth the very soule and essence of Anti­christianisme, in pretending to be what they are not, by imitating Christ and his Apostles, in those things wherein they are unimitable. And how­soever the Romish Clergy, are more properly the servants and vassals of Antichrist then the Laie­tie: and both Cleargy & Laiety of that Church, then any other Christians; yet I believe that the very body, and essence of that great Antichrist, which was to come into the world, is to be confined to the Colledge of Cardinals onely, of which Colledge the Pope is head, and he toge­ther with them, maketh one corporation of false Prophets sitting properly [...] [Page 140] that is, as those words are, and may be divers waies interpreted, not only in, or against, or o­ver the Church of God, but also pretending themselves to be the Church of God, The Romish Prelats assé­bled in the V­niversity of Prague a­gainst Iohn Husse and o­thers doe af­firme in their fourth Decree or Article, That the Col­ledge of cardi­nals of Rome are the body of the Church. To which Ioh. Husse answe­reth, that Christ is the Head, and all faithful chri­stians the Bo­dy of the Church of Christ. To which the said Prelates doe reply, as Master Fox relateth, by a long and [...]edious processe, shewing how the Pope is Head, and how the Colledge of Cardinals onely, and not other Christians are the Body of the Church▪ Acts and Monuments Anno 1414. pag. 589. und 590. and 591. as the Romish Prelats pretend the Colledge of Cardi­nall to be. But I returne from whence I finde my selfe digressing, and doe conclude, that as all Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy in the Church of Christ (against and above which the Cardinals of Rome doe most energetically oppose and ad­vance themselves) had it's first originall, institu­tion, and foundation from the 12 Apostles in Hierusalem: so the opposite Hierarchy of Car­dinals in the Synagogue of Antichrist had it's first institution and foundation from 25 Parish Priests in Rome.

CHAP. 20. That the number of the Gates of Rome was 25.

COncerning the number of the Gates of the City of Rome according to the sense literall, it remaineth yet to be shewed that their number was 25, as the number of the [Page 141] Gates of the materiall Hierusalē either was, or is generally received to have been 12. For how­soever the first number of Churches, in which Baptisme was administred, be by the name of Gates, most principally aymed at in the descrip­tion of the new Hierusalem, as according to the sense spirituall I have above shewed: yet I can­not but think, that the number of the Gates ac­cording to the sense literall, is also directly in­tended; and that the number of the Gates of Hierusalem was twelve and no more Villanpan­dus Tom. 3^o. pag. 68, & 69 where is also exhibited a Map of Hie­rusalem with this inscrip­tion, Vera Hierusolimae veteris imago, Roma, supe­riorum per­missiu, cum privilegio summi Pon­tificis, Impe­ratoris, Regis Catholici, ac Senatùs vene­ti, &c. apparatus urbis & templi: plainly affirmeth and reciteth them nominatim, after this manner.

• 1 Porta fontis.
• 2 Porta stercoris
• 3 Porta vallis
• 4 Porta Anguli.
• 5 Porta Ephraim.
• 6 Porta Vetus.
• 7 Porta piscium.
• 8 Porta Benjamin.
• 9 Porta gregis.
• 10 Porta Equarum.
• 11 Porta Aquarum.
• 12 Porta Fiscalis.

[...]n indice tertio Appen­dicis ad Civi­tates Orbis. Georgius Braunus and Franciscus Hogenbergi­us, out of Livie and Plinie, who lived neere a­bout the time that S. Iohn writ the Revelation, doe write thus. Portas suburbiorum & urbis in universum 24 fuisse refert Plinius: Livius tamen [Page 142] ut passim in illius Historia est legere 27 ponit. And whereas some editions of Plinie make him to say sometimes, that there were 27 Gates in Rome, and sometimes 37, this is corrected as an error by Onuphryus lib. description urbis, where he writeth thus. Siigitur decem has portas quas ab ijs quatuor decem diversas fuisse liquet ipsis adjunx­erimus, erunt 24 urbis Romae Portae ut Plinium dixisse existimo—nam quod vulgati codices ha­bent 27 mendum proculdubio est ex adjectione nu­merorum aliquot ortum, ita ut 12 portae semel nume­rentur, praetereant (que) ex veteribus septē quae esse de­sierunt: It seems by the differing opinions of Li­ve and Plinie, who lived not long the one after the other, that the number of the gates of Rome, was neer about 25; for plus uno verum esse non po­test, there can be but one truth; & it is not probable that either of these Authors was ignorant, how many Gates Rome had in their own times. If there were 27 when Livy writ, & but 24 when Plinie writ, then it is probable that in this inte­rim, there were for some tyme but 25: but it is most likely, that as in all great Cities, there are Gates some of greater, and some of lesser note, some publike, and some belonging to private houses or Pallaces; and some so ambiguously placed and used, that it is hard and doubtfull to [Page 143] be determined, whether they are to be account­ed as Gates of the Citie, or not: so I say it is most likely that Livie accounted 2 or 3 Gates of lesser note, for Gates of the Citie, which Pliny thought fit rather to be left out as private passa­ges; but perhaps a third man, which had been to set downe his opinion concerning the num­ber of the Gates of Rome in those times, would have taken one of those 3 Gates into the num­ber which Pliny left out, and have left out 2 of those 3 Gates which Livie tooke in: and so doing it is likely he might have spoken more true­ly then either of them. For when Authors of equall credit and estimation, are of different o­pinions, it is more safe to goe betweene them both (if there be any medium) then to joyne with either. But I confesse all this proveth but a probability at the most, that the number of the Gates of Rome was 25. I am content therefore that Onuphryus that learned Roman Antiquary (who, and who only (as far as I know) hath written a peculiar Tract concerning the Gates of Rome) shall decide this Question. It is evi­dent by those words of Onuphryus which are last aboue recited, that he affirmeth the number of the Gates of Rome in the time of Pliny to have been 24 at the least; but it is plaine that a­mong [Page 144] all those, Porta Triumphalis is not num­bred, and therefore Onuphrius presently after, when he rehearseth nominatim all those 24 Gates above spoken of, addeth this Gate in the last place, as a Gate of the City, although not one of the former number number, saying ex­presly, Porta triumphalis extra numerum. And whereas afterwards he nameth two other Gates, which are Porta fenestralis Palatii, and Porta Stercoraria, he saith of the first, Porta fene­stralis Palatii, non urbis, sed potius Palatii fuisse crediderim; and of the second, Porta Stercoraria, non urbis sed Capitolii: plainly excluding these two last Gates, from being of the number of the Gates of the City, and plainly adding Porta tri­umphalis to the former number, as one of the Gates of the City; as, not onely other authors doe account it, but [...]ip. Roma. [...] pag. 54 elsewhere also, as well as in this place, himselfe affirmeth it to be, as these his words doe witnesse, Pars muri antiquitùs per medium Burgum girabat & habebat duas portas, Aureliam & Triumphalem. But for the greater evidence of this truth, I will here set downe the names of these Gates recited by Onuphrius in manner following.

[Page 145]

These 25 Gates Onuphrius setteth down as such as were altogether actually existing betweene the times of Pliny & Justinian, which doth ve­ry well agree with that time in which Marcel­lus did erect 25 Cardinalships in Rome. There were anciently 7 other Gates, of which Pliny writeth, that they ceased to be before his time; and therefore they are mentioned by Onuphri­us, as such, as cannot, nor ought not to be num­bred with those above named. But as touching these 25 Gates above specified, it is not materiall to enquire how long their number continued, [Page 146] whether untill the time of Justinian, or how long afterward. For, as those that affirme the number of the Gates of Hierusalem to have been 12, doe not mean that there were so many pre­cisely at all times, but that there were so many at that time in which the City most flourished, or that there were so many plus minus, so that ta­king one time with another, and considering all things, there is no one number, by which the number of the Gates of Hierusalem can be more truly expressed, then by the number 12: so in like manner, it may be said of the Gates of Rome and of the number 25. For as the Gates of Hieru­salem, so is it certaine that the Gates of Rome, especially in these latter times, have been much altered and changed, which hath caused a great variety of opinions among many writers, as well concerning their names, as their number. But thus much may be observed, that although the new addition unto Rome, called urbs Leoni­ana, hath brought 7 other Gates with it, yet some of the former decaying, the same number 25 may still remaine, and so much is expresly witnessed by Severinus Binius in his first Tome of generall Councels, pag. 261. where, speaking either of his own time, or of that time in which Georgius Braunius writ his Theatrium [Page 147] urbium orbis, he hath these words, Portas subur­biorum & urbis 24 fuisse refert Plinius, Livius tamen 27. Nunc sunt turres 365, portae 25 super▪ sunt, that is, pliny relates that the Gates of the City and Suburbs were 24, yet Livy saith 27, now there are 365 Turrets, and there remaine 25 Gates.

Thus I have now shewed, that which way soever the 12 Gates of the new Hierusalem are to be understood, whether literally for material gates properly so called, or spiritually for Chur­ches in which Baptisme was administred, which are as properly Gates of the Church uni­versall in a spirituall sense, as the other are of the materiall City in the sense literall. I say, which way soever these are to be understood, J have shewed that as there were 12 Gates of Hierusalem, so there were 25 of Rome. I may now therefore conclude in generall concer­ning the 4 first particulars above specified, that in what sense soever the new Ierusalem may be said to have had 12 Gates, twelve Tribes, twelve Angels, and twelve Apostles, who were the first remarkable foundations of the Church of Christ, and all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction: in the same sense the Romish Babylon may be said to have had 25 Anti-gates, & 25 Anti-tribes, and 25 [Page 148] Anti-angels, and 25 Anti-apostles, which were the first remarkable foundations of the Babylo­nicall Tower of their Antichristian Hierarchy.

CHAP. 21. That as 12000 furlongs are the solid measure of a Cube, whose perimeter is equall to the compasse of the new Hierusalem: so 25000 furlongs are the solid measure of a Cube, whose perimeter is equall in compasse to the City of Rome.

THE next degree of application which remaineth yet to be proved, concernes the measures of the Circuit and com­passe of the City of Rome: and by that which is already above said, this point is driven unto this issue, that if the Pope be Antichrist, and Rome that City in which Antichrist was chiefly to e­rect his kingdome, then the measure of the compasse or circuit of Rome must be plùs minùs between 116 and 117 furlongs, that is, 14 miles and an halfe, and almost halfe a quarter of a mile; and certainly this measure fitteth so just­ly, and is placed so exactly in the midst of that latitude which is admitted by diversity of the opinions of divers Writers concerning the com­passe of this City since the Pope ruled in it, that [Page 149] I doe not believe it to be possible by any one o­ther measure, more truly to expresse it. J need not in so cleare a matter set downe many mens opinions, especially being I shall have occasion to say more of it, when I come to speak of the Figure of this City, & of the Figure of the num­ber 666. But briefly it may be observed, what Commen­tationum A­pocalyps. par. 2. pag. 152. Cantabrigiae 1632. a late Writer, in his Commentaries upon the Revelation, hath already observed out of Lipsius concerning the compasse of Rome, his words are these. I am verò Roma hodierna, seu pontificia ambitum habet non nisi 13 aut 15 milliarum, ut nô­runt, inquit Lipsius, qui dimensi sunt. And of these two measures the same Admir. lib. 3. Author supposeth 15 miles nearest unto the truth. But Georgius Brau­nius, and Franciscus In indice tertio Appen­dicis ad Civi­tates Orbis. Hoggenbergius write thus. Quòd si urbem ad nostrae aetatis consuetudinem me­tiri volemus, vix passuum millia quatuor decem omnis Romae, & I aniculae transtiberinae regionis, & Ʋa­ticani ambitus implebit. And De descrip­tione urbis. lib. 7. pag. 28. Onuphrius to the same purpose in these words; Vrbis moenia aeta­te nostrâ vix quatuor decem millibus passuum com­plectuntur. Other Authors there are, which make the compasse of Rome to be 16 miles and more, and some that affirme it to be lesse then 13 miles: but where diversity of times, and di­vers mens opinions have made such a diversity [Page 150] of measures, I leave it to any mans judgement, whether the measure of 14 miles and an halfe, and somewhat more above mentioned, be not more probable then any of them; because it is placed (as it were) in the very middle between them. I conclude therefore that as an imagina­ry Cube, whose solid measure is 12 thousand furlongs, is equall in compasse to that City in which Christ erected his kingdome; so an ima­ginary Cube, whose solid measure is 25 thou­sand furlongs, is equall in compasse to the City in which Antichrist hath erected his kingdome.

CHAP. 22. That the Popish Creed consists of twenty five Arti­cles, as the Apostles doth of twelve.

I Come now unto the sixt and last point of application, which concerns the faith and doctrine professed by Antichrist, and the number of heads and Articles into which it is, or may be conve­niently divided: and to this purpose I have al­ready mentioned the Councell of Trent, (of which the acclamations above mentioned te­stifie, saying; Haec est fides Beati Petri & Aposto­lorum: Haec est fides Patrum: Haec est fides Ortho­doxorum) [Page 151] I have noted three things in which the number 25 is applicable unto it. First, con­cerning the number of Prelates there assembled in the first Session, the History of the Councell of Trent, lib. 2. pag. 130. plainly testifieth that the number of all the Prelates then, and there as­sembled, was 25. And although the number of Prelates was afterwards in other Sessions in­creased, and continually altered, and changed; yet this first Session was that which gave nomen & esle to the Councell, and therefore the num­ber of Prelates assembled in this Session is most remarkable, & rather to be observed then in a­ny other.

Secondly, concerning the number of Sessi­ons, and that the whole Councell is divided in­to 25 Sessions, all editions of that Councell doe testifie, and the books themselves will be as a thousand witnesses untill the end of the world.

And lastly, it is witnessed by the same books also, that the number of Popish Archbishops, which subscribed to this Councell was 25, and although many other Bishops and Legates, and Abbats, & others subscribed also, yet the num­ber of Archbishops is more remarkable then any of the rest, because, as Bishops (who ought chiefly, if not only to have decisive voices in ge­nerall [Page 152] Councells) are virtually and representa­tively, their whole subordinate Clergie: so they themselves, especially in the Romish Hierarchie, are virtually and representatively contained in their Archbishops. It might be here, as I believe, truly added, that the number of all the Decrees of this Councell of Trent, was also 25. (I meane of such For the o­ther Decrees which con­cerne either the beginning, continuing, prorogueing, translating, or ending of the Councell, or of any Session, or which concern safe conducts, are matters of meere forma­lity and una­voidable ne­cessity, and are not to be num­bred with the Decrees of the Councell, nor were read when the De­crees were cō ­firmed, as the last act of the Councell wit­nesseth. Decrees as concerne matters of faith & reformation, which onely are to be accounted for the Decrees of the Councell, because these only were read and confirmed in this Councel, as appeareth by the last words of the last Sessi­on) but because it is hard to set downe any one certain number of them, and because it is alrea­dy proved by that which is above said, that the number 25 is more remarkable in this Councel then any one other number: therefore I passe now to that Creed and forme of profession of the Romish faith, which was composed by Pope Pius the fourth, according to the doctrine of the Councell of Trent, by which Creed it is evi­dent that they have increased the number of the Articles of the faith from twelve unto twenty five, as by the Creed it selfe here written verba­tim out of Pope Pius his Bull may evidently ap­peare.

The words which follow next in the Bull, which are these, Hanc veram Catholicam fidem, &c. doe suppose and intimate that a perfect forme of the Catholike faith is premised and formerly declared; wherefore J suppose that it cannot be denied, either that this Creed endeth in this place, or that it is not aptly and fitly divi­ded, and distinguished into 25 Articles. For sup­posing the first part of this Creed, wherein we agree with the Papists, to be distributed into 12 Articles (as commonly it is, and as no man that is a Christian will deny) J doe upon this sup­position [Page 157] appeale unto any man, whether this whole Creed can with any tolerable conveni­encie be distributed, either into a greater num­ber of Articles, without separating such things as are in themselves united, or into a lesser, without confounding such things as are in themselves to be distinguished. If it be objected that the 12 Articles of the Christian faith ought not to be accounted as part of Antichrists Creed, and that this application would better fit Anti­christ, if that addition onely which he hath made unto the Apostles Creed, either were, or conveniently might be divided into 25 Articles: J answer, that if Antichrist had added 25 Arti­cles unto the Apostles Creed; then the number of Articles contained in the profession of his faith, would have been 37, and not 25. For it cannot be denied, that the Pope doth openly professe the 12 Articles of the Christian faith, nor proved that Antichrist ought not so to doe. But rather it is to be considered; that it is as great, if not greater impiety and presumption, to adde new Articles to the Christian faith, as wholy rejecting it, to erect another faith and religion. And that it more properly befits Anti­christ, to deny the Christian faith ex consequenti and indirectly, then to renounce the externall [Page 158] profession of it: for the mouth of Antichrist ought to be as a fountaine sending forth at the same place sweet waters & bitter, he is to have a forme of godlinesse, but to deny the power thereof; he is to pretend himselfe to be a Chri­stian, and to be built upon the true foundation of the Apostles; but he is also to overthrow this foundation upon which, in some sort he is, and pretends himselfe to be built, by superinducing damnable doctrines, exconsequenti and indire­ctly contradicting & denying that faith which he doth externally professe. The Divels them­selves may make profession of the Christian faith, to the same end that Antichrist doth, that is, to deceive by it: and it is probable that the Divels doe more certainly know and believe, the historicall truth of the Creed, then some Popes have done. And lastly, the Papists them­selves cannot deny, but their imaginary Anti­christ (who shall be of the Tribe of Dan as they say) must believe, or at least prosesse himselfe to believe, so many of the Articles of the Creed, as the Iewes now doe, or as may be evidently proved out of the old Testament. By all which things it is evident, that the externall profession of the Christian faith, can no way priviledge the Pope from being that great Antichrist [Page 159] which was to come into the world: but rather it may be truly said, that this externall professi­on, is causasine qua non, such a thing as could not but concurre to his constitution. For as Anti­christianisme consists of two parts, the one be­ing an open, yet a fained and hypocriticall pro­fession of the truth; the other a secret and indi­rect, yet a reall and effectuall eversion of it: so this forme of the profession of the faith above mentioned, consisting of 25 Articles, of which 12 belong to the first part, and 13 to the second, may be fitly esteemed a perfect summe and character of Antichristianisme.

CAP. 23. The conclusion which followeth upon the chiefe part of the application above proved, and some neces­sary and remarkable Observations concerning it.

I Have now shewed and proved, that as the number twelve is in six severall things applicable to the new Hierusa­lem: so the number twentie five is applicable to the mysticall Babylon in six severall things, an­swerable and opposite unto them▪ and where­as the Tribes, Gates, Angels▪ Foundations, Mea­sures, [Page 160] and Fruits of the tree of life, are all, or most of them such things as doe admit a double, or manifold interpretation, according as they have been by divers Authors diversly expounded; I have made it manifest, that which way soever they be understood, there are things in all sen­ses answerable unto them in the Romish Baby­lon, to which the number 25 is applicable, and that it should so fall out according to such di­versity of interpretations, Ille quippe author in [...]s [...] dem verbis quae intellige­re volumus, & ipsam senten­tiam forsitan vidit; & certè Dei spiritus qui per eum haec operatus est, etiam ip­sam occu [...]u [...]ā lectori vel au­ditori sine du­bitatione praevidit, imo ut occurreret, quia & ipsa est veritate subnixa, pro­vidit. Nam quid in divinis cloquiis la [...]gi­ùs & uberius potuit divini­tùs provido [...]i, quàm ut cadē verba pluribus intelligantur modis, quos alia non minùs divina constantia faciunt approb [...] ­ri. Aug. de Doctrin. Christiana, lib. 3. cap. 27. this (as I believe) ad­deth much to this mystery, because every diffe­ring exposition, is, as it were, a distinct and seve­rall prophecy, in one respect or other, more clearely describing the Papacie. If the root of the number 666 had been applicable, onely to one of those six things above mentioned, as for example, to the Colledge of Cardinals of Rome in respect of their first originall: this one thing, as I conceive, (if the historicall truth of it can­not be confuted) had been a more manifest signe and token, that the Papacy is Antichrist, then all the For it is aboue evidently proved both by rea­son, and by an example in the Scripture; that the mystery of the number consists, in the applica­tion of the root of it. But that the mystery consists in numerall letters of any name, it cannot be proved either by reason or Scripture, but only by the event. interpretations that any Writers have hitherto set forth concerning the number 666. But being the same root or number, doth [Page 161] not only shew the first originall number of Cardinals or Anti-apostles, but doth also intimate that they are according to divers spirituall sen­ses, the Gates, Angells, and Foundations of the Popes mysticall City, State, and Hierarchy; and doth also shew, how many furlongs in com­passe the City of Rome should be; how many Gates it was to have about it; how many Chur­ches for Baptisme in it; how many Pastors did first exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction over it; into how many Titles, or Parishes it was first divided, and unto how many heads and Arti­cles Christian religion should be there augmen­ted; being, I say, this one number 25, doth not in one, nor in two, nor in three onely, but in all these particulars, and in all senses in every one of these particulars, truly and evidently, Number, Measure, Describe, and Characterise the City, State, and Hierarchy of Rome, and that state and City onely; so that it is not so fitly applica­ble to any other state and City, no not in any one thing fitly answering any one of those six particulars above mentioned: then how can a­ny man desire a more essentiall and exact de­scription of the Papacie, then the right applica­tion of this number 25, plainly exhibits to him, that doth fully understand it? or how can any [Page 162] one which understandeth these things, justly say, that I have spoken hyperbolically, whereas I have above said, that the City, State, and Hie­rarchy of Antichrist, is by this number 25 most evidently, and miraculously described?

J have as yet applied the number 25 unto the Papacie, only in such things as are [...], that is, answerable and opposite to such things, as are mentioned in the description of the new Hierusalem. But as the number 12 is in many o­ther respects besides these, applicable to the true Church, and to such things as pertaine unto it: So J am now to shew (as I have also above promised) that this number 25 is in many other things applicable to the Papacie, and to such things as doe pertaine unto it. But first there are some observations concerning that part of the application which is already proved, which may in this place be interposed.

First, it may be observed, that although the root of the number 666, were applicable to the Papacie in no other things, saving only in these above proved. Yet these are sufficient: because by these the Papacie is evidently distinguished from all other states of goverment: and because there are no other things in the Papacy more es­sentiall and remarkable then these.

[Page 163]Secondly, that although the description of the new Hierusalem were of a City in all re­spects meerely imaginary (as perhaps in some things it is,) and were not applicable either ac­cording to a sense of allusion, to that materiall Hierusalem which once was, or according to a sense of prediction, to the last state of the new materiall Hierusalem, which for all that we know, may be yet for to come: yet such an ima­ginary City, being so exactly, and in so many di­vers respects measured, numbred, and described by the root and figure of one number onely, may be purposely set downe, as a rule and pat­terne, by which the root and figure of another number given, ought to be applied, to a City, not imaginary, but really and actually existing: for God, who sometimes chuseth things that are not, to bring to nought things that are, may also by things that are not, bring to light things that are; and by the opposition or juxta-position of supposed and imaginary measures & num­bers of a heavenly Hierusalem, may discover the true and reall numbers, and measures of all things remarkable in the City of Rome.

Thirdly, it may be observed, that although the description of the new Hierusalem had not exemplarily directed this application chiefly [Page 164] unto those particulars above mentioned, yet the things themselves are such, that it is probable that the wisdome of God would rather have foretold those things of Antichrist then any o­ther. For God by his Prophets in the old Testa­ment, intending to fore shew and foretell the kingdome of Christ, did not foretel what nū ­ber the letters of Christs name, or any name of his Church or kingdome should containe (as the Papists would make us believe S. Iohn doth concerning Antichrist) but did foretell by divers types, the number of Christs Apostles, and their office and quality, as appeares by divers Types in the Scriptures, and especially by the Type of the 12 Oxen under the brasen sea, by which, not onely the number of the Apostles was foretold, but also their condition, as that the Sea of Grace, and Laver of regeneration should by them be supported, and carried into all quarters of the world, and that they should goe and baptize all nations, &c. Since then the Cardinals of Rome are those persons in that An­tichristian Hierarchy, which are answerable to the Apostles, and those to whom the admini­stration of Baptisme was originally most re­markably committed; it is therefore more pro­bable, that their Number, Nature, and Conditi­on should be typed in the Scriptures, then any [Page 165] other one thing concerning Antichrist.

Lastly, it may be observed concerning the compasse of the Area, or platforme of the City of Rome, and concerning the first number of Churches at once and the same time instituted, that they are things fatall and mysticall in them­selves, as Onuphrius Panvinius, concerning both these things, hath observed; of the first he wri­teth thus. Pomaerii autem urbis Romae terminos non sine Augurum consilio poni, mutari, ac restitui potu­issesatis constat innu [...]t (que) haec inscriptio,

• Collegium.
• Augurum Autore.
• Imp Casare Divi.
• Trajani Parthiciterminos
• Pomaerii restituendos curavit.

Of the number of Churches he writeth thus. Cur autem non plures neq, pauciores Ecclesiae simul institutae fuerint, quae his nominibus decorarentur, operae pretium erit explicare, huic (que) instituto maxi­mè consentaneum, cùm haec res insigni mysterio ce­lebratasit. For although Onuphrius in the 2 chap. of his book De praecipuis urb. Rom. B silicis wilnesseth that there were 25 Ti­tles at [...]nce instituted, & that this num­ber was after­wards augmé­ted succe [...]sive­ly, some Popes adding one Ti­tle and some another untill they came to [...]8 in number which as he co [...]e [...]lures was ab [...]ut the Time oF L [...]o the first in the yeare 44 [...]. Onuphrius speaketh these words of other Churches in Rome also, & not only of these 25, which were first called Ti­tles, yet his words can be verified of these Chur­ches onely, because even himselfe being judge, and that cloud of witnesse, which I have above [Page 166] alleaged, there never was any other Totall num­ber of Churches which were called Titles, in the City of Rome, which were as in this place he saith, simul institutae, at one time and altoge­ther instituted, but only those 25 above mentio­ned. If therefore there be any mystery in this number, it must be in the number 25, and in no other.

CHAP. 24. A briefe and cursory recitall of some other lesse re­markable particulars; in which the number 25 is remarkably applicable to the City, and Church of Rome.

BUT I come now to a multitude of o­ther remarkable particulars belonging to the Papacy and Church of Rome, in which their affectatiō of this number 25 may also be observed: and these things I will re [...]ite very briefly and cursorily, because I take them to be adventitious and supernumerary, and no essentiall part of this interpretation, yet are these things for the most part answerable in some sort to such things to which the number 12 is applied in divers places of the Scriptures. As the land of Canaan was divided into 12 jurisdicti­ons [Page 167] and Divisions, which were governed by the heads of the Tribes, and did perhaps type out that division which That divisi­on of the land of Canaan mentioned by Ezechiel, seems not to be yet fulfilled, but perhaps that land shall be yet againe divided into 12 Dioceses, after the con­version of the Iewes, and shall have 12 Christian Bi­shops in it. And perhaps Hierusalem shall be n [...]w built, and be the Metropolis of it; but that Christ shall then raigne personally & visibly in it, I see no reason. Ezekiel fore-telleth, or that Ecclesiasticall goverment which the 12 A­postles did exercise, not onely over the City of Hierusalem as Pastors, but also over the whole Country belonging to that City as the first Christian Bishops. So perhaps, the Antichrist of Rome, in those Kingdomes where conveniently he might, and in those times when he had ful­lest power, hath also divided certain kingdoms, into 25 provinces or other divisions, and hath placed 25 men of note and eminency in severall Kingdomes who by their power could rule and governe others. There were heretofore 25 Ab­bats in England, as Camden witnesseth, which had voyces in the Parliament house. And al­though I could set down some other particulars to this purpose, concerning other Kingdoms, yet I chuse rather to leave it to those, who are better acquainted with the histories of forraign nations; who, if such observations shall be thought necessary, have better meanes and op­portunities to search after them, then I can have. It shall be sufficient for me, onely to touch brief­ly upon some common and obvious things in [Page 168] which the number 25 is remarkablely applica­ble to the Papists: rather to give an hint unto o­thers, then that I doe conceive the number of those particulars which I shall here set downe, to be so much as considerable in respect of those, which may be found out hereafter.

In the first place their affectation of the num­ber 25, is remarkable in respect of the num­ber of their Monks, Friers, and singing Masse-Priests in divers of their Abbies, Priories, Mo­nasteries, and other their societies and cor­porations: and because there are no others in the Romish Clergie more fitly answerable to those singers mentioneed in the 25 chapter of the first book of Chronicles, then these Monkes and Friers, therefore it is so much the more observable, that the number 25 should be re­markable in respect of these, as the number 12 appeares to be in that Chapter, in respect of those. The book called Bibliotheca Cluniacen­sis, in which are recited the Abbies, Priories, and Deaneries belonging to that Order, te­stifieth, that in all those societies, where there is any setled number of Monks and Friars, there is none so frequent, & remarkable as the num­ber 25, as by these particulars gathered out of [Page 169] this one book onely may appeare.

• Prioratus de Gigniaco Lug. Dioecesis ubi per defini­tionem factam anno 1266 Monachi fuerunt re­ducti ad numerum 25.
• Decanatus de Paredo Eduensis Dioecesis ubi debent esse—25 Monachi, Priore non computato, & notandum est per literas benae memoriae DominI Bertrandi Abbatis Cluniacensis quòd debent esse 25 Monachi in hoc Decanatu. pag. 1706.
• Prioratus Naluaci Lug. Dioec. ubi debent esse—25 Monachi. ibid.
• Prioratus Sancti Marcelli Cabilenensis Dioec: ubi debent esse—25 Monachi. pag. 1706.

• Decanatus Sancti Petri de Lehuno in sanguineter­so Ambianensis Dioec: ubi debent esse Decano computato—25 Monachi. p. 1712.
• Prioratus Sancti Lupi Bellonacensis Dioec: ubi de­bent esse Priore non computato—25 Monachi. ibidem.
• Prioratus Mon [...]alium Sancti Ʋictoris LeodiceNsis Dioec: ubi debent esse—25 Moniales. p. 1716.
• Prioratus S. S Petri & Pauli de Raallo Meldensis Dioec: ubi debent esse—25 Monachi. p. 1717.
• Prioratus de Arenthona in Anglia ubi debent esse 25 Monachi▪ p. 1719.
• [Page 170]Prioratus beatae Mariae de Gernago Parisiensis Dioec: ubi debent esse—25 Monachi.
• Prioratus Sanctae Crucis de Volta, Sancti Flori Dioec: ubi debent esse—25 Monachi. p. 1737.
• Prioratus Sancti Orientii Auxitanensis Dioec: in quosunt de praesenti—25 Monachi. p. 1740.

• Abbatia de Passaleto Glascoensis Dioec: in qua de­bent esse—25 Monachi. p. 1748.
• Prioratus de Arenthona subditus Prioratui de Cha­ritate in quo debent esse—25 Monachi. p. 1749.

To these might be added many other in Englād and elsewhere, but these are sufficient to shew, that there are not so many corporations of any one other number belonging to the Cluniacen­sian Monkes, as by the Catalogue exhibited in this booke called Bibl. Cluniacensis. pag. 1715 plainly doth appeare. And it is very probable that he that would trouble himselfe to find out the ancient numbers of other corporations, be­longing to other Orders, might easily make (if it were necessary) the like observation. But in­steed of those many particulars which I might in this kinde set downe, I will mention onely the last Order of note that the Popes have ere­cted, and this is the order of Knights of the most [Page 171] glorious Ʋirgin Mary (as they call them) insti­tuted at Rome by Paul the fifth, An. 1618. which Order, as it is Thea [...]er of Honour, by Andrew Fa­vine, l. 8. c. 2. supposed, will be the most fa­mous throughout all Christendome, and there is no other determination concerning the number of the Knights of this Order, but onely this: That of the Knights of this order, there shall alwaies remaine These 25 Residents ha­ving monthly allowance are in some sort answerable to those 12 Cap­taines menti­oned 1 Chron cap. 27. v. 1. Resident at Rome, in the Court of the holy Father 25, having 20 Du­cates by the moneth, and the like number at Lo­retto.

Next unto the numbers of these Societies & Corporations, it may be here observed, that the number 25 is also remarkable, in respect of cer­taine Officers of great note and estimation, be­longing to the highest Courts of justice inThe chiefe Penitentiary his Court is as it were the high Court of Chancery in Rome, & per­haps these 25 Officers are not of lesse note▪ then the 12 Masters of the Chancery here in Eng­land. Rome; of which Courts and Officers Franciscus Abrahamus Annalibus Ecclesiasticis anno 1457. pag. 27. Bzovius writes thus: Inter Cardina­lestria officia sunt magni momenti, primus est Poe­nitentiarius, huic subsunt Poenitentiarii minores [...]aud p [...]uci, & scriptores 25. And a litle after, con­cerning another Court, he saith, Militant circa Rotam inter alios officiarios, Abbreviatores non minus 25.

CAP. 25. That the number 25 is remarkable in divers things pertaining to S. Peters Church in Rome. Of the measures of S. Peters Altar, and the Characters imprinted upon it, and other Popish Altars.

I Come now to their Altars, and first to that Sanctum Sanctorum, that great and high Altar in S. Peters Magnae haec Basilica toti terrarum orbi venerationi perpetuò fuit, inqua praeci­pu [...] quaeque nostrae religi­onis mysteria & Romanae Apostolicae sedis facta ce­lebrata legun­tur. Onuphr. de praecip. [...]b. Romae Basilicis. p. 65 Church at Rome, of which Altar and Church divers things are written very remarkably by divers authors: upon the top and high Terrace of this Church, as Angelus Rocca witnesseth, is placed upon a guilded Globe of brasse, a guilded Crosse of Apud Basilicam Sancti Petri Romae supra tholi laternam locatur pila aenea inaurata, supra pilam cernitur Crux aenea inaurata palmorum quin (que) & viginti. Angel. Rocca in appendice Bib. Vatican p. 419. 25 hand-breadths in heigth. In the forepart of this Church are 5 Gates, which are commonly used, and one other Gate called Portasancta, which stands open only one yeare in Onuph. de praecip. Bas. cap. 4. 25, and the twenty fifth yeare being ended, it is againe shut by the Pope. In this Church (as also in the

[Page 173] Basilica S. Mariae ma [...] ­ris est una ex quin (que) Pat [...] ­archalibus Ec­cle siis; una ex septem, quae solenni ritu perpetuò visi­tari solent, ex quatuor de­mum anni ju­bilei una con­stituta.—Haec Ecclesia aliis Patriarchali­bus Ecclesi [...]s similis est—Habet Altare majus mar­moreo oper­culo ornatum, podia sive moeniana duo lapidea tessellat: &c.—sacella aliquot magnifica, Altaria circiter 25 marmorea, tessellatam sedem &c. Onuph. Pavin. de praecipuis Romae Basil. cap. 6. pag. 289. Church of S. Mary the greater) have been a­bout 25 Altars as 1 Altare S. Xisti. P. P.2 Altare S. Leonis.3 Altare Hadriani.4 Alt. S Mariae.5 Alt. SS. Processi, &c.6 Alt. S. Mauritii.7 Alt. Silvestri.8 Alt. Mariae.9 Alt. Gabinii.10 Alt. Martialis.11 Alt.. Bartholomei12 Alt. S. Pastoris.13 Alt. S. Thomae.14 Alt. SS. Andreae & Gregorii.15 Alt. Beat. Virginis.16 Alt. Innocentii.17 Alt. S. Suda [...]ii.18 Alt. S. Antonii.19 Alt. S. Tridentii.20 Alt. novum SS. Apost.21 Alt. Philippi & Iacob.22 Alt. Mortuorum.23 Alt. vetus Simonis & Iudae translatum ad mediam Ecclesiam.24 Alt. S. Habundii nunc dict. S. Catharinae.25 Alt. S. Petronillae. All these 25 Altars were erected and altogether actually existing in S Peters Church at Rome before the yeare 1500. That is, before there was any new addition of building to that Church. He mentioneth also soure other Altars, but they were not in the ancient Church of S. Peter, as O­nuphrius writes, but in a wall which is between the new Church of S. Peter and the old, built since the yeare 1500. by Paul the third, in a place where anciently was a Chappel dedicated to S. Lucie. Onuph. de praecip. Urb. Rom Basil. cap 4. Onuphrius particularly recites them, besides the great Altar or Sepulcher of S. Peter, which is, as it were, their Sanctum San­ctorum, upon which no man may celebrate Masse but the Pope onely. This is that before which the Roman Emperours have prostrated themselves and their Crownes, and this is that Sepulcher which (although it be not so) the Popes of Rome doe account and esteeme to be the Altar of Christ, as D. Hieronymus adversus Vigilantium testatur Romanum Pont. Supta Petri & Pauli ossa veneranda [...] Domino [...], & [...]umulos eorum Christi arbitrari▪ altaria D. August. Epist. 42. ad Madaurenses: Imperi [...] Ro [...] ni nobilissimi eminentissimum culmen ad sep ulchrum Pisca [...]o [...]is Petri submisso [...] supplicat. Onuph. il [...]d. Onuphrius makes Saint Augustine and S. Hierome to witnesse. This Al­tar or Sepulcher is made foure square of a per­fect [Page 174] Cubicall figure; the length, breadth, & the heighth of it are equall; the measure of every side or area of this Altar is precisely 25 foot of square measure, as the words both of Constanti­nus fecit Ba­silicam beato Petro Aposto­lo in Templo Apollims, cu­jus locum, cú corpus S. Pe­tri recondidit, undi (que) ex aere cyprio con­clusit, quod est immobile: ad caput pedes 5, ad pedes pe­des 5, ad latus dextrum pe­des 5, ad latus sinistrum pe­des 5, subter pedes 5, supra pedes 5, &c. Ba [...]on▪ anno 324. Baronius & Onuphrius doe testifie to all those that know what superficiall or square measure is.

But the number 25 is most remarkably im­printed upon all their Altars, because Christs 5 wounds, as they call them, are in five severall places ingraved upon the top of every Altar; which their multiplying of our Saviours wounds from 5 to 25, what it may signifie, ei­ther in their intention, or beyond their intenti­on (either that they offer up Christ many times whom the Iewes crucified but once, or that their apostacie hath given him more wounds then the Jewes cruelty) it is not materiall to in­quire;Onuphr. de praecip. urb. Rom. Bas. c. 4. but certaine it is, that usually and ordina­rily, there are precisely 25 prints, markes, dents, or Characters ingraved upon all their Altars. And that the square measures of S. Peter his Se­pulcher or Altar above mentioned, & the man­ner how their Altars are characterized with the number twenty five, may be more plainely understood, let this figure following be con­sidered.

[Page 175]

CHAP. 26. That the number 25 is an affected symbolicall device among the Papists: Of the Masse of Christs five wounds, five times multiplied and repeated. Of their Jubelies, and affection of the twenty fifth day of the moneth.

BUt these five Cinques, or these 25 round spots, which in Armes doe signify num­bers,That round spots in Arms doe signifie numbers is ob­served by the Author of Ar­mory E. B. p. 179. & sequ. as ^a some Writers have observed, have not been only imprinted upon their Al­tars, but being (as it is probable) from thence derived, have been accounted a symbolicall de­vice, and made armoriall and recorded to have been sent from heaven in a more celestiall man­ner, then the Ancile of ancient Rome as a sancti­fied Elements of Armories pag. 166. banner to lead Armies fortunately. And what greater testimony can there be of the affectation of a number? Yet if these 5 Cinques are inserted into the Armes of the Emperour of Rome, the King of Spaine, and the Arch-duke of Austria; if the Pope and Cardinals cause them to be imprinted in the frontispice of divers books printed at Rome for their better successe, and the greater confirmation of them. If their Masse of Christs five wounds, five times multipli­ed [Page 177] and repeated; have been by an Angell from heaven commanded, and by authority Apo­stolicall confirmed, as the Boniface Bishop of Rome lay sick and was like to die, to whē our Lord sent the Archan­gel Raphiel with the office of the Masse, of the five wounds, say­ing: Rise and write this of­fice, and say it five t [...]mes, & thou shalt be restored to thy health imme­diatly: and what Priest soever shall say this office for himselfe, or for any o­ther that is sick 5 times, the person for whom it is said shall ob­taine health and grace, and in the world to come (if be continue in virtue) life e­verlasting. And in what soever tribulation a man shall be in this life, if he procure this office to be said five times for him, of a Priest, without doubt he shall be delivered. And if it be said for the soule of the dead, anone, as it shall be said and ended five times, his soule shal be rid from paines. This hearing the Bishop he did erect himself in his bed, conjuring the Angel by the name of Almighty God, to tel him what he was, and wherefore he came, and that he should depart with­out doing him harme: who answered that he was Raphiel the Archangel, sent unto him of God: and that al the premisses were undoubtedly true. Then the said Boniface confirmed the said of­fice of the Five Wounds, by Apostolike authority, M. Fox in his Acts and Monuments p. 1398. hath related these things out of the Rubrick of their Masse booke. And by these things, two things are evident; First, that they doe acknowledge the multiplication of the number 5 by 5, to have some secret mystery and virtue in it. Secondly, that the reason why they doe affect the number 25, consists in the root of it, which is five. Rubtick in their Masse books affirmeth: then all these things seem to imply yet a greater mystery in this number, & to testifie a greater affectation of it. To prosecute all these things particularly would require a large volume, but I doe briefly and cursorily passe over these things which perhaps are not essentiall unto this interpreta­tion.

Lastly, their affectation of the number 25 seemes remarkable in respect of certaine times of note and high estimation among them. For first it is apparent that their Jubile is, and hath been for many ages celebrated every five and twenty yeare only. Our Saviour Christ began to shew himselfe, and to goe about his Fathers businesse when he was twelve yeares old; but Priests, Deacons, and sub-Deacons, and all o­ther [Page 178] the Popes sonnes and daughters, are not accounted of a perfect age, untill they are Qui 25 an­num comple­vit aetatis est perfectae, qui non comple­vit imperfectae nec propriè res suas admi­nistrare potest Dig lib. 1. tit. 7. Dig. 7. Bas. B 33. tit. 1. c. 13. Them. 4. Austat p. 240 Diaconus aut subdiaconus annis 25 mi­nor non ordi­natur. N. 123. Bas. 3. tit. 1. c. 26. Higinius Virgines sa­crari ante an­num 25 pro­hibuit. Vola­teran: lib. 22. p. 496. 25 yeares old compleatly. Perhaps the affectation of this number in this respect hath caused some translations of the Scriptures to be corrupted: for S. Hierome in his Commentaries upon the 11 Chapter of Ezekiel, having observed that the number 25 is never used in a good sense in all the Scriptures, answereth an objection against this his observation in this manner. Licet in Le­vitico ad sacer dotale ministerium à viginti quin (que) annis eligantur, in hebraeo enim non habet hunc nu­merum qui in Septuaginta dicitur, sed tricenarium. And this conjecture may be thought the more probable, because in another place of Scripture where it is evident that the number 25 is used in a bad sense, there the same copy of the Septu­agint which S. Hierome used, maketh no menti­on of the number 25, but insteed of it taketh an­other number, as by these his words upon the 8. Chap. of Ezekiel may appeare. Quos nos vigin­ti quin (que) viros transtulimus, Septuaginta posuerunt viginti, & in quibusdam exemplaribus quin (que) de Theodotione additisunt.

And last of all, as they seeme to affect the 25 yeare more then any other, so have they also af­fected the five and twentieth day of the month [Page 179] more then any other. Their chiefe holydaies are upon the five and twentieth day of the moneth, and there is no one day of the moneth, which hath had originally so many holidaies laid vpon it. Upon the five and twentieth day of December the Church of Rome begins the yeare, & upon that day they have ordained the nativity of our Saviour Christ to be celebrated. Upon the five and twentieth day of Ian: is the conversion of Paul. Upon the five and twen­tieth of February, so oft as it is leap yeare, is the feast of S Mathias: and it is observable that that day which is added to the yeare every leap yeare, is not placed at the beginning or ending of the yeare, or any moneth, but is made to be the five and twentieth day of the moneth. Up­on the five and twentieth of March is the An­nuutiation of the blessed Virgin. Upon the five and twentieth of Aprill is S. Marks day. When Pope. Gregory re­formed the Kalēder, they rejected the golden number 19; by which meanes they made a two­fold Epact of 25, of which one is written thus, 25, the o­ther thus xxv▪ or in a diffe­rent colour, but this is not mine own ob­servation, but of a learned man; who also added, that untill be could see some rea­son why the Iesuits fastned this conceit upon 25 ra­ther then any other number, he should im­pute it to their affectation of this number above all other. Upon the five and twentieth of July is S. James day. And which is more remarkable then all these, the feast of S. Barthol. is celebrated at Rome up­on the five and twentieth day of August, as their Breviary witnesseth, although in all other places it be celebrated one day sooner. And this particular seemes plainly to testifie their affe­ctation of the twenty fift day: because although [Page 180] all those holy-daies above recited, have been ce­lebrated in all places upon the five and twen­tieth daies of severall moneths by the authori­tyBy comparing the 59 ver. of the first chap. of the first book of the Macab with the 7 verse of the sixth Chap of the second book of Mac. it seemes pro­bable that the birth day of Antiochus was the five and twentieth day of the moneth. of the Church of Rome, yet they would have the City of Rome it selfe to be singular in this, that it should celebrate one five and twenty day more then all the world beside. And to this pur­pose it may be here observed, that Antiochus who was almost in all things a type of Anti­christ, fayled not in this, but of all the daies of the moneth, he and his officers did solemnize the five and twentieth day by offering sacrifice upon the Idoll Altar on that day, and by their monthly persecutions of the Iewes, as it appea­reth in the first book of the Maccabees cap. 1. vers. 59.

CHAP. 27. Objections answered concerning the fractions of the Root of 666. That the Root of 666 is more ex­actly applicable to the Papacie then the root of any square number could have been.

HAving now, as I believe, sufficiently proved all that I have above promi­sed concerning the application of the number twentie five unto the Papacie, both [Page 181] in respect of such things as are essentiall to this application, and also in respect of such things as are perhaps only accidentally adventitious unto it: I come now to answer such generall objections as may be made against all that hath been yet said, & to shew that howsoever some things may be objected which seeme to make against this interpretation, yet they being duly considered and well examined, are a full con­firmation of it; and doe open a doore to the finding out of as great, if not greater mysteries concerning the Papacie, as any of those which have been hitherto declared.

First, it may be objected concerning the root of the number 666, that the root is not precisely 25, but a surd number between 25 and 26; and that therefore if in this mystery the num­ber 25 be chiefly aymed at, it is probable that the wisdome of God would have led us to the finding out of this number 25, rather by com­manding us to count and extract the root of the number 625, then the number 666.

Secondly, supposing the root to be 25 (as it is most certaine that it is) it may be objected con­cerning the number of the Colledge of the Cardinals at their first institution, that their number was not 25 but 26, because the Pope [Page 182] numbreth himselfe among the Cardinals, as he is Peters successour, in his Apostleship. And be­cause he is a Cardinall and so accounted.Item Papa se annumerat inter Cardi­nales secundū Archid▪ in ca­pitale Sacro▪ sancta. 22. di­stinct. Sicut impera­tor ponitur de numero Se­natorum. Lib. Ius Senatorū cap. de digni­tatibus. I [...]co­batius de con­cil. num. 176.

To the first objection it might be replied, that although the root of 666, may in some sense be said to be a surd number; yet it is to have its denomination, not from any square number exceeding the number given, but from the greatest square number contained in the number 666, as it is above said, and as by those that have written of this part of Arithmaticke is sufficiently declared: yet if it be granted that roots of numbers may sometimes have their denomination, as well from the next square number exceeding the number given, as from the greatest square number contained in it: this doth rather confirme then prejudice the truth of this application, as it shall be anon declared.

To the second objection, it might be answe­red, that as Christ was not numbred among the Apostles, nor properly was an Apostle, but was their Lord and Master, so the Pope, as he pre­tends himselfe to be Ʋicarius Christi, is not, nor can be numbred among the Cardinals, but is their Lord and Master: but yet, as the Pope pre­tends himselfe to be Successor Petri, (and that as well in his Apostleship, as in the Vicarship of [Page 183] Christ) in this respect it is nothing prejudiciall to the application of the root of the number 666 to the Papacie, if it be granted that he may in some sort be numbred among them. For howsoever I say that these two objections may be thus briefly answered, yet J choose ra­ther by admitting something to be true in ei­ther, to shew how these two objections doe re­ciprocally answer each other. For indeed ei­ther of these objections is a full answer to the other; they are like two earthen vessels, of which if one be knocked against the other, both are dissolved. All that can be concluded from the first obiection is, that howsoever the root of 666 be expresly 25, that yet in some re­spect it may be said to be 26, because some­times, and in some cases, although not proper­ly, roots of numbers may have their denomina­tion, à numero quadrato simpliciter proximo, from the next square number, although it exceed, and be not contained in the number given. All that can be concluded from the second obiection is, that howsoever the first expresly decreed num­ber of the Cardinals was 25, yet if the Pope be numbred among them, as in some respect he may and ought to be, that then that number may in some respect be said to have been 26, as [Page 184] therefore the first obiection proveth the root of 666 to be expresly [...]25, and yet in some respect 26. So the second proveth the originall number of Cardinals to have been 25, and yet in some re­spect 26. from both therefore it may be con­cluded, that there is a greater similitude and likenesse between the root of 666, and the first number of that Colledge and Corporation which is Antichrist, then by any of those other things which are above said could have been conceived or imagined. For if the number of the Beast had been said to have been 625, theQuòd Papa inter Cardi­nales connu­meratur, signúest pileus ex purpura qui in sepulchro Pa­pae pingi so. let Hieron. Manfredus de Cardinalibus cap. 9. root of which number is so 25, that it can in no respect be said to be 26. Then the Iesuits might with probability have alleaged, that S. Peter was numbred among the 12 Apostles, and that the Pope being his Successor actually is and ought to be numbred among the Cardinals, & that after the Popes death to testifie that he was still a Cardinall, it is one of the usuall ceremo­nies at the Popes funerall, that a Cardinals hat should be painted upon his coffin: and that therefore the first originall number was 26, and not 25. Contrariwise, if the number of the Beast had been said to have been 676, the root of which number is so 26, that it can in no respect be said to be 25, then it would have been allea­ged, [Page 185] that the Pope is Vicarius Christi, and that as Christ was not numbred among the Apostles, so the Pope ought not to be numbred among the Cardinals: and that therefore the first de­creed number by Marcellus was 25, and not 26: and against this objection J see not what could have been materially replied.

But the wisdome of God foreseeing all these difficulties and ambiguities, and intending to declare exactly the true number of the first foū ­dation of that Colledge of Cardinals, whereof the Pope is head, and knowing that it could not be foretold absolutely without ambiguity, by one number onely (because it is absolutely un­possible to say truly, that that number was abso­lutely in all respects 25, or that it was absolutely in all respects 26, for as the Pope is Vicarius Chri­sti, so it was 25 and not 26. But as he is Succes­sor Petri, and as he is numbred among the Cardinals, so it is 26 and not 25.) doth therefore set downe this number 666, that by our coun­ting and extracting the root of this number he might lead us unto these two numbers the number 25, and the number 26, the last unities of both which numbers, are as two indivisible extreames and limits, without and beyond which, this number of Antichrists foundation▪ [Page 186] is not found, and between which, the very am­biguity of this numbers termination is in such an admirable manner contained and confined, that although it may in divers respects be said to be either of them; yet it can in no respect be said either to be any other number without, that is extra, not sine. without, or beyond them: or to be so between them, that it may be said to be neither of them. For as the root of 666 cannot be said to be any number which is greater then 26, nor to be any number which is lesse then 25, so neither can it be truly said, that it is neither 25; nor 26. But as the origi­nall number of the foundation of that Col­ledge was either 25, or 26, which way soever it be understood: so the root of 666 (considered as an absolute number in nudis essentialibus, as it ought to be) is one of these two numbers, take it which way you will. For if this number 666, be considered as it is an absolute number in it selfe, and as it is quantitas discreta onely, then the root of this number cannot at all be said to be between 25 and 26, either as medium participatio­nis, or as medium abnegationis. Not as medium ab­negationis, because it may be said to be either, & in divers respects (although not by equall pro­priety of speech) to be both of the extreames: not as medium participationis, because in abso­lute [Page 187] numbers, unities immediatly succeeding each other, doe admit no latitude, either of ex­tension, or denomination between them; and because all unities in absolute numbers are sim­pliciter & absolutè indivisibiles, that is, such as cannot be divided into parts, either of the same, or of any other denomination. Wherefore as it is absurd and impossible, to say that the number of Cardinals at the first foundation of their Col­ledge, was 25 Cardinals and halfe a Cardinall; or 25 Cardinals and three quarters of a Cardi­nall: so is it as unproper and unpossible to say that the root of 666 (being considered in puris essentialibus, and as an absolute number) is 25 unities and halfe an unitie, or 25 unities & three quarters of an unitie. But as the root of this number is properly and expresly 25, and yet in some respect 26: so the number of Cardinals was properly and expresly 25, as it is above pro­ved, and yet if the Pope be numbred among them, it may in that respect be said to be 26. For because such a number was chosen and expres­sed to be the number of the Beast, as had a surd number for it's root, it is therefore certaine that the manner how the originall number of Car­dinals was terminated, is ambiguous, and such as could not by one number onely be expressed. [Page 188] For the choice of such a number as had a surd root, doth not make that which is certaine in it selfe, to be ambiguous unto us, but it makes the very ambiguity it selfe to be certaine, that is, it makes us certainly know, that although 25 should be the onely expresse and first decreed number of Cardinals; yet that the Pope himselfe (howsoever he be Primus in ordine and of ano­ther denomination) may, and must in some re­spect be numbred among them, and may, and must in some respect be excluded from them. And being the Pope must be numbred among them, as he is Successor Petri in his Apostleship, and must not be numbred among them, as he is Ʋicarius Christi, or as he is Successor Petri in his Vicarship of Christ, why may it not therefore be said, that the Root of this number doth fore­tell, not onely the number of the Cardinals, but also, that the Pope should pretend himselfe to be, both Ʋicarius Christi, and Successor Petri. But however this may be, or seem to be too nice & intricate, yet I am perswaded that those few which fully understand what the surd root of a number is, and how it ought to be denomina­ted, cannot but confesse that here is a strange & extraordinary similitude, between the By the Pa­pacie I under­stand that Colledge of Cardinals of which the Pope is bea [...]. Papacie in its first originall, and the root of the num­ber [Page 189] 666; and perhaps the likenesse is so great, and so great, and so exquisite, that mans understanding is not able fully to cōprehend it, nor the tongues of Angels to expresse it. And thus much I con­ceive to be sufficient to have said in way of an­swer to such objections as are above mentio­ned, and that a reason might be shewed, why it was neither possible nor convenient, that a­ny perfect square number, could so perfectly characterise the Papacie, as some one of those numbers which are contained between the number 625, and the number 676. But yet it may be here farther added, that although the number 25 be simpliciter, and may be truly said to be the root of all those numbers which are contained between those two square numbers 625 and 676, yet the number 26, may secundùm quid, that is, in some respect, be also said to be the root of so many of those numbers as are neerer unto 676 then to 625, and for this reason it was most convenient, that the number of the Beast should be greater then the number For if any number lesse then 650, and greater 'then 625 had been taken, th [...]n the root had beene 25, both taking minus ve [...]e, and also ta­king proxi [...] vero pro vero, and so by con­sequence it could in no re­spect have been said to be 26, as in some respects it was necessary i [...] should b [...]. 650, and lesse then 676: that so taking proximum ve­ro pro vero, it might in some respect, although not properly, be said to be 26. * But speaking properly and strictly, the root of 666, can be said to be no other Cardinall number but 25. [Page 190] because Quod inest in dicitur de, & quod non inest in non dicitur de, that is, because it is to have it's denomination from the greatest square nū ­ber contained in the number 666, and not from that number which is not contained in it, as it is above declared.

CHAP. 28. A farther and a full answer to all objections about the Root of 666, drawne from the consideration of the figure of that number, by which the figure of the City of Rome is exactly expressed.

A Reason may be yet farther demanded, why of all those numbers which are between 650 and 676, there was no other number expressed to be the number of the Beast, but onely the number 666, to which I answer, that as it was most convenient for the reasons above alleaged, that the number of the Beast should be between those two numbers; so there may be many reasons here alleaged, why the number 666 was chosen rather then any other. First, it may be said that no other number whose root was 25, could be expressed by the numerall letters of the Beasts name, as concerning the word [...], and divers o­ther [Page 191] names of this Beast, in divers languages hath been, and may be observed.

Secondly, it may be said that the number 666 was chosen rather then any other number, whose root was 25, that by the two last figures of this number, or by the number signified by the two last figures of this number, there might be an allusion to that image mentioned Dan. cap 3. whose height was 60 Cubits, and the breadth 6 Cubits. Which Image as M^r Forbs doth not without probability intimate, may very fitly shadow forth the Papacie. For as di­vers Nations, Tongues, and Languages were allured with all kindes of Musick, and inforced by the fierie furnace, to fall down and worship that Image: so divers nations and languages have been both allured by the musick of all kinds of flatteries and false doctrines, and also inforced by fierie Furnaces and other torments, to fall downe and worship that Idoll Shep­heard at Rome. But as Nebuchadnezzar to his great astonishment, saw foure men walking in the midst of the fire, insteed of those three which fell downe bound at the first: so the Pope to his terror may behold, that the number of Protestants increaseth daily notwithstanding his fierie persecutions, and those that hereto­fore [Page 192] lay dead for a time, in the street of the great City which spiritually is called Sodome and E­gypt, doe now stand upon their feet againe in greater numbers, and cause feare to fall upon their enimies.

But if neither of these reasons, nor any thing yet said, give satisfaction to iudicious readers, nor shew sufficient cause why the number 666 should be chosen rather then 625, or any other number whose root is 25; yet I am confident that that reason being added to it, which I shall now set downe in the last place concerning the figure of the number 666, cannot but give full satisfaction to all such as understand it. For as the root of 144 is opposed to the root of 666, so also is the figure of that number opposed to the figure of this, and as the root of 666 exceeds the root of 144 by a double proportion and some­what more, so the figure of 666, exceeds the fi­gure of the number 144, by a double proporti­on and somewhat more. And as divers myste­ries have been already found out, by the appli­cation of the root of the number 666, to such things as pertaine to the Papacie: so there re­maine some mysteries to be found out, by ap­plication of the figure of the same number to the City of Rome. For as the actuall application [Page 193] of that number which is the root of 144, to such things as are mentioned in the description of the new Hierusalem, doth guide, and direct, and as it were confine the application of that number which is the root of 666, to such things as are answerable and opposite unto them: so the actuall application of that figure which is the figure of the number 144, to that new And the ci­ty lieth four [...] square, [...]ed the length is as large as the breadth, &c. Rev. 21. 16. Hierusalem described in the Revelation, is both an example and a warrant, shewing how that figure which is the figure of the number 666, ought to be applied to that City which is answerable and opposite to Hierusalem. If therefore a reason be yet demanded, why the number 666 ought to be chosen to be the Beasts number, rather then any other whose root was 25. I answer, that for what reason soever the number 144 was chosen rather then any other number, whose root was 12; for the same rea­son was the number 666 chosen, rather then a­ny other number, whose root was 25. But no better reason can be given or imagined, why the number 144 should be chosen rather then 145, or 146, or 154, or any other number, whose root is 12, but onely because the figure of this number, is a perfect figure perfectly represen­ting the figure of the City Hierusalem; & there­fore [Page 194] it may be concluded, that no better reason ought to be expected, why [...]66 should be cho­sen rather then any other number whose root was 25, but only because the figure of this num­ber, doth perfectly represent the figure of the ci­ty of Rome. Now therefore that the truth of this may appeare, I must briefly expresse what figu­rated numbers are.

The summe of that which Euclide & others have written de numeris planis figuratis, that is, of flat superficiall figurated numbers, is, that those numbers onely are figurated numbers, which can be produced and made, either by the multiplication of one number by it selfe, or by the multiplication of some one number by another number: as for example, the number 12 is a figurated number, because it may be produ­ced & made by the multiplication of the num­ber 3 by the number 4, and also by the multipli­cation of the number 2 by the number 6, as by the following figures, wherein 12 unities are placed according right angles, and equall di­stances, may plainly appeare.

[Page 195] But the number 13 or 11 can by no meanes be reduced to any That is, to any quadran­gular figure straight lines and rectangles either of equal or unequall sides. figure, wherefore they are not figurated numbers, neither can so many unities be placed any manner of way, but still there will be something wanting to make the square figure compleat, or something redun­dant which doth exceed it; as these examples shew.

The number 30 is a figurated number, be­cause [Page 196] three times ten, or five times six make this number, as these examples shew.

And by these examples it may be observed, that the same number may have divers figures. And when it so falleth out that the same number may be varied into divers figures, then that fi­gure which commeth nearest unto the equila­terall square figure is the most perfect figure. For, Quadratum aequalium laterum is perfectissi­mum in suo genere, and the equilaterall square fi­gure is capacissima figura, the most capacious fi­gure, of all Isoperimentrall figures consisting of 4 straight lines. But Quadratum oblongum, that is, such a figure as is longer one way then the o­ther, is a figure which is more or lesse perfect, either as it approacheth neerer, or as it is farther distant from the perfect square of equall sides. Now when the figure of any given number is sought after, that is still to be accounted the fi­gure of that number, which either is a perfect [Page 197] square, or neerest unto it. For when the same number is capable of divers figures, the rule is, Denominatio sit à praestantiori, that is, the most perfect figure is to give denomination to the number. As for example the number 144. may be made either by multiplying 12 by 12, or 9 by 16, as these examples doe shew.

[Page 198]

Yet this number is named a perfect square number of equall sides, from the more perfect figure, and not from the other; and this, and not the other, sheweth the true figure of the City Hierusalem.

Now then that the true figure of Antichrists City may be found out, let us seek after the fi­gure of the number 666: for the most perfect fi­gure that this number is capable of, is as exactly applicable to Rome, as the most perfect figure of the opposite number is to Hierusalem. The nea­rest way that J know to finde whether any number given, be a figurated number or not, & to finde what is the most perfect figure of it, is to divide the number given by its own root, & severally by all such numbers as are lesse then it, if after the performance of every severall di­vision, [Page 199] there doe some fractions remaine, then is the number given no figurated number; but so many times as there doe no fractions remaine, of so many severall figures is that number cape­able, of all which figures, that which either is the equiliterall square, or else that which is hearest unto it, is the most perfect figure which is sought after. I divide therefore the number 666 by 25, the quotient is 26, and the fractions are 16 / 25 so that it doth not yet appeare to be a fi­gurated number, but by this first computation it appeareth to be no perfect square number of equall sides, as 144 is; and therefore by this first division it may be concluded negatively, that the City of Antichrist is not of an equilaterall square fiigure as Hierusalem was. In the next place I take away one unitie from the number 25, and I doe againe divide the number 666 by the number 24, the quotient is 27, and the fra­ctions remaining and because there be fra­ctions remaining, it doth not yet appeare to be a figurated number, in the next place J divide the number 666 by 23, the quotient is 28, the fractions remaining are 22 / 23. In like manner if the number 666 be divided by 22, the fractions re­maining are 6 / 22. If by 21, the fractions are 15 / [...]. If by 20, the fractions are 6 / 2 [...]. If by 19, the fraction is [Page 200] one unitie, but if it be divided by 18, the quoti­ent is 37, and no fraction remaineth; by this therefore it may be concluded that 18 being multiplied by 37, the product must be 666, and therefore this number is a figurated number, and that the most perfect figure of it is, Quadra­tum If furlongs be added to these numbers, it commeth neer to shew also the quātity of the City, for Rome is, or [...] long since hath been, a­bout 37 fur­longs in length, and a­bout 18 in breadth, and d [...]th, or hath contained a­bout 666 fur­longs of square mea­sure, but as this manner of measuring the City of Anti­christ is not drawne from the like exam­ple of the op­posite num­bers of Hieru­salem; so nei­ther is it so exact as the manner of measuring which is thence deri­ved. oblongum proportione quasi duplà, that is, an oblong square figure in which the length ex­ceeds the breadth by a double proportion and somewhat more; as by this figure may appeare.

Now how fitly this figure agreeth with the fi­gure of the City of Rome let all men judge, and shew if they can any one regular figure that comes nearer unto it. There cā be no greater te­stimony for the truth of this, then the testimo­ny of those who nether knew, nor aimed at any such application as I doe, and yet have affirmed the figure of the City of Rome to be the same [Page 201] with this, as a late learned Commentator upon the Revelation hath affirmed in these words, Iam vero Roma hodiernaseu Pontificia ambitum Commènta­tionum Apo­callyp. part. 2. p. 152. habet nonnisi 13 aut 15 milliarium, ut norunt, inquit Lipsius, qui dimensi sunt; formam ut & ex ichno­graphia ejus videre est, quadrangulari proximam oblongam proportione quasi The Diseg­no and Ritra­to of Rome, set forth at Venice, and fixed to Orte­lius his The­atrum Orbis, is so delinea­ted; and the longitude be­ing taken from the Castle of S. Angelo or mole di Adri­ano, to S. Iohn of Lateran, compared with the latitude, observed from Saint Peters Church in the Vatican, to the Church called S. Maria dell'opulo, carrieth the very same double propor­tion mentioned by Lipsius. Thus I have been informed, but cannot yet procure the sight of that book. duplà. I doe therefore now conclude, that as the most perfect figure which the number 144 is capeable of, sheweth and representeth the true figure of the Citie Hie­rusalem; so the most perfect figure that the num­ber 666 is capeable of, sheweth & representeth the true figure of the City of Rome. These things are so certain and perspicuous to all such as doe understand what figurated numbers are, that I am perswaded they cannot, nor will not desire a more satisfying reason, why the number 666 was named to be the number of the Beast, ra­ther then 625, or any other number whose root may be said to be 25; especially if they doe con­sider these three things. First, how great a my­stery concerning the figure of the City of Rome, is by this meanes revealed. Secondly, how plain­ly and expresly this reason is warranted & con­firmed, by the evident application of the figure of the opposite number to the opposite City Hierusalem. And thirdly, it may be observed, [Page 202] that if but one unity be added unto, or subtract­edAll such num­bers as are in­cluded be­tween the two square num­bers 625 and 676, either are no [...]igura­ted numbers at all, as 661, 659, 669, &c. or else are such whose most Perfect figures doe plainely differ from the figure of 666, and therefore from the figure of Rome. from the number 666, the figure of it is quite altered and changed, and such as either commeth nearer to Hierusalem then Rome, as the figure of 667, or such as differeth more from the true figure of Rome, then that figure which is above expressed. And thus much of the figure of Rome, and of the figure of the number 666, by which perhaps many other things may also be found out.

CHAP. 29. Objections answered, and difficulties cleared, (even to such as have no knowledge in Arithmetick) concerning those solid figures and numbers, by which the severall measures of the compasse of Rome, and the new Hierusalem may be found out. Also some other objections breifly answered.

HAving now found out the true figure of Antichrists City, some things may be here added to that which is above said concerning the measures of it; and so much the rather because those imaginary measures of the new Hierusalem, by which the true measures of the literall Hierusalem are truly, though mysti­cally described, do as well depend upon the fi­gure [Page 203] of the City there expressed, as upon the so­lid number which is there named. For it may be objected that that imaginary solid figure by which the perimeter of the new Hierusalem was found out, was made onely by multiplying the whole Area into the length, or into the breadth of it selfe; and that therefore that imagi­narie solid figure, by which the perimeter of the opposite City is to be found out, ought not to be a Cube, as it is above said, but ought to be made onely by the multiplication of the Area by the length or breadth of it selfe, having also respect unto the figure of it. To this objection I answer, that although the Area or Basis of a Cube be not like in figure to the Area of the Citie of Rome, yee it may be equall in compasse unto it; and perhaps the literall Hierusalem was not exactly and precisely of an equilaterall square figure, & yet it may be equall in compasse with that cube mentioned in the description of the new Hieru­salem. But yet neverthelesse J grant that such an imaginarie solid figure, as this objection ay­meth at, and such a one as is not a perfect Cube, but is agreeable and applicable to the figure of the City of Rome, may be deduced fitly and ana­logically from the opposite measures of the new Hierusalem, and may also truly shew the [Page 204] measures of the City of Rome, as by these figures following shall be declared.

The solid measures of both these solid fi­gures must be understood to be 25000 fur­longs, that so they may be answerable to those [Page 205] 12000 furlongs, which are the true measure of the opposite solid figure, raised upon the square Area of Hierusalem, by multiplying the Area it selfe by its own length or breadth. For so like­wise these two figures are made by multiplying the Area of the Citie of Rome by its length in the one figure, and by its breadth in the other fi­gure. For because the length of this Area diffe­reth from the breadth, therefore two solid fi­gures arise from their severall measures; where­as by the Area of Hierusalem, in which the length and breadth are all one, there can but one solid figure be produced. Now because these two solid figures (of which one is equall in height to the breadth of the Area of Rome, and the other equall in height to the length of the Area of Rome) cannot be both of them truly ap­plied to the measures of Rome at the same time, and because no reason can be given, why one should be taken rather then the other (they be­ing both derived, precisely after the same man­ner, from the figure and measures of the Area of Rome) as the opposite solid figure is from the Area of Hierusalem. Therefore they must both of them truly expresse the measures of the City of Rome, but at divers times. The first figure in which the height of this imaginarie City is e­quall [Page 206] to the breadth of the Area, sheweth the measures of the Area of Rome, at that time in which Antichrist began first to lift up himselfe and to beare sway in it. The second figure, in which the height of this imaginary City is in­creased from being equall to the breadth of the Area to be equall to the length of it, shewes the measures of the Area of Rome, at that time when the pride of Antichrist shall be at the highest, and when his Kingdome shall begin to be top­heavie, and to threaten a downefall both to it selfe, and to those that depend upon it. Who­soever therefore desires to know how many furlongs in compasse Rome heretofore was, when it was at the greatest that it hath been at, since the first remarkable foundation of the Pa­pacy; let him by computation finde out the Which peri­meter if I have rightly cast it, is a­bout 140 fur­longs and od paces, that is 17 miles and an halse &c: which mea­sure as it is lesse then the compasse of Rome as it was under the he­athen Empe­rours, so is it greater then most writers have affirmed it to be at any time since the Pope ruled in it. perimeter of the first solid figure above mentio­ned, supposing the solid content of the figure to be 25000 furlongs. And whosoever desireth to know how many furlongs in compasse Rome was, when it was in its greatest perfection, beauty and stability, that hath been incident unto it, since the first remarkable foundation of the Papacy; let him by computation finde out the Which is 14 miles and an halse, and almost halse a quarter of a mile. as is a­bove shewed. perimeter of that solid Cube, of which I have above spoken, supposing the solid content [Page 207] of itto be 25000 furlongs. And lastly, whosoe­ver desireth to know, how many furlongs in compasse Rome now is, or shall be when it shall be at the least that ever it shall be at, before its utter ruine and destruction, let him by com­putation finde out the Which is, if I have rightly cast it, 1 10 furlongs, and 66 paces, that is 13 miles and 3 quar­ters. which measure how neare it comes to that which some late wri­ters have ob­served, may appeare by these words of Georgius Bra­un & Fran­ciscus Hog­genbergius. Quod si ur­bem ad nos­trae aetatis cō ­suetudinem met [...]ri vole­mus, vix pass­uum millia 14 omnis Romae & [...]aniculae five Transti­berinae regio­nis, & Vati­cani ambitus implebit in Indice 3^o Ap­pendic: ad ci­vitates orbis. perimiter of the second solid figure above mentioned, supposing the so­lid content of that figure to be 25000 furlongs, and he shall be then resolved that the wisdome of God by the root and figure of this number 666, hath so exquisitely set downe and foretold all the differing remarkable magnitudes of the City of Rome since the Pope ruled in it, that there is no imaginable exactnesse wanting. But be­cause these things are darke and intricate, and those which have not (and many which have) a competent knowledge in Geometry cannot yet readily finde out the perimeter of a solid fi­gure having only the solid content & proporti­on of the whole figure given, but none of the lineall measures, therefore such as would have the truth of these things made plaine and evi­dent, even to their senses, may consider, that it is a true rule, vt pondus ponderi, ita Solidum solido, that is, As weight to weight, so is solid mea­sure to solid measure. If therefore one ounce of soft wax, or clay, or any other Homogeniall [Page 208] substance be taken, and be moulded and fashi­oned according to the figure of a Cube, whose length breadth and height are equall, and be supposed to represent 1000 solid furlongs; then the length of one of the sides of this little Cube, being divided into 10 parts, every one of those parts do represent the true length of one furlong. (for 1000 is a perfect and exact Cubi­call number, whose Cubicall root is 10.) Let there be therefore a scale made or a line divided, containing 100 or 200 of those parts or divisi­ons. And a line being thus divided let there be another peece of the same wax taken, being in weight precisely twelve times as much as the former, if the former litle Cube were one ounce in weight, then let this be just 12 ounces, and let it be made and fashioned according to the fi­gure of a Cube. Then let the compasse or peri­meter of this greater Cube be measured by those divisions of the litle Cube, or by the scale above mentioned, and the perimeter of it will appeare to our senses, and will be found to be 91 of those divisions, & some fractions remaining; as it is above shewed, that the measure of the compasse of the new Hierusalem is 91 furlongs and some odde paces. Then let there be another peece of the same wax taken, being 25 ounces [Page 209] in weight, and let it be made into a Cubicall fi­gure also. And let the compasse of this be mea­sured by the same divisions above mentioned, and it will be found to be 116 of those divisions and some fractions remaining. Then let the same Cube or another peece of the same wax equall in weight unto it, be moulded into an ob­long solid rectangular figure having 4 equall sides, the length exceeding the breadth or thick­nesse by a double proportion and somewhat more, as 37 is to 18, so that it may be like in its proportions, to the first of the two figures a­bove mentioned, in which the height is equall to the breadth of the Area: and then let the pe­rimeter of the Basis or Area of this figure be measured by those divisions of the litle Cube first mentioned, and it will be found to be above 140 furlongs as is above said. Lastly let the same peece of wax or another equal in weight unto it be transformed into the figure and proportions of the second figure above mentioned, in which the height is equall to the length of the Area of the same figure: and then let the perimeter of the Basis or Area be measured by the same di­visions of the scale and litle Cube first made, & the perimeter will be found to be, about 110 fur­longs [Page 210] as is above said. And by this means J sup­pose, those that have litle, or no insight in Arith­metick, may understand and see, how the peri­meter of the new Hierusalem is mystically ex­pressed by the measures of a solid Cubicall fi­gure in the 21 Chap. of the Revelation; and may also conceive how the divers measures of the mysticall Babylon or new Rome, may be, mutatis mutandis, analogically deduced from them.

If it be objected against that which J have above said concerning the solid measure of the new Hierusalem, and consequently against all that I have above said of the measures of Rome; that according to some Copies and Editions, the words in the text are not, [...]. but [...]. that is, not twelve thou­sand, but (as some interpret it) twelve times twelve thousand. J answer first, that that rea­ding which I have followed, is most generally and commonly received. Secondly, that these words [...], doe more proper­ly and more probably signify twelve thousand and twelve which causeth no considerable al­teration in the measures) then twelve times twelve thousand. For if that number had been intended, then it should have been said, [...], or rather [...], [Page 211] or [...]. Lastly, supposing both these divers readings of this text were equally probable, yet being the measure of 12000 furlongs, doth agree with the measures of the same City set down by Eze­chiel, and the measure of twelve times twelve thousand cannot agree with them, therefore that is the true reading, and not this. For by what meanes can we better interpret a doubt­full and ambiguous place of Scripture, then by comparing it with another place of Scripture, which is cleare and out of question.

If it be objected, that 12000 furlongs cannot be the exact measure of the new Hierusalem, be­cause the new Hierusalem is an exact Cubicall figure, but 12000 is not an exact Cubicall num­ber. I answer, that howsoever some Authors which doe write of these measures, doe seem to imply some such objection, concerning the so­lid measure; and Lira concerning the square measure of the Area of this City, where he en­deavours to apply this number 12000 unto it; yet there is no reality in this objection. For, that 12000, or any other number, which is not a per­fect Cubicall number, or a perfect square num­ber, may yet be the exact solid measure of a Cube; and may exactly expresse the superficiall [Page 212] measure of an exactly square figure, is a certain and undoubted truth which cannot be denied, although perhaps some men doe not suddenly and easily conceive it.

J have now, as J hope, sufficiently answered all such objections, as J doe yet know, can be materially objected against the substance of that which I have above written. And I am willing to publish these things (notwithstanding I can­not but discover much ignorance and weaknes with them) that J may know what more can be objected against them. Wherefore J do hum­bly and earnestly desire, those religious, wise, & learned men, which doe not yet believe that the Pope is Antichrist, nor that this is the true inter­pretation of his number, that they would not conceive their own apprehensions, which seem to make against these positions, so paraeneticall, as if nothing but vaine jangling, could be repli­ed unto them. Let them publish them to the world, that Truth may be discovered, errors confuted, the Church inlightned, Antichrist revealed, and God glorified. They may perhaps receive satisfaction beyond their expectation, if not from me, yet from those who are better able to defend so much truth as I have written then I my selfe can be. As for Romish Catholiques, [Page 213] especially such as are seducers of others, & such as are truly Italionated, J doe well know that no evidence of truth is sufficient to convince them; and that although a man should bray them in a morter with a pestle, yet would they not cease to gain-say those truths, which they are not able to confute. But for those of their laitie, who out of ignorance and simplicity are seduced by them (of which there are many in this Kingdome) I doe rather pray for their con­version, then desire their confusion, and that God would vouchsafe to open their eyes, that they may wonder at themselves, for having been so long deceived by those hypocrites at Rome; who are that very Synagogue of Sathan, and that corporation of false Prophets, in whom dwelleth bodily, the fulnesse of that spi­rit of Antichrist, and the fulnesse of that spirit of error, which was to come into the world. For the farther manifestation of which truth, if it hath pleased God to discover any thing by me; it is, because he is sometimes pleased to shew his strength in weaknesse, and to chuse things that are weake, and things that are despised, to bring to nought things that are mighty. To him therefore, who is the onely wise God, and [Page 214] who will in due time discover all necessary truths to his Church, be all Glory and Praise for ever. AMEN.