A TREATISE OF ANTICHRIST CONTEYNING The defence of Cardinall Bellarmines Arguments which inuincibly demonstrate That the Pope is not Antichrist AGAINST M. GEORGE DOWNAM D. of Diuinity who impugneth the same By Michael Christopherson Priest THE FIRST PART Si Patrem familias Beelzebub vocauerunt quantò magis domesticos eius Matth. 10. If they haue called the Goodman of the house Beelzebub how much more them of his houshould Imprinted with Licence M.DC.XIII TO THE KINGS MOST EXCELLENT MAIESTY MOST MIGHTY PRINCE I HOPE it will not be deemed any presumption but rather a iust and necessary preuention for me to offer this my Treatise concerning Antichrist to your Soueraigne Maiesty Sure I am that it procedeth from a loyall and dutifull mynd desirous to auoid all occasion of offence and ready to imploy my best labours yea my life it selfe in your Maiestyes seruice My aduersary likewise hath prouoked me hereunto who togeather with M. D. 〈…〉 Powell haue taken the same course with their disputations of the same subiect And though they may seeme to haue the better hand by reason of your Maiestyes education and present profession yet I want not reasons of encouragement wherby I may be induced to hope and expect your Maiesties fauourable patronage and protection At least your Maiesty giueth all men good leaue to dispute of this Controuersy by accounting the Protestants proofs but bare coniectures yea promising to yield to the Truth when it shal be manifested by more forcible Arguments and more probable Interpretations which we haue good cause of hope to see shortly performed by the labours of so many learned men of forraine Nations who haue endeauored to giue your Maiesty satisfaction in this kynd In the meane space we cannot but highly extoll this rare modesty in so great a Monarch especially when we heare M. Powell and other such vnlearned Vpstarts protesting with full mouth that they know as certainly that the Pope is the great Disput de Antichr in initio Antichrist as that God is in Heauen and Iesus Christ our Sauiour and Redeemer Certainely it is strange how any man could fall into a fit of such extreme and impudent madnes were it not that God permitteth sometymes such excesse of malicious folly for the reclayming of others misled and seduced by these erring guids and false Prophets In which respect I haue alway thought this Question very profitable and of great importance to omit how necessary the discussion thereof may proue sooner then we are aware in regard of the true and great Antichrist himselfe whose comming we haue far more reason to expect in our dayes then the Ancient Fathers had in theirs Thus the diuine Goodnesse alway turneth euill into good and maketh all things concurre to the welfare of his Elect and by this strang paradox and calumniation preuenteth and prepareth vs against Antichrists comming with an exact Discouery of his whole proceeding and persecution which whosoeuer considereth attentiuely as it is layd downe in the sacred Scripture and declared by the holy Fathers will easily perceaue that hitherto the chiefest signes and notes of Antichrist haue not byn fulfilled by any So that indeed there can be no doubt or question whether he himselfe be come only some controuersy might be moued which of his forerunners doth most resemble him And in this also the matter may easily be decided for who seeth not that the false Mahomet draweth nighest vnto him both in name and deedes His name contayning the number 666. which is by S. Iohn assigned to Antichrist and his impiety enmity and persecution against Christ and Christians is notorious to the whole world For which cause there haue not wanted some both Catholicks and See Peâ—erius in Apoc. Protestants who haue persuaded themselues that there is no other Antichrist to be expected But these are euidently confuted by many inuincible arguments Notwithstanding this their errour though neuer so grosse may seeme in some sort excusable because they impugne a certayne and manifest enemy But what shall we say of those who take their marke so much amisse that they make the chiefe visible Pastour of Christs Church a member of Sathan yea Antichrist himselfe Can any thing be more absurd or intollerable Is it possible that any Christian would giue Luther the hearing when his proud spirit of contention and contradiction made him first breake forth into this open blasphemy How did not Princes perceaue that this was the high way to all rebellion Could they conceaue or imagin that Temporall Authority Iurisdiction would be regarded where the chiefest spirituall power vpon earth was thus impudently contemned and trodden vnder foot Can they trust to their Pedigrees when they see the continuall succession of 1500. yeares so lightly esteemed What better Title can they pretend for themselues then the expresse words of our Sauiour with which he established S. Peter and his Successors Your Maiesty wisely obserued that vnlesse In the conference at Hampton court the Authority of Bishops were mayntained that of Princes could not stand No Bishop no King saith your Maiesty And certaine it is that no lawfull Bishop can be vpholden against the Popes Authority to which all other spirituall Iurisdiction is subordinate Can any Iudge or Magistrate of the Realme be independant of your Maiesty This is so euident that euen the Puritans themselues though otherwise neuer so blinded with malice against the Pope could not choose but see it For which cause they stick not to protest to all the world that if the Prelats haue the Truth especially in this point the Pope and the Church of Rome and in them God and Christ Iesus himselfe haue great wrong and indignity offered vnto them in In the Christian and modest offâ—r c. published anno 1606. pag. 16. that they are reiected and that all the Protestant Churches are Schismaticall in forsaking vnity and communion with them Thus then it plainely appeareth that the Protestants neither according to the Truth it selfe nor in the Puritans iudgment can defend themselues their pretended Bishops but by establishing the Pope and Roman Church And all the vehemency which they vse against the Pope to proue him Antichrist falleth vpon themselues who participate with him in admitting the Hierarchy of Bishops And as for other proofes proper to Puritans they are inforced to answere them as well as we yea most of all these Arguments be such as might very easily be turned against any lawfull Prince whatsoeuer and much more against such Protestant Princes as besides their Temporall power make clayme to spirituall Iurisdiction Let any discreet Reader reflect vpon all particulers and he will easily discerne that if Catholicks had byn no more moderate then Luther and other Protestants were King Henry could not haue intitled himselfe Head of the Church in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affayres without hauing the name of Antichrist applyed and appropriated vnto him For if such contumelious inferences be made against the Pope
only within their owne Trib◠for I can assure him that neither the Kings nor the Nobility of England will imitate those of Iuda in this and it will be their only way to get a Law enacted that their generation may succeed them in their Ministry which M. Downam seemeth to wish and to mislike that law not a little which in a parenthesis he telleth vs hath otherwise prouided These are the base and carnall cogitations of these new Ghospellers and yet all will not serue for they shall neuer find a remedy for this their griefe except they returne to the Catholike Church whom◠they may thanke for the liuing they haue But in it God hath prouided for this all other inconueniences that can any way arise and in particuler for the deciding of all questions and controuersies Wherefore if the Protestants and Puritans will haue an end of this of their Bishops and Presbitery they must of necessity stand to the Catholike Churches iudgment in which they shall find Bishops established and yet sometimes by reason of persecution Priestes only without Bishops as now we see in our Country where conformable to that which in their iudgmēt was practised in the Primitiue Church in many places at least for a tyme we haue hitherto only Priestes subordinate to an Arch-Priest but yet we are far from misliking Bishops but do both wish and expect them when our lawfull Superiour who succeedeth the chiefest of the Apostles shall see it conuenient M. C. A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS of this first Part of Antichrist THE disputation of Antichrist is propounded and the first Argument from the name it selfe discussed CHAP. I. That Antichrist shal be a certaine determinate man CHAP. II. That Antichrist is not yet come CHAP. III. The first demonstration That Antichrist is not yet come CHAP. IIII. The second demonstration CHAP. V. The third demonstration CHAP. VI. The fourth demonstration CHAP. VII The fifth demonstration CHAP. VIII The sixt demonstration CHAP. IX Of Antichristes Name CHAP. X. Of Antichristes Character CHAP. XI Of Antichristes Generation CHAP. XII Of Antichristes Seate CHAP. XIII Of Antichristes doctrine CHAP. XIIII Of Antichristes myracles CHAP. XV. Of Antichristes Kingdome warres CHAP. XVI Of Gog and Magog CHAP. XVII The dotages of Heretikes are confuted with which they do not so much proue as impudently affirme that the Pope is Antichrist CHAP. XVIII The trifles of the Smalcaldicall Synod of the Lutheranes are confuted CHAP. XIX Caluins lyes are refuted CHAP. XX. The lyes of Illyricus are refuted CHAP. XXI The fooleryes of Tylemanus are refuted CHAP. XXII The lyes of Chytraeus are refuted CHAP. XXIII The arguments of Caluin and Illyricus are confuted who go about to proue that the Pope is no longer a Bishop where also the fable of Pope Ioane the Woman is confuted CHAP. XXIIII CARDINALL BELLARMINES THIRD BOOKE of the Pope THE FIRST CHAPTER VVherin the disputation of Antichrist is propounded WEE haue demonstrated hitherto saith Bellarmine that the Pope succeedeth S. Peter in the chiefest Princedome of the whole Church It remayneth that wee see whether at any tyme the Pope hath fallen from this degree for that our aduersaries contend that hee is not at this time a true Bishop of Rome whatsoeuer hee was before And Nilus in the end of his booke against the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome speaketh thus But let that be the summe and head of my speach that while the Pope keepeth in the Church a conuenient heauenly and of ancient tyme appoynted order while hee holdeth and defendeth the heauenlie truth while he cleaueth to Christ the chiefe and true Lord and head of the Church I will easilie suffer him to be both the head of the Church the chiefest Priest the successor of Peter or els if he will of all the Apostles that all obey him and that whatsoeuer belongeth to his honour be in nothing diminished but if he be departed from the truth will not returne to it he ought deseruedly to be accounted of as one that is condemned and reiected But he should haue shewed into what errours the Bishops of Rome are fallen and when and by whome they were condemned For we know that in the Generall Lateran Councell vnder Innocentius the third and of Lyons vnder Gregory the tenth and of Florence vnder Eugenius the fourth the Greekes being conuicted of errour returned to the Faith of the Latins and afterward alway returned to their vomit againe and were therefore most grieuouslie punished by God but we neuer read that the Latins came to the Faith of the Greekes Neither can there any Ecclesiasticall iudgmēt be produced against the Latins as wee bring many against the Greekes Now Caluin Lib. 4. cap. 7. § 22. Let saith he all those things be true which notwithstanding wee haue now wrested from them that Peter was by the voice of Christ appointed Head of the vniuersall Church that he left the honour giuen vnto him in the Roman Sea that this was established by the authoritie of the auncient Church confirmed by long vse that the chiefest authoritie was alway due from all to the Bishop of Rome and that he was the iudge of all causes and men that he was subiect to the iudgement of none let them haue more also if they will Yet I answere in one word that nothing of this standeth in force except the Church and Bishop be at Rome And after § 24. Let the Romanists vntie me this knott I deny that their Pope is the Prince of Bishops since that he is not a Bishop And after Let Rome in tymes past haue bin the Mother of all Churches but since she began to become the seate of Antichrist she left to be that which she was And after § 25. VVee seeme to some backbyters and slanderers when wee call the Bishop of Rome Antichrist but they which thinke soe vnderstand not that they accuse Paul of immodesty after whome we speake yea out of whose mouth we speake soe And least any obiect that we wrongfullie wrest Paules wordes against the Pope which perteine to another purpose I will brieflie shew that they cannot be vnderstood otherwise then of the Popedome So he The like teach al the heretikes of this tyme chieflie Luther in supput temporum in assert art 28. 36. and often in other places Likewise the Magdeburgenses Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. colum 434. sequent and in all the following Centuries cap. 4. 7. 10. Illyricus in lib. de primat Dauid Chrytraus in cap. 9. 13. Apoc. Likewise VVolsgangus Musculus in loc commun tit de Ecclesia Theodor. Beza in Com. 2. Thessal 2. Theodor. Bibliander in Chron. tabul 10. 11. 12. 14. Henricus Pantaleon in Chron. Henricus Bullinger praesat in suas homil ad Apocal. And before all these Iohn VVicklisse art 30. amongst those which are condemned in Concil Constantiensi sess 8. pronounced the Pope to be Antichrist VVherfore that this question may
that word vntill for it importeth no such matter but only signifieth what is done till then but whether it continued at that time or after that time or no must be gathered by other coniectures or proofes As to exemplify in one of M. Downams authorities there was neuer any so foolish yet as to bring that place of Matth. 1. to proue our Blessed Ladies perpetuall Virginity but S. Hieroms and other Fathers haue byn inforced to answere it and to shew that the word vntill she weth only what hath byn done or not done vntill then but leaueth the rest of the time altogeather vncertaine whether things continued in the same state still or no. To Bellarmines second answere M. Downam hauing corrupted his words as the Reader may see if he please replieth first that the Primitiue Church belieued that the Temple should neuer be built againe held this assertion of the Papists as a Iewish fable But he bringeth not any one authority to proue Downam belyeth the Primitiue Church against the testimony of the Fathers this withall and therfore we must needes tell him that we do not belieue him for if we did we should do the Fathers great iniury which Bellarmine alleadgeth to reiect their authority without any ground and to thinke that M. Downam knew the beliefe of the Primitiue Church better then all they who liued so long before him For the other part of his answere we will not contend but that our Sauiour might meane the Army of the Romans by the Abhomination of Desolation but that he meant only that M. Downam neither hath proued The temple of Ierusalem shal alway be prophane though it be built againe nor euer will be able to proue and therfore Bellarmines solution is very good that Daniel when he affirmeth that the desolation shall perseuere to the consummation and end might very wel meane that though the Temple were built againe in the end of the world yet it should alway be prophaned after the ouerthrow made by Titus because the chiefest prophanation and abhomination of desolation shall be in Antichrists time At Bellarmines third solution M. Downam is much offended and telleth vs that in this place Daniel speaketh not a word of Antichrist nor yet of Antiochus his Type And for Antiochus we belieue him neither did Bellarmine euer dreame of any such matter of Antichrist the matter is not cleare though now it skilleth not whether he did or no for Bellarmine is only to shew that Antichrist sitting in the Temple of Hierusalem is not against this place of Daniel and not to proue out of this place that he shall sit there Wherfore let M. Downam begin his reply anew and so he doth arguing that it is not probable that Antichrist being so great a Monarch will suffer the temple which he chooseth for his chiefe seate to be vnbuilt or that he will sit in a temple without a roose or vnfinished To which it is easy to answere that this is not probable indeed if he may haue tyme inough and there fall no other hinderance But now M. Downam may remember that his raigne is to endure in that greatnes but only three yeares a halfe which is very little for the finishing of so sumptuous a building yet we thinke he may haue the roofe vp also at least in some part in which he shall sit till he may get the rest finished as he will hope he shall but yet he shall be hindred either The tēple of Ierusalem shall not be finished by Antichrist Socrat. l. 3. cap. 20. Theodoret. l. 3. c. 20. Sozom. l. 5. cap. vlt. Luc. 21. by the shortnes of time or by some accidents not vnlike to those that fell out in Iulians time though it be very likely that God wil permit much more in Antichrists daies without working myracles especially since it is certaine that the Temple was not to be built againe vntill the end of the world as Daniel foretould Which M. Downam will needes haue confirmed by that place of Luc. 21. where our Sauiour foretelleth that Hierusalem should be troden vnder the foote of the Gentiles vntill the tymes of the Gentiles be fulfilled Which words if they might haue that sense were a good explication of that which Daniel called the consummation and end for it is certaine that the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled before the end of the world be fully accomplished 10. To Bellarmines answere to the Fathers M. Downam replieth not a word and yet it contained matter of no smal importance but that which ouerthroweth the whole Protestants deuise For Bellarmine affirmeth proueth that those Antichrist shall sit in materiall Churches and not in the Church of Christ as a Bishop Fathers which they alleadg are no way against vs but manifestly against them since they speake of materiall Churches in which Antichrist will commaund himselfe to be placed and worshipped for God and not that he shall sit in the Church of Christ as a Bishop which is only the fond conceipt of M. Downam and his like without any authority either of Scriptures or Fathers or shew of reason Neither must the reader thinke that M. Downam omitted this reply because he maketh little accompt of the Fathers when they seeme to be on his side for of this we shal see the contrary in that he laboureth so earnestly to make S. Gregory seeme to say something in his fauour For to Bellarmines answere concerning his authority he replieth that the pride and ambition of Iohn of Constantinople though very great and Antichristian was not to be compared with the incredible insolency and pride of the Antichrist of Rome because Iohn of Constantinople challenged not that height of authority The Pope hath not so much soueraignty as Iohn of Constātinople challēged See part ◠cap. 1. soueraignty which Popes since haue vsurped not only ouer Bishops and Ecclesiasticall persons but also ouer the Kings and Monarches of the Earth VVhere to omit that Bibliander made his illation against the Pope precisely because he maketh himselfe the vniuersall Bishop and sitteth in the Church as head of all and consequently all other charges are from the purpose you see the Pope charged first with taking more soueraignty vpon him then Iohn of Constantinople did which is a loud lye by M. Downams leaue for Iohn of Constantinople would haue bene the Vniuersall Bishop in that sense that there should be no other properly Bishops besides himselfe but al others should be his Vicars and Vicegerents which was more then euer the Pope challenged or pretended The second charge seemeth to be that Iohn of Constantinople sought only a superiority ouer all Bishops but the Pope hath vsurped the same ouer all Kings and Monarches also But this is so ridiculous that M. Downam may well be ashamed therof for what doubt can there be but only in a flattering parasites conceipt that he who hath superiority ouer all Bishops must needes
and our Ancestors haue proued 〈◊〉 belieue and â—â—â—st that we shall alway be helped by the prayers of our speciall 〈◊〉 among all the laboures of the life to obtayne the mercy of God that by hâ—w much we are depressed by our sinnes so much we may be erected by Apostolicall merits So he And although we are not wont to speake so as Illyricus saith that we are saued by the merits of spirituall men yeâ— if any did speake so and would only signify that we are in some sort helped by the merites of Saints to obtayne saluation by Christ he could not be more reprehended then the Apostle S. Paul who 1. Cor. 9. saith Iam made all things to all men that I might make all men saued and the Apostle S. Iudas who speaketh in like manner when he saith Do you reprehead these indeed being iudged and saue those taking them from the fier And thus much of the Priesthood of Christ Illyricus goeth forward Now he taketh away Christs Kingdome from him because in earth he will be the head of the Church and in Heauen he appointeth vs other helpers and Sauiours to whome he commaundeth vs to fly in our miseries wherefore the Pope denieth that Iesus is Christ Heere first I aske whether the Pope or any of the Catholikes call the Saints Sauiours Then I adde if to affirme that he is the head of the Church vnder Christ as his Vicar and Minister which the Pope doth be to deny that Iesus is Christ why by the same reason whosoeuer affirmeth that he is Vice-roy or Gouernour of some Prince is not forthwith censured to deny the King to be his Lord Finally if to fly to Saints as helpers in miseries is to deny that Iesus is Christ how I pray you did not S. Paul deny Iesus to be Christ when he saith Rom. 15. I besâ—ech you brethren by our Lord Iesus Christ and by the charity of the Holy Ghost that you helpe me in prayers for me to God that I may be deliuered from the infidalls which are in Iudea How did not Basil the Great deny Iesus to be Christ when in orat de 40. Mart. he spake thus He that is oppressed with any distresse let him fly to these Againe he that reioyceth let him pray to these he to be deliuered from miseries this other that he may continue in prosperity I omit the rest of the Fathers for feare least if we examine them we shall find none who hath not denieth Iesus to be Christ Illyricus goeth on Dan. 11. describeth Antichrist by many notes First saith he he shall do what he will surely the Pope doth what he listeth But holy Daniel when he saith of Antichrist he shall do what he will signifyeth that Antichrist shall acknowledge no superiour at all no not God himselfe for so it followeth And he shal be extelled against euery God wherefore Antichrist neglecting also the law and commaundement of God shall liue at his owne will which cetainely the Pope doth not who denieth not that he is bound by the law of God and acknowledgeth Christ his Iudg and Superiour He himselfe saith Illyricus confesseth it dist 40. If the Pope should draw with him infinite soâ—â—es into hell yet no man must say vnto him what dost thou And the glosse saith the Popes will standeth for reason The Canon which beginneth Si Papa is not as Illyricus falsly saith of any Bishop of Rome but of S. Boniface Bishop of Meâ—tz Apostle of the Germanes and a Martyr who donieth not that the chiefe Bishop if he liueth ill is to be rebuked and admonished by brotherly charity but he denieth that he can be reprehended by authority and iudged since that he is the iudge of all men which Boniface also in those words which go before that Canon as is to be seene in the new edition of the Decree expresly calleth the Church of Rome the head of all Churches and affirmeth that the prosperity of the whole Church doth depend of the safety of the Bishop of Rome after God Wherefore I demaund of Illyricus whether the sentence of S. Bonifacius Apostle of the Germans be true or no for if it be not true why is it obiected vnto vs if it be true why is it not receaued I will say the same more plainely If that sentence be not true then it is not true that it may not be said to the Pope drawing many soules with himselfe into hell What doest thou If it be true then is the Pope truly the head of all Churches and being to iudge all is to be iudged by none Wherefore let Illyricus leane alleadging the Canons which can profit him nothing As for the glosse let Illyricus know that it is either taken away by the Pope himselfe as false in the new edition of the Decree or cls was neuer in the decree certainely I could not find it Illyricus goeth forward Secondly Daniel saith that he will extol himselfe aboue God that the Pope did as is manifest by that which hath ben said Likewise because he will have himselfe heard more then God and blaspheming he crieth out that the Scripture is the Fountaine of all heresies and schismas doubtefull and obscure c. But thou shouldest haue rehearsed Daniels wordes faithfully for he saith not he will extell himselfe aboue God but he shal be extelled against euery God and after Neither shall he care for any of the Gods because he shall rise against all Which note most clearely sheweth that the Pope hath nothing common with Antichrist for Antichrist will care for none of the Gods but the Pope worshippeth the only true God the Father the Sonne and holy Ghost Neither doth he that alone but also if we belieue you he adoreth openly so many Gods as there be Saintes in Heauen Images on earth and reliques vnder the earth Now that which thou addest that the Pope crieth out that the Scripture is the fountaine of heresy and schismes Certainely I neuer read it in the writinges of any Pope but I heare that it is the word of thy freind Luther that the Scripture is the booke of heretikes Luth. praefat historia qua contigit in Strasfort anno 36. which word if it be rightly taken I see not why it should be deseruedly reprehended for S. Hilarie lib. de Synod extreâ—â—o sheweth that most heresies arose out of the Scriptures ill vnderstood and Tertullian in lib. de praescript more bouldly saith thus Neither am I afraid to say that the very Scriptures are so disposed by the will of God that they might minister matter to Heretikes since I read Heresies must be which cannot be without Scriptures And that the Scriptures are ambiguous and obscure in many places not only the Pope most truly teacheth but also all the old Fathers and euen Luther himselfe whether he would or no was constreyned to confesse it when praefat in Psal he wrote thus I would not haue that presumed of me by any which none of the most
application which he saith is contradictory to 1. Io. 4. 3. 2. Io. 7. who saith that Antichrist with the article prefixed and whome they heard was to come was already come which you heard Bellarmine graunt with a distinction not in his owne person but in his forerunners and now M. Downam proueth it very substantially by repeating the former argument for want of another and so he standeth at a non plus only he confirmeth it by the argument which S. Iohn maketh 1. Io. 2. 18. which I haue put Nu. 6. downe coÌ„futed in the answere to the third place of Scripture whither I remit the Reader not to weary him with so many idle repetitions of the same thing as M. Downam maketh which also I meane God willing to obserue hereafter 11. To the first proofe of Bellarmines answere he reiecteth the former interpretation of those 3. Fathers S. Ambrose Downam reiecteth the Fathers S. Chrysostome and S. Hierome by his owne absolute authority For when he began to thinke how he might deceaue some of the simple sort by making a shew that the Pope is Antichrist he did put this downe for a chiefe Principle that Antichrist should be no open but a disguised enemy and a pretended Christian and this he wil defend against all the Fathers yea against the Apostles Christ himselfe though with this difference that against the Fathers who without all doubt were the members of Christ he opposeth himselfe manifestlie but against Christ and his Apostles onlie couertlie by false expositions of his owne head with which he conuinceth that he is only a member of that great Antichrist and not the great Antichrist himselfe But I hope well that both M. Downam himselfe and all that follow him or ioyne with him against those ancient Fathers the true members of Christ will at length ioyne with them against those disguised enemies and pretended Christians of which number they themselues are for the present And in the meane tyme till they amend themselues they must giue vs leaue to thinke with the holy Fathers that both Antichrists members as also himselfe haue bene and shal be not only disguised but also open enemies of Christ as you see those holy Fathers affirme of Nero and the other of the Heretikes who deceaue secretly which both M. Downam and we also Antichrists members sometimes open enemyes to Christ admit And yet we may note that this secrecy of the Heretikes is not so great but that many times it contayneth manifest opposition against Christ as we see in Simon Magus who named himselfe Christ and in Montanus who would needes be the Holy Ghost And if M. Downam had rather haue new examples he may remember George Dauid and M. Hackeâ— with his two Prophets But now I would aske M. Downam what it maketh against Bellarmine whether the members and forerunners of Antichrist be disguised or open enemies so that it be graunted that then there were some such and yet the great Antichrist was not yet come as M Downam himselfe confesseth that the Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not reueled vntill 606. yeares after so that till then Antichrist was come only after a sort that is as after he explicateth in some of his members which is all that Belarmine pretended But perhappes M Downam will say that he knew well inough what he said when he only affirmed that Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not then reuealed though be were come But then I would aske him how he was otherwise come then in the Heretikes his members which is that which Bellarmine answereth And if he caÌ„ shew vs no other manner then we may see how easie a matter it is to vnderstand that Antichrist might be so said to be come in S. Pauls and S. Iohns tyme and yet that the chiefe proper Antichrist or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not yet come in person but shal be one man in the end of the world 12. To the second proofe First M. Downam answereth that it cannot be proued out of Scripture or by any sound argument that Downam reiecteth all ancient writers Peteâ— and Paul were Bishops of Rome For you must vnerstaÌ„d that the authority of S. Irenam or of all ancient writers is of no force at all with M. Downam and besidâ—s he knoweth well inough that S. Paul is said to haue byn in Rome in the Scripture and S. Peter also if he will stand to his owne exposition of the wold Babylon and supposing they were there I hope he will as soone graunt them the Bishoprick as any other But to let this passe M. Downam will be twyce aduised before he graunt that the Bishop of Rome at that tyme whosoeuer he was was Antichrist which is as much as Bellarmine would haue denied at this present and M. Downam doth him that courtesy yea and to agre with him in the exposition of S. Paul and S. Iohn For thus he writeth VVhen we say that Antichrist was come in the Apostles tyme we speake of the bodie of Antichrist with S. Iohn when we say that Antichrist hath his seate in Rome we speake of the head of this body soe that now you see heer be distinct persons part of which were come and part not come in S. Iohns tyme. But M. Downam goeth about to deceaue the Reader by telling him a loÌ„g tale of the Pope without Downam speaketh from the purpose any proofe and from the purpose But he must be put in mind to answer Cathegoricè whether Antichrist that S. Paul and S. Ihon saith was come in their tyme were the same that was to haue his seat in Rome or noe If he saith yes then he must also graunt that S. Peter and S. Paul or whosoeuer had the seate at that tyme was Antichrist If he will stick to his noe then it is playne that there is no consequence in Bezaâ— argument Some manner of Antichrist was come in the Apostles tyme Ergo no other that shal be only one man can come after vnlesse he were aliue at that tyme. Yet for all this M. Downam maketh the best shift he can saying that in Bellarmines argument there is no consequence vulesthis be taken for graÌ„ted that Antichrist is but one man which is the question after he frameth arguments as it pleaseth him But M. Downam should haue considered that Bellarmine supposed not that Antichrist was but one man neither was it much materiall in this place if we speake only of the chiefe and proper Antichrist whome Bellarmine only affirmeth to be one but he supposeth that which M. Downam and his Maister Beza put in their probation if they will conclude any thing that Antichrist of whom S. Iohn speaketh is the same that is to haue his seat at Rome for then it followeth very well that he in person had his seate in Rome in the Apostles tyme not only in the heretikes his members For if this second were inough it
the Cittie of Constantinople haue as wee wish her glorie and Gods right hand protecting her let her enioy a long reigne of your Clemencie Alia tamen ratio est rerum saecularium alia diuinarum c. Yet worldly and diuine thinges haue different reasons neither will any other building be firme and stable besides that rock which our Lord hath put in the foundation He looseth his owne who desireth those thinges which are not his due Let it suffice that by the foresaid help of your Pietie and by the consent of my sauour he hath obteyned the Bishoprick of so great a Cittie non dedignetur Regiam Ciuitatem quam Apostolicā non potest facere Sedem let him not disdaine a Kinglie Cittie which he cannot make an Apostolicall Sea So that M. Downam in S. Leo his iudgment confoundeth worldlie and diuine thinges by going about to make vs belieue that Rome had the preheminēce of an Apostolicall Sea because it was the chiefe Citty which as you see S. Leo saith by no meanes can be Likwise Bellarmine bringeth the authoritie of Gelasius Epistola ad Episcopos Dardaniae who likewise reasoneth thus Millan Rauenna Syrmiū Treuers and Nicomedia were the Seates of the Empire many tymes and yet the Fathers neuer gaue any preheminence or Primacy to those Bishops as neither they would haue done to Rome only for that respect And as for the authority of the two Councells M. Downam must know if he be ignorant of it that the first of Chalcedon was not confirmed by S. Leo but only in matters of The Coūcell of Chalcedō See Paralelus Tortiac Tortoris cap. 4. The Canons of the 6. generall Councell Fayth and in this poynt was by him expresly reiected as may be seene in the Epistle already recited in diuers others ad Anatolium ad Pulcheriam ad Maximum ad Iuuenalē In which likewise as also in the 16. Act of the Councell it selfe it appeareth that this Decree was made in the absence of the Popes Legates who had the chiefe place in that Councell and that they did afterward openly gainesay and resist it And if by the Councell of Constantinople he meaneth the Canons commonly called the Canons of the sixt Generall Councell as it seemes he doth he must likwise be tould that those Canons are of no accompt as not made by that Councell but by certaine Bishops which afterward met priuately togeather as appeareth by the beginning of the Canons thēselues and by the confession of Tharasius Bishop of Constantinople in the 7. generall Councell Act. 4. and Bede calleth them Erraticam Synodum an erring Synode moreouer writeth that Sergius then Pope reiected them lib. 6. de sex atatibus in Iustiniano Iuniore And all this and much more to the purpose might Downam seemeth not to haue read so much of Bellarm. as he impugneth M. Downam haue learned out of Bellarmine himselfe if he would haue taken the paines to haue read him ouer or at least so much as he meant to impugne as it was good reasō he should haue done before he had gone about to answere him Neither shall I need to spend any more tyme in this matter since his chiefest authorities are out of these two Councels For what he meaneth by that which happened tempore Mauritij I cannot yet coniecture for it were too absurd for him to defend Iohn of Cōstantinople against S. Gregory as likewise the Bishops of Rauenna whose arrogancy ambition is condēned cōtemned also by the whole world But it is no meruaile though in so bad a cause M. Downam can find no better Patrons 5. Concerning the comming of Antichrist with the temporall sword which is the second degree M. Downam goeth about to iuggle with vs after a strange manner For wheras Bellarmine in the confutation of Luther confuteth three groundes which Luther built his opinion vpon I. the deposition of the Emperour Henry the 4. II. the hauing temporall dominion III the making of warre by shewing that all these three Actes had bene exercised by the Pope before this tyme putting Downams seely iugling particuler examples of euery one M. Downam very cunningly as he thought but indeed very seelily as it will appeare now that he is taken with the manner answereth that true it is that the Popes had a temporall dominion before but not generall and so with granting one part he thinkes he may safely deny the other without euer troubling himselfe to examine Bellarmines instance any further But we must put him in mind that when Gregory the second depriued Leo the Emperour of the Kingdome of Italy he did not only shew himselfe to haue right to the patrimony of S. Peter which could only haue warranted him to haue kept that from the Emperour but The pope hath power to depose Princes for the spirituall good of Christs Church likewise to haue a generall authority to depriue Princes of their owne dominions in some cases and for some causes which he could not do but by a generall power though we will not much stand with M. Downam about the name of Temporall power for that we rather thinke it to be spirituall therfore cānot be exercised by the Pope but for the spirituall good of Christs Church as M. Downam may see largely explicated by Bellarm. in his 5. booke where also he shall find diuers other examples to this purpose to which it will not be inough for him to oppose his hereticall author Auentinus Of Auentine See part 2. Chap. 3. n. 6. for we will at any tyme take M. Downams owne word so soone as any other of his mind except they bring better profs then he doth And this is all which M. Downam hath to saie against Bellarmine wherfore he concludeth in these wordes And thus haue I answered whatsoeuer is in his 3. Chapter pertinent to the matter in hand omitting as my manner is his other wranglings as being altogeather either impertinēt or merely personal Where I wil only craue the Iudicious Reader to looke ouer Bellarmines whole discourse and if he findeth nothing in it but which directly impugneth the opinions and not the persons which he alleageth and withall that he doth it so inuincibly that there can be no euasion as I verily perswade my selfe any Downams māner to omit that which he cannot answere indifferēt man will easily see then let him know that whatsoeuer M. Downam hath omitted was because he could by no meanes make so much as any shew of answering it as he hath gone about to doe in this which we haue examined and withall let him know also that this is M. Downams manner as he himselfe affirmeth and make accompt of the Man accordingly THE FOVRTH CHAPTER In which is explicated the first demonstration that Antichrist is not yet come WHEREFORE the true opinion is saith Bellarmine that Antichrist hath neither begun to raigne nor is yet come but is to come and to raigne about the end of
appertayning to this purpose But what impudency is this Do not those authorities plainly shew that the Popes of Rome were highly esteemed of both among Christians Gentiles long before the times that the ProtestaÌ„ts assigne for Antichrists comming and consequently that those Popes which they most foolishly and impiously assigne did not arise from base estate But saith he the estate of the first Bishops of Rome was meane Well suppose it were so what were this against those Popes which you make Antichrist whose estate was not meane as Bellarmine proueth as indeed the state of the first cannot be said to be by any that maketh accompt of spirituall prehemmence and authority and preferreth it before any temporall dignity whatsoeuer But in these worldly Ministers eyes our Sauiour himselfe would seeme meane if he were vpon earth againe in the manner that he was And his other obiection is as foolish of the base birth and obscure parentage of diuers Popes As though this were the bâ—fâ—nes that we speake of now or the Protestants impugued any particuler Pope and not the whole succession of them for these 1000. yeares But if he would haue said any thing to the purpose he should haue shewed as Bellarmine rightly saith that the Pope vntill the yeare 600. was most obscure of no name and that then suddainly and by deceipts he vsurped some high place This M. DownaÌ„ neuer toucheth but passeth it ouer as though he had byn blind as no doubt he was with malice which made him break out into such a fit of rayling without all modesty or measure which See part 2. cap. 5. therfore I omit in this place reserue all such stuffe to the 2. Part especially since M. Downam acknowledgeth that now it is not to the purpose only the Reader must not let passe his Downam chargeth Bellarmin vniustly charge against Bellarmine for cunningly passing ouer in silence the other part of fraud and deceipt which he may see by the wordes which now I alledged out of Bellarmine to be most false True it is that he bringeth no distinct proofs for this but only by shewing the Popes greatnes before the yeare 600. euidently conuinceth that he came not to it then by any Fraud or deceipt but succeeded into the lawfull Inheritance of his Predecessours for as I said before now the Downam omitteth Bellarmin his argument question is not of the election of any particuler Pope but whether the Popes in generall did at that tyme obtayne by fraud any great dignity being base before And thus M. Downam concludeth his discourse concerning this first argument omitting as the Reader may consider the greatest part of it which is taken from the littlenesse of the home cap. 7. by which he will haue Antiochus to be signified and yet contendeth that he was not little but rather alway great which two assertions how they hang togeather I leaue to the Readers iudgement 12. To Bellarmines second argument he hath nothing else to answere but to tell vs that the 4. beast is the Kingdome of the Seleucidae Lagidae and that the 10. horne he meaneth the 11. was Antiochus Epiphanes All which hath ben sufficieÌ„tly Antichrist shall ouerthrow 3. Kings confuted already wherefore we are now only to note how he contradicteth himselfe in explicating how Antiochus Epiphanes was little before his comming to the Crowne for now besides his vile and base conditions he can tell vs that he was called little because of his vnlâ—kenes to be King First because he was the 3. and yongest sonne of Antiochus Magnus his elder brother Seleucus also hauing a sonne called Demetrius Secondly because he was to be a perpetuall hostage aâ— Rome wherefore he must needs graunt that Antiochus may be called despectus cap. 11. v. 21. aswell for these reasons and the like as for his base conditions which a little before he denied so obstinatly Now the 3. hornes which the Scripture saith were to be pulled vp before the little horne M. Downam will by no meanes haue to be Dan. 7. Kings of other Kingdomes then Syria and much lesse of diuers as of Egypt Lyhia and Ethiopia but the 3. immediate predecessors of Antiochus and this he proueth because they were expressly called the 3. former hornes viz. of the ten But he knoweth well Dan. 11. inough that these 3. Kinges are named cap. 11. as we shall see forthwith And besides the absurd it yes which this exposition conteyneth as we haue already shewed why doth he not shew vs what these 3. immediate predecessors were whom Antiochus made away According to the succession of the Kinges of Syria which he himselfe alloweth they should be Seleucus Ceraunus his Vncle Antiochus Magnus his Father and Seleucus Philopater his brother and though Antiochus Epiphanes were so wicked that in that respect it might be though that he would be ready inough to contriue any mischiefe yet to affirme all this without either History or other witnes is a strange liberty if not of lying yet at least of saygning The death of his brother Seleucus Philopater is affirmed by M. Downam to haue ben contriued by Heliodorus whom he affirmeth to haue ben suborned by Antiochus Epiphanes and quoteth v. 20. as though all this were Scriptures but there is no such matter and Appianus in Cyriâ—co who affirmeth that Heliodorus slew him treacherously likewise affirmeth that he would haue made himselfe King and that they who put him back admitted Antiochus by which it appeareth that Heliodorus was not so much deuoted to Antiochus as M. Downam imagineth And it is easie to answere to that proofe that the 3. hornes are called the 3. former for it is plaine that Daniel calleth them so because they appeared vnto him before the little horne and were likewise to be in the world before it yea if we would stand strictly vpon that word and admit M. Downams interpretation that those 10. hornes were to reigne successiuely we should rather say that the 3. former or first were the 3. first predecessors Why the 3. Kinges which Antichrist shall slay are called the 3. first or former of Antiochus then the 3. last which were rather to be called the 3. latter But since the truth is that all the 10. were to be togeather there can no order of first or last be appointed vs among them and therfore we must of force say that they were called 3. of the first because the 10. appeared before the little one for indeed they are not called the 3. former hornes as M. Downam auoncheth but 3. of the former betwixt which there is a great difference euen as much as betwixt Gods truth and M. Downams lye And all this is made Downam corrupteth the Scripture more plaine in the exposition of this vision v. 24. where this little horne is expounded to be another King which shall arise after the 10. and be more mighty then the former and shall humiliate 3. Kinges where
it selfe since he could haue no certaine ground to thinke soe vnles he had appeared in some sort soe is it also impertinent to the matter we haue in hand since our question is about his appearing and they which put it latest which are Luther and Bibliander make him to come euen with the temporall sword which cannot choose but appeare after the yeare of our Lord 1000. And this is the notable consent which M. Downam hath found among all his writers whom Bellarmine alleageth in this mayne poynt concerning the time of the comming of Antichrist 4. After hauing laboured to make an agreemēt betwixt his Doctours with the euent which you haue seene he maketh a shew as though he would answere all Bellarmines arguments against them beginning thus Now let vs see what he obiecteth against this receyued truth but comming to the point he only chooseth out Bellarmines answere to Chytraeus his secōd proofe for the first degree of Antichrists comming to wit with the spirituall sword which as you see is no argument at all but a peece of an answere to an argument so that to doe well M. Downam should replie and not answere But let Downam answereth when hee should reply vs not vrge the poore man too farre for it is pure want that driueth him to these miserable shiftes Wherefore let vs see how he can auoid Bellarmines answere Chytraeus proofe was this In the yeare 606. Bonifacius the third did obteyne of Phocas the title of vniuersall Bishop ergo Amichrist appeared about the yeare 600. To which Bellarmine answereth in these words Phocas gaue not the title of Vniuersall to the Pope but called him the head of the Churches But long before Iustiniā ep ad Ioā 2. had done the same before that also the Councell of Chalcedon in ep ad Leonem VVithout cause therefore is the comming of Antichrist put in the tyme of Phocas To which first as I haue noted M. Downam saith that Bellarmine obiected this whereas it is most manifest that he answereth an obiection Secondlie he addeth that good authors Phocas gaue not the title of Vniuersall to the Pope that which hee gaue the Pope had before affirme that he receyued from Phocas both the title of the Head of the Church and also of Vniuersall or Oecumenicall bishop but they are too good to be named or els M. Downam was ashamed of thē and therefore he must pardon vs if we belieue neither him nor them till we know what they are Thirdlie he auoucheth that there is no doubt but that Bonifacius sought for and by suite obteyned that which Iohn of Constantinople had before claymed But if he had remembred what himselfe wrote in his 1. chap. of his former booke of S. Gregorie the great his dislike of that title in Iohn of Constantinople he would haue seene that there had bene great doubt whether Bonifacius were not more likelie to approue his holy predecessors iudgment in refusing that title for due respectes though otherwise neuer soe due to him rather then his proud aduersaries opinion in desiring or vsing it at that tyme when at leastwise in that Iohn of Constantinoples sense it was not only scandalous See part 2. Chap. 1. but perfidiouslie false also Wherfore keeping the dignitie it selfe they vsed such wordes as might modestlie expresse what they had and no way signifie that which they had not themselues and much lesse Iohn of Constantinople who most arrogantlie vsurped that false and also foolish title being taken in the sense in which he vsurped it Fourthly M. Downam would shift of the matter with saying that there is no great difference betwixt these two titles as they are now giuen to the Pope saue that to be the head of the Vniuersall Church is the more Antichristian stile But this will not serue his turne neither for howsoeuer these titles be all one in substance yet since Chytraus and others will giue vs a reason why they assigne the first degree of Antichrists comming in the tyme of Phocas to wit because he first gaue the Pope the title of Vniuersall Bishop it is not inough when this is denied to tell vs that at least if he gaue him not that he gaue him another as great for all the force of the argument consisteth in this that this title of Phocas is a new one which the Pope neuer had giuen him before for otherwise there is no reason why Antichrist should be thought more to come in Phocas his tyme then before And this was that which Bellarmine answered and M. Downam hitherto hath not said any thing to the purpose against him Wherefore lastly he goeth about to make vs belieue that though he cannot deny but that the Pope had the same title which Phocas gaue him long before yet there was a great difference in the sense and meaning For he affirmeth that before this graunt of Phocas the Church of Rome had the preheminence and superioritie ouer all other Churches excepting that of Constantinople not in respect of Authoritie and Iurisdiction but in respect of order and dignitie and for this cause especiallie because Rome wherof he was Bishop was the chiefe Cittie for which he citeth the Councells of Chalcedon Constantinople And for the same cause saith he was the Patriarch of Constantinople sometymes matched with him for which he citeth Concil Chalcedon sometime preferred aboue him for which he noteth in the margent tempore Maurity because Constantinople which they called new Rome was become the Imperiall seate yea he addeth that the Bishops of Rauenna because their Cittie was the chiefe in the Exarchy of Rauenna wherevnto Rome was for a Downams answere or replie confuted by Bellarmine in other places tyme subiect stroue with the Bishop of Rome in the tyme of the Exarchies for superiority But all this discourse of his is refuted at large by Bellarmine in his second Booke of the Pope and if M. Downam will loose so much labour about the answering of that as he hath done about this other which is the third he shal be confuted I hope fully satisfied in this point also But now it were to great a labour to put downe all Bellarmines proofes Wherefore both I and M. Downam must of reason be content with briefly answering his obiections though that also in truth were not to be expected in this place but that I desire that M. Downam should haue no reason to complayne And first that the reason why Rome had the preheminence The reason of Romes preheminence is not because it is the chiefe Citty ouer all other Churches was not because it was the chiefe Cittie as M. Downam would proue out of the Councels of Chalcedon and Constantinople Bellarmine proueth by the authoritie of S. Leo. ep 54. ad Martianū where inueighing against the ambition of Anatolius then Bishop of Constantinople which he had discouered in that very Councell of Chalcedon which M. Downam mentioneth he hath these wordes Let
yet the Kingdomes in his exposition were signified by the fourth Beast and iron legges and the Kinges by the 10. hornes and 10. toes And is not M. Downam a wise man thinke you to confirme one absurditie with another farre greater and which he knoweth his aduersary will much lesse graunt then that Downam childishly confirmeth one absurditie with another farre greater which he goeth about to proue Besides that this deuise is so foolish that euery child will laugh at M. Downam for it for who seeth not that the King succeedeth not his Kingdome as the ten toes doe the iron legges and the ten hornes by the consent of all Ecclesiasticall writers the 4. beast but must of force be vnited togeather except we will make the Kingdomes of the Seleucidae and Lagidae or of the Romans to haue byn without their Kings and Emperours and afterward againe the Kinges Emperours without their States which is so grosse an absurditie as mee thinkes M. Downam should see it and it is little lesse to call these Kinges the toes of their Kingdomes whereas euerie man els accompteth them the heads in respect of their owne Kingdomes howsoeuer in respect of others they may be called toes because of their succession in the last place And by this that hath byn said I doubt not it will appeare to the iudicious Reader whether Bellarmines argument or M. Downams answere be more impertinent and friuolous 3. To the second proofe out of the Apocal. 17. M. Downam hath very little to answere therfore he is glad to take hould Apoc. 17. of euery word spoken obiter and by the way as that Rome is the Harlot wherof S. Io. speaketh and that the seauen heads signify all the Emperours of Rome the first of which M. Downam liketh very well but the second he affirmeth to be vntrue because they are numbred fiue are fallen the sixt is and the 7. is not yet come in which point I will not now much cōtend because M. Downam confesseth that it is besides the purpose And if hereafter he can bring any other exposition more probable he shall find me very ready to allow of it though he might haue vsed more moderation in his censure Downam not moderate in his censure since he cannot choose but know that many great authors haue taken the number of 7. in this place indefinitely as without all question in many other places it is to be taken and his difficulty must be solued by himselfe since that in this very chapter he affirmeth that Apoc. 13. by the Beast with 7. heades is meant the Roman State and that vnder the Roman Emperours especially and yet by the head which was wounded which he maketh the 6. he likewise vnderstandeth the State of the Emperours which besides the difficulty common to Bellarmine inuolueth a contradictiō peculier to M. Downam Neither will I stand now to discusse with M. Downam whether Rome be the Seate of Antichrist or no or how and in what state only I must aduise him that Bellarmine affirmeth not that the VVhore of Babylon is the seate of Antichrist as neither that Rome after the desolation of the Empire is the VVhore of Babylon but these are M. Downams owne additions See cap. 13. which if he will haue graunted he must first proue them in their due places But now to come to that which Bellarmin would proue M. Downam first is inforced to yeild that these ten hornes signify 10. Kinges which shall raigne togeather and only can help himselfe with affirming that these are not the same ten hornes whereof Daniel speaketh which raigned successiuelie For which point I remit my selfe to that which hath byn said in the former proofe besides that it is no small confirmation that S. Iohn must needes be vnderstood of 10. Kinges which raigne togeather since their wordes are so like and S. Iohn may be thought to expound Daniel whome heere M. Downam citeth cap. 11 perhaps through the Printers fault since that chapter maketh not to his purpose and therefore was neuer mētioned in the whole precedent discourse Well it is now at length agreed vpon that there shall 10. Kinges raigne togeather Wherfore it only remayneth to proue that in the time of these 10. Kings there shal be no Roman Emperour consequently that the Roman Empire shal be vtterly destroyed and so it is tyme for M. Downam to bestirre himselfe and to vse al his iugling tricks First then he bringeth in Bellarmines first proposition in the beginning of the question for an argument in this place and not truly neither But it will be best to heare M. Downams owne wordes How then saith he doth Bellarmine proue that before Antichrist commeth the Roman Empire shall be so vtterly destroyed as not the name of a Roman Emperour or King of the Romans should remayne because the Empire shall be deuided among 10. Kinges which are not Roman Kinges c. Wheras Bellarmines wordes are these VVe must know that the Roman Empire is at length to be deuided into ten Kinges of which none shal be or be called King of the Romans where you see not only the being but also the name of Roman Kinges is excluded But saith M. Downam he that is none of those 10. Kinges may haue the name of the Emperour or King of the Romans as namely the beast which was is not though it be which is the 8. head and is one of the 7. that is to say the Emperour erected by the Pope This found and foolish conceipt that the beast which was and is not is the Emperour erected by the Pope shall in other places be largely confuted Now I would only know how this Emperour can be when the whole Empire is deuided among those other 10. Kinges as Bellarmine affirmeth and proueth out of this very place as we should haue seene ere this had not M. Downam interrupted vs with his impertinent disgressions which perhaps foreseeing and fearing he putteth another question somewhat more to the purpose And why may none of these be called the King of the Romans first forsooth because they shall hate Rome and make her desolate But he might haue kept his first forsooth in his purse insteed of money for Bellarmine giueth but one reason which is the foresaid wordes of Scripture adding only the exposition of them which because M. Downam could not impugne he though best to deuide that so hauing separated the exposition from the place of Scripture the one might want authority and the other be easily shifted of as he doth in these words As though he that hath the title of the King of the Romans may not hate Rome notwithstanding that title as indeed some of the Emperours haue done which euasion had byn too ridiculous if he had added Bellarmines exposition to wit that the Scripture testifieth that these Kings shal hate the harlot and make her desolate and naked and shall eate her flesh and shal burne her
S. Gregory Nazianzen who liued about the yeare 380. in Apologet. ad Patrem suum when he was made B. of Safimi There came vpon me againe quoth he the vnction and spirit and I haue new cause of mourning and sadnes In which place he maketh mention of a double vnction the one when he was made Priest and the other then at his consecrating Bishop Likewise orat 1. de pace speaking of S. Basil who being made Bishop refused the exercize of that authority Although he hath the spirit and talents and the care of a flock committed vnto him and is annoynted with the oyle of Priesthood and perfection yet his VVisdome delayeth to take vpon him the Prelacy Now for the Sacrifice for the dead it shal be sufficient in this place to bring S. Augustines testimony who lib. de hares cap. 53. saith That it was the peculiar fancy of Aerius the Arch-Heretike that we ought not to offer oblation for the dead Of the Adoration of Images only S. Hierome who liued about the yeare 400. shall suffice He in vita Paulae saith thus Prostrate before the Crosse she adored as though she had seene our Lord vpon it Finally of the adoration of the Eucharist S. Ambrose may deseruedly suffice who lib. 3. de Spiritu Sancto cap. 12. explicating that place Adore his footestoole Therefore saith he by the footestoole is meant the earth by the earth the flesh of Christ which at this day also we adore in the mysteryes and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Iesus as we haue said before which S. Augustine saith almost in the same wordes in explicat Psal 98. Since therefore all these thinges which our Aduersaries will haue to be the Characters of Antichrist were vsed by the Catholike Church many yeares before Antichrist was borne it must needes follow that either Antichrist learned them of that Church and to say this is to confound Antichrist with Christ or that none of these things belong to the Characters of Antichrist And this is that which we prooue Thus much shall suffice for this rash and most absurd opinion of our Aduersaries which they haue not proued by any witnesses or reasons The second opinion is of certaine Catholikes who thinke that Antichrists Character is the letters with which his name shal be written So thinke Primasius Beda and Rupertus who seeme to be deceaued because they read But he who hath the Character of the name of the beast or the number of his name But S. Iohn saith not so but thus But he who hath the Character or the name of the beast or the number of his name and the Greeke text agreeth with this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The third opinion is of S. Hippolytus Martyr orat de consummatione mundi some others that the Beastes Character shal be not to vse the signe of the Crosse but rather to execrate and abolish it In which the Caluinistes are egregious forerunners of Antichrist I rather thinke that Antichrist shall inuent a positiue Character also as Christ hath the signe of the Crosse knowne to all but it is not knowne what this Character is vntill Antichrist commeth as we said of the Name M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted 1. THOVGH Bellarmine frame no particuler argument from this discourse of Antichrists Character yet M. Downam will needes by resoluing the discourse it selfe and by conferring it with the former Chapter make him argue from the Character as he did from the number of the name About which we will not striue with him but rather supposing that this was Bellarmines mynd we will examine the solution he giueth to this argument so framed by himselfe 2. And first he would deny that Antichrists marke shal be knowne at his comming in the very same manner that he denyed before that the number of his name should be knowne Wherefore for this point I remit the Reader to that which hath bene said before 3. As also for the other that this Character is not yet knowne because there is so much controuersy about it for he only teacheth briefely that which he explicated more at large about the number of his name which we examined and confuted before Wherefore let vs see what he can say for the Protestāts or Heretikes of this tyme whose opinion Bellarmine impugneth by which we shall also discouer how much his explication helpeth them and what absurdity the opinion of Catholikes conteyneth Which two points M. Downam thought good to touch before he came to answere Bellarmines two proofes 4. And first to that out of the Scripture M. Downam granteth that the marke of Antichrist is but one meaning as he explicateth himselfe in substance although the same by diuers The mark or Character of Antichrist but one meanes may be diuersly expressed and testified that is subiection to the Pope as their head and the acknowledgment of the Sea of Rome and of the Popes Supremacy c. But what he meaneth by one in substance is not easy to conceaue except it be this that all the outward signes Characters and markes agree in this that they signify the same subiection to the Pope c. so that the markes shal be distinct and diuers in themselues and in their manner of signification though the thing by them signified be one But this is not sufficient to affirme that the Character of Antichrist is but one for in this sort the name and the number of the name and the Charcter are all one in substance since they signify the same thing and all signes which signify the same thing may be said to be one in substance as wryting speach gesture and the like and all the figures in the old Testament which signified Christ are but one figure in substance and all the Sacraments of the Church which signify grace shal be but one Sacrament which is too great an absurdity for M. Downam to defend consequently he must needes graunt that his fellow Ghospellers assigne more Characters then one contrary to the Scripture and therefore they are so farre from truly interpreting the Scripture that they wholy peruert it To Bellarmines second instance out of the Scripture M. Downam giueth no direct answere at all but would same put it off by telling vs that the Pope hath declared that it is necessary to saluation to be subiect to the Pope But this is only to shew that the body must be vnited with the head in which all Religions whatsoeuer yea all Societies must The mark of Antichrist shal be common to all in his King dome needes agree But Bellarmines instance impugneth two of the markes which some Protestants affirme to be the Characters of Antichrist by this euident proofe that the Character of Antichrist shal be common to all men in Antichrists Kingdome as the Scripture plainely affirmeth but the oath of Obedience and the Priestly vnction agree to few therefore these cānot be the Character wherof the Scripture speaketh
To this M. Downam answereth not a word neither indeed could he for euery part and parcel is most euident and playne and therefore he was inforced to run to his old shift and to bring vs his wonted figure of petitio principij by which he desireth vs to graunt him his conclusion that the Pope is Antichrist without any further proofe But he must pardon vs because it importeth vs much to hould with Christ which we cannot see how we can possibly doe if we oppose our selues against his substitute and Vicegerent as though he were Antichrist as M. Downam would haue vs. To the third instance M. Downam answereth more formally denying that the Scripture speaketh of the carrying of this marke and the carrying of it indifferently either in the forehead or in the Antichrists Character may be caried either in the right hand or forehead hand But by M. Downams leaue the Scripture mentioneth both the forehead and the right hand that with disiunction that all must haue the marke in the one or in the other by which it is plaine that either of them will serue so that it is indifferent to Antichrist in which of them his marke be carryed so that it be carried in the one of them for that it must be carryed is euident by the Scripture euen according to M. Downams translation which is this That he may giue them a marke on their right hand or els on their foreheads For surely if he giue them a marke on either place they must carry it perforce Now as for his Mysticall interpretation that they shall receaue this marke on their forehead by profession or in the right This Character is not profession or practise hand by practize and operation first it is hard to vnderstand how profession is made with the forehead except there be some marke vpon the forehead and it will be no very easy matter for Antichrists Ministers to examine euery man that would 〈◊〉 or 〈…〉 practise and operation and finally those vactions which are assigned can hardly be drawne to either of these two heads if profession be taken properly for declaration by speach and practise for our owne actions and operations since they doe rather import a suffering and passiue receauing then any actiue operation in which notwithstanding they draw neerer to this marke which shal be giuen by Antichrist and receaued by all others and therefore neither profession not practise agreeth well to this M. Downam contradicteth himselfe marke Finally M. Downam seemeth to contradict himselfe for on the one side he will haue profession and practise to answere to the forehead and hand and consequently to be the marke and yet a little after he saith that the subiection it selfe is the marke which is not only contrary to the former but also foolish since that this subiection is the thing signified by the marke and not the marke it selfe For what wise man would euer say that subiectiō is a signe or marke but rather that other things are signes and markes of it as appeareth plainly to any that will consider the subiection of seruantes to their Maisters subiects to their Prince and of Christians to Christ and God c. To the fourth instance M. Downams answere is that Antichrist shall prohibite all Christians that haue not his marke to buy or sell c. but he will permit the Iewes c. But we find no such exceptiō in the Scripture which generally affirmeth that he shall not permit any little or great rich or poore free or bound vnder which diuisions no doubt not only the whole nation of the Iewes but euen euery particuler Iew is comprehended And besides we find no such rigour in the Pope towards M. Downams Christians for though that Bull of Martinus Quintus had ben generall for all The Bull of Martinus Quintus against the Hussites tymes and places as it was not yet doth it not exact that euery man should professe by word or worke his subiection to the Pope before he be admitted to buy or fell any thing at all especially such things as are necessary for daily sustenance but only excludeth all Hussites c. from all human conuersation when voility or decessity or some other lawfull circumstance doth not otherwise require which are openly manifestly and notoriously such which is farre lesse rigour then Antichrist shall vse and yet much more then we see vsed in many Countries now euen by Martinus Quintus his authority where Catholikes and Heretikes are permitted to liue peaceably togeather Yea euen in Italy Spayne Rome it selfe where they are most carefull to auoyd this contagion there is no such rigour vsed as M. Downam See part 2. cap. 8. §. 7. speaketh of the reason of which we shall afterward declare more at large But though all this be true yet we must not omit to obserue that Bellarmine in this instance only impugneth three of the markes which M. Downams brethren assigned viz. Chrisme the Oath of Fidelity and Preisthood All which three it is euident that not only all Iewes but likewise very many Christians yea Catholikes also haue not and yet are permitted to buy and sell neither are they once questioned withall about any of them All which M. Downam could not choose but see though because he could find no solution for Bellarmines instance thus lymited he thought best to runne to generalityes where he might roue a◠randome and make his Reader belieue that he had something to say though he saw himselfe that he could say nothing directly to the purpose M. Downam hauing this dispatched the first argument commeth to the second where first he affirmeth that though those things had bene vsed in the Catholike Church before the reuelation of Antichrist yet that hindereth not but that now they may appertayne to the marke of the beast because he doubteth not to affirme that there were many corruptions crept into the Church before the reuealing of Antichrist which he was to retayne with increase So that as you see the marke of Antichrist was in the world before himselfe yea in the Catholike Church which consequently must The Church of God cannot haue the marke of Antichrist needes belong to Antichrist and be a great freind of his as indeed she is to the Pope and euer was and wil be as to her chiefe Pastour vpon earth But how she should beare and vniuersally imbrace any marke or corruption of Antichrist seemeth as vnpossible as that Christ and Antichrist shall haue both one marke or one Church and therefore M. Downam must either perswade vs that euen from the Apostles tymes the Church of Christ bare Antichrists marke and consequently that he was then come or els he must graunt that his brethren haue not rightely assigned the markes of Antichrist but rather haue vttered an horrible M. Downams blasphemy blasphemy charging Christs Church and consequently Christ himselfe who teacheth his Church with the markes and
Church but only their owne fancies because so it seemed necessary for their reputation and credit or some other human and priuate respect how much soeuer they pretend to be only moued by Scripture for of this they admit no more The Protestants haue no probable rule of faith nor any true faith at al. then they please and for the interpretation they haue no other rule then their owne pruate spirit or fancy which is far of from being any probable rule of truth much lesse so certaine as is necessary for the certainty of diuine and supernatural faith to be built vpon And this is the true reason why the Church of God is but one because there is but one rule of fayth from which whosoeuer falleth cannot haue any true faith at all nor belong to the true Church of God The other comparison which M. Downam vseth is much les to the purpose for it is not the Church but the Bishop of Sardis as he himselfe saith that it is agreed by In his Sermō at Lābeth pag. 2. Apoc. ◠1. Interpreters both new and old who had a name that he liued but indeed was dead neither was this death for want of faith but of charity and good workes as is manifest and though it were otherwise yet M. Downam could proue nothing by this comparison except we would belieue his bare word that the Church of Rome were in this case which is our chiefe question and M. Downams wonted figure to take it as granted Wherfore since he can argue no better let vs see how he can answere 7. To Bellarmines first reply vpon Caluins deuise that the Roman Church is not the true Church but that there VIII remaine in it only the ruines and reliques of a true Church M. Downam granteth that all visible Churches may faile and fall away but not the inuisible Church of Christ which he calleth the Catholike Church nor any one sound Christian that is of this inuisible Church In which answere he graunteth Bellarmine as much as he went about to proue that the gates of hell in his opinion haue preuailed against Christs visible Church so that in a whole thousand yeares Christ had not so much as one constant professor of his truth and though I might easily proue that Christ spake of his visible Church and that it The visible Church is to endure to the end of the world was to endure vntill the worlds end yet now I will not trouble my Reader with so needles a digression since the matter is so plaine and euident in it selfe that me thinks any man which maketh accompt of Christ his passion and glory or of his desire to saue soules and to prouide for their conuersion and faith should stop his eares not to heare so great a blasphemy vttered as M. Downam is not ashamed to affirme yet if any man haue any doubt or desire to be more fully satisfied in this point let him read Bellarmine him selfe lib. 3. de Ecclesia militant cap. 12. 13. To Bellarmines second reply M. Downam answereth that it proueth nothing except he suppose that the Church of Rome is the only true Church But he should haue answered it in forme admitted only that which Caluin auoucheth that the Papists hold the ruines of the Church and the foundations yea the buildings themselues halfe throwne downe for out of this only Bellarmine argueth and sheweth that the Protestants can neither haue the whole intire church since in their opinion it is fallen nor the part which remaineth of it since they grant The Protestants cannot haue the Church of Christ but only some new building of their own it to be amōg the Papists to which delēma M. Downā answereth not a word but only braggeth that the Church of Rome may fall yet the Catholicke Church of God may stand yea shall stand c. But he forgetteth himselfe marketh not what his Maister Caluin hath graunted that not only the Church of Rome but euen the very Church of Christ is fallen and that the Papists haue as much as is left of it cōsequētly the Protestāts can only haue some new hereticall building of their owne though M. Downam be neuer so loth to acknowledge it Neither will the example of the Church of Iuda vnder Iosias serue his turne for that was only a reformation of manners and a destruction of Idolatry without any departing from the ancient Church of God in which remained the true succession of Priests and Gods true religion after a visible manner no otherwise then if it should please his Maiesty to put downe heresie and aduance Catholike Religion in his Kingdome which were only to imbrace the true Church of Christ and not to erect any new building as the Protestants haue done as Bellarmine conuinceth 8. M. Downam hauing thus impugned Bellarmines arguments commeth to refute his solutions to their obiections and wheras Bellarmine gaue three solutions to the first See part 2. cap. 2. M. Downam passeth two of them ouer in silence telling vs that he hath taken thē away in another place which how true it is the Reader shall be iudge when we come to that encounter Now let vs see how he refuteth the second solution which Bellarmine giueth that the harlot of which S. Iohn speaketh is Rome Ethnick raigning worshiping Idols and persecuting Christians and not Rome Christian the Apoc. 17. contrary of which M. Downam neuer goeth about to proue with any new argument as he should haue done it being his turne now to argue but only contenteth himselfe to answere Bellarmines proofe which he doth also by halfes for Bellarmine proueth his exposition euidently by the authority of Tertullian S. Hierome and sheweth the impudency of heretikes that are not ashmed to alleadg those authours altogeather against their meaning to proue that S. Iohn speaketh of Rome Christian To all which M. Downam giueth him not a word but is very well content to be thus beaten so that it may not be spoken of but to the other proofe he thinketh himselfe able to say something therfore answereth two wayes 1. that though Popish Rome had not dominion ouer the Kings of the earth and were not drunke with the blould of the Saints and martyrs of Iesus yet we might vnderstand the Apostle thus that that Citty which then had dominion ouer the Kings of the earth and then persecuted the Saints is called Babylon because it was to be the seate or sea of Antichrist So that as you see M. Downam will haue Rome to be called Babylon because it was to be the seate or sea of Antichrist which he supposeth as manifest though Bellarmine in this third solution and before also in one of his arguments both which M. Downam passeth ouer in silence sheweth manifestly that Antichrist shall hate this Babylon and not make it the seat of his kingdome So that this first solution is nothing but M. Downams wonted
the fruite of Heresy first to make men impugne the truth and the Doctors of Gods Church who defend it and then to seeke by such seely shifts to make their party seeme good and to deceaue their Readers by which indeed to any indifferent and discreet Reader they discouer theyr owne shame as M. Downam doth in this place as well by this as also by his simple repetition of his exposition of the fourth beast and his 10. hornes which notwithstanding he will now go about to proue by impugning the exposition of all other but Infidels and Hereticks concerning that place 10. But first he will haue a saying to the Pope infer that according to their exposition who think that the 4. beast Cap. 7. signifieth the Roman Empire it is very likely that the Pope is Antichrist seing hitherto he is the last that hath ruled in Rome and shall according to the Papists owne conceipt continue to the end The Pope succeedeth not in the Roman Empyre but it is no meruaile though M. Downam insisteth not much vpon this proofe for first it is manifest that not the Pope but the Emperour is he that suceedeth in the Roman Empire and it is likewise false that the Papists hould that either the Pope or the Emperour shall continue to the end in Rome since they plainly affirme that the Empire shal be first deuided among 10. Kings wherof none of them shal be Emperour and after surprised by Antichrist himself who shall subdue The Seleucidae are not signified by the fourth beast Dan. 7. those 10. Kings and it is likewise more probable in their conceipt that Rome it self shal be vtterly ouerthrowne by the same 10. Kings and Antichrist as we haue seene before and yet besides these two false assertions M. Downam to make his argumeÌ„t good supposeth two other ifs as false as these First that the ten hornes should be the successiue rulers of the Roman state and 2. that the 10. or last horne should be Antichrist which are not only false but also foolish suppositions and the latter expresly against the Scripture which maketh Antichrist not the 10. but the 11. horne as hath byn proued Now let vs see how he can proue that by the 4. beast is signified not the Roman but the Seleucidae and first he inferreth it out of that false ground which we haue already ouerthrowne that the kingdome signified by the fourth beast was to haue an end before the comming of the Messias but he beingeth no proofes for this but only quoteth cap. 7. 11. 26. 27. which we haue already shewed to make against him Secondly he supposeth that cap. 7. v. 25. 26. 27. is to be vnderstood of Antiochus his warres against the Iewes which is his common fault of petitio principij and against the consent of all good expositours and the text it selfe Thirdly he obiecteth that of the Romans After they Apoc. 17. had obtayned the dominion of Iewry there were more then ten that ruled ouer the Holy Land But what is this to the purpose since that these ten horns signyfie 10. Kings which shall raign togeather as appeareth plainly by Apoc. 17. which M. Downam obiecteth to himselfe and only answereth that these of Dan. 7. are not the same but other 10. which tyrannized ouer the Kingdome of the Iewes successiuely as they are particulerly Dan. 11. cap. 5. nu 2. described cap. 11. but how false this is hath already appeared as likewise that which he addeth that he whom the Papists take to be Antichrist in Daniel is one of the 10. hornes it being manyfest that both Daniel S. Io. describe 10. besides him Fourthly he saith that all that Dan. saith of the 10. horne so he calleth the 11. do fuly and wholy agree to Antiochus Epiphanes but not to the 10. Prince of the Romans But we shall see a litle after how well M. Downam can apply the pulling vp of 3. hornes to Antiochus which that little horne cap. 7. is said to do and I belieue we shall find him as far to seeke as he that would goe about to shew the same of the 10. Prince of the Romans which no wise man will do and M. Downam knoweth well inough that Bellarmine neuer imagined any such matter Fifthly M. Downam argueth from his conference of that which is written of the little horne chapter 7. with those thinges which are more plainely recorded of Antiochus chap. 8. 23. c. and chap. 11. 21. c. But what meruaile is there if the 7. and 11. Chapters agree since they are both to be vnderstood of Antichrist as hath bene proued and likewise Antiochus was a figure of Antichrist and therfore no meruade though that which is laid of him cap. 8. be very like to those 〈◊〉 which are related of Antichrist in thee ther places and yet M. Downam much mistaketh in making the Goat buck cap. 8. to comprehend the 2. last beasts cap. 7. for of this he neyther bringeth proofe nor probability only he sheweth very well that the 4. heads of the third beast cap. 7. signify the same that the 4. hornes of the goat cap. 8. and consequently that the Seleucidae and Lagidae which were The Seleucidae Lagidae belong to the third beast two of these hornes belong to the third beast and in no sort to the fourth All the rest which he addeth is an idle repetition of his former fooleries already confuted 6. He affirmeth without all proofe that the people 〈◊〉 and oppressâ—â— by these hornes are the people of the Iewes wheras Antichrist in the Papist conceipt shal be the counterfait 〈◊〉 of the Iewes for he can only proue that Antiochus persecuted the Iewes which is no argument to proue that Antichrist shall persecute them also since it is manifest that the Iewes in those tymes were not a figure of the Iewes in Antichrists tyme out of the Christians whom I suppose M. Downam will not deny to be now Gods elected people 7. He argueth from the agreement of the tymes set downe in Dâ—n to that which happened in Antiochus But of this we haue treated sufficiently before shewing that he hath no ground for that he saith and besides it Cap. 8. is most true that the tyme mentioned cap. 8. agreeth most fitly to Antiochus the other not though if they did it were only an argument that in this Antiochus was a most exact figure of Antichrist And this is all he can say for his new exposition of the Seleucida or against that of S. Hierome and all other good Authors 11. Now at length M. Downam commeth to Bellarmines assumption or Minor where first he telleth vs that the The Popes whom the ProtestaÌ„ts accompt Antichrist arise not from base estate Pope ariseth from base estate whether we consider the meane estate of the first Bishop of Rome or the base birth and obscure parentage of diuers Popes and addeth that Bellarmines allegations are but a vayne florish nothing