his sense repugnant to the Scriptures which describe Antichrist not as an open enemy but as a secret and decipher antichristianisme not as a professed hostilitie but as a mysterie of iniquitie as hath beene shewed 6. Come we to his assumption This manifest persecution hath not bin neither is as yet why First because there are now so many false brethren in the church as neuer were more speaking of the church of Rome wherin it is hard indeed to finde a true christiaÌ„ But shal not Antichrist come whiles there are false brethreÌ„ in the church or rather shall we not thinke that the Apostasie of false brethren in the church of Rome pretended Christians wherof Antichrist is the head is a good argument of his comming Secondly because no man can tell when this persecution began That if it were true doth not disprooue the greatnesse of the persecution but argue the length Yea but vnder Nero Domitian the rest of the persecuting Emperours it was well knowne when the persecutions began and when they ended That happened because there was some intermission of those persecutions but these persecutions vnder Antichrist they haue no end nor yet intermissioÌ„ except it be when they haue none to persecute But how doth it appeare that none know when these persecutions of Antichrist began For sooth because some of vs say that Antichrist came in the yeere 200. others in 606. others in 773 others in 1000 others in 1200. The vanity of which objection which now like a twice-boâ—…de Colewurt he setteth before vs againe hath bin shewed before For of these opinions onely two belong to vs and those not different For we hold that as the whole soueraigntie and tyranny of the Pope consisteth in his two swords which he did not attaine at once but by degrees so we make two degrees of Antichrist his comming first with the spirituall sword in the yeere 607. secondly with the temporall after the yeere 1000. which was more fully obtained then before in Gregorie the seuenth In whom as hath bin said Antichrist was come to his full growth Since which time he hath been more and more reuealed and by some acknowledged Vpon which acknowledgment there hath followed separation from him according to the coÌ„mandement of God and refusall of his marke whereupon persecution hath ensued and neuer hath ceased where any such haue been found where the Pope hath to do Neither are we with Bellarmine ignorantly to confound the time of his comming with the beginning of his persecution For he began not to persecute vntil men began to forsake him and men did not forsake him vntill he was discouered what he was and acknowledged neither was he acknowledged vntill he came to his full growth 7. And thus the two first parts of this demonstration concerning the persecution of Antichrist how great and manifest it should be are already answered although in truth not worth the answering The third part is concerning the publike seruice of God and ceremonies of the church which he saith in the time of Antichrist by reason of that grieuous persecution shall wholy cease His reason is thus framed When Antichrist is come the publicke seruice of God and daily sacrifice of Christians meaning the sacrifice of the Masse shall cease but as yet the publicke seruice of God and daily sacrifice of Christians hath not ceased therefore as yet Antichrist is not come To the proposition I answer that Antichrist being an hypocrite and pretended Christian as hath bin prooued shall not abolish all worship of God much lesse at his first coÌ„ming For Bellarmine maketh this interruption of Gods seruice a fruite of his greatest persecutioÌ„ his persecution as I said is a consequent of mens for saking him and that of his acknowledgement and that of his shewing himselfe in his colours when he was come to his full growth whereunto he attained not at the first but by degrees But this proposition is prooued saith Bellarmine out of Daniel chap. 12. verse 11. From the time when the daily sacrifice shall be taken away are dayes 1290. Where saith he Daniel speaketh of the time of Antichrist For the expositioÌ„ of this place we need not with Bellarmine run to the Fathers seeing by conference thereof with some other places in Daniel whereunto it hath reference it may most plainly be shewed who it is that taketh away this daily sacrifice and what that sacrifice is In the eight chapt vers 11. and chapt 11. vers 31. it is affirmed that by Antiochus Epiphanes and his armies the daily worship of God should be taken away When as therfore Daniel asked when there should be an end of these things the Holy-ghost answereth that from the time that the daily sacrifice was taken away and the abomination of desolation placed whereof he had spoken chap. 11. 31. there should be 1290. dayes For of the restitution of Gods seruice and deliuerie of the Iewes from the tyranny of Antiochus there are foretold diuers degrees at diuers times which agreeably to these Prophecies of Daniel are noted in the histories of Iosephus and of the Maccabees for from the interruption of Gods seruice to the first restitution thereof by Iudas Macchabeus were three yeeres and ten daies namely from the 15. of the moneth Casteu In memorie hereof the Encaenia that is the feast of the dedication Iohn 10. 22. was celebrated on the 25. of Casteu 1. Macca 4. 59. in the 145. yeere of the Seleucida 1. Maccab. 1. 57. vnto the 25 of the moneth Casteu in the yeere 148 1. Maccab. 4. 52. which terme Daniel calleth chap. 7. 25. a time and times and parcell of time Vnto the victorie obtained by the Macchabees whereby the forces of Antiochus were expelled out of Iewry and thereby the restitution before begun established were three yeeres and a halfe as Iosephus testifieth which Daniel cha 12. 7. calleth a time times halfe a time vnto the time that Antiochus being stricken with the hand of God after his discomfiture and flight from Persâ—…polis promised to restore the religion of the Iewes what else they desired were 1290. dayes vnto the time of his death 1335. And that these are Prophecies coÌ„cerning Antiochus I will hereafter shew more at large In the meane time to the present Chap. 16. objection I answer that by the daily worship or sacrifice here mentioned we are to vnderstand not the sacrifice of Christians to be taken away by Antichrist but the daily sacrifice of the Iewes which was interrupted and taken away by Antiochus Epiphanes It was the custome of the Iewes saith Chrysostome to offer a sacrifice to God euery morning and euening which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sacrifice was taken away by Antiochus and the same is testified by Iosephus and the author of the first booke of the Macchabees 8. To this place of Daniel although nothing at all to his purpose Bellarmine trusteth so much that vpoÌ„ it as it
sort be applied to the tenth Prince of the Romanes 5. By conference of that which is written of the little horne chap. 7. with those thinges which are more plainly recorded of Antiochus chap. 8. 23. c. and chap. 11. 21. c. to the end of the chapter it appeareth euidently that he no other is that litle horne For wheras Daniel in the 7. chap had described 3. kingdomes besides the Babylonian which should tyrannize ouer the Iewes by three beasts in the 8. chap. he figureth the same 3. kingdomes by 2. beasts For the kingdome of the Medes Persians which before was resembled by a Beare is here signified by the Ramme with 2. hornes the kingdome of the Macedonians Seleucidae which before were represented by two seuerall beasts are heere figured by the Goate Bucke containing them both for both the Macedonians and Seleucid◅ were Iauan that is the Greekes Daniel 8. 21. And as in the 7. chapter the kingdome of the Macedonians was signified by a Leopard which had foure heads so here it is saide that after the great horne signifying Alexander the great was broken off there grewe foure hornes in stead thereof meaning the foure Princes among whom the Macedonian Monarchy was diuided The fourth kingdom figured chap. 7. by the beast with 10. hornes is here signified to be that kingdome which was chiefly erected by one of those foure hornes namely Seleucus that is the kingdome of the Seleucidae and from him namely in the end of their kingdome ouer the Iewes came forth a little horne that is the king with the impudent face chap. 8. verse 9. 23. which is Antiochus Epiphanes who was the tenth horne of the fourth beast And in the eleuenth chapter without figures of beastes the same three kingdomes are described the same tenne hornes reckned vp the same tenth horne more particularly deciphred 6. The people pusht at and oppressed by these hornes is Daniels people the people of the Iewes yet remaining and inhabiting in Tzeby that is in Iury and Ierusalem not onely before the desolation of Ierusalem but also before the reformation vnder Iudas Macchabaeus But Antichrist if we will beleeue the Papists shall be the counterfeit Messias of the Iewes neither shall hee afflict the Iewes but by them the Christians and that in the ende of the worlde c. 7. The times of afflicting the people of God assigned to the little horne doe precisely agree to the persecution vnder Antiochus But these times are diuersly to be reckened in respect either of the beginning or the end of the account For as touching the beginning we recken either from the defection and reuolt of the people wrought by Menelaus the priest in the yeare 142. the sixt moneth and sixt day vnto the restitution of Religion in the yeare 148. and 25. day of the ninth moneth and this space is 2300. dayes that is 6. moneths 3. yeares 18. dayes foretold Dan. 8. 14. or else we recken from the pollutiō of the temple and erection of the new altar abolishing of the daily sacrifice to wit in the 145. yeare of the Seleucidae on the 15. of Casleu diuersly in respect of the ende viz. either to the restitution begunne by Iudas Machabaeus Ioseph antiq lib. 12. cap 6. in the 25. of the same moneth Casleu in the year 148. which space is called a time and times and parcell of time that is three yeares and tenne daies or if we reade a time and times 1. Mac. 1. 57. and halfe a time we may recken vnto the time of that victorie which Macchabaeus and the Iewes had against the Armies 1. Mac. 14 52. of Antiochus whereby his instauration of Religion was secured and confirmed and Antiochus his Armies were expelled Dan 7. 25. Dan. 127. De bello Iud. lib. 1. cap. 1. out of Iury which as Iosephus noteth was done after three yeares and sixe moneths or if we recken to the time that Antiochus hauing heard of these and some other ouerthrowes of his Armies after his owne discomsiture and slight from Persepolis was striken by the hand of God and promised all good things to the Iewes it is 1290. dayes if Dan. 12. 11. 12. to his death 1335. By all which considerations it appeareth that Daniel by the fourth beast vnderstandeth not the Romane Monarchy but the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae nor by the tenth horne Antichrist properly but Antiochus Epiphanes 11 Thus much therefore may suffice to haue spoken of his proposition now let vs briefly consider of the assumption The Pope saith he ariseth not from base estate neither by deceit obtaineth his kingdome As touching the former I answere that although it were false of Antiochus yet is it true of the Pope whether you consider the meane estate of the first Bishops of Rome or the base birth and obscure parentage of diuers Popes For that which Bellarmine alledgeth in commendation of the Primitiue religion and auncient church of Rome is but a vaine flourish nothing appertaining to this purpose 2. That the Pope hath not attained to his kingdome by fraude and deceit Bellarmine had rather it should be taken for graunted then once called in question and therefore cunningly passeth it ouer with silence But if this were set downe in the scriptures as a badge of Antichrist to attain to his greatnes by fraude deceit I would make it manifest that neuer in any estate more deep policy and diuellish deceit hath bene vsed then in the See of Rome wherby they haue obtained their supremacy and maintained their soueraigntie ouer the Christian world Yea their whole religion of Popery and mystery of iniquitie seemeth to be nought else but a packe of policy deuised by worldly men to deisie the Pope and to enrich the popish cleargy For wherevnto else I beseech you tended their Indulgences and Pardons their Iubelies their doctrines of merits supererogation their purgatory their trentalls of Masses and praier for the dead their pilgrimages and adoration of Saints Images and reliques their licences and dispensations their thunderboults of excommunication their oathe of allegeance and fealtie imposed on Princes and potentates subiection to the Pope enforced vpon all sorts as absolutely necessary to saluation their wilfull deprauations of scriptures forgeries of Canons counterfeit donations of Constantine and others to proue the double supremacy of the Pope Whervnto tended his often maintaining of quarelles among Christian Princes his warres inioyned them for the recouery of the holy lande but that they being by these meanes weakened might be the more easily subdued vnto himselfe his Croisades and promises of heauen to all those that sight such battailes as like him Haue not their cleargy come to their riches and the Pope to his greatnes by these and such like meanes But because the comming to his greatnes by fraude and deceit is not set downe in the scriptures as a note of Antichrist vnlesse it be by way of type and
that the teÌ„ple should neuer be reedified and Hierome saith that the opinion which is Ad Marcell for the restoring of the temple is a Iewish fable Whereas therfore the Papists teach that Antichrist shall cause this temple to be built and that he shall haue his seat there which they know shall neuer be what doe they else but make a mockery of all the prophecies of the holy Ghost concerning the comming of Antichrist and with Iulian goe about to giue the lie to Daniel and our Sauiour Christ. 14. Againe if th'apostle had by temple meant such a temple as should be built by Antichrist hee would not haue called it the Temple of God but rather of the Diuell Non enim templum alicuius idoli saith Augustine aut daemonis De ciuit Dei lib. 10. c. 19. templum Dei Apostolus diceret For the temple of some idoll or Diuell the Apostle would not call the temple of God Neither are wee by the temple of God to vnderstand a materiall building for such as Bellarmine truely saith are not called the temple of God in the newe Testament And therefore the more grosse is he to vnderstande it of a materiall temple and of a corporall sitting For first materiall temples in the writings of th'apostles are not called the temples of God but the congregations of Gods people are the temple of God See 1. Cor. 3. 16. 17. 2. Cor. 6. 16. Ephes. 2. 21. Apoc. 3. 12. And according to the Scriptures phrase speaketh Lactanâ—…us Solâ—… Instit. lib. 4. cap. 30. saith hee catholica Ecclesia est quae verum cultum retinet hic est fons veritatis hoc est domicilium fidei hoc templum Dei It is the catholicke Church alone which retaineth the true worship this is the welspring of trueth this is the house of faith this is the temple of God The temple of God therefore signifieth the congregation or companie of them which professe the name of Christ. In this temple Antichrist sitteth that is ruleth and raigneth For wee are not to vnderstand it of the corporal gesture as appeareth by that which followeth he shal sitte in the temple of God as God that is he shall rule and raigne as if he were a God for that is meant by Gods sitting who doth not sitte after a corporall maner In the temple Psalm 9. 5. of God therefore which is his Church Antichrist sitteth that is ruleth and gouerneth challenging a soueraigne and vniuersall dominion ouer all those that professe the name of Christ as being the head husband and Lord of the vniuersall church which agreeth most fitly and properly to the Popes of Rome Neither are we to omit the phrase of sitting For whereas princes are said to raigne so many yeares the Popes are saide to sitte and the chiefe place of his dominion is called his Sedes that is Sec or seat 15 And this our interpretation is confirmed by the testimonies of the auncient The temple of God saith Theodoret he calleth the churches wherin Antichrist shal challeÌ„ge to himselfe in 2. Thess. 2. the first seat endeuouring to shewe himselfe to be God And againe Dei autem templum vocat ecclesias The temple of God Epitom he calleth the churches Hierome in templo Dei saith he vel Hierosolymis vt quidam putant vel in ecclesia vt veriùs arbitramur Ad Algasiam quaest 11. And he shall sit in the temple of God either at Ierusalem as some thinke or in the church as we more truely suppose Chrysostome in 2. Thess. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it seemeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put corruptly for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so the greeke scholiast whoe vsually reporteth worde for worde out of Chrysostome saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see Oecumen in 2. Thess. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the temple Hee saithe not in the temple at Ierusalem but in the churches of God And likewise Theophylact not in the temple which is at Ierusalem in 2. Thess. 2. specially but simply in the churches and in euery temple of God Augustine of these words saith But in what temple of God he shall sit as God it is vncertaine whether in that ruine of De ciuit Dei lib. 20. c. 19. the temple which king Salomon built or else in the church For the Apostle would not call the temple of an idoll or diuel the temple of God Whereupon some to whose iudgement not only Augustine in this place but Primasius also subscribeth some I say by Antichrist in this place will haue understood not the prince Bellarmine citeth it as Augustines owne iudgement cap. 13. himselfe but his whole body after a sort that is the multitude of men pertaining vnto him together with the prince himselfe And they thinke it might better be read in the latine as it is in the greeke non in templo Dei sed in templum dei sedeat tanquam ipse sit templum Dei quod est ecclesia Sicut dicimus sedet in amicum i. velut i amicus c. He sitteth not in the temple of God but as the temple of God as if he were the temple of God which is the church euen as we say sedet in amicum that is he sitteth as a friend Which exposition most fitly agreeeth to the Pope and church of Rome who esteeme themselues alone to be the catholike church and all others professing the name of Christ to be heretikes and schismaticks By this which hath bene saide it is plaine that by the temple we are to vnderstand the church of God And yet this doth no more proue the church of Rome to be the true church of God then they can proue the temple of Antichrist at Ierusalem where they say he should sit to be Of this see more in the 2. booke 13. chap. §. 4. 5. 6. the temple of God It is sufficient that the church where Antichrist sitteth hath bene the true church and still is in title and profession although in truth it bee but an Apostaticall church Eor Antichrist as he was to sit in the church so he was to be the head of the Apostasie and of those that fal from god who notwithstanding according to that exposition in Augustine shall sit in templum Dei as though they alone were the true church of God 16 But the Papists confirme their exposition viz that the temple of God signifieth the temple at Ierusalem out of the Apoc. 11. 8. eleuenth of the Apocalypse eight verse Where Iohn sheweth say they That the bodies of Enoch and Elias being slaine by Antichrist shall lie in the streets of Ierusalem Whereunto I answere that Iohn in that place neither speaketh of Enoch and Elias not yet of Ierusalem And whether he speake of the persecution of Antichrist there may be some doubt because he seemeth verse 2. and 7. to speake of the same persecution of the holy
which they esteeme as a note of the true church they contemne and despise all other churches which doe not vaunt of miracles as they do 2. And yet notwithstanding al their miracles are nothing worth First because they serue to confirme vntruths as shal be shewed therefore are not to be regarded Secondly because the vaine brag of manifold miracles amōg those that professe the name of Christ in these later times wherein miracles need not for the confirmatiō of Gods truth which heretofore hath bin sufficiētly cōfirmed is so farre frō being a note of the true church as that rather it is a plaine signe of false teachers an euident marke of the Synagogue of Antichrist For their owne deuises indeed doctrines of men do stil need signes wonders to cōfirme thē But the truth of the gospell which we professe hath bin sufficiently confirmed by the miracles of our Sauiour Christ of his Apostles and Disciples Whosoeuer therfore will not beleeue this doctrine thus cōfirmed neither will he beleeue though one should rise frō the dead to preach vnto Luke 16. him Againe miracles are graunted not for the beleeuers but for thē that liue in infidelity And as Augustine saith Quisquis Tharasius in cōcil Nicen. 2. adhuc prodigia vt credat inquirit magnum est ipse prodigium qui mundo credeme nō credit Whosoeuer yet seeketh after wonders that hee may beleeue is himselfe a great wonder who when De ciuit Dei lib. 22. c. 8. the worlde beleeueth doth not beleeue And therfore in another place he saith Contra istos mirabiliarios cautum me fecit Deus meus c. Against these miraclemongers my God hath made Tract 13. in Ioan. me wary saying There shall arise in the last daies false prophets working signes wonders that they might bring into errour if it were possible the very elect Likewise Chrysostome or whosoeuer Chrysost homil 49. in Matth. was the authour of those learned Homilies vpon Matthew in the 49. Homily where hee proueth that the true Church of Christ cannot now bee knowne or discerned by signes or other meanes but onely by the Scriptures hee saith that now the working of signes and wonders is altogether taken away namely among the true professours and and the working of counterfeit miracles is more found among false Christians And that Peter in the history of Clement declareth that vnto Antichrist shal be graunted the power of working full that is to say profitable signes So that now wee cannot knowe the ministers of Christ by this that they worke profitable signes but because they worke no signes at all And the Papists themselues confesse yea Bellarmine would seeme to set it downe as one of his grounds that to Antichrist and his followers shal be graunted the power of working many and great signes and wonders And therefore vnlesse the Pope and his followers did vaūt of their miracles we should want one good argument to proue the Pope Antichrist And thus it appeareth that the first point concerning the miracles of Antichrist doth fitte the Pope and so fit him as that from hence he may be proued Antichrist For vnto whomsoeuer in these latter times this properly and onely belongeth to boast of their myracles they are Antichrist and the synagogue of Antichrist For the scriptures haue foretold that by Antichrist and his adherents many signes and wonders should bee wrought in these latter times But to the Pope church of Rome in these latter times this properly and onely belongeth to vaunt of their manifold and great myracles For the Iewes want them the Turkes disclaime thē professing that their religion must be propagated not by miracles but by force armes All other Christians which already beleeue the trueth seeke not signes which they know among true beleeuers to be superfluous and in others to be badges of Antichrist therefore the Pope is Antichrist and the Church of Rome the Synagogue of Antichrist 3. The second thing which the Scripture noteth is what maner of myracles they are which Antichrist was to worke This the Apostle saith Bellarmine declareth in one worde when hee calleth them Lying wonders or as the wordes are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signes and wonders of lying that is most lying 2. Thess. 2. 9. signes and wonders Now they are called lying wonders either in respect of the end which is to seduce men by confirming vntrueths or in regarde of their substaunce which is counterfeit And thus Chrysostome expoundeth the words of th'apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he In 2. Thess. 2. saith lying wonders that is either false and counterfeit or else leading into falshood Augustine likewise reciteth these two expositions that they are called lying signes and wonders because De ciuit Dei lib. 20. c. 19. he shall deceiue the senses of mortall men by counterfeite shewes and appearances that he may seeme to doe that which hee doth not or else because howsoeuer they shall bee true wonders they shall drawe vnto lyes such as shall beleeue that they could not be done but by the power of God not knowing the power of the diuell c. First I say they are called lying signes in respect of the ende which is to seduce men Mat. 24. 24. to make them beleeue lyes and to deceiue them 2. Thess. 2. 10. 11. Apoc. 13. 14. For this is the end whereunto the signes and wonders not onely of Antichrist but of all false prophets are referred Deut. 13. 1. 2. Out of which places of scripture we are to obserue that the Lord many times suffereth false prophets and Antichrists to worke strange signes and wonders for the triall of the faithfull and seducing of those that will not beleeue the truth that they might be saued If there arise among you saith the Lord a prophet or dreamer of dreames and giue thee a signe Deut. 13. 1. 2. 3 wonder and the signe wonder which he hath told thee come to passe saying let vs goe after other Gods which thou hast not knowne and let vs serue them thou shalt not hearken vnto the words of the prophet or vnto that dreamer of dreames For the Lord your God proueth you to know whether you loue the Lord your God with all your soule and with all your heart c. Our Sauiour Christ also hath forewarned vs that in these latter times Mat. 24. 24. there shall arise false Christs and false prophets which shall shew great signes and wonders so that if it were possible they should deceiue euen the very elect In like sort the Apostle 2. Thess. 2. noteth that the comming of Antichrist shall be according to the 2. Thess. 2. 9. 10. efficacie of Satan in all power and lying signes and wonders and in all deceiueablenesse of vnrighteousnesse in them that perish c. on whome God shall sende the efficacie of deceipt that they may beleeue lyes Likewise Iohn the diuine prophecieth
Antichrist Hierome and Theodoret where they deliuer Hieronyâ—… ad Algas 9. 11. Theodoret in 2. Thess. 2. Epitom 1. Anselm their owne iudgement doo not affirme that he shall sit in the Temple at Ierusalem but in the Churches of Christ. 3 His third testimonie is 2. Thess. 2. 4. In so much that he sitteth in the Temple of God Of which words there be many expositions saith Bellarmine some by the Temple of God vnderstand the mindes of the faithfull in which Antichrist shall sit after he hath seduced them which interpretation agreeth fitly to the Pope who only sitteth as it were a God in the mindes of men prescribing lawes to binde the conscience and that with guilt of mortall sinne as they speake Others expound these wordes of 2 Antichrist and his whole people who is therefore said to sit in templum August de ciuit Dei because Antichrist shall professe himselfe with his people to be the true church of God which also most fitly agreeth to Dei lib. 20. cap. 19. the Pope and church of Rome which vaunt that they alone are the catholike church and that all others professing the name of Christ which are not subiect to the Pope or acknowledge not themselues members of the church of Rome are heretikes or schismatikes Others by the temple vnderstand the churches 3 of the Christians which Antichrist shall make subiect to himselfe Chrysost. c. The which as we proued it to be the most true exposition so doth it properly agree to the Pope of Rome Others by the temple 4 of God vnderstand the temple of God at Ierusalem wherin Antichrist shall sit and this saith Bellarmine is the more common more probabte and more literall opinion I doubt not but that it is an opinion more plausible to the Papists who care not what they holde concerning Antichrist so that it agree not to the Pope But of these three things which Bellarmine avoucheth in commendation of this conceit two are false and the third is to no purpose For neither is this exposition more common among the auncient Fathers then that other which by the temple vnderstandeth the churches of the Christians which heretofore we haue shewed to haue beene the iudgement of Theodoret Li. 1. ca. 4 § 15. Ierome Chrysostome Theophylact Oecumenius c. And although it were the more common exposition yet that would not proue it to be more true for truth goeth not by voices neither is to be weighed by multitude of suffrages but by weight of reason Neither is it more probable for if the temple shall neuer be reedified as hath bene shewed then is there no probabilitie that Antichrist should sit in it Neither were that materiall though it were more literall vnlesse the literall were vsuall For in all the Epistles by the temple of God is meant the Church and there is an vsuall metonymie betwixt the words which signifie either the assembly or the place of the assembly So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth the place is often vsed for 1. Cor. 3. 16. 17. 2. Cor. 6. 16 Ephe. 2. 21. Apoc. 3. 12. the assembly or church and Ecclesia that is church is often vsed for the place Neither can the temple erected by Antichrist be truly called the temple of God Yea but saith Bellarmine in the scripture of the new testament by the temple of God are neuer vnderstood the churches that is to say the temples of Christians The more absurd is he to vnderstand this place of a materiall temple contrary to the vsuall acceptation of the word in the writings of the Apostles The Apostle therfore by temple meaneth not a materiall temple of wood and stone but a spirituall temple compact of liuing stones and by sitting in the temple not a corporall gesture for Antichrist is to sit there as God that is he is to rule and raigne in the church of God as if he were a god vpon earth But of this whole matter see more in the first booke chapt 2. § 13. 14. 15. 4 Now let vs come to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or disproofe of our assertion who hold that Antichrist shall sit not at Ierusalem but at Rome and in Rome professing her selfe the church of God First by a fond cauillation wherein hee greatly pleaseth himselfe he seeketh to driue vs to an absurditie For saith hee if Antichrist shall sit in the Church of God and if the Pope be Antichrist then the church wherein the Pope sitteth is the true church and consequently the Protestants and all others that be not of that church are out of the church c. This cauill is to be resolued into three syllogismes 1. Antichrist sitteth in the Church of Christ The Pope of Rome is Antichrist therfore saith Bellarmine the Pope sitteth in the true church of Christ. But hee might as well conclude thus Hee that professeth the name of Christ is a Christian the Papist the Anabaptist the Familist c. professeth the name of Christ therefore the Papist the Anabaptist the Familist is a true Christian. But hath not Bellarmine learned so much Logicke as not to foist into the conclusion that which is not contained in the premisses the word true is not coÌ„tained in the premisses and therefore sophistically thrust into the conclusion For Antichrist may sit in the church although not in the true Church Generally the Church of Christ signifieth the company of Christians that is of those that professe the name of Christ. But as of Christians some are onely in title and profession some indeed in truth so of Churches some are onely in title and profession Churches of Christ others are his true Churches Now Antichrist he was to be an Apostata and the head of the Catholike apostasie therfore the church whereof Antichrist is the head although it be in title and profession a church of Christ as being a company of them that are christened and professe the name of Christ yet it is but an apostaticall church a church which of a faithfull Citie is become an harlot and of the true Church of God the whore of Babylon But may not this absurditie rather be returned vpon the Papists who by the templeof God 2. Thess. 2. 4. vnderstand that temple which Antichrist shall build at Ierusalem Antichrist shall sit in the temple of God saith the Apostle Antichrist shal sit in that temple which himselfe shall build at Ierusalem saith the Papist therefore that temple which he shall build at Ierusalem shall be indeed the temple of God Whereas in truth according to their owne conceits it were rather to be called the temple of the diuell If any man obiect that it might after a sort be called the temple of God because the temple of God did stand there and because Antichrist will pretend to make it to the honor of God wherevnto the former temple was erected I answere by the like reason the church of Rome
may be called the church of God bicause once it was a true church and stil is in title professiō the church ofChrist although in truth it be but little more the church of Christ then Antichrists imaginary temple at Ierusalem would be the temple of God 5 His second syllogisme which is inferred vpon the former is this If the Pope sit in the true Church of God then the church of Rome is the onely true Church for the Church of Christ is one as Christ is one but the Pope sitteth in the true church of God as was proued in the former syllogisme therefore the church of Rome is the onely true church of Christ. First I answere to the proofe of his proposition The Catholike inuisible Church of Christ is one sheepfolde vnder one shepheard Christ but particular visible churches are more then one as the church of Corinth the church of Rome the seuen churches in the Apocalyps and all the Churches of the Gentiles mentioned Rom. 16. 4. and therefore the church of Rome although it were a true visible church yet were it but a particular church and therefore not the onely true church But now the church of Rome is not a true visible church of Christ but the whore of Babylon an adulterous and Idolatrous and Apostaticall church which once was Rome as Petrarch saith now Babylon once Bethel now Bethauen once the Church of Christ now the synagogue of Antichrist as hath bene proued And therefore there being no truth either in the proposition or the assumption I answere the proposition by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although the Pope did sit in the true church yet it followeth not that therefore the church of Rome is the onely true Church and the assumption by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Pope doth not sit in the true church and therefore there is no shewe of reason in this cauill 6 His third syllogisme is inferred vpon the second If the Church of Rome be the onely true Church then those which are not members of this Church whereof the Pope is head as namely the Protestants are out of the Church But now say I the church of Rome is so farre from being the onely true church as that it is that Babylon Apoc. 18. 4. from which we are commaunded to seperate if wee will bee saued there being no saluation in that Church for those that receiue and retaine the marke of the beast Apoc. 14. 9. therefore this also is a fond and sophisticall cauill Notwithstanding as the adulterous and apostaticall state of Israel vnder Ieroboam and Achab so the Church of Rome vnder the Pope may be called the church of God in respect both of some notes and signes of a visible Church as the administration of some sacraments and profession of the name of the Lord and also of some reliques and remainder as it were the gleanings of the inuisible Church In Israell although an Apostaticall and Idolatrous state the sacrament of circumcision was retained so in the church of Rome the sacrament of baptisme The church of Israel professed Iehouah to be their God although they worshipped him Idolatrously so the church of Rome professeth the name of Christ but exceedeth Israel in Idolatry In Israel euen vnder Achab the Lord had reserued 7000. who neuer bowed their knee to Baal and so we doubt not but that in the corruptest times of Popery the Lord hath reserued some who haue not receiued the marke of the beast And as the church of Sardis was still called the church of Christ although greeuously fallen from Christ because they still professed the name of Christ and retained no doubt the Sacrament of Baptisme and had among them some fewe names that had not defiled themselues so I confesse with Caluin that the church of Rome may be called a church of Christ both in respect of some vestigia and outward notes of a visible church as administration of Baptisme and profession of the name of Christ and some secret reliques of the inuisible church which haue not bowed their knees to Apo. 20. 4 Baal But that which is saide to the church of Sardis may most iustly be avowed to the church of Rome Thou hast a name that thou liuest but indeed art dead thou professest Apoc. 3. 1. thy selfe to be the church of Christ but art the synagogue of Antichrist thou art called the church of Rome which once was famous for her saith but art the whore of Babylon the Apo. 3. 4. mother of all the fornications and abhominations in the christian world 7 Heere Bellarmine obiecteth two things If there remaine in the church of Rome but ruines and reliques of a true church then the church may be ruinated and the truth hath lyed who saith that the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile against it Ans. The Catholike and inuisible church of Christ which is the whole company of the elect can neuer faile But visible and particular churches which consist of hypocrites many times and vnsounde christians which are in the visible church but are not of the inuisible as the greater part may faile and fall away although not one sound christian that 1. Ioh. 2. 19. is of the inuisible church doth fall away As the lamentable experience of the church of Israel seuered from Iuda the examples of Corinth Ephesus and many other famous Churches which were planted by the Apostles Againe saith Bellarmine If the Church be ruinated and the ruines remaine in Poperie then the Papists haue the Church although decayed and ruinated but the Protestants haue no Church not entyre for the entyre Church is ruinated not ruinated or decayed for the ruines are among the Papists What haue they then a new building which because it is new is none of Christs and therefore who seeth not that it is safer to liue in the church decayed then in no church at all But in this cauill there is not so much as any shew of reason vnlesse he take that for graunted which we do most confidently denie and they are neuer able to proue that the church of Rome not onely is the true church of Christ but also the onely true church For otherwise the church of Rome may fall and yet the Catholike church of Christ may stand yea shall stand maugre the force of Antichrist and malice of Sathan himselfe And as for the church of the Protestants it is no new building as Antichrist vaunteth but is a part of the Catholike church of Christ reformed and renewed according to the word of God and the example of the primitiue church euen as the Church of Iuda vnder Iosias was no new building but the olde frame as it was vnder Dauid renewed and reformed according to the lawe of God 8 The exceptions which he taketh against our arguments concluding that Rome is the seate of Antichrist I haue for the Lib. 1. cap. 2. most part taken away before It shall suffice therefore
writings before to be the scriptures Why then Ierome saith so vpon Daniel 11. 24. where Daniel speaketh of Antiochus his dealings in Egypt that he did that which his forefathers neuer did Nullus Iudaeorum absque Antichristo in tot◅ vnquam or be regnauit These be Bellarmines scriptures But where do the scriptures indeede say that Antichrist shall subdue seuen of the tenne Kings Nay the contrary may rather bee gathered out of the scriptures The tenne hornes whereof Daniel speaketh were tenne Kings which successiuely raigned ouer Iudaea as hath bene shewed And although Antiochus Epiphanes might helpe away three of his next predecessors yet hee could not hurt the other sixe for there were but nine besides himselfe which were all dead and gone before he came to yeares Yea but this opinion of the Fathers is plainely enough deduced out of Apoc. 17. 12. where we reade and the tenne hornes which thou sawest are tenne Kings these haue one minde and they shall giue their power and authoritie to the beast No maruell though some of the Papists call the scripture a nose of waxe seeing they can frame and fashion it at their pleasure and giue vnto it what sense they list Doth Iohn speake of Antichrist his either killing three or subduing seuen Or doth Iohn speake of the same tenne hornes wherof Daniel doth Daniel speaketh of tenne Kings which were to bee dead and gone before the comming of the Messias Iohn speaketh of such as in his time had not yet attained to their kingdome verse 12. Daniel speaketh of tenne Kings of the Seleucidae and Lagidae which succeeded one an other Iohn of tenne Kings among whom the Romane Empire was to be diuided who also were to haue their kingdome together with the beast Daniel telleth vs what the little horne which was one of the tenne should doo to three of the other nine without mention of the rest Iohn sheweth what all the tenne hornes should doo to Antichrist which is none of the tenne hornes but one of the heades of the beast If therefore Bellarmine can proue from hence that these are the same tenne hornes spoken of in Daniel and that Antichrist shall kill three of them subdue the other seuen he may hope to proue any thing But what other scriptures hath hee forsooth Chrysostome and Cyrill For Chrysostome on 2. Thess. 2. saith that Antichrist shall bee a Monarch and shall succeede the Romanes in the Monarchy as the Romanes succeeded the Greekes the Greekes succeeded the Persians and they the Assyrians And Cyrill saith that Antichrist shall obtaine the Monarchy Catech. 15 which was the Romanes I answere that for substance these Fathers held the truth For what Monarch hath there bene in the West these fiue or sixe hundred yeares besides the Pope who calleth himselfe King of Kings and Lorde of Lords to whom all power is giuen in heauen and in earth who hath as they say the double Monarchy both of spirituall and temporal power who forsooth is Lord of the whole earth in so much that he taketh vpon him authoritie to dispose of the new found world And that he succedeth the Emperors in the Alexand. 6. gouernment of Rome as it becommeth Antichrist who is the second beast Apoc. 13. and the 7. head of the beast Apoc. 17. whereof the Emperour was the sixt I shall not neede to proue 15 There remaineth the fourth argument Antichrist shall persecute with an innumerable army the Christians throughout the world and this is the battell of God and Magog but this agreeth not to the Pope therefore the Pope is not Antichrist I answere to the proposition that no such thing can be proued out of the scripture Hee alledgeth Ezech. 38. 39. Apoc. 20. 7. 8. 9. 10. But Ezechiel speaketh not of Antichrist nor of the persecution of the Christian Church by him But hauing foretold chapter 37. the restitution of the Iewes from the Babylonian captiuitie and also prophesied of the comming of Christ in those chapters hee foretelleth of the afflictions and troubles which the people of the Iewes should sustaine in the meane time to wit after their returne out of captiuitie before the comming of the Messias and withall denounceth the iudgemēts of God against the Seleucidae who were the kings of Syria and Asia minor and their adherents who should be the chiefe enemies of the church and people of the Iewes after their returne For Gog signifieth Asia minor hauing that name from Gyges the King thereof Magog is Hierapolis the chiefe seate of Idolatry in Syria built by the Scythians and frō them hath that name So that by the land of Magog wee are to vnderstand Syria and by Gog Asia minor And the rest of the peoples that Plin. lib. 5. cap. 23. are named in Ezechiel were such as assisted the Seleucidae who were the kings of Syria and Asia minor in their warres either as their subiects or as their friends or as their mercenary souldiers And for as much as the princes and people of Syria and Asia minor were the most grieuous enemies of the Iewes by Ad Tremell Iun. in Ezech 38. 39. whom they sustained the chiefest calamities after their returne before the comming of Christ therefore by an vsuall speech in the Iewish language the mortall and deadly enemies of the church are called Gog and Magog And in this sense Iohn the Diuine vseth these names Gog and Magog to signifie the enemies of the church meaning not the same enemies whereof Ezechiel speaketh but the like enemies of the Church which should afflict the true Christians as Gog and Magog afflicted the Iewes Neither doth Iohn in this place speake of the persecution of Antichrist properly but of Sathan after he was loosed his inciting the enemies of the Church to battell and of Gods iudgements against them signified by fire And so much shall suffice to haue answered to this argument For after so long a Treatise I will not trouble the Reader with the tenne seuerall opinions which Bellarmine reciteth cōcerning Gog and Magog neither yet with any further answere to his cauillations and exceptions against some of the arguments of diuers Protestants which he thought were more easie to answere seeing in the former booke I haue sufficiently cleared those arguments whereby the Pope is more euidently proued to be Antichrist neither is the controuersie betwixt vs whether euery argument that hath bene produced by euery one doth necessarily conclude the Pope to be Antichrist That discourse therefore being rather personall then reall I let it passe Chap. 17. Being the conclusion of the whole Treatise HAuing therefore both by sufficient arguments manifestly proued that the Pope is 1. Antichrist and by euidence of truth maintained the same assertion against the arguments of the Papists let vs now consider in the last place what conclusions may vpon this doctrine be necessarily inferred for our further vse For first if this be true that the Pope is Antichrist as
foretold do now come to passe The king of pride meaning Antichrist is at hand and that which is horrible to be spoken an army of priests is prepared for him Whereby he would also insinuate that he should be the prince of priests Now this is a principle in the church of Rome that the Pope especially such a Pope as Gregory the great speaking definitâ—…uelie and confidentlie can not erre And if this be true as they may not deny the Pope being the foundation of all their trueth then must they needs confesse that Antichrist was come almost a thousand yeers since and that the Pope their prince of priests who not onely succeedeth Iohn of Constantinople in that Antichristian title but also farre exceedeth him in all Antichristian pride challenging a soueraigne and vniuersall authority not onely aboue all other Bishops and priests but also aboue all kings and Emperours is that Antichrist 5 To this testimony of Gregory I might adde diuerse other witnesses But my purpose is not to draw mine arguments from the writings and as it were the cisternes of men who liued before the reuelation of Antichrist and therefore except themselues had bene prophets could not fully expound these prophecies but from the pure fountaines of holy scriptures expounded by the history and euent the best interpreters of prophecies For as Daniell saith of the like or rather as the Papists say of these same Dan. 129. prophecies concerning Antichrist The words are closed vp and sealed vntill the appointed tyme. And accordingly was it said by Augustine prophetias citiùs impleri quà m intelligt that prophecies are fulfilled sooner then vnderstood and by Irenaeus whome Bellarmine also alleadgeth to the same purpose omnes prophetiae Lib. 〈◊〉 aduers. haeres c. 43. Bell. de pont R. lib. 3 c. 10. saith he priusquam habeaÌ„t efficaciam aemgmata sunt ambiguitas hominibus All prophecies before they haue their complement are vnto men darke and doubtfull speeches And therefore speaking of some part of the prophecies concerning Antichrist hee Apoc. 13. saith Certius sine periculo est sustinere adimplet ionem prophetiae quà m suspicari c It is more sure and safe to wait for the fulfilling of the prophecie then before hand to deliuer vncertaine ghesses Lib. 5. advers hares pag. antepenult Omitting therefore the vncertaine coniectures of men for such are diuerse opinions of the fathers concerning Antichrist as Bellarmine confesseth of some from the sacred scriptures the Lib. 3. de pont R. c. 10. vndoubted oracles of God I frame this demonstration 6 Vnto whomesoeuer the prophecies of holy scripture describing Antichrist the head of the Antichristian body doe wholy and onely agree hee is that graund Antichrist who is foretold in the scriptures Vnto the Pope of Rome the prophecies of holy scripture concerning Antichrist the head of the Antichristian body do wholy and onely agree therefore the Pope of Rome is that graund Antichrist which is foretold in the scriptures The proposition I take for graunted For seeing the holy ghost hath of purpose in diuerse places of the scripture taken vpon him fully and sufficiently to describe Antichrist and that to this end that he might bee knowne we neede not doubt but that this description of Antichrist is so perfect and so proper vnto him as to whome that description agreeth not he is not Antichrist contrarywise whom it wholy and onely fitteth hee must be held and acknowledged to be that Antichrist All the controuersie therefore is concerning the assumption namely whether the descriptions of Antichrist in the scriptures agree to the Pope or not Antichrist is described by the holy ghost especially in three places viz. in the second chapter of the second epistle to the Thessalonians in the thirteenth of the Reuelation from the eleuenth verse to the end and in the seuenteenth chapter of the same booke For I omitte those places in the prophecie of Daniel which vsually are alleaged because they speake properly of Antiochus Epiphanes Chap. 7. 8. 11. 12. who was but a type of Antichrist as Bellarmine also confesseth and the ninth of the Apocalypse because it is by some expounded Lib. 3. de pont R. c 18. 21. of the Turks 7 And that the description of Antichrist in the scriptures fitly agreeth to the Pope it appeareth by this induction For whereas all the arguments and notes whereby Antichrist is described in the scriptures may be reduced to these heads to wit the place or seat where we are to find him the time when we were to looke for him his condition and qualities that he is an aduersary opposed vnto Christ in aemulation of like honour a man of sinne in generall and more particularly an horrible Idolatour his actions and passions that is such things as he shall either do or suffer I will make it euident by the helpe of God whose all-seeing spirit I humbly beseech to guide me into the truth that all and euery one of them doe so fitly and properly agree to the Pope of Rome that in the descriptions of Antichrist in the scripture the Pope may behold himselfe as it were in a glasse Chap. 2. Of the place or seate of Antichrist 1. ANd first as touching the place or seate of Antichrist I reason thus Mysticall Babylon spoken of in the seuenteenth and eighteenth of the Apocalypse is the seat of Antichrist Rome is Mysticall Babylon spoken of in the seuenteenth and eighteenth of the Apocalypse Therefore Rome is the seat of Antichrist As touching the proposition you are to vnderstand that Babylon in the scriptures is taken sometimes literally and sometimes mystically literally for Babylon either in Chaldaea or in Egypt Babylon in Chaldaea was the Metropolis or imperiall city of the Babylonian and Assyrian Monarchy Babylon in AEgypt is called Babylis and Cayrus of which some vnderstand the Apostle Peter to speake 1. Epist. 5. 13. Babylon mysticall in the Apocalypse is the seat or chiefe city of Antichrist resembling the 1. Pet. 5. 13. Apoc. 17. 5. Assyrian Babylon in pride idolatry filthinesse and especiallie in most cruell persecution of the church of God And for the same causes Apoc. 11. 8. is called spiritually Sodom and Egypt Sodom Ap. 11. 8. for pride and filthinesse Egypt for idolatrie and for cruelty towards the Israel of God And as the church of Christ in the Apocalypse is called Ierusalem mysticallie or the holy city so the church especially the Metropolis or chiefe city of Antichrist is mysticallie called Babylon This as it is the receiued opinion of the faithfull so may it euidently be gathered out of the seuenteenth and eighteenth of Apocalypse which without all doubt are prophecies concerning Antichrist and the Antichristian city and seat as the Papists themselues often confesse Bellarm. lib. 3. de Pâ—…t R. c. 2. Sander demonstr 13. 18. c 2 For that which the Papists sometimes obiect That by Babylon is
meant not any one city or company but the vniuersall company of the reprobate it is vnworthy the answering And the argument which our Rhemists bring to proue their assertion is without sence to wit in their annotation vpon Apoc. 18. 21. where the Angell throwing a great stone into the Sea saith with such violence shall that great city Babylon be throwne and bee found no more By this say they it seemeth cleere that the Apostle meaneth not any one city but the vniuersall company of the reprobate which shall perish in the day of iudgement But I answere that the destruction of the vniuersall company of the reprobate in the day of Iudgement is described afterward chap. 20. 11. And this destruction as appeareth plainely by the circumstances of the text especially in the ninth verse and those which follow vnto the eighteenth shall be before the day of Iudgement and therefore is not the destruction of the vniuersall company of the wicked For if the vniuersall destruction of the wicked were here signified then none of the wicked should â—…uruiue after this destruction to lament the same as there shall vers 9. 10. 17. And that the vniuersall societie of the wicked is not meant by Babylon euidently appeareth by the whole discourse chapters 17. and 18 where the holy ghost speaketh of a city ruling ouer the princes of the earth situated vpon seauen hilles sitting vpon many waters that is ruling ouer many people nations and languages with whome all princes and inhabitants of the earth haue committed fonication whose destruction is bewailed of all sorts of the wicked none of which people or princes or wicked ones that mourne for her should be of the vniuersall company of the reprobate as vndoubtedly they are if Babylon signified the whole number of the wicked And whereas they alleadge Ierem. 52 where onely the history of the Babylonian captiuity is recorded to prooue that Babylon signifieth the whole number of Gods enemies it argueth that they haue not so much as any shewe of reason to obiect against the truth of this proposition namely that mysticall Babylon is the seat or as they speake the See of Antichrist Seeâ—… 18. and therefore from henceforth vntill something further be obiected I will take it for graunted 3. But let vs come to the assumption viz that Rome is mysticall Babylon which I will proue by three arguments First because the description of Babylon and of the whore of Babylon set downe by the holy Ghost Apoc. 17. agreeth in all points to Rome and the Romane state But most plainely in these two First that the whore of Babylon is that great citie which in the Apostles time had the kingdome ouer the Apoc. 17. 8. Kings of the earth And secondly that this citie is situated on 7. hilles which two notes most properly describe Rome Apoc. 17. 9. And so Propertius describeth it Septem vrbs alta iugis toti quae praesidet orbi That is the citie Eleg. 10. lib. 3. mounted on 7. hilles ouer-ruling the whole world That Rome was the Imperiall citie of the world and the Metropolis of the Romane Monarchy it is out of Question neither is there any of our aduersaries either so ignoraÌ„t oâ—…so shameles as to deny it ProÌ„ heÌ„ce therfore I reason thus That citie which in th'apostles time had dominion ouer the Kings of the earth is the whore of Babylon Rome is that citie which in th'apostles time and since also vnder the Pope had the dominioÌ„ ouer the kings of the earth therefore Rome is the whore of Babylon And that Rome also Georgic 2. in fine was situated on 7. hils it is most manifest Of her Virgiâ—… saith Scilicet rerum facta est pulcherrima Roma Septem quae vna sibi muro circumdedit arces Varro speaking of a festiuall day which amoÌ„g the Romanes Lib 5. de ling. laâ—… was called Septimontium he saith it was so called ab his 7. moÌ„tibus in quibus vrbs sit a est that is of the 7. hilles whereon the citie was situated And Plutarch vpon the same occasion calleth Problem Rom. Romae instâ—… lib. 1 num 65. Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Septicollem that is Seuen hilled Blondus saith Montes in vrbe septem numerantur The hilles within the citie are seuen in number and the names of these 7. hilles are commonly knowne vsually named in Romane authors viz Palatinus Capitolinus Qutrinalis Coelius Esquilinus Viminalis Auentinus 4. Yea but say our English Rhemists The Angel himselfe In Apo. 17. 9. here 〈◊〉 â—…eth these 7. hilles to be allone with the 7. heads and the 7. kings And yet the hereticks take them literally for 7. hilles whereas the number of 7. is mysticall signifying vniuersally all of that sort And they might marke that the Propets visions here are most by seuen whether he talke of heads hornes which notwithstanding are not 7. but 10. candelsticks churches kings hilles For answere whereunto we must know that the beast wheron the whore of Babylon sitteth is generally the Empire of Rome but more specially vrbs Romae the citie of Rome which was the imperiall and is the papall seate This beast is said to haue 7. heads which the holy Ghost expoundeth two waies 7. capita vrbis the 7. heads of the citie are 7. hilles the 7. heads of the Empire or people subiect to Rome which also are compared to waters whereon the whore sitteth are 7. kings Apo. 17. 1. 15. that is seuen seuerall regiments or heads of gouerment for so the holy Ghost elsewhere calleth them wherby the Empire or Dan. 8. 21. people of Rome hath at diuers times beene gouerned to wit Kings which also were seuen Consuls Decemuirs Tribunes not tribuni plebis but tribunt militum consulari potestate Dictators Emperours and Popes Now the Apostle doth not say the seuen heads are seuen hilles and the seuen hilles are seuen Kings but the 7. heads are seuen hilles and they namly seuen heads are also seuen kings as Bellarmine also acknowledgeth For this interpretation which they giue to Lib. 3. de pont Rom. cap. 5. the Angel First is inconuenient For heads doe more fitly resemble kings which are the heads of the body politicke then hilles doe And secondly false for if the hilles be kings then the citie which is the woman vers 18. sitteth vpon the seuen kings for she sitteth on the hilles vers 9. Neither is this interpretation of seuen heads that they be seuen hils any interpretatioÌ„ Apoc. 17. 9. 18. at all except we vnderstand hilles properly Moreouer both the hilles and kings are said to be seuen not because 7. is a mysticall number signifying all the kingdomes of persecutours but because they are 7. indeed Which also may be said of the 7. candlesticks 7. Churches Apoc. 1. 2. 3. which they bring for an instance Of the hilles there is no questioÌ„ and it is as true of the Kings
of them Apoc. 17. 13. with one consent wholie deuoted to the Pope and sworne vnto him To whome for a time they giue ouer themselues and their whole power to helpe and support the beast thinking themselues bound as hee hath perswaded them to exercise their temporall sword that is their ciuill power for the De maiorit c. unam sanctam church meaning himselfe and at his beck and commandement And being ioyned to him vnited one with another by holy leagues as they call them make holy warres forsooth against Apoc. 17. 13. 14. Christ the lambe in his true members But when as Christ shall begin to consume Antichrist with the preaching of his worde as he is sure to ouercome because he is the Lord of Lords then these ten hornes which before had ioyned with Antichrist and had committed spirituall fornication with the whore shall begin to hate the whore and to leaue her desolate and naked Which cannot be vnderstood of old Rome but of Apoc. 17. 2. that which now is wherof this Prophecy already is in part fulfilled For since the reuelatiō of Antichrist in these latter times the Pope hath lost as Bellarmine cōplaineth magnā Germaniae partem Suetiam Gothiam Noruegiam Daniā vniuersam bonā Lib. 3. de pont R. cap. 21. Angliae Galliae Heluetiae Poloniae Boemiae ac Pānoniae partem that is a great part of Germany al Sueuia Gothland Norway Denmarke a good part of England but he might as well haue said all England and thereunto added Scotland and Ireland a good part of Fraunce Heluetia Polonia Boemia Pannonie So that diuerse of these 10. Kings haue already forsaken the whore of Babylon and haue bereaued her of a great part of her maintenance and left her as much as in them lieth naked the rest in Gods good time will accomplish his will 12. Seuenthly It is apparāt that Iohn his treatise of Rome 7. extendeth vntill the destruction thereof If therfore by Babylon Apo. 17. 18. is meant only heathenish Rome vnder the persecuting Emperours then the destruction which the holy Ghost denounceth against the whore of Babylon did befall Rome whiles it was heathenish But it is absurde to say that this destruction befell heathenish Rome For first this destruction is an vtter finall destruction Apocal. 18. 21. 22. 23. And before this destruction the Empire was to be diuided into ten kingdomes which first should ioyne with Antichrist and afterward oppugne him Which is vtterly false of Rome heathenish but yet is begunne to bee fulfilled of Rome Popishe and will in due time be accomplished And againe it is most plaine that Iohn 8. intreateth of the state and conditiō of Rome as it shal be in the time of Antichrist But Antichrist as the Papists themselues confesse was not to come whiles Rome was heathenish but after the dissolution of the Romane Empire And lastly Hierome and other of the fathers in whose times Rome was not Heathenish doe notwithstanding call it Babylon Not that 9. then it was or had beene before but because it should be according to the Prophecies of the holy Ghost the seat of Antichrist whose comming he and other of the fathers supposed not to be farre of and therefore Hierome in his Epistle to Marcella vseth this argument as the principall to perswade her to come from Rome which then was not Heathenish because it is Babylon 13. These arguments might suffice to proue that not Rome Heathenish vnder the Emperours but Rome Christened vnder the Popes is mysticall Babylon the chiefe citie and See of Antichrist But yet for better euidence of this trueth and for the clearer manifestation of Antichrist I will further proue vnto you that Rome Christened and professing her selfe to be the Church of Christ is the seate of Antichrist For if Antichrist shall sitte at all in Rome then shall hee sitte in Rome Christened professing her selfe to bee the Church of Christ. But he shall sitte in Rome as hath beene proued in parte and shall further bee cleared therefore in Rome christned and professing her selfe to be the Church of God The proposition is built vpon this foundation that Antichrist shall sitte in the Churche of God and therefore if Antichrist shall sitte at Rome he shall sitte in Rome professing her selfe the Church of God Now then that Antichrist shall sitte in the Church of God I proue by the testimonie of Saint Paule affirming 2. Thessal 2. 4. that Antichrist shall sitte in the temple 2. Thess. 2. 4. of God But because the Papistes labour by might and maine to extort this place from vs as seruing rather to proue their conceipt that Antichrist shall sitte in the temple of God at Ierusalem I will therefore deliuer the place from their corruptions and also make good our interpretation For first the temple at Ierusalem and citie it selfe as it was a type of the church of Christ so when the church of Christ was once planted by the preaching of the gospell throughout the worlde it was vtterly and finally to be abolished according to the Prophecie of our Sauiour Christ Mat. 24. 14. And then shal be the end namely of the temple and citie of Ierusalem For after the tēple was once vtterly destroied by Titus Vespasian as Christ Mat. 24. 2. had foreshewed it is neuer to be reedified For as Daniel saith according to the vulgar translation which with the Papists is the onely authentike Text of Scripture Chap. 9. 27. Et erit Dan. 9. 27. in templo abominatio desolationis vsque ad consummationem finem perseuerabit desolatio And there shal be in the temple the abomination of desolation and vnto the consummation and end the desolation shall continue or as Hierome speaketh In Dan. 9. more plainely Vsque ad consummationem finem mundi perseuerabit desolatio The desolatiō shall cōtinue vnto the cōsummation and end of the world Our Sauiour Christ also Luo. 21. 22. 24. foretold that Ierusalem being destroied by the Luc. 21. 22. 24. Romanes should be troden vnder foote by the Gentiles vntill the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled that is vntill the second comming of Christ which in the next wordes is described Wherefore when as Iulian the Apostata endeuoured by the Iewes to reedifie the temple that hee might conuince the preaching of Christ of falshood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 3. cap. 20. Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 20. Sozom. lib. 5. cap. vlt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Theodoret speaketh which hee could not doe vnlesse Christ had taught that it should not be reedified Our Sauiour Christ by fire first from heauen and after out of the earth and by a feareful earthquake hindered this enterprise thereby approuing his godhead and shewing that he was not pleased as Sozomen saith with the renewing of the temple It seemeth also to haue bene the iudgement of Cyrill with many others in the primitiue church
that by the Popes means For when as Leo the third called Isaurus Emperour of Greece had held a coūcel at Constantinople of 330. Bishops wherein was decreed that all images within the Empire should be destroied burnt and afterwards put the same decree in executiō the Popes of Rome first Gregory the 2. and after Gregory the 3. excōmunicate him forbidtributes to be paid him out of Italy and Rome absolue his subiects from their allegiance vnto him and hauing stirred vp not onely the Italians but Lombards also against him the exarch of Rauenna is slaine and the Emperour depriued of all his dominion reuenewes in Italy and Rome So that howsoeuer the Empire in the East stood all this while yet according to the prophecie of th'apostle he which hindred the reuelation of Antichrist that is to say the Emperour of Rome was taken out of the way First by remouing to Cōstantinople frō Rome where Antichrist could not vsurpe that dominion and soueraintie whiles the Emperour had his seate there which afterwards he did Secondly because the Empire of the west which properly was the Empire of Rome was dissolued the Emperour of the East lost his title interest in Italy and Rome 5. Of the reuelation of Antichrist there be also two degrees The first of his raigning and shewing himselfe in his colours the secōd of his acknowledgemēt Of his raigning there be 2. degrees also The first whē he challēged supreame authority ouer the vniuersal church of Christ. Which he did when he vsurped the title of vniuersal or oecumenicall Bishop or head of the vniuersall Church which was done as we said about the yeare 607. About which time besides other prodigious sights Anno. 607. there appeared a terrible comet thē we hold that Antichrist to wit the head of the Antichristiā body was borne True it is that the seeds of Antichristianisme were sowē before his time euen frō th'apostles time the mystery of iniquity that is Antichristianisme was working although more couertly preparation was made towards the birth of the great Antichrist partly by heresies some declinatiōs in the church of Rome in religion from the purity of the primitiue church partly by the ambition of diuers of the Bishops of Rome who aduauncing themselues as Socrates saith beyond the limit of priesthood into forraine dominion contended to haue the primacy aboue Lib. 7. c. 11. all other churches and that is the chiefe scope of many of their Epistles decretall and to the same end forged a Canon of the councel of Nice when their ambition was curbed by other generall councels And lastly by the indulgence of deuout Emperours and Princes who haue by great deuotions and priuiledges aduaunced that church Notwithstanding wee hold that Antichrist was not reuealed vntill he shewed himselfe by vsurping an vniuersall dominion ouer the church of God 6. But notwithstanding this great title authority Antichrist was yet but in his nonage and vnder the gouernmēt not only of the Emperor but also for a time of the Emperors Lieftenant in Italy the Eparch of Rauenna by whom the election of the Pope made by the Clergie and people of Rome was of necessitie to bee ratified and confimed vntill Benedict Anno. 684. the 2 obtained this priuiledge frō the Emperour Constantine 4. called Pogonatus that the electiō of the Pope by the clergy and people of Rome should be good without the confirmatiō of the Emperour Vpō which priuiledge obteined the Pope began to care litle for the Emperour holding himselfe hencefoorth to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather as th'apostle speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Thess. 2. 8. without law subiect to the iudgemēt of no mā as they professe in diuers of their canons Not lōg after they began to aduāce thēselues both against aboue the Emperour Constātine the 1. suffereth the Emperour Iustmian to kisse his feet about the yeare of our Lord 710. Within three yeares after the same Anno. 710. Constantine setteth himselfe against the Emperour Philippicus Bardanes in defense of images as did his two successours Gregory the 2. and third against Leo Isaurus in the same quarel In whose three times that wee may know Rome to be the mother of spirituall fornications were helde three Councels at Rome wherein worshipping of images is approued and the oppugners there of excōmunicated And we must note that about this time saith the Author of the booke called Fasciculus temporum the Popes began aboue their woont to oppose themselues euen in temporall matters against the Emperours because of their vnsoundnesse in the faith for so he calleth their oppugning of images and to translate the Empire from nation to nation as time required As for Gregory the 2. he was the first which anouched himself supcriour to the Emperour who Anno. 723. also excommunicated Leo the 3. because he sought to abolish the idolatry of his time which they call worshipping of images But his successour Gregory the 3. not onely excommunicated the said Emperour for the same cause but also forbad any tributes or duties to be paide vnto him out of Italy Rome absolued his subiects frō their allegiance vnto him Wherupō Rome being then a Duchy with diuers other cities in Italy reuolting from the Emperour sware obediēce to the Pope Who Anno. 727. by the defection of the Italians and helpe of the Lombards dispossesseth the Emperour of all his reuenues in Italy consequently as the popish author of the booke called Fasciculus temporum saith totum regnum occidentis ab eo abstulit Hee tooke from him the whole kingdome of the West But when as the Lombards held the exarchat of Rauonna which the Pope intended to himself sought to rule ouer all Italy as the Gothes had done not exempting Rome or those other cities which had reuolted to the Pope first Gregory the 3. when Rome was besieged by Luitprendus vsed the friendship of Carolus Martellus Anno. 732. to free him from the siege Whereupon the Pope remoueth the tuition of the Church of Rome from the Emperour of Greece vnto Carolus Martellus the great Master of Fraunce to his sonne Pipinus after him Whom that the Pope might bind vnto him and finde a sufficient defence against his enimies hee namely Zacharias hauing as themselues testifie Caus. 15 quaest 6. c. alius deposed Childerick the King of Fraunce from his kingdome and absolued his subiectes from their allegiaunce because Anno. 750. forsooth he was too simple to rule maketh him namely Pipin King of Fraunce Who afterwards when his helpe was intreated by the Pope Steuen the third against Aistulphus the king of Lombards enforced the said King to yeeld vp the Anno. 754. exarchat of Rauenna and Pentapolis which hee gaue to the Pope This donation his sonne Charles the great confirmed and enlarged with a plentifull addition reseruing notwithstanding to himself the royalties of those
Anno. 1260. of that vniuersitie called the monks and priests the subiects of Antichrist One Lawrence also an Englishman master of Paris proued the Pope to be Antichrist the synagogue of Rome the great Anno. 1290. I. Fox BabyloÌ„ About the same time Maenardus Tyrolius in a publick edict calleth the Popes effeminate Antichrists And againe if they be not Antichrists I pray you what are they Auentin annal boior li. 7. Michael Cesenas principall of the gray fryers wrote against the pride tyranny and primacy of the Pope accusing him to be Anno. 1322. 1. Fox Antichrist and the church of Rome the whore of Babylon drunken with the bloud of Saints Hayabalus a fryer in the time of Clement the sixt preached and that as he saide by Anno. 1345. Henrie de Herford in Chronic. Catalog test 1. Fox commaundement from God that the church of Rome is the whore of Babylon and that the Pope with his Cardinalles is the very Antichrist Wilhâ—…lmus Occomensis as Auentine calleth him wrote a booke against Charles and Clement the sixte wherein he calleth the Pope Antichrist Auentin annal Boior li. 7. Briget whom the Papists worship as a canonized Saint calleth the Pope a murtherer of soules more cruell then Iudas Anno. 1370. more vniust then Pilate worse then Lucifer himselfe She prophecieth 1. Fox that the See of Rome shall bee throwne downe into the deepe like a milstone according to the prophecie of Saint Iohn Apocalypse 18. 21 About the same yeere Matthias Parifiensis a Bohemian writing a booke of Antichrist proueth that he is already come and noateth him to be the Pope Franciscus Petrarch in many places of his writings calleth Anno. 1374. the court of Rome the whore of Babylon the mother of the fornications and abominations of the earth Vrhanus the sixt and Clement the seauenth two Popes at once call one the other Antichrist As Bernard before had called Baldus de vit pontif Anacletus against whom Innocentius the second was chosen as Antipope That beast saith hee in the Apocalypse to Anno 1378. Anno. 1130. Epist. 125. whom is giuen a mouth speaking blasphemies to war with the Saints meaning Antichrist occupieth the chaire of Peter as a Lyon ready for the pray But most effectually doth our godly and learned countryman Iohn Wicleffe discouer the enormities and heresyes of the Anno. 1383. Bellar. de pont Rom. lib. 3. c. 1. Pope whom he pronounced to be Antichrist Artic. 30. His iudgement as in other things so also in this that worthy Martyr of Christ Iohn Husse followed Who affirmeth in his Anno. 1405. booke de ecclesia that hee was troubled because he preached Christ and discouered Antichrist That the Censures of the Romish church were Antichristian and proceeding froÌ„ Antichrist as Gerson the Parisians obiect against him Art 16 that in those times many ages before there had bin no true Pope nor true Romane church but the Popes were Antichrists the church of Rome the synagogue of Satan Whose iudgement many in Bohemia followed Sir Iohn Oldâ—…astell the Lord Anno 1413. 1. Foxe Cobham that famous noble martyr of Christ prosessed to K. Henry the 5. that by the Scriptures he knew the Pope to be the great Antichrist the son of perdition c. Hieronimus Sauanarola taught that the Pope is Antichrist because he did attribute Anno. 1500. 1. Foxe more to his owne indulgeÌ„ces pardoÌ„s then to Christs merits About the yeare of our Lord 1517. Luther began to preach against the Popes indulgences and afterwards against other Anno. 1517. errours and abominations of the Pope and church of Rome discouering more plainely then any had done before him that Rome is Babylon and the Pope Antichrist Since whose times this truth hath beene almost generally acknowledged by the true and reformed Churches of Christ. Seing therefore we haue proued that Antichrist was to sitte in Rome professing her selfe the church of God and that after the taking away of the Romane Emperour whom hee was to succeed in the gouernment of Rome and there to be reuealed both by his owne shewing himself in his colours also by the acknowledgement of others it cannot be auoided but that the Pope is Antichrist For he and none but he sitteth that is reigneth in Rome professing her selfe the church of God and that after the taking away of the Romane Emperour not onely by the remouing of the imperiall seat but also by the dissolutioÌ„ of the Empire in the West whom hee succeedeth in the gouernment of Rome where he hath bene reuealed not onely by his owne shewing himselfe in his colours but also by the acknowledgement of others 8. Vnto the former place of the Epistle to the Thessal we will adde two other places out of th'apocalyps from whence both the place and time of Antichrist may be iointly gathered The former place is in the 13. of th'apocalips where two beasts are described signifying two estates of the Romane gouernment 2. as they are opposed vnto Christ the former representeth the persecuting Emperours the latter Antichrist Of the former he saith thus I saw a beast arising out of 〈◊〉 sea that is of many diuers peoples which it had vanquished Now the description of this beast containeth in it the resemblances of those 4. kingdoms which are described in Daniel the Romane Empire farre surpassing theÌ„ al. The first of the beasts in Daniel signifying the kingdome of the Babylonians is coÌ„pared to a Lion The 2. resembling the kingdome of the Medes and Persians to a Beare The 3. representing the monarchy of the MacedoniaÌ„s to a Leopard The 4. figuring the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae to a beast with 10. hornes resembling so many of their kings who should tyrannize ouer Iewry The Empire of Rome therfore as if it were compounded of them all is resembled to a beast hauing ten hornes with so many diademes vpon them both in respect of the ten persecuting Emperors answering the 10. Seleucedae Lagidae as also in regard of the 10. kingdoms or prouinces wherinto the Romane Empire in those times was diuided being also like a Leopard hauing the feet or pawes as it were of a Beare the rauening mouth of a LioÌ„ And besides all this is said to haue seueÌ„ heads which afterwards chapt 17. are expounded to be 7. hilles also 7. heads of gouernmeÌ„t c. to this beast was giuen authority or power ouer euery tribe Verse 7. language and nation c. al which are proper to the Empire of Rome The former beast therefore signifieth the Romane state especially as it was vnder the persecuting Emperours as Bellarmine Lib. 3. de pont R. cap. 15. confesseth The second beast described vers 11. and so forward to the end of the chapter is as Bellarmine saith all men do confesse Antichrist who also is by the coÌ„fession of the said
Of Gregory they say thus in their praiers Hic nos saluet à peccatis vt in coelo cum beatis possimus quiescere That is Let him saue vs from our sinnes that in heauen wee may rest with the blessed Of Thomas Becket th'archbishop of Canterbury because he died in the Popes quarrell which like a rebell he maintained against his soueraigne king Henry the second they say full deuoutly Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro te impendit Fac nos Christe scandere quò Thomas ascendit That is By the blood of Thomas which he for thee did spend Make vs Christ to come whither Thomas did ascend Of Peter and Paule Concede vt amboâ—…uÌ„ meritis aeternitatis gloriam consequamur Graunt that by the meries of them Ex. Rom. Breuiar both we may obtaine eternall glory To Mary the blessed virgin whom they idolatrously cal our Ladie and the Queene of heauen they pray thus O vnica spes miserorum libera nos Ex compassionib Mariae ab omni malo O thou that art the onely hope of them that are in miserie deliuer vs from all euill And elsewhere they call her Desperatorum spem vnicam peccatorum salvatricem Innoc. in orat de 300. dier indulgent In orat de 5. vnbâ—…rib The onely hope of them which are in despaire and the Sauiour of sinners Againe Mediatrix Dei hominum salus spes in the sperantium O thou the mediatrix betwixt God and men the saluation and hope of them that hope in thee And somewhere it is said O regina poli mater gratissima proli Speâ—…ere me noli me commendo tibi soli O Queene of heauen mother most deare to thy sonne do not thou despise me vnto thee alone I coÌ„mend me And againe Cum nulla spes sit altera nisi tu virgo puerpera In missali Paristensi patris parens filia cui me reconcilia Seeing there is no other hope besides thee O virgin mother the mother and daughter of-thy father to whom I pray thee reconcile me And to conclude for innumerable such speeches might be produced they say O foelix puerpera nostra pians scelera Ibid. iure matris impera redemptori O happy mother which doest purge away our sins by thy motherly authority commaunde our redeemer So that sometimes they doe ioyne vnto our Sauiour Christ other mediatours not onely of intercession but also of redemption which indeede is presupposed in the former sometimes also they exclude our Sauiour Innocent in orat in laudem virginis Christ when as they say that Mary purgeth away the sins of all the faithfull and that she and no other is the onely hope of them that are in misery and despaire And not to speake of their blasphemous psalter wherein they turne that which is spoken in the Psalmes either of God or Christ to the virgin Mary some of them say that whereas the kingdome of Christ consisteth in two things iustice and mercie Christ reserueth iustice vnto himself mercie he hath giuen vp to his mother And therefore one saith A foro iustitiae Dei appellundum est ad Bernardinus in Marâ—…al forum misericordiae matris eius From the court of Gods iustice we must appeale to the court of his mothers mercy 10 As touching the kingdome of Christ what doth not the Pope oppugne in it The realme and kingdome of Christ is his church which he ruleth by his spirit inwardly and outwardly by his word which is both his scepter and his lawe and also by such officers and ministers as hee hath ordained both in the church and common wealth The church and people of God this sonne of perdition seeketh to destroy First by killing the bodies of the true seruants of Christ that refuse his marke in respect whereof hee may most worthilie bee called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or abaddon that is a destroyer his church the whore Apoc. 9. of Babylon which is drunke with the bloud of Saints and of the Martyrs of Iesus as shall be shewen in the second booke and seauenth chapter And as hee killeth the bodies of those that will not receiue his marke so hee murdereth the soules of them that submit theÌ„selues vnto him poysoning them with his damnable errours and making them drunke with the wine of his fornications after which they shall drinke of the cuppe of Apoc. 14. 9. Gods wrath Now in making hauocke of mens soules he taketh such liberty vnto him as that if he should draw with him innumerable soules into hell yet no man may say vnto him Domine cur ita facis Syr why do you so And in the Canon Si papa dist 40. it is sayd If the Pope do cary with him innumerable Glossâ—…iur caâ—… peoples by troupes into hell no man in this world may presume to reproue his fault because he is to iudge all and to be iudged of none vnlesse he be found to erre from the faith which the Pope as he is Pope cannot doe Hereunto Bellarmine aunswereth that the words of this Canon bee not the words of any Pope Cupers pag. 18. num 12. but of Boniface the Archbishop of Mentz Yea but say I the Lib. 3. de pont Rom. cap. 21. Pope hath so approued this speeche being deliuered by another as that hee hath canonized it and appointed it for one of the canons of his law Which is more then if it had bin spoken by himselfe But Bellarmine replyeth If this sentence of Boniface be not true why do you obiect it if it be true why do you not receiue it I aunswere because it being not onely false but blasphemous also and Antichristian is notwithstanding by the Pope authorized for a Canon in his lawe Moreouer one of the chiefe works of Gods spirit the spirit of adoption which is speciall faith apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ to our iustification hee laboureth to extinguish in the hearts of men calling it presumption acknowledging no other faith Iam. 2. but such as is common to the diuells which consisteth onely of knowledge and assent and yet not requiring that in the lay people whome vnder the name of implicite faith hee nuzleth in palpable ignorance and leadeth them beeing blind as Elizeus did the Aramites euen whether it pleaseth 2. King 6. him The pure wheat of Gods word hee suppresseth and keepeth from the people in an vnknowne tongue and see deth them with the mast of their Legends and festiualls and lyes I should haue sayd liues of Saints The lawes of Christ he partly dispenseth with and partly abrogateth making them of none effect by his owne constitutions and traditions In the church in steede of the offices and functions ordayned by Christ hee hath created a new priesthoode erected an hierarchy consecrated orders and religions of his owne In the common wealth hee absolueth the people from their obedience to their princes if they shal displease him And it is a
the scriptures And if the Hervaeus de potest Tap. e. R. Cupers Petrus de palude de potest Papae â—…t 4. church be aboue the Scriptures then much more is he For he not onely virtualiter est tota ecclesia that is virtually the whole church but also his power alone exceedeth the power of all the whole church besides Now that the authority of the church much more of the Pope who is superior to the church is aboue the scripture it is both generally affirmed by som particulars coÌ„firmed Cardinal Cusanus entitleth his book De authoritate ecclesia concilij supra coÌ„tra scripturaÌ„ Of the authority of the Church councell aboue against the Scripture Syluester Prierias master of the Popes pallace saith That indulgences are warranted vnto vs not by the authoritie of the Scripture Contra Lutheri conclusiones de potestate Papae but by the authoritie of the Church and Pope of Rome which is greater Boniface the Archbishop of Mentz saith That all men so reuerence the Apostolicke See of Rome that they rather desire the auncient institution of Christian religion from the Pope then from the holy Scriptures This saying the Pope hath so approued that he hath caused it to be inserted into the Dist. 40. c. si Papa Canon lawe The particulars which proue the Pope to aduaunce himselfe aboue the Scriptures are these 1 Because he hath as they say authoritie to adde to the Canonicall Scriptures other bookes that are not in the Canon And that those Dist. 19. c. si Romanorum Ioan. de turrecrem l. 〈◊〉 cap. 112. which be in the Canon haue their Canonicall authority from him In the 19. distinction cap. Si Romanorum Pope Nicolas not onely matcheth their decretall Epistles with the holy Scriptures but also affirmeth that the Scriptures are therefore to be receiued because the Pope hath iudged them canonicall Another saith Whosoeuer resteth not on the doctrine of the Romane church and Bishop of Rome as the infallible rule of God Syluester Prierias contra Lutherum à qua sacra scriptura robur trabis authoritatem From which the sacred Scripture draweth strength and authority hee is an Hereticke Eckius saith Scriptura nisiecclesiae authoritate non De ecclesia est authentica The Scripture is not authenticall but by the authority of the Church For I will not tell you how some of them haue not bene ashamed to say that the Scripture without the authoritie of the Church is of it selfe no better worth then AEsopes fables Pighius saith The authority of the church Vid. Chemnit exam part 1. pag. 47. is aboue the Scriptures because the authoritie of the Church hath giuen the Scriptures canonicall authority Secondly whereas the Scriptures are not the words and syllables but the true sence and meaning thereof They teach that the scriptures are to be vnderstood according to the interpretation of the Pope and Church of Rome and that sence which the Pope assigneth to the Scriptures must bee taken for the vndoubted word of God The Pope saith one hath authority so to expound Heruauâ—… de potestate Papae the scriptures that it is not lawful to hold or thinke the contrary A Cardinall of Rome saith If any man haue the interpretation of the church of Rome concerning any place of scripture although he neither know nor vnderstand whether and Cardinal Hosius de expresso dei verbo how it agreeth with the words of the scripture notwithstanding he hath ipsimum verbum Dei the very wordof God And if the sence which they giue be diuerse according to the variety of their practise and diuersitie of times we must acknowledge that the scripture is to follow the church and not the church to follow the scriptures Whereupon Cardinall Cusanus It is no Nicol. Cusanus ad Bohem. epist. 7. maruell saith he though the practise of the church expound the scriptures at one time one way and at another time another way For the vnderstanding or sence of the scripture runneth with the practise And that sence so agreeing with the practise is the quickning spirit And therefore the scriptures follow the church but contrarywise the church followeth not the scriptures And this is that which one who was no small foole in Rome auouched The Pope saith he may change the holy gospell and may Henricus Doctor magister sacri palatij Romae ad legatos â—…ohemicos sub Felice Papa 1447. giue to the gospell according to place and time another sence And to the same purpose was the speech of that blasphemous Cardinall that if any man did not beleeue that Christ is very God and man and the Pope thought the same he should not bee condemned To conclude therefore with Cardinall Cusanus This is the iudgement saith he of all them that thinke rightlie Cardinal s. Angeli ad cosdeâ—… legatos Bohemicos that found the authoritie and vnderstanding of the scriptures in the allowance of the church and not contrariwise lay the foundation of the church in the authority of the scriptures Ad Bohemos epist. 2. 11 Thirdly the Pope challengeth authority aboue the scriptures when he taketh vpon him to dispense with the word and law of God For whosoeuer taketh vpon him to dispense with the law of another challengeth greater authority then the others and it is a rule among themselues In praecepto superioris non debet dispensare inferior the inferiour may not dispense Antonin part 3. lit 22. cap. 6. §. 2. with the commaundement of the superiour That the Pope doth dispense with the lawes of God it is euident For scarcely is there any sinne forbidden there where with he doth not sometimes dispense nay whereof hee will not if it be for his aduantage make a meritorious worke Incest is an horrible sinne forbidden by the law of God and by the lawe of nature And yet there is no incest excepting that which is committed betwixt the parents and the children which hee hath not authority forsooth to dispense with for as they say hee may dispense against the law of nature The Pope dispensed with Henrie the eightth to marie his sister in law and 25. q. 6 authoritatem in glâ—…ss with Philip the late king of Spaine to mary his owne niece Pope Martin the fift dispensed with a certaine brother that Antonin sum 3. part tit 1. cap. 11. §. quod Papa sum angel diâ—…t Papa maried his owne sister And Clement the seauenth licensed Petrus Aluaraâ—…lus the spaniard for a summe of money to marie two sisters at once c. Disobedience to parents periury that is breaking of lawfull oathes rebellion against lawfull princes murdering of a sacred prince are condemned by the lawe of God as haynous offences But if children shall cast of their parents to enter into a Sodomiticall cloister if the Pope shall absolue the subiects from their oathes and forbidde them
Apoc. 13. 13. 14. of Antichrist that he should do great wonders whereby he should deceiue them that dwell on the earth Hereby therfore it is euident that false prophets and Antichrists many times haue power to worke great signes and wonders not onelie in shewe and appearāce but in deed and in truth Whereby they indeauouring to deceiue all and to make them belieue lies are permitted both in the iustice of God to seduce the wicked in his mercy to try the faithfull And therefore signes wonders as they haue not alwayes bin signes tokens of true teachers professors of the truth but onely then when they haue Miracles are diuine testimonies whereby the Lord doth beare witnesse to his truth Heb. 2. 4. bin wrought for the cōfirmation of the truth So in these later times the same being wrought for confirmation of vntruthes are vndoubted signes of the synagogue of Antichrist 4 Let vs then consider whether such signes and wonders be wrought in the church of Rome It is recorded of Gregory the 7. who was the first of the Popes which was openly acknowledged to be Antichrist that as he was a notable sorcerer so he wrought many signes and wonders among the rest he vsed to shake fire out of his sleeues And of his votaryes after he had forbidden mariage in the clergy Auentinus writeth that vpon that occasion many false prophets did as it were cast mists and by Annal. Boior lib. 4. fables and miracles did turne away the people of Christ from the truth And againe False prophets did then arise false Apostles false priests who by counterfeite religion deceiued the people lib. 5. wrought great signes and wonders and began to sit in the temple of God and to bee aduanced aboue all that is worshipped And while they endeuour to establish their owne power and dominion they haue extinguished Christian charity simplicity And since those times the church of Rome hath much boasted of her manifold miracles which haue beene partly deuised and partly wrought for the confirmation of such Antichristian doctrines idolatrous superstitions as cannot be cōfirmed by the scriptures as namely the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation and adoration of the breaden God the heathenish doctrine of purgatory and superstitious prayer for the dead the idolatrous inuocation and worshipping of Saints the more then heathenish adoration of images rotten reliques the Antichristian aduancing of the Pope aboue all that is called God or worshipped and such like doctrines of diuels lyes of Antichrist for the confirmation whereof the miracles of the Apostaticall church of Rome haue bin inuented But how many miracles soeuer they produce for the countenancing of such vntruthes they are so many arguments to proue their church Antichristian their Pope Antichrist Because as Antichrist and his followers were in these latter times to abound with signes wōders but alwayes such as serue to lead mē into error so neither Turks nor Iewes nor any other churches of Christians but only the Pope and church of Rome do vaunt of miracles and yet all their miracles are such as serue to deceiue men to make them beleeue vntruthes And therefore although they were in respect of their substāce neither counterfeit nor fabulous as in deed the most of the miracles in the church of Rome are yet were they to be esteemd as notes signes of false prophets Antichrists because their end is to seduce mē confirme lyes 5 Secondly they are called lying signes in respect of the substance being as Augustine speaketh vel figmenta mendacium De vnitat eccl 16. hominū vel portenta fallaciū spirituū either fictions of lying men or wonders of deceipt full spirits And such are the miracles whereby the aforesaide points of Poperie are warranted and confirmed And of them there are three degrees For many of them were such fabulous fictions ridiculous fables incredible lyes whereof their legends and festiualls are full as none would euer beleeue were they not intoxicated made drunk with the whore of Bylons cuppe of fornications and also giuen ouer of God to beleeue lyes And these loud lyes and more then poeticall fictions were in such request in the church of Rome that the records of them I meane their legends festiualls and such like fabulous treatises were both publickly and priuately read in the vulgar tongue whē as the holy scriptures were kept frō the people in an vnknown lāguage The 1. degree then is of such miracles as neuer were indeed nor yet in apparānce but in the opiniō only of men besotted giuen ouer to beleue incredible vntruths The 2. is of such as were phātastical in apparāce only as being crafty cōueiāces of deceitful men or iugling tricks of legerdemaine As for example the nodding or mouing the smiling or frowning the sweating or speaking of images the apparitiōs of souls deceased the manifold cures supposed to be wrought by saints departed or their images such like For of these two sorts there be innumerable wonders recorded in their legends and festiualls liues of Saints which are either altogether fabulous as beeing reports of things which neuer were not so much as in apparāce◅or if any such things haue bene done in the sight of men they haue bin either praestigiatory conueyances of wicked men or mere illusions of the diuell The third degree is of such as were lying miracles in respect of the forme as Bellarmine speaketh although true in respect of the matter For howsoeuer they were things truely done yet they surpassed not the whole strength of nature whereas true miracles are supernaturall neither can bee wrought by any naturall causes whether knowne or vnknown but onely by the omnipotent power of God And such lying signes are the principall miracles of the Apostaticall church of Rome Neither is the Pope and al his adherents able to produce any one true miracle wrought by the finger of God for the confirmation of those doctrines which are peculier to that church that is to speake more plainelie for the proofe of any point of popery But all their miracles as they are lying signes and wonders in respect of their ende so also in regard of their substance being either merely fabulous and therfore such things as neuer were not so much as in shewe and apparaunce or merely phantasticall that is such things as were in shewe onely and not in truth or merely natural and therefore but counterfeite miracles effected by the power of the diuell 6 Some of their owne writers confesse that sometimes there is great deceiuing of the people in fained miracles by the Nicol. Lyran. in Daniel 14. priests and their adherents for temporall gaine And another saith in the sacrament appeareth flesh sometimes by the conueyance of men sometimes by the operation of the diuell I once did Alexander de Hales see an image of Saint Nicolas as it was said when it with many others
aduantage which they seeme to haue in this controuersie For first the controuersie it selfe is of such consequence as that if our assertion be true then is all Popery ouerthrowne and all controuersies betwixt vs and them easily decided then are all Papists limmes of Antichrist and all their doctrines peculiar to them errours of Antichrist And if you respect their will you neede not doubt but that they being wholy deuoted vnto the Pope haue done their best endeuour to free their head and Lord from all imputation of Antichristianisme And for their skill they beeing men of great learning and much reading you may bee well assured that they haue scarcely omitted any thing which may be said in so waighty a cause And questionlesse they haue no small aduantage in this controuersie being to prooue the negatiue part For whereas we cannot prooue the affirmatiue but by the concurrence of those manifold properties and markes which the holy Ghost hath assigned vnto Antichrist they on the other side haue libertie to disprooue the same and to prooue the negatiue if they can but shew plainly euidently that any one seuerall and essentiall marke ascribed vnto Antichrist in the Scriptures dooth not agree to their Lord God the Pope For if the Scriptures foretell vs as touching the place that Antichrist shall haue his seat in Babylon that is Rome which being situated on seauen hils had in the Apostles time vnder the Emperour and since vnder the Pope dominion ouer the Kings of the earth and that in Rome professing her selfe the Church of God because it is said that Antichrist shall sitte in the Temple of God as concerning the time that he should sit in Rome after the remoouing and taking away of the Emperours whom hee was to succeed in the gouernement of Rome as hath beene shewed out of these places 2. Thes. 2. 7. 8. Apoc. 13. and 17. and in respect of his conditions and qualities that he should be for opposition an aduersary although a disguised enemy for pride and ambition aduancing himselfe aboue all that is called God for his other vices a man of sinne in generall and more specially an horrible idolatour in regard of his effects that he and his followers should be workers of signes and wonders in the sight of men that he should compell all sorts of men to receiue the marke or name of the beast or number of his name and lastly for that which he was to suster that Christ shall consume him with the breath of his mouth that is the Ministerie of the Gospell and that thereupon the ten hornes which first assisted him shall afterwards assault him It followeth therefore that vnto such as we affirme to be Antichrist all these notes are to be applied as we haue applied them all to the Pope of Rome whereas contrariwise the deniall of any one essentiall propertie is an argument sufficient to prooue the negatiue As for example if any man will â—…ake vpon him to prooue that the Turke is Antichrist because some of the markes seeme to fitte him he shall neuer bee able to prooue it because all the properties doe not agree vnto him For neither hath he his seat in Rome neither dooth he sit in the Church of God neither is he a couert and disguised but an open and professed enemie neither may he be matched with the true Antichrist either in aduancing himselfe aboue all that is called God or in idolatrie or in lying signes and wonders c. And from any of these we may reason thus Antichrist was to haue his seat in Rome which is mysticall Babylon the Turke hath not his seat there therefore he is not Antichrist Antichrist sitteth in the Church of God the Turke dooth noâ—… c. wherefore much more easie it were to prooue the negatiue if it were true then the affirmatiue If therefore the Papists hauing bent all their forces and imploied the vttermost of their skill to prooue that which were most easie to prooue if it were true shall notwithstanding be found vnable to produce any one sound and sufficient argument to cleare their Pope from Antichristianisme haue not we just cause to confirme our selues in that truth which before hath beene demonstrated viz. that the Pope is Antichrist 2. Let vs therefore consider their arguments and conceits whereupon their arguments are grounded not as they are propounded by the elder Papists which liued in the daies of our forefathers for their conceits concerning Antichrist were meere dotages but as they are deliuered by the refiners of Poperie the Jesuits and namely by Bellarmine whose bookes are as it were a shot whereunto many of them as it seemeth haue contributed Bellarmine therefore in his third booke De pontifice Romano reduceth all his arguments to nine heads 1. Concerning the name Antichrist 2. Concerning his person whether he be but one man or a state and succession of men 3. Concerning the time of his comming and death 4. Of his proper name 5. Of his nation followers 6 Of his seat 7. Of his doctrine and maners 8. Of his miracles 9. Of his reigne battels From all which he hopeth although in vaine to prooue that the Pope is not Antichrist 3. And first from the name he argueth thus Antichrist is hostis aemulus Christi that is such an enemy as is opposed vnto Christ in emulation of like honour The Pope is not an enemy nor opposed vnto Christ in emulation of like honour therefore the Pope is not Antichrist The proposition which we not onely graunt but also take to be the grouÌ„d of some of our proofes that he laboureth to prooue in that proofe spendeth almost the whole first chapter But the à ssumption wherein is all the controuersie betwixt vs and them that in a manner he See lib. 1. cap. 4. §. 1. taketh for graunted In both playing the part of a right sophister For which of our writers euer denied that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth hostem et aemulum Christi what though Musculus also saith that Antichrist Loc. Comm. cap. de potestate Ministrorum is he who being an enimy vnto Christ professeth himselfe to be his vicar and saith that the word may signifie so much yet he denieth not the former signification but retaineth the same with this addition That Antichrist is such as one as challengeth vnto himselfe the office and authoritie of Christ himselfe and being indeed an enemie a counter-Christ professeth himselfe to be the Vicar or Vicegerent of Christ vpon earth And this may be prooued by the signification of the name For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition commonly signifieth three things opposition equality substitution Opposition as in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equality as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 substitutioÌ„ as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Preconsul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Propraetor or Legatus Praetoris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the putting of one case for another and in this sense the sacraments
2. Thes. 2. 8. for although he should be wasted and consumed before by the spirit of Christs mouth that is the ministery of the word yet he should not be vtterly destroyed vntill the second comming of Christ. From hence therefore we reason thus If Antichrist were in the Apostles time and was to remaine vntill the second comming of Christ then Antichrist is not one singuler man but a succession of men vnlesse they will say that one and the same man may liue vpon the earth from the Apostles time vntill the comming of Christ of which time there be already aboue 1500. yeares expired But Antichrist was in the Apostles times and is to continue vntill the second comming of Christ as the two Apostles Paul and Iohn do plainely testifie therefore Antichrist is not one singuler man 10. Of this syllogisme Bellarmine cannot deny either the proposition or the assumption Onely he distinguisheth of the former part of the assumption viz. That Antichrist in the Apostles time was come indeede but not in his owne person but onely in his forerunners And this he would prooue first by a similitude which he might haue knowne from Plato to be a most slippery argument As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ came in the beginning of the world not in his owne person but in his forerunners the Patriarches and Prophets so Antichrist came in the Apostles time not in his owne person but in his forerunners the heretickes persecutors of the church In which similitude there is no proportiō vnlesse that which is in question betaken for granted namely that Antichrist is but one particular person as Christ is For if Antichrist be a succession of heretiques then might he be said to come in the first of the ranke although the chiefe of that order which principally is called Antichrist was not yet come And secondly the protasis or propositiō of this similitude is vntrue For although Christ might be said to be come from the beginning in respect both of the truth of the promise and also of the efficacy of his merits which is extended to all the faithfull from the beginning yet we neuer reade neither can it truely be said that he came in the Patriarches and Prophets especially seeing the holy Ghost maketh a kinde of opposition betwixt Heb. 1. 1. Mat. 21. 37 Gal. 4. 4. Gods sending of them and the comming of Christ who was not sent before the fulnesse of time came Neither are the Prophets or Patriarches any where called the forerunners of Christ For forerunners goe a little before as Iohn Baptist did who therefore is worthily called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the forerunner If any man obiect that as Christ 1. Pet. 3. 19 spake in the Prophets so Antichrist in the heretiques I answer that this latter is true not of Antichrist but of the diuell who is a lying spirit in the mouthes of all false Prophets Thirdly the reddition is contradictory to that which the Apostle Iohn deliuereth For he saith plainely that the Antichrist with the article prefiexed and that Antichrist whom they heard was to come was already entred into the world 1. Iohn 4. 3. 2. Iohn 7. and thence prooueth that therefore it is the last houre because Antichrist was to come in the last houre 1. Iohn 2. 18. So that in this similitude nothing is sound no proportion in the whole no truth in the parts 11. Wherefore by a new supply of arguments he laboureth to make good this exposition And as touching the place in Paul he argueth first from the authority of the fathers interpreters wherof some vnderstand by the mystery of iniquitie the persecution vnder Nero others the heretiques of those times which secretly seduced many The former had no reason to call the open persecution of Nero a mysterie who also although he were an enimy yet belonged not to the body of Antichrist who is a disguised enimy and a pretended Christian. The latter exposition we doe embrace For we holde Antichrist to be the whole body of heretiques in the last age of the world who vnder the name and profession of Christ aduance themselues against Christ first secretly as in the Apostles times afterwardes more openly when that which hindred was taken out of the way Of this body as euery member seuerally and all ioyntly is Antichrist and therefore Iohn calleth the heretiques of his time Antichrists and of them all saith that they are the Antichrist so especially the head of this body which we haue prooued to be the Papacy is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called Antichrist Wherefore although Antichrist was after a sort come and the mysterie of iniquity wrought in the Apostles time yet Antichrist was not reuealed vntill the head of this body appeared that is vntill the Pope became Antichrist who since the yeare of the Lord 606. hath shewed himselfe in his colours first by vsurping supreame authority ouer the vniuersall Church afterwards by claiming soueraignty ouer kings and Emperors as we haue heretofore shewed Seeing therfore the heretiques of whom the fathers speake did belong to the body of Antichrist it cannot be denied but that Antichrist when they were in the world was come in some of his members and had as it were set his foote into the Church 12. Secondly from our owne confession he would seeme to driue vs to great absurdity For saith he if Antichrist were come in the Apostles times and if Antichrist hath his seat in Rome then it will follow that Peter Paul were the true Antichrists Nero or Simon Magus the true Christ. For there were no other Bishops of Rome then but Peter and Paul with whom Nero and Simon Magus contended I answere that it cannot be prooued out of the Scripture or by any sound argument that Peter and Paul were Bishops of Rome and although they were it would not follow vpon our assertion that therefore they were Antichrists and much lesse that Nero or Simon Magus was Christ. For when we say that Antichrist was come in the Apostles time we speake of the body of Antichrist with S. Iohn Whō we say that Antichrist hath his seate in Rome we speake of the head of this body who especially is called Antichrist whom we do with Paul acknowledge not to haue beene reuealed vntill that which hindered was taken out of the way that is vntill the Romane Empire in the West was dissolued but afterwards by degrees he was aduanced in the Papacie aboue all that is called God sitting in the temple of God as if he were God that is ruling and raigning in the Church as if he were a God vpon earth And surely if the head of the Antichristian body was to be reuealed not long after the dissolution of the Romane Empire in the West and was about the same time with the rulers of the Prouinces to attaine vnto his kingdome as hath bin shewed and lastly if he shall continue in the world after he is reuealed vntill
and kingdome of Antichrist And further we haue shewed heretofore that the whole body of Apostates and heretiques professing the name of Christ is Antichrist and after a more speciall maner the head of this body Apostasie And therfore it followeth that all of this Apostasie professing the name of Christ belong to this body and kingdome of Antichrist And whereas hee saith that this Apostasie is onelie a disposition so the kingdome of Antichrist c. I answere that all the degrees of this Apostasie going before the reuelation of Antichrist were a disposition not to the being but to the reuealing of Antichrist For in the Apostasie Antichrist was as Iohn plainely sheweth neither could he be reuealed vnlesse first he were Wherupon Theodoret saith Defectionem appellat Antichristi praesentiam he calleth Apostasie the presence or comming of Antichrist But is it not very likely thinke you that there hath bene a disposition or preparation already of more then 1500. yeares in most parts of the world for the raigne of one man three yeres and an halfe 19. Fiftly and lastly although we should grant saith he that a generall Apostasie from the faith hauing now continued many yeares is the kingdome of Antichrist yet it would not follow that therefore the Pope is Antichrist For it is not yet decided who haue made this defection they or we And iâ—… were more easie to proouâ—… that they haue made this defection for they haue reuolted from that Church and religion whereof their forefathers were which we haue not done c. In the foure former answers Bellarmine turned backe vpon vs hoping therby to repell the force of our argument but those being spent in this he turneth his backe vpon vs betaketh himselfe to his feete and leauing the defence of the question in hand runneth to his chiefe hold For whereas we proue that Antichrist is not one man contrary to their assertion by this argument among others because that generall Apostacie of the visible Church continuing for many ages whereof Antichrist is the head cannot be the worke of one man or of a few yeares Bellarmine answereth thus in effect that although your argument be very good to prooue that Antichrist is not one man yet notwithstanding here of it followeth not that the Pope is Antichrist Why neuer any of vs vsed this argument Antichrist is not one man therefore the Pope is Antichrist But in this assertion of ours we answere your chiefe demonstration whereby you would prooue that the Pope is not Antichrist and where in especially you please your selues reasoning as hath beene hard after this manner Antichrist is but one man therefore the Pope is not Antichrist And after you haue prooued this by many worshipfull demonstrations and stoutly denied our contrary arguments now in the end you make this cowardes bragge Although this should be granted which you say to prooue that Antichrist is not one man yet it doth not follow that the Pope is Antichrist 20. But let vs pursue the Iesuite in his flight Although this should be granted saith he c. Yet it followeth not that therfore the Pope is Antichrist For the question yet is who hath made this Apostasie we or you Well then let vs ioyne in this issue If the Apostasie be on our side let vs be thought to belong to Antichrist if this Apostasie be in the Church of Rome whereof the Pope is head then let it be acknowledged that the Pope is the head of this Apostasie and consequently Antichrist But you saith the Iesuite haue reuoltd from the Church and religion of your forefathers that is from the Church of Rome and Latin religion And therefore when you read vnlesse there come areuolt c. it is a wonder that you doe not apply that prophesie to your selues The Apostasie whereof the Apostle speaketh is not a separation from the Church of Rome that now is nor a forsaking of Romish or Popish religion but a reuolting from God a departure from the true faith and religion of Christ vnto Antichristianisme and idolatry We in forsaking the Church of Rome haue come out of Babylon Apoc. 18. 4. according to Gods commaundement and in reuolting from the Pope haue returned to God and therefore this Apostasie toucheth not vs. But you say I to the Papists haue reuolted from the true faith and religion of Christ vnto Antichristianisme and Idolatry as besides the infinite particulars wherein your Apostasie doeth consist may briefely appeare by these notes First the Apostle speaking of the same Apostasie in another place hath these words The spirit speaketh plaincly that in the latter times some shall make an Apostasie from the faith attending to erroneous spirits and doctrines of 1. Tim. 4. 1. diuels speaking lyes in hypocrisie and hauing their owne conscience seared Now who these are that make this Apostasie the Apostle further describeth by specifying two of those doctrines of diuels as certaine notes whereby to know them Forbidding to marry and commaunding to abstainâ—… from meates which God hath created to be receiued with thankesgiuing c. But as I haue shewed heretofore these notes touch not vs and properly agree to the Papists therefore Lib. 1. Chap. 4. 3. this Apostasie is among them Secondlie this Apostasie is among those who are fallen from the true religion and worship of God into idolatry and superstition For the Apostaticall Church is the Idolatrous Church signified by the whore of Babylon the mother of fornications But the Church of Roome is strangelie addicted to idolatry and superstition and for the same deserueth to be called the whore of Babylon where as we through the mercie of God are free from idolatry and therefore the Apostásie is with them and not with vs. For the Apostasie is of them that are made drunke with the cuppe of the whore of Babylous fornications as the Papists are and wee are not who haue come out of Babylon Thirdlie the Apostasie is of those that receiue the name and marke of the beast as the Papists doe and not of those that refuse it as wee doe The fourth note or touchstone as it were to trie who haue made this Apostasie iâ—… the word of God For that is the true faith and the true religion which is contayned and prescribed in the written word of God Now our desire is that the Scriptures may be acknowledged the onelie rule of faith and manners vnto the Scriptures we appeale in all controuersies and desire to be iudged by them vnto the reading of the Scriptúres we exhort our people that they may be further edified and confirmed in that trueth which we doe teach and prosesse The Papists contrarywise not daring to stand to the Scriptures slie to their vnwritten verities traditions decretals doctrines and authorities of men both besides and against the Scriptures and in a word that the prophecie of the Apostle foretelling this Apostasie might be verified in them they haue asserted their hearing from the
Now whereas he saith that Iohn did not restore all things which as Christ saith Elias should doe I answer that Christ speaketh according to their vnderstanding and therefore that Iohn Baptist did restore all things in that sense that Elias was according to their conceit to restore al things But by restitution in this place we are to vnderstand the reformation of the people and Church of the Iewes to whom the messenger and forerunner is promised not to heretickes and seduced catholickes wherein Iohn Baptist was another Elias Neither is this restitution ascribed to the Baptist as though it had beene perfected by him but because he began that which Christ was to bring to perfection So that Iohn Baptist may truely be said to haue made this restitution Inchoatiuè 6. The fourth place is Apoc. 11. 3. I will giue to my two witnessesâ—… and they shall prophecie 1260. dayes Which words he affirmeth but without all reason are to be vnderstood of Enoch and Elias who are not once meÌ„tioned in al that chapter Neither can those two witnesses signifie Enoch Elias because they are to be killed by the beast and their bodies shall lie dead in the streets of the great Citie three dayes and an halfe For Enoch and Elias they were taken vp into heauen where in soule at the least they enioy the glorious presence of God For otherwise their estate were worse then of the rest of the faithfull departed and so their translation should rather haue biâ—… a punishment then a blessing or prerogatiue vnto them without question therefore their soules at the least are in heauen But whether they be there in soule alone or in soule body there may be some question but if they be there in body it cannot be that their body is mortall as the Papists would haue it subiect to death For how can corruption inherit incorruption or how can it be truly said that Enoch was translated that he should not see death if notwithstanding his translation 1. Cor. 15. 50. he shall suffer death If therfore their bodies be in heauen vndoubtedly they were in the translation changed and by that change became immortal as the bodies of them shall who shal be aliue vpon the earth at the second comming of Christ. If their 1. Cor. 15. 51. 53. 1. Thes. 4. soules alone be in heauen their bodies being dissolued and returned into dust then either they must come in their owne bodies or in others If in others then must we hold the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or flitting of soules into diuers bodies if in their owne then shall they not onely rise before the resurrection but also after their resurrection die againe All which absurdities plainely shew that the Popish opinion concerning the comming of Enoch and Elias is a meere fable whereby men are kept in security that they should not with vigilancie waite for the coÌ„ming of Christ because as yet forsooth Enoch and Elias are not returned The two witnesses therefore cannot signifie Elias and Enoch But if I should adde that Bellarmine caÌ„not proue that this place intreateth of Antichrist but rather of the beast with 7. heads arising out of the sea that is the Roman state either generally or especially vnder the Emperours as may be gathered by comparing verse 2. and 7. of the 11. chap. with the 1. and 5. of the 13. I would then know to what purpose he alledgeth this text to prooue that Enoch and Elias shall come against Antichrist if neither the one nor the other be here meant 7. Vnto these testimonies of Scripture he addeth the consent of the fathers who hold that Enoch Elias shal in their own persons come in the time of antichrist And to this purpose he nameth many but yet among al the ancieÌ„t which he citeth only Gregory is alledged to the purpose who in his morals expouÌ„ding the words of Lib. 14. c. 12. Bildad the Suhite as spokeÌ„ of Antichrist testifieth that in his time Enoch and Elias shal come which is as true as that Bildad spake of Antichrist Of the rest some speake of the returne of Elias only and that to conuert the Iewes without mention of his resisting Antichrist being deceiued by the corrupt translatioÌ„ of the 72. who in Malachy 4. v. 5. read Elias the Theibite and therby gaue occasion to the readers to expouÌ„d those words of Elias literally whereas in the Hebrew also in other translations we read Elias the Prophet which may truly be applied to Iohn who was a Prophet by the testimony of our sauiour Christ more then a Prophet Mat. 11. 9. Others who besides Elias mention the coÌ„ming of another agree not among themselues Victorinus refuting the opinion of in Apoc. 11 some who thought the two witnesses to be Elias Elizâ—…us or Elias Moses saith all our Ancestours by tradition haue deliuered that it is Elias and Ieremie Hilary refelling those which thought the two witnesses to be Elias Enoch or Elias and Ieremy contendeth that they must be Moses and Elias Hippolytus to Enoch in Mat. con 20. Elias addeth Iohn the Diuine who as he saith shal come with theÌ„ before the comming of Christ. All which opinions of the fathers giue vs a sufficient proofe into what vncertainties men are carried wheÌ„ they wil be wise aboue that which is written For seeing the holy Ghost hath not named these two witnesses it is hard especially for them who liued as themselues thought before the fulfilling of this prophecie to define whether by these two witnesses is not meant a sufficient though a smal number of Gods witnesses whom â—…he shall raise to testifie his trueth euen in the hottest persecution of the beast or if they be two and no more to determine particularly and by name who they are 8. Vnto these restimonies in the last place he addeth a reason to make vp this demonstration which may thus be concluded If Enoch Elias were taken vp before their death yet â—…iue in mortall bodies wherein once they shall die then shall they come in the time of Antichrist to set themselues against him But Enoch and Elias being taken vp before death doe yet liue in mortalâ—… bodies wherein they are once to die therefore they shall come in the time of Antichrist to set themselues against him The proposition is vnnecessary and the assumptioÌ„ vntrue For though we should grant that they yet liue in mortall bodies and that their death is yet deferred yet how doth this follow that they liue to resist Antichrist and to be slaine of him Yea but saith Bell armine there can nâ—…ne other reason be giueÌ„ Of their translation there is this reason that there might be euident examples of reward and happinesse laid vp both for the vpright in Enoch and for the zealous in Elias Of their yet liuing in mortall bodies if they did so according to the opinion of some of the fathers that reason might
be giuen which they alledge to wit to conuert the Iewes But the assumption also is false For it is vntrue that they liue in mortall bodies or that they shall euer dye For where I beseech you doe they liue in mortall bodies in the earthly Paradice or in the heauenly In the earthly say the Papists but that was defaced either at or before the floud so that although the place remaine yet no Paradice remaineth as Bellarmine else where confesseth And if they were Lib. 1. de Sanctor beatitud C. 3 liuing in the earthly Paradise how is it said they were taken vp as it is plainely said of Elias that he was taken vp into heauen Or what priuiledge or reward haue they aboue others if all this 2. Kin. 2. 12 while they haue wanted Gods glorious presence which others enioy and hereafter are to be slaine of Antichrist Or how was Enoch translated that he should not see death if notwithstanding his translation he must dye the death If in the celestiall Paradise that is the third heauen as Paul speaketh it may first be 2. Cor. 12. doubted whether they be there in body because it may be thought that Christ was the first that in body ascended into heauen or if their bodies â—…o there we must hold that in the translation they were changed into immortall and incorruptible bodies as theirs shall who shall be found liuing vpon the earth as the second comming of Christ and shal be rapt vp into the aire 1. Cor. 15. 51. For this I say with Paule that flesh and bloud cannot inherit the kingdome of heauen neither doth corruption inherit incorruption 1. Thes. 4. 17. 9. But will you see vnder one view how farre this slender 1. Cor. 15. 50. coniecture taken from the comming of Enoch and Elias is from being a demonstratiue proofe First he cannot prooue necessarily that they are yet in their bodies Secondly if they be in their bodies he cannot proue that their bodies are mortall Thirdly if their bodies be mortal it is not necessary that they should returne into the world and die because at the end of the world they might be changed with the rest that then shal be liuing as some also haue thought Fourthly if they should returne into the Iustin. q. 85 ad orthodoxos world and dye there is no necessity that they should come in the time of Antichrist Fiftly if it should be granted that they are to come against Antichrist yet it would not follow that therefore Antichrist is not yet come but this only would follow that Antichrist is not yet destroyed which we doe not deny And this was his third demonstration whereby he proueth that Antichrist is not yet come and consequently that the Pope is not Antichrist To conclude therefore must not this needs be a good cause that by so learned a man is so stoutly proued The 7. Chapter answering his fourth demonstration concerning the most greeuous persecution vnder Antichrist 1. THe second signe accompanying Antichrist from whence Bellarmine draweth his fourth demonstration is the most greeuous notorious persecutioÌ„ of the Church in so much that the publicke seruice of God shall wholy cease His demonstration is thus to be framed When Antichrist is come there shal be the most greeuous and manifest persecution that euer was insomuch that the publicke seruice of God shal wholy cease But as yet there hath bin no such persecution neither hath the publicke seruice of God wholy ceased therefore Antichrist is not yet come Of his third argument and consequently of the proposition and assumprion there are three partes which seuerally are to be considered that the persecution vnder Antichrist is 1. Most greeuous 2. Most manifest 3. Such as shall cause all Gods worship to cease As touching the first he reasoueth thus Vnder Antichrist shal be the most greeuous persecution as yet this most greeuous persecution hath not bin especially vnder the Pope therefore Antichrist is not yet come neither is the Pope Antichrist The proposition namely that the most grieuous persecution is vnder Antichrist he proueth by two testimonies The first Mat. 24. 21. And then shal be great tribulation such as hath not bin since the beginning of the world neither shal be The other Apoc. 20. 7. Then shall Satan be let loose namely after the thousand yeeres are expired Answer We doubt not but that the persecution vnder Antichrist was to be very greeuous because the holy Ghost testifieth so much Apoc. 17. 6. Where the whore of Babylon is said to be drunke with the bloud of the Saints and with the bloud of the Martyrs of Iesus But his proofes are not to the purpose For the place in Mathew as heretofore hath beene shewed and as appeareth by the text it selfe is to be vnderstood of the calamities which at the destruction of Ierusalem by the Romanes the Iewes sustained For when you see saith our Saulour Christ the abomination Mat. 24. 15 of desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet standing in the holy place that is as Luke expoundeth when you see Ierusaelem Luk. 21. 20 compassed about with armies which Daniel calleth the abominable Dan. 9. 27. wings of desolation then let those which are in Iewry flye vnto the mountaines c. And his reason is because then there Mat. 24. 2â—… shal be great affliction such as hath not beene from the beginning of the world vntill now neither shal be Which Luke expresseth thus for there shall be great distresse in the Land and wrath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Luk. 21. 23. 24. this people and they shall fall by the edge of the sword and shall be carryed captiue into all nations and Ierusalem shall be troden vnder fâ—…ote of the Gentiles vntill the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled 2. As touching the thousand yeers mentioned Apoc. 20. After which Satan was to be loosed although the expiration of them fal in Antichrists raigne yet we are not to begin his raigne thereat as appeareth plainely Apoc. 20. v. 4. Neither is that letting loose of Sathan to be vnderstood of the persecution onely vnder Antichrist for it is manifest by the text that within those thousand yeares many martyrs were put to death by Antichrist for refusing to receiue his marke and that the greatest part la dead in Antichristian errours and superstition verse 4. 5. and by the 8. verse that Satan was let loose not onely to stirre vp persecution against the faithfull but also and that principally to stir vp vniuersall wars betwixt the nations of the world betwixt Gog and Magog that is as some expound the Papists and Mahometans Now I would gladly know of Bellarmine when these thousand yeeres began and when they expired for hereof there be diuers opinioÌ„s but I wil touch the principall 1. That these thousand yeeres begin with the incarnation of Christ and determine accordingly when as Siluester the second had obtained the
when 4 we proued that Antichrist is not any one man alone but a whole state and succession of men we proued this by consequence that his raigne was not to continue only three yeers and a halfe And againe Antichrist according to the conceit of the Papists is to 5 raigne before the preaching of the two witnesses and as Bellarmine faith is to continue one moneth after their death Seeing then the two witnesses preach 1260. dayes which as Bellarmine also saith make three yeers a halfe precisely how can the terme of Antichrists raigne be three yeeres and a halfe precisely Lastly 6 the Scriptures plainely testifie that the Antichrist which is to be destroied at the second comming of Christ was come euen in the Apostles time although he was not reuealed by exercising openly a soueraigne vniuersal dominioÌ„ vntill that which hindred that is the Roman Empire was taken out of the way But after the Empire was once dissolued in the West and the Emperor of the East had lost his right in Italy and Rome that is when that which hindred was taken out of the way then according to the prophecie 2. Thes. 2. 8. was Antichrist reuealed succeeding the Emperor in the gouernment of Rome and claiming an vniuersall authority first spirituall ouer the whole Church in the yeere 607. after temporal ouer the whole world aduancing himselfe aboue all that is called God all which we haue heretofore proued to haue bin done in the Papacie aboue three yeeres and a halfe agoe yea aboue so many hundred yeers agoe so that we shall not need to expect another Antichrist who is to raigne three yeers and a half And thus you haue heard not only Bellarmines allegations answered but also his assertion confuted 5 Now let vs see what Bellarmine can reply either against our assertion in general or against the expositioÌ„s of some protestants in particular For wheras we generally affirme notwithstanding his allegations aforesaid that Antichrist hath already ruled in the Church almost a thousand yeers Bellarmine besides the slender coniectures of diuers of the fathers grouÌ„ded on such prophecies of Scriptures as they could not vnderstand which are his first argument he produceth six other reasons no lesse easie to be answered His second argument is because the scriptures say that the time of the diuels loosing and Antichrists raigning is breuissimum very short or most short But how can that be true if Antichrist shall raigne a thousand yeeres or more For that which he speaketh of 1260. yeeres is the priuate opinion of some of which shall be touched afterwards I answer that the Scriptures no where say that Antichrists raigne or that the time Apo. 17. 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apo. 12. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apo. 20 vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the diuell loosed is Breuissimum that is most short but onely that it is short or small which we doe acknowledge Let vs then weigh his argumeÌ„t which may be resolued into two syllogismes the former A thousand yeeres or more is not a short time Antichrists raigne is a short time therfore Antichrists raigne is not a thousand yeers or more First to the proposition I answer that a thousand yeers vnto the Lord who speaketh in the Scriptures is a short time The Apostle Peter expresly saith that a thousand yeers with the Lord 2. Pet. 3. 8. are but as one day Yea and the whole time from the ascension of Christ vntil his comming to iudgement is often noted in the Scriptures to be a short time and in one place it is called the last houre And likewise aboue 1500. yeers agoe it was promised 1. Ioh. 2. 18 that the prophecies concerning the destruction of Antichrist the second comming of Christ end of the world should within a short time be fulfilled To the assumptioÌ„ I answer that although the time of Antichrists tyranny seeme to belong to them that Apoc. 1. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ap. 22. 10. 12. 20. Heb. 10. 37 are exercised therby yet it is but short in comparisoÌ„ of that time which they shall raigne with Christ and is so called Apoc. 17. 10. But yet nothing so short as Bellarmine imagineth This therefore he proueth in the second Syllogisme The time of Sathan loosed is very short the terme of Antichrists raigne is the time of Sathan loosed therefore the terme of Antichrists raigne is very short The proposition he proueth by two places in the Apocalypse which affirme his time to be short but yet nothing so short as the Papists imagine for in the former place Chap. 12. 12. he is said to haue but a short time before he persecuted the Church of Christ among the Iewes which was aboue 1500. yeeres agoe And in the latter place Chap. 20. 3. it is said that he should be let loose for a smal time but this smal time beginneth at the expiration of the thousand yeeres wherein he had beene bound and continueth vntill the time that he shal be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone in the end of the world Now the thousand yeeres were expired many hundred yeeres agoe as hath beene shewed But although the time of Antichrists raigne be called short yet is it not so short as the time of Sathan loosed and therefore the assumption is false For howsoeuer the thousand yeares expire in the time of Antichrists raigne yet we are not to beginne the raigne of Antichrist with the loosing of Sathan For within the thousand yeares of Sathans imprisonment Antichrist not onely Apoc. 20. 4. was but also persecuted those that refused his marke and yet we are not to confound the time of his persecution much lesse of his hotest persecutioÌ„ with the time of his continuance Now the time of the diuel loosed as the Papists teach is the time of Antichrists most greeuous persecution which was a coÌ„sequent of mens refusing his marke that a fruite of his discouerie acknowledgement but he was not acknowledged vntill he came to his full grouth whereunto he attained not at the first And it is to be thought that the heate of his persecutioÌ„ wil be slaked before his end himselfe being consumed and wasted by the spirit of Christs 2. Thes. 2. 8. mouth his See impouerished if not ouerthrowne by the kings of the earth which before the end of the world shall not onely hate the whore of BabyloÌ„ the Popes coÌ„cubine but also shal make her Apo. 17. 1â—… desolate naked shal eate her flesh her they shal burne with fire 6. Thirdly he argueth from Math. 24. 21. mistaken by some of the fathers that vnlesse those daies meaning of Antichrists persecution should be shortned and consequently the persecution very short no flesh could be saued but how can it be very short if it shall continue a thousand yeares I answere first that the tribulation there
som thinke she saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that is There shal be a Prince with many heads which is to be vnderstood either by a metonymy for his triple crowne or by a Synecdoche for the successioÌ„ of Popes hauing a name neere to PoÌ„ti that is PoÌ„tifex the Pope But to returne to my purpose By this which hath bin said you plainly see that there is no similitude betwixt Christ and antichrist in this behalfe Christ hauing a proper name but Antichrist hauing none withal you haue heard reasoÌ„s why Christs name shold be wel known wheras Antichrists was to be obscure and for a long time vnknown or at the least not acknowledged 3 His other proofe touching the obscurity of prophecies before they are fulfilled proueth nothing for him vnlesse he ad that as before their fulfilling they are very obscure so also after their fulfilling they are very plaine which after indeed he addeth in the end of the chapter Siquidem omnia vaticinâ—…a saith he cum impletâ—… sunt clarissima officiuntur for all prophecies when thâ—…y are fulfilled become most cleare I answer that although they become more cleare after then before yet many times they remaine darke obscure to very many As appeareth in the prophecies of the scripture fulfilled in Christ but not yet vnderstood of the Iewes nor acknowledged to haue bin verified in Christ. And euen as the prophecies concerning Christ are by true Christians easily vnderstood howbeit to Iewes infidels they remaine darke obscure because the God of this world hath blinded their eyes that they should not see the shining light of the Gospel so also the prophecies concerning Antichrist which already are fulfilled in the Papacy howsoeuer many of them are plainly vnderstood of the true professours yet to the followers of Antichrist whoÌ„ God hath giuen ouer to strong illusions that they may beleeue lies they seeme to be darke obscure and not as yet fulfilled Notwithstanding the former part of his assertioÌ„ we do embrace that prophecies vntill they be fulfilled are for the most part darke and ambiguous and herein with Bellarmine we approue Irenaeus his iudgement But hereupon we infer that therfore the writings of the fathers who liuing before the reuelatioÌ„ of Antichrist expounding the prophecies concerning Antichrist were most vncertaine ghesses as Sed nec isti patres voluerunt sententias illas suas alio loco haberi quam suspicionum coniecturarum Bellarmine Lib. 5. Bellarmine euen in this chapter coÌ„fesseth the prophecies being to them darke and ambiguous which now since the fulfilling therof haue bin more plaine and perspicuous therfore that it is no arrogancy in vs which see the euent agreeing with the prophecy to take vpon vs to expound diuers prophecies concerning Antichrist the true vnderstanding whereof was hid from the fathers For if God would haue had them plainly known before their fulfilling surely he would haue made theÌ„ knowne by those his seruaÌ„ts th'apostles by whoÌ„ they were deliuered And so Irenaeus saith that he would not take vpon him certainely to define what this name shold be Scientes saith he quoniam si operteret manifeste praesenti tempore praeconari nomen eius per ipsum vtique edituÌ„ fuisset quiet Apocalypsin viderat Knowing that if this name ought in these times to be published it should no doubt haue bin declared by him to whoÌ„ the reuelation was giuen Likewise Andreas the Bishop of Caesarea The exact account saith he and computation of the number and likewise Apud Aretham in Apocalpys all other things which are written of Antichrist opportunity of time and experience shall make manifest to them that are vigilant For as some of the doctors say if it were necessary that this name should manifestly be knowne before hand it should haue beene reuealed by Iohn himselfe 4. Now let vs come to his assumption where he affirmeth that Antichrists name is yet vnknowne We confesse that in the Church of Rome this name is either not known as of the ignoraÌ„t or not acknowledged as of the obstinat But in the true Church of God as Antichrist himselfe is known so is this name acknowledged But let vs heare Bellarmines disputation prouing this assumption Fatentur omnes saith he in the beginning of the chapter pertinere omninò ad Antichristum verba illa Ioannis Apoc. 13. All men doe confesse that those words of Iohn Apoc. 13. doe wholy belong to Antichrist And he shall make all both small and great rich and Apoc. 13. 16. 17. 18. poore free and bond to receiue from him a marke in their right hand or in their forehead and that none should buy or sell vnlesse he haue the marke or name of the beast or number of his name Here is wisedome he that hath vnderstanding let him reckon the number of the beast for it is the number of a man and his number is 666. Now concerning this number saith he there are many opinions The first of those who thinke that by this number is signified the time of Antichrists comming c. But this opinion we doe with Bellarmine reject because it is called the number of his name and not of the time and also because Antichrist shall compell all sorts of men to take his name and the number of his name which cannot be vnderstood of the time Thirdly because Irenaeus reporteth from those who had seene Iohn face to face that the name of the beast shall according to the computation of the Greekes by letters which are in it containe 666. The second opinion is of those who thinke Antichrists name to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which we will speake anone in his due place The third opinion is of many Papists who thinke that his name shal be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby vnderstanding an aduersary but that is not a name that he shall assume to himselfe or impose vpon others but a name rather giuen him of his aduersaries Neither is it the name of the beast here spoken of The fourth of Rupertus who imagined that by this threefold number 666. is signified the threefold preuarication of Sathan first in himselfe secondly in our first parents thirdly in Antichrist The fift of Beda who supposeth that it is a number of perfection which Antichrist shall chalenge vnto himselfe But these three opinions Bellarmine reâ—…ecteth and that worthily For first the holy Ghost saith it is the number of the name of the beast and secondly this name nuÌ„ber of it Antichrist causeth men to take vpon them The sixt opinion wherin he resteth as the most true is theirs which confesse their ignorance and professe that this name is not yet knowne 5. To these opinions many more might be added but to make short worke the last of these opinions is Bellarmines the second is ours therefore let vs consider how he prooueth his owne opinion and disprooueth ours That this name is vnknowne
à caeteris distinguuntur A Character or marke is à certaine manner of siuing according to the lawe of any whereby men are distinguished from others which also agreeth with our judgement Againe the Scriptures often times make mention of markes and seales which cannot Ezec. 9. Apoc. 9. 4. â—…t 7. 2. et 2 17. 2. Tim. 2. 19. without absurditie be vnderstood of visible markes 4 Now let vs see how easily this trifler is able according to his vaine brag to refute those toyes of ours His reasons are two the former because that which we deliuer concerning the marke agreeth not with the words of the text which he sheweth by foure instances First because the text speaketh but of one character we speake of many We answer that as of the Lambe so of the beast also there is but one character in substance although the same by diuers meanes may be diuersly expressed and testified that is subjection to the Pope as their head and the acknowledgment of the See of Rome and of the Popes supremacie c. And this marke to answer his second instance also is common to all as being inforced vpon all sorts of men without exception Heare the words of their law Subesse Romano pontifici omni Extr. de maior et obed C. vâ—…a sancta humanae creaturae declaramus dicimus definimus pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis For euery humane creature to be subiect to the Pope of Rome we declare affirme determine and proneunce that it is altogether of the necessitie of saluation See more lib. 1. cap. 8. § 6. 7. Thirdly saith he The scripture sheweth this character to be such a one as may indifferently be caryed either in the right hand or in the forehead But none of these markes which the Protestants mention are such The Chrisme is receiued in the forehead and not in the hand c. The scripture saith thus Apoc. 13. 16. And he causeth all both small and great c. That he may giue them a marke on their right hand or else vpon their foreheads That is by his vsurped dominion and tyranny he shall make all sorts of men subject vnto him and in testimony of their subjection to receiue his marke on the forehead by profession or in the right hand by practise and operation Of the carying of this marke and the carying of it indifferently either on the forehead or in the hand the scripture speaketh not The marke is subjection vnto him which as hath beene said is diuersly expressed and testified Fourthly the Scripture saith that none in the kingdome of Antichrist shall be suffered to buy or sell vnlesse he haue this marke but how many saith he are there within the dominion of the Pope who hauing none of these markes doe buy and sell as namely the Iewes I answer that Antichrist was to sit in the Church of God and to tyrannize ouer Christians Now of all those that professe the name of Christ the Pope suffreth none where he hath to doe either to buy or sell except he haue his marke See the Bull of Martin the fift annexed to the councell of Constance where expresse and straight charge is giuen that whosoeuer doth not liue in subjection to the Pope and communion with the Church of Rome meaning such as Wicliffe and Husse shall not be suffred See lib. 1. cap. 8. §. 7. to buy or sell or to enjoy the comforts of humane societie Whereas therfore the Pope permitteth that to the Iewes which he will not permit to the professours of the Gospell of Christ that as it sheweth his greater opposition ot the seruants of Christ then to the enemies of Christ the Iewes so it bewrayeth him to be Antichrist 5. His second reason is thus concluded If all these things which the Protestants mention were vsed in the Catholick Church before the comming of Antichrist then none of them belong to the marke of Antichrist for otherwise Antichrist should haue learned them of the Church But all these things as namely Chrisme and the rest which the Protestants mention were vsed in the Catholicke Church before the yeere 607. that is before the comming of Antichrist according to the opinion of the Protestants therefore none of these belong to the marke of the beast First I answer to the proposition that although these things had beene vsed in the Catholick Church before the reuelation of Antichrist yet that hindereth not but that now they may appertaine to the marke of the beast For we doubt not to affirme that before the reuelation of Antichrist there were many corruptions crept into the Church both in Doctrine and in the worship of God the mysterie of iniquitie more and more working euen from the Apostles times vnto the reuelation of Antichrist which corruptions Antichrist was to retaine with increase If therefore the seeds of Antichristianisme which were sowne before Antichrists appearing were signes of his approaching the same being as it were growne vp confirmed and increased may without absurditie bee sayd to belong to the marke of Antichrist already come Especially if we consider the diuersitie in vsing of them since the reuelation of Antichrist and before For there was not in the Catholicke church an vniuersall subjection to the Pope as the head vntill he by much ambition and contention obtained the supremacie and was called the vniuersall Bishop and head of the vniuersall Church which he could neuer obtaine vntill the yeare 607. Seeing then there was not an vniuersall subjection to the Pope before that time these things if they had beene vsed at all could not be vsed as signes thereof as since they haue Neither were they imposed before and enjoyned vpon all by the lawes of the Pope as since they haue so that the cause of vsing them now is not the example of the ancient Church but the authoritie of the Popes lawe injoyning and commaunding them Therefore although these thinges had beene vsed in the Church before the yeere 607 yet now they may appertaine to the marke of the beast And therefore the connexion of the proposition is first to be denied But now if these things were not vsed in the first 600. yeeres will not he then in confuting those toyes shew himselfe a meere trifler 6. But let vs consider of the particulars And first that Chrisme was vsed before the yeere 606. he proueth by the testimonies of Tertullian Cyprian and Augustine I answer that these Fathers speake of the annointing with Oyle vsed in the Sacrament of 1. Chrisme Baptisme which also without warrant of the Scriptures is retained among the Papists But of the chrisme of saluation which the Papists make the element of their counterfeit sacrament of confirmation whereof there is no institution in the Scriptures no worde no element these Fathers speake not The ceremonie of imposition of hands with prayer for the confirmation and strengthning of those which before had beene baptized was indeed vsed
in the primitiue church neither is it altogether misliked of vs although not much vsed among vs because it was so much abused by them But this ceremonie was done without vnction or chrisme for further proofe whereof see D. Fulke his answer to the Rhemists Acts. 8. 17. And therefore notwithstanding that ancient practise of the Church this Chrisme vsed in confirmation may belong to the marke of the beast And the rather because the Papists make their confirmation with Chrisme not onely a sacrament but also a most necessary and Principall sacrament So necessary as that they haue set it downe as a law that no man is to be esteemed a Christian without it Nunquam De consecrat dist 5. C. vt iciuni erit Christianus nisi confirmatione episcopals fuerit Chrismatus He shall neuer be a Christian who is not confirmed with Chrisme by a Bishop So principall as that they preferre it before Baptisme affirming that it is maiore veneratione venerandum with greater veneration to be reuerenced Now if it be a priuiledge De consecrat dist 5. C. de his vero peculiar vnto Christ the author and bestower of grace to ordaine Sacraments of grace then must it needes be accounted a practise Antichristian if any man shall take vpon him to ordaine a Sacrament and not onely to obtrude the same vpon all as necessary to saluation but also to preferre it before that excellent Sacrament of Baptisme ordayned by Christ himselfe Therefore as the ordayning and enforcing of this Sacrament vpon men is a note of Antichrist so those which doe not onely receiue it when they are young but also retaine it when they are olde remayning in the communion of the Church of Rome may be said to haue the marke of the beast 7. Secondly that to adhere to the Romaine Church was a marke of a true Catholicke before the yeere 606. he prooueth by 2. Romanae ecclesie adhaercre the authority of Augustine Ambrose and Victor Vticensis But we speake of the Church of Rome that now is that is the apostaticall Church of Rome he argueth of the ancient Church which was apostolicall Indeed whiles the Church of Rome did cleaue vnto Christ so long might it be a note of a good Christian to cleaue vnto it although these testimonies doe scarce proue it but after that Church became apostaticall and adulterous as appeareth by their fundamentall heresies and horrible Idolatries and consequently of a faithful Church became an harlot and of the Church of Christ the synagogue of Antichrist it hath beene the marke of an Antichristian to liue in the communion of that Church Besides this great difference betwixt the present and the ancient state of the Church of Rome there is also great oddes in the manner of adhering or cleauing thereto Then as other Churches did cleaue to the Church of Rome so did the Church of Rome cleaue to them now it acknowledgeth no Church besides it selfe Then the Church of Rome was accounted but a part of the Catholicke Church and so a man might be a good Christian although he were not of the Church of Rome now the Church of Rome alone must be accounted the Catholicke Church and consequently he that is not a member of that Church must not be taken for a Catholicke or true Christian. For when the Pope got the title of vniuersall Bishop or head of the vniuersall Church then the church whereof he was head was accounted the onely Catholicke and vniuersall Church Hereunto agreeth that Glosse Constat ecclesiam ideo esse vnam quia in vniuersali ecclesia est vnum caput suprem◅ Clementin Lib. 5. ad nostrum in gloss cui omnes de ecclesia obedire tenentur seil Papae It is euident that the Church is therefore one because in the vniuersall Church there is one supreame head whom all that are of the Church are bound to obey And agreeably therunto saith a late writer whose bookes were published at Venice in the yeere 1588. Non potest quis se Christianum fateri qui curae Papae dicit se non subesse No man may Rod. Cupers 127. num 29. professe himselfe to be a Christian who doth not confesse himselfe to be subiect to the Popes cure or charge And therfore in the conclusiō of his booke he professeth himselfe to be Mancipium S. R. E. The bond seruant of the holy church of Rome Non ignorans he saith haud possehaberese deum patrem si sanctam vniuersalem Romanam ecclesiam non habuerit matrem knowing that a man cannot haue God to be his father vnlesse he haue the holy vniuersall Church of Rome to be his mother Seeing therfore the Church of Rome is become the whore of Babylon as hath bene prooued and the synagogue of Antichrist seeing the Pope compelleth all men to cleaue to the church of Rome suffering none to buy or sel or to enioy any benefits of humane society which professe not themselues to be members of the Church of Rome it followeth that this cleauing to the Apostaticall Church of Rome or liuing in the communion thereof belongeth to the marke of the beast 8. Thirdly as touching the oth of obedience and fealty 3. Iura◅ium obedientiae made to the Pope of Rome Bellarmine prooueth that it was vsed in the time of Gregory the great and therefore before the yeere 606. as appeareth in the Epistles of Gregorie I answere that although Lib. 10. Epist 31. before the yeere 606. the Bishops of Rome tooke more vpon them then became the ministers of Christ yet Bellarmine is not able out of all antiquity to alleadge one example of such an oath of fealty and allegeance imposed by the Pope vpon forraine Bishops and much lesse vpon Kings and Princes as all Catholicke Bishops as they call them Priests graduates Princes and potentates are compelled to sweare vnto the Pope of Rome That one example which as it seemeth is all that he can alledge of an oath taken not long before the yeere 606. is little to the purpose For it is not an oath of obedience and allegeance to the Pope but of faith and religion towards God conformable to the faith and religion then professed by the Bishop and Church of Rome For it is the oath of a certaine Bishop who sweareth to renounce his former heresies and to professe and maintaine that faith and religion which then the Bishop and Church of Rome did professe which oath in effect is no otherwise to be vndestood then if a minister among vs being reclaimed from Popery or some other heresie should take an oath before a Bishop that whiles he liueth he will professe and maintaine that religion which is now professed and established in the Church of England and other reformed Churches which is not to sweare allegeance to them but the like allegeance with them vnto Christ. 9. Fourthly the annointing of Priests we confesse to be as ancient as the Priesthood of Aaron from
Paul that Christ hath loued thee or giuen himselfe for thee Gal. 2. 20. Must thou beleeue that Christ is thy Sauiour redeemer theÌ„ must thou beleeue that thou art redeemed by Christ and shalt be saued by him Must thou beleeue that thou hast redemption by Christ then must thou also beleeue that by him thou hast remission of sinnes Ephe. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. But this to beleeue without speciall and extraordinary reuelation is damnable presumption saith the Papist Therefore they professe Christ but they receiue him not Nay they are so farre from receiuing Christ by a lustifying faith that they might be saued that they haue not so much as the historicall faith which consisteth in knowledge of the truth assent thereto For the most of them haue no knowledge pleasing themselues in their implicite faith vnder which name grosse palpable ignorace is commended in the laitie of the church of Rome And the rest assent not to the truth but set themselues against it So that whereas all the faith which they professe themselues to haue is but that faith which is also in the diuels yet they haue not euen that little which they do professe But the Apostle saith Bellarmine speaketh in the pretertence which haue not receiued the loue of the truth c. not in the future therefore this speech cannot be vnderstood of any other but those who before the Apostle wrote this had refused to beleeue the preaching of Christ his Apostles that is to say the Iewes Answ. The Apostle speaking both of the sinne of the Antichristians and of their punishment which presupposeth their sin going before he expresseth their sin in the pretertence which is to be referred not to the time of the Apostles writing but to the time of their punishment Antichrist shal be receiued of those that perish But why shal they perish because they haue not receiued the loue of the truth c. But this appeareth more plainly ver 12. God shal send theÌ„ stroÌ„g illusioÌ„s to beleeue lies that al may be condemned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that haue not beleeued that is that shall not haue beleeued the truth Qui non crediderint veritati but haue delighted that is but shall haue delighted in iniquitie Sed acquieuerint in iniustitia Conferre with this place Mar. 16. 16. Goe preach the Gospell saith our Sauiour Christ to euery creature baptising them as it is in Mathew 28. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hâ—… that hath Qui crediderit bap tizatus sueâ—…it c. beleeued and hath beene baptised shall be saued that is shall haue beleeued and shall haue bene baptised but he that hath not beleeued that is shall not haue beleeued shall be condemned Otherwise if Bellarmine will needes vrge the pretertense as though the Apostle meant that Antichrist should bee receiued onely of those who before that time had reiected the truth he must with all hold that Antichrist shall be receiued in the end of the world of those who died aboue 1500. years since 8 To these testimonies of scripture he addeth the authoritie of diuers Fathers who supposed that Antichrist was to be receiued of the Iewes and accordingly expound the place alledged out of 2. Thess. 2. 10. 11. Ans. So they held that Antichrist should come of the Tribe of Dan accordingly expounded some places of scripture which no man now vnlesse he will be too ridiculous can vnderstand of Antichrist Therefore as Bellarmine in that point answered a whole dozen of Fathers so may I answere here with as good reason that although this opinion might seeme probable to the Fathers in their time liuing before the reuelation of Antichrist yet now there is no probabilitie in it seeing it cannot onely not be proued out of the scripture but as you heard is confuted both by the scripture and the euent 9 Let vs therefore in the third place consider his reason Antichrist shall without doubt ioyne himselfe first and chiefly to those who are readie to receiue him But the Iewes are readie to receiue him not the Christians nor the Gentiles therefore Antichrist first and principally shall ioyne himselfe to the Iewes First to the proposition I answere that Antichrist shall ioyne himselfe not to any whatsoeuer but to those in the Church that are readie to receiue him For as Cyprian truly noteth They be the seruants of Epist. 1. lib. 1. God whom the diuell troubleth and they are Christians whom Antichrist impugneth Neque enim quaerit illos quos iam subegit aut gestit euertere quos iam suos fecit For he seeketh not those whom he hath alreadie subdued or desireth to ouerthrowe those whom hee hath already made his owne the enemie aduersary of the church whome hee hath estraunged and kept foorth of the Church them he neglecteth and passeth by as captiues and ouercome those he assaulteth in whom he perceiueth Christ to dwell If therefore Antichrist be ledde by the spirit of Sathan then no doubt he shall passe by both Iewes Insidels set himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Thess. 2. 4. that is both in the Church of God and against it that the vnsound he may seduce and the sound he may persecute The assumption standeth on two parts 1. affirmatiue that the Iewes are readie to receiue Antichrist 2. negatiue that the Christians and Gentiles are not readie to receiue him The former hee proueth because the Iewes do yet looke for their Messias who shall be a temporall King such a one as Antichrist shall bee But this reason is built on false suppositions First that Antichrist shall be one particular man which we haue proued to be false Secondly that Antichrist shall professe himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes which as it hath bene disproued out of the scriptures so can it not with any colour of reason be proued out of the same For as hath bene shewed Antichrist is the head of the Catholike Apostasie or Apostate Christians sitting in BabyloÌ„ that is Rome professing her selfe the church of God being one of the seuen heads of the Romane state succeeding the â—…mperours in the gouernment of Rome c. Thirdly as Antichrist shall not be such a one as the expected Messias of the Iewes so there is no necessitie that there should such a one come to the Iewes as they expect The second part also of his assumption is false For although sound and constant Christians bee not readie to receiue Antichrist but alwayes haue bene readie to resist him euen vnto the death yet vnsound and back-sliding Christians who embrace not the loue of the truth that they might be saued either are as readie to receiue Antichrist as they are apt and prone to decline from the truth a searefull caueat to those which waxe wearie of the Gospell or alreadie haue reuolted from Christ to Antichrist haue receiued the marke of the beast Yea but Christians saith he doo not expect Antichrist as
if he said I am Christ. To the assumption I answere that although the Pope doth not plainly directly say I am Christ but forbeareth the name of Christ as Caesar did the name of a King yet notwithstanding in that he challengeth the office authoritie of Christ it is as much in deed and in truth although indirectly and by consequent as if he made himself Christ Christ being a name of office For certainly whosoeuer professeth himselfe to be y e foundatiō the head the husband Lord c. of y e vniuersal church he maketh himself Christ althogh he do abstain frō the name For who is the head and Lord c. of the vniuersall church but Christ who hath authoritie to ordain sacramēts to prescribe lawes to the conscience to deliuer doctrines and articles of faith as necessary to saluation to forgiue the sinnes of the quicke and the dead who is the Prince of Priests the great Priest after the order of Melchizedec the Pastor of Pastors the King of Kings and Lord of Lords by whom Kings and Emperours do raigne who hath authoritie to commaund the Angels to bestow the kingdome of heauen on whom he pleaseth Finally vnto whom is all power giuen in heauen and in earth but onely to Christ But the Pope doth challenge al this to himselfe and much more as hath bene shewed He forsooth is the foundation the head husband and Lord of the vniuersall Lib. 1. cap. 5. Church c. And to conclude if you respect his nature Atquè ac Christus Deus est ens secundae intentionis compositum ex Deo homine As well as Christ he is God an essence of the second intention compounded of God and man if his office vnctione Christus est he is by annointment Christ hauing the very same office which Christ had when he was vpon the earth And therfore Bellarm. de pontif Rom. lib. 5. cap. 4. if this be a propertie of Antichrist to leaue vnto our Sauiour the name and title of Christ to take to himselfe the dignitie office and authoritie of Christ it cannot be auoyded but that the Pope is Antichrist 9 The third doctrine of Antichrist saith Bellarmine is this He shall affirme himselfe to be God and will require that hee may be worshipped as God From whence he reasoneth thus Antichrist will affirme that he is God and will be worshipped for God The Pope of Rome doth not affirme himselfe to be God neither would be worshipped as God therefore the Pope is not Antichrist The proposition is proued out of 2. Thess. 2. 4. So that he sitteth in the temple of God shewing himself as though he were God Answ. The meaning of the Apostles words is thus much that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God as God that is he shall rule and raigne in the church of God as if he were a God vpon earth shewing himselfe not so much by words as by deedes that hee is a God Or as the vulgar Latine edition and English translation of the Rhemists doe reade tanquam sit Deus as though he were God And thus Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius expounde this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith shewing himself he said not saying but endeuouring to shewe for he shall worke great workes and shall shewe forth wonderfull signes and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shewing as Beza obserueth is answerable to the Hebrew Moreh faciens se apparere prae se ferens or as we say taking vpon him as if he were a God It is not therefore necessary that Antichrist should in worde plainly openly professe himselfe to be God it is sufficient if in deed and behauiour hee taketh vpon him as if hee were 〈◊〉 God As for example if he shal be content to be acknowledged saluted and called God If he shall cause nay if he shal but willingly suffer himselfe to be worshipped as God if he shall challenge vnto himselfe those titles attributes and workes which are proper peculiar to the Lord. But Bellarmine perceiuing that this place in this sense may fitly be applied to the pope therefore he contendeth that it is not sufficient that Antichrist should indeed shew himselfe to be God as the Pope doth but that he shall openly name himselfe God and that he shall vsurpe not only some authoritie of God as the Pope doth but also the very name of God And that he saith is prooued out of these words of the Apostle 2. Thess. 2. in so much that he sitteth in the temple of God shewing himselfe tanquā sit Deus as though he were God Where saith he Paul doth not onely affirme that Antichrist shall sit in the temple for we also sit in temples and yet are no Antichrists but also expoundeth his maner of sitting namely that he shall sit as God to whō alone a tēple is properly erected And this hesaith is more cleerly set down in the Greek text for it is not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that hee is God But in this cauill are contained diuers errours 1. by temple which as we haue proued signifieth the church of God he vnderstandeth a materiall temple which should be built at Ierusalem 2. by sitting in the temple which signifieth his raigning in the church he vnderstandeth the corporall gesture of sitting in that materiall temple 3. by his sitting in the temple of God as God which signifieth his ruling ouer the church as if he were God hee vnderstandeth thus much that the materiall temple should be erected and consecrated to his honor as if he were God As though that temple which should be erected to his honour as if he and no other were the true God were called of the Apostle the temple of God or as though he pretending himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes sent from God would not also pretend the building of that temple to the honour of God 4. Whereas he saith that the Greek text hath not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is plaine that the text hath both In so much that he sitteth in the temple of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God shewing himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he is God Now Antichrist may sit in the temple of God as God and by his deedes and demeanour beare the world in hand that he is a God vpon earth and yet not professe himselfe openly and plainely to be God 10 And in this sense to come to his assumption doth this place properly agree to the Pope of Rome who sitteth in the temple of God as God that is ruleth in the church of God as if he were a God vpon earth and in his behauiour and course of life taketh vpon him as if he were a God and so would be reputed of others For first in their owne lawe the Pope is not Dist. 96. c.
I haue proued and the church of Rome that now is Babylon the Synagogue of Antichrist then all other controuersies betwixt vs and them may be easily decided their chiefe ground being the authoritie of their church and of the See Apostolike For then it is to be presumed that those doctrines which are peculiar to the Pope and Church of Rome are the errours of Antichrist yea and as the Apostle calleth 1. Tim. 4. 2. them doctrines of diuels 2 If the Romish church be Antichristian then our seperation froÌ„ it is warranted yea commanded by the word of God and all returning to it forbidden Apoc. 18. 4. Come out of her my people least pertaking with her in her sinnes you partake also in her punishment 3 If the Pope be Antichrist then those that embrace that religion and ioyne themselues to that church acknowledging the Pope to be their head receiue the marke of the beast And those that do receiue the beasts marke especially after he is reuealed shall drinke of the wine of Gods wrath and shall bee punished with fire and brimstone before the holy Angels and before the Lambe Apoc 14. 9. This therefore must serue as a serious admonition and necessary caueat both to reclaime all tractable Papists and to confirme all wauering and vnstayed Protestants The former as they tender their saluation so to come out of Babylon The latter as they will auoid their endles confusion to keepe out of Babylon For not onely to retaine the marke of the beast wilfully after he is discouered but to reuolt from the profession of the truth vnto Antichristian religion it also is a fearefull signe of reprobation For it is impossible that the elect should finally be seduced by Antichrist Math. 24. 24. And the Apostle Paul obserueth that Antichrist shall effectually deceiue them that perish with all deceitfulnes of iniquitie because they haue not receiued the loue of the truth that they might be saued And therefore God shall send them strong delusions that they should beleeue lies that al they might be damned which beleeued not the truth but delighted in vnrighteousnesse 2. Thess. 2. 10. 11. 12. Whervpon Chrysostome also writing hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antichrist preuaileth with Castawayes or such as perish And Ierome likewise Ad AlgasiaÌ„ quest 11. They shall be seduced saith hee by the lies of Antichrist who are prepared vnto perdition But on the other side those which renounce the Pope and church of Rome and rise sroÌ„ the graue of Antichristianisme and Popery and follow our Sauiour Christ in the sincere profession of the truth Blessed and holy are they for they hauing part in the first resurrection shal be freed from the second Apoc. 20. 6 death And howsoeuer they are esteemed of the followers of Antichrist as heretickes schismatickes which are to be persecuted with fire and faggot yet are they happie in their life whiles they ioyne with Christ against Antichrist for such are called elect and faithfull and redeemed out of the world and they are also blessed in their death dying in the quarrell of Christ Apoc. 17. 14. against Antichrist for of those specially doth the holy Ghost speake Apoc. 14. 13. Blessed are those that dye in the Apoc. 14. 4. Lord c. 4 If the Pope be Antichrist then those that are found to be resolute Antichristians that is recusant Papists but especially Iesuites and Seminary Priests which are sent to reconcile men vnto the Pope and Church of Rome that is as hath bene proued to set on them the marke of the beast consequently to brand them to destruction and all such as seeke to peruert seduce others ought not to be fauoured or spared in a Christian common wealth First because they are limmes of Antichrist and therfore by the commandement of God we should do to them as they haue done to vs. Apoc. 18. 6. Secondly because they are enemies to God and traitors to Christian Princes They are enemies to God not onely because themselues are Idolaters and consequently such as hate God Exod. 20. 5. but also because they labour to withdrawe others from the true worship of God vnto superstition and idolatrie and therfore in no case ought to be spared Deut. 13. 5. 8. They are traitors also to ChristiaÌ„ Princes being sworne vassals to the Pope their capitall enemie For hee esteemeth all Christian Princes that do not acknowledge him to be their head as schismatikes or heretikes And as he vseth so oft as he dareth to proceede Antonin sum part 3. tit 22. cap. 5. §. 11. against such foure wayes viz. by excommunication deposition depriuing them of their temporall goods possessions and raising warre against them so all Papists acknowledging the Popes supremacie do hold both that he hath authoritie so to proceede against Christian Princes and also that in his definitiue sentence hee Antonin sum part 3. tit 22. cap. 5. §. 10 cannot erre And therforé if they put not in execution the sentence of their holy Father it is not for want of treasonable will and rebellious affection towards their Prince but for lacke of meanes and oportunitie As for example when Pius 5. had sent his Bull of excommunication against our late Soueraigne Cupers pag. 182. num 8. Queene of happie memorie therein deposing her from her crowne and absoluing her subiects from their alleageance towards her it is most certaine that whatsoeuer many hollow hearted Papists pretended yet fewe of them did acknowledge her for their lawfull Queene and many of them thought it a meritorious worke to take away her life And surely if not their persons then much lesse ought their Antichristian religion the mysterie of iniquitie be tolerated in the Church of Christ. For what fellowship can there bee betwixt light and darkenesse or what agreement can the Temple of God haue 2. Cor. 6. with Idols 5 If the Pope be Antichrist and his Church Antichristian then can there be no reconciliatioÌ„ betwixt vs the church of Rome we being as often hath bene proued the true church of God For what agreement can there be betwixt Christ and Antichrist Such neuters therefore shewe themselues to be nâ—…llifidians and politicke Atheists who would perswade men that both wee and they are the true church of Christ and that the difference betwixt vs being in words rather then in substance may easily be composed but they might as well say that there is but a verball difference betwixt the Gospell of Christ and the doctrine of Antichrist 6 Lastly if the church of Rome which because of her largenesse calleth her selfe the Catholike that is to say the vniuersall church bee notwithstanding the Synagogue of Antichrist What infinit thankes doo wee owe to our good and gracious God who hath not suffred vs to be carried away with that Catholike Apostasie as it were an vniuersall deluge but hath gathered vs into the arke of his true church making vs with the rest of his true professors his peculiar people It remaineth therefore that seeing God hath bene so gracious to vs wee should not be vnthankful to him but rather should walke worthy our calling as it becommeth the children of the light adorning the profession of the glorious Gospel of Christ by a godly conuersation to the ende that by the plentifull fruites of righteousnesse and true holinesse wee may glorifie God our heauenly Father stoppe the mouthes of our aduersaries and gather assurance vnto our owne soules of our iustification and saluation by Iesus Christ our bessed Lord and Sauiour To whom with the Father and the holy spirit be all praise and thankes-giuing both now and euermore Amen FINIS
city that is the church vnder the heathen namelie the persecuting Emperours for 42. moneths which is mentioned Apocalypse 13. 5. But supposing it to be vnderstood of Antichrist his persecution let vs consider the force of their argument Where the two witnesses of God are slayne by Antichrist there is say they the seat of Antichrist At Ierusalem the two witnesses of God shall bee slaine therefore at Ierusalem shall be the seat of Antichrist The proposition they take for graunted the which notwithstanding is not generallie true For the two witnesses of God may bee slaine in that place by the authoritie and commaundement of Antichrist where his proper seat is not For as our Sauiour Christ was put to death by the authority of the Romane Empire at Ierusalem where notwithstanding was not the imperiall seat of the Emperour So the witnesses of our Sauiour Christ might be slaine by the authority and commaundement of the Antichrist of Rome either at Ierusalem or else where where notwithstanding is not the proper seat of Antichrist This alone is sufficient to ouerthrow their whole argument For if their proposition be not generally true then their whole argumentation from a particular proposition is mere sophistry 17 Notwithstanding their assumption is also to be denyed because the holy ghost speaketh not of Ierusalem as Hierome proueth but of Rome or rather of the Empire of Rome Yea but say they Christ also was crucified where the two witnesses should bee slayne at Ierusalem Christ was crucified and not at Rome therefore at Ierusalem the two witnesses should bee slayne I answere to the assumption Christ was crucified at Ierusalem and in the great city also that is to say within the Romane Empire wherein and by authoritie where of our Sauiour Christ was put to death In which sence the Rhemists seeme to apply this prophecy to Rome If by the great city say they is meant any one city it is most like to be old Rome For by in Apoc. 17. 18. the authoritie of the old Romane Empire Christ was put to death first Whereunto I might adde that euen in Rome it selfe Christ hath bene crucified in his members and that within Ierusalem Christ was not crucified Heb. 13. 12. Now that Ierusalem is not here meant but Rome or rather the Romane Empire I proue first because it is called the great citie By which title throughout the Apocalypse is meant Babylon or Rome as appeareth by conference of these places Apoc. 14 8. and 16. 19. 18. 10. 16. 18. 19. 21. but especially Apoc. 17. 18. where the woman that is the whore of Babylon is said to be the great city which reigneth ouer the kings of the earth And of this great city i. Empire of Rome which as it is called Sodome which is the name of a city so also Egypt which is the name of a kingdom the streets may fitly signifie the cities or townes of the seuerall prouinces Once only is this title giuen to Ierusalē then not to the earthly Ierusalem but to the heauenly Ap. 21. 10. And so Augustine expoūdeth this place In pla Homil. 8. ◅n Apoc. te is ciuit at is magnae i. in medio ecclesiae in the streets of the great city that is in the middest of the church Sauing that by the name church he must needs vnderstand an adulterous apostaticall church which elsewhere is called the whore of Babylon because as it foloweth in the text it is called spiritualy Sodō or E For euen as in the middest of the church euen at Ierusalē christ was crucified so also the two witnesses of Christ were to bee slaine in the middest of the church euen in that city which professeth her selfe to be as it were the Ierusalem of Christendome Secondly the great city whereof he speaketh is called spirituallie Sodom or Egypt Sodom for her pride and vncleannes Egypt for her idolatrie and crueltie towards the Israell of God Which titles most fitly agree to Rome which is not inferiour either to Sodome in pride and vncleannesse or to Egypt in grosse idolatry and sauage cruelty towards the Mat 4. 5. Mat. 27. 53. church of God But they are not in this place ascribed to Ierusa lem which in the Apocalypse and elsewhere in the new testament is called the holy city euen then when it had crucifyed our Sauiour Christ. And not to seeke further euen in that eleuenth chapter of the Apocalypse vers 2. neither is the citie of Ierusalem in the Apocalypse any where spoken of in the ill Hicrome ad Marcell part This is also Hieroms argument in his Epistle to Marcella None of the holy scripture saith he can be contrary to it selfe and much lesse the same place of scripture For about ten verses before Ierusalem is called the holy city Now if it be called the holy city euen after the passion of our Lord how is it againe call◅d Cap. 13. spirituallie Sodom and Egypt But Bellarmine answereth that Hierome did not write this in good sooth by which aunswere it were easie to elude any testimony as though Hierome made no conscience to write vntruthes especially in so waightie a Irenaus matter although in the name of others Thirdly before the time of this reuelation which was in the latter end of Domitians raigne the temple and city of Ierusalem were vtterly destroyed and neuer so to be reedified as to become the seat of Antichrist therefore this place cannot be vnderstood of Ierusalem Wherefore these obiections notwithstanding our assertion remaineth fi◅e and stedfast that Antichrist was to sit in Rome christened and professing her selfe the church of God Euen as the Bishops of Germanie in Auentinus applying both this prophecie of Paul and that of Iohn Apocalypse 17 to the Lib. 5. hist. Boe. Antichrist of Rome In Babylonia say they in temple Dei sedet he sitteth in Babylon in the temple of God 18. Now let vs further consider what other euasions they vse to auoide this trueth First they say that Babylon did not signifie any one citie but the whole societie of the wicked Secondly if it signified any one citie that then it was olde Rome Now thirdly if the whore of Babylon doe signifie Rome christened that yet notwithstanding it is not as Bellarmine De Pont. Rom. lib. 3. c. 13. is not ashamed to say the seat of Antichrist But if Rome christened or Church of Rome be the whore of Babylon as wee haue proued though our aduersaries should not confesse it then is it so called because shee is an adulterous and apostaticall church which hath fallen from Christ to Antichrist whom in steed of Christ she acknowledgeth to be her husband and head then is she the mother both of all fornications Apoc. 17. 5. that is of all superstitious and idolatrous worshippe and also of al abominations as Atheisme Machiauellisme Sodomy and Antichristian heresies with whom the Kings and inhabitants Apoc. 17. 2. 4. of