only within their owne Trib◠for I can assure him that neither the Kings nor the Nobility of England will imitate those of Iuda in this and it will be their only way to get a Law enacted that their generation may succeed them in their Ministry which M. Downam seemeth to wish and to mislike that law not a little which in a parenthesis he telleth vs hath otherwise prouided These are the base and carnall cogitations of these new Ghospellers and yet all will not serue for they shall neuer find a remedy for this their griefe except they returne to the Catholike Church whom◠they may thanke for the liuing they haue But in it God hath prouided for this all other inconueniences that can any way arise and in particuler for the deciding of all questions and controuersies Wherefore if the Protestants and Puritans will haue an end of this of their Bishops and Presbitery they must of necessity stand to the Catholike Churches iudgment in which they shall find Bishops established and yet sometimes by reason of persecution Priestes only without Bishops as now we see in our Country where conformable to that which in their iudgmēt was practised in the Primitiue Church in many places at least for a tyme we haue hitherto only Priestes subordinate to an Arch-Priest but yet we are far from misliking Bishops but do both wish and expect them when our lawfull Superiour who succeedeth the chiefest of the Apostles shall see it conuenient M. C. A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS of this first Part of Antichrist THE disputation of Antichrist is propounded and the first Argument from the name it selfe discussed CHAP. I. That Antichrist shal be a certaine determinate man CHAP. II. That Antichrist is not yet come CHAP. III. The first demonstration That Antichrist is not yet come CHAP. IIII. The second demonstration CHAP. V. The third demonstration CHAP. VI. The fourth demonstration CHAP. VII The fifth demonstration CHAP. VIII The sixt demonstration CHAP. IX Of Antichristes Name CHAP. X. Of Antichristes Character CHAP. XI Of Antichristes Generation CHAP. XII Of Antichristes Seate CHAP. XIII Of Antichristes doctrine CHAP. XIIII Of Antichristes myracles CHAP. XV. Of Antichristes Kingdome warres CHAP. XVI Of Gog and Magog CHAP. XVII The dotages of Heretikes are confuted with which they do not so much proue as impudently affirme that the Pope is Antichrist CHAP. XVIII The trifles of the Smalcaldicall Synod of the Lutheranes are confuted CHAP. XIX Caluins lyes are refuted CHAP. XX. The lyes of Illyricus are refuted CHAP. XXI The fooleryes of Tylemanus are refuted CHAP. XXII The lyes of Chytraeus are refuted CHAP. XXIII The arguments of Caluin and Illyricus are confuted who go about to proue that the Pope is no longer a Bishop where also the fable of Pope Ioane the Woman is confuted CHAP. XXIIII CARDINALL BELLARMINES THIRD BOOKE of the Pope THE FIRST CHAPTER VVherin the disputation of Antichrist is propounded WEE haue demonstrated hitherto saith Bellarmine that the Pope succeedeth S. Peter in the chiefest Princedome of the whole Church It remayneth that wee see whether at any tyme the Pope hath fallen from this degree for that our aduersaries contend that hee is not at this time a true Bishop of Rome whatsoeuer hee was before And Nilus in the end of his booke against the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome speaketh thus But let that be the summe and head of my speach that while the Pope keepeth in the Church a conuenient heauenly and of ancient tyme appoynted order while hee holdeth and defendeth the heauenlie truth while he cleaueth to Christ the chiefe and true Lord and head of the Church I will easilie suffer him to be both the head of the Church the chiefest Priest the successor of Peter or els if he will of all the Apostles that all obey him and that whatsoeuer belongeth to his honour be in nothing diminished but if he be departed from the truth will not returne to it he ought deseruedly to be accounted of as one that is condemned and reiected But he should haue shewed into what errours the Bishops of Rome are fallen and when and by whome they were condemned For we know that in the Generall Lateran Councell vnder Innocentius the third and of Lyons vnder Gregory the tenth and of Florence vnder Eugenius the fourth the Greekes being conuicted of errour returned to the Faith of the Latins and afterward alway returned to their vomit againe and were therefore most grieuouslie punished by God but we neuer read that the Latins came to the Faith of the Greekes Neither can there any Ecclesiasticall iudgmēt be produced against the Latins as wee bring many against the Greekes Now Caluin Lib. 4. cap. 7. § 22. Let saith he all those things be true which notwithstanding wee haue now wrested from them that Peter was by the voice of Christ appointed Head of the vniuersall Church that he left the honour giuen vnto him in the Roman Sea that this was established by the authoritie of the auncient Church confirmed by long vse that the chiefest authoritie was alway due from all to the Bishop of Rome and that he was the iudge of all causes and men that he was subiect to the iudgement of none let them haue more also if they will Yet I answere in one word that nothing of this standeth in force except the Church and Bishop be at Rome And after § 24. Let the Romanists vntie me this knott I deny that their Pope is the Prince of Bishops since that he is not a Bishop And after Let Rome in tymes past haue bin the Mother of all Churches but since she began to become the seate of Antichrist she left to be that which she was And after § 25. VVee seeme to some backbyters and slanderers when wee call the Bishop of Rome Antichrist but they which thinke soe vnderstand not that they accuse Paul of immodesty after whome we speake yea out of whose mouth we speake soe And least any obiect that we wrongfullie wrest Paules wordes against the Pope which perteine to another purpose I will brieflie shew that they cannot be vnderstood otherwise then of the Popedome So he The like teach al the heretikes of this tyme chieflie Luther in supput temporum in assert art 28. 36. and often in other places Likewise the Magdeburgenses Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. colum 434. sequent and in all the following Centuries cap. 4. 7. 10. Illyricus in lib. de primat Dauid Chrytraus in cap. 9. 13. Apoc. Likewise VVolsgangus Musculus in loc commun tit de Ecclesia Theodor. Beza in Com. 2. Thessal 2. Theodor. Bibliander in Chron. tabul 10. 11. 12. 14. Henricus Pantaleon in Chron. Henricus Bullinger praesat in suas homil ad Apocal. And before all these Iohn VVicklisse art 30. amongst those which are condemned in Concil Constantiensi sess 8. pronounced the Pope to be Antichrist VVherfore that this question may
§ 25. Illyricus cent 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col 435. and all other Sectaries of this time do teach but the Pope of Rome is Antichrist as they themselues also teach in the same places Therfore the Pope of Rome sitteth in the true Church of Christ and is the Prince and head of his Church But the Church of Christ can only be one as Christ is one as Caluin also teacheth lib. 4. Instit cap. 1. § 2. Therfore the Lutheram and Caluinists and as many as are out of the Church which is vnder the Pope are out of the true Church Caluin saw this argument and answered that not so much the Church as the ruines of the Church of Christ are seene vnder the Pope For thus he speaketh lib. 4. Instit cap. 2. § 11. As there remained in old tyme certaine peculiar prerogatiues of the Church vnder the Iewes so neither at these daies do we take from the Papists the steps of the Church which the Lord would haue remaining among them of the dissipation And after God hath wrought with his prouidence that there should be also other remnants extant least the Church should wholy perish And as buildings are often so throwne downe that the foundations and ruines remaine so he hath not suffered his Church to be either subuerted from the foundation or quite throwne downe by Antichrist or els he would haue the building halfe saued from destruction And againe § 12. VVherfore hence it is manifest that we deny not that the Churches remayne euen vnder his Tyranny But this solution affoardeth vs two arguments The first if only the ruines of Christs Church remaine then the Church of Christ is fallen Wherfore the truth hath lyed which sayd Matth. 16. and the Gates of hell shall not preuaile against it The other the Church is fallen and the Papists hold the ruines of it and the foundation yea the building it selfe halfe throwne downe Then the Lutheram and Caluinists haue no Church for they haue not the whole and entire Church of Christ for that is fallen and the ruines yet remaine neither haue they it halfe throwne downe for that is among the Papists vnder Antichrist What haue they thē Perhaps a new building but in that it is new it is not Christs And who that is not altogeather blind seeth not that it is more safe to remaine in the true Church of Christ although halfe throwne downe then in none Now I come to the Scriptures by which it is proued that Hierusalem and not Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist The first is in Cap. 11. Apos where S. Iohn saith That Enoch and Helias shall fight with Antichrist in Ierusalem and be slaine thereby him and their bodies saith he shall lye in the streets of the great Citty which is spiritually called Sodome and Aegipt where also their Lord was crucified vpon which place Arethas Their bodies saith he shall be cast vnburied in the streets of Hierusalem for he shall raigne in that Citty as King of the Iewes In like manner do all other Interpreters expound it and surely it can by no means be denyed that this is spoken of Ierusalem for what Citty is there where our Lord was crucified but Ierusalem Wherfore Chytraeus who would haue this Citty to be Rome letteth passe those words where also their Lord was crucified as though they were not to the purpose Neither is it any hindrance that S. Hierome in ep 17. ad Marcellam endeauoureth to shew that Hierusalem cānot be called Sodome since that euery where in Scripture it is called the holy Citty for in that Epistle he perswadeth Marcella to forsake Rome and come into Palestins and therfore he heapeth vp all that he can in the praise of Hierusalem and in the reprehension of Rome and endeauoureth by all meanes to excuse Hierusalem Neither doth he it in his owne name but in the name of Pauls and Eusto hium whome he thought ought to be pardoued if they explicated any thing some what otherwise then it was For that earthly Hierusalem may be called Sodome for last and offences of the Iewes is manifest out of Isaias who in his first Chapter when he had prefixed the title The vision of Isaias which he saw vpon Iuda and Hierusalem addeth forthwith Heare the word of our Lord you Princes of Sodome harken with your eares the law of my God you people of Gomorrha Neither is that a good argument Hierusalem is called holy therfore it cannot be called Sodome for as S. Hierome sayth in the same Epistle that Rome is called Babylon and the purple harlot by S. Iohn by reason of the Pagan Emperours and yet that it is holy by reason of the Church of Christ the Sepulchers of S. Peter and S. Paul so also Ierusalem is an holy Citty by reason of the Prophets and Apostles which preached there of the Crosse and Sepulcher of Christ and the like and yet it is Sodome and Aegipt by reason of the offences and blindnes of the vnbelieuing Iewes The secōd place is Apoc. 17. where S. Iohn saith that the 10. Kings who shal deuide the Romā Empire among thēselues in whose raigne Antichrist shal come wil hate the purple Harlot that is Rome wil make her desolate wil burne her with fire How then shall it be the seate of Antichrist if it must be ouerthrowne and burnt at that very time Besides as we proued before Antichrist shal be a Iew the Messias and King of the Iewes Wherfore without doubt he shal place his seat in Ierusalem will go about to restore the Tēple of Salomō for the Iewes dreame of nothing els but of Hierusalē of the Temple Neither doth it seeme that they wil euer accept any for their Messias who shal not sit in Hierusalem restore the Tēple in some sort Wherfore Lactantius l. 7. c. 15. saith that in the time of Antichrist the chiefest Kingdome shall be in Asia that the West shall serue the East rule and c. 17. he determineth the part of Asia in which this Kingdome shal be saith that it is Syria that is Iudaea which is part of Syria and which is alway called Syria by the Latins Likewise S. Hierom Theodoret in c. 11. Dan. gather out of Dan. that Antichrist shal fix his tents in the coūtry of Ierusalem at length be slaine in the Mount Oliuet and S. Irenaeus l. 5. said plainely that Antichrist shall raigne in earthly Ierusalem The third place is in those words of S. Paul 2. Thess 2. So that he shall sit in the Temple of God For although there be many expositions giuen by the Fathers and some vnderstand the minds of the faithful in which Antichrist is said to sit whē he hath seduced them as S. Anselme expoundeth it some by the Temple vnderstād Antichrist himselfe with all his people for Antichrist will desire to haue himselfe and his seeme the spiritual Temple of God that is the true Church
Emperour is spoken of in those verses in which See Florimond Reymond of Antichrist cap. 22. among other things his little God Antinâ—â—â— is described Neither is he called a Prince with many heads as M. Downam supposeth but is only sayd to haue one white or gray head as Spartianus testifieth in his life that Adrian had and that either by these verses of the Sybil or by those of Virgil â—n which he describeth Numa Pompilius by his gray head also Nosco crines incanaque menta Adrian prognosticated that he Aeneid 6. should come to be Emperour Bullenger and Castalio differ from M. Downam and the truth also for they will not haue it to be a white head but a white hat or helmet deriuing it rather from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary to the common vse of such compounds But euen by Castalio his consent he that in this 8. booke is by the Sybil called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the fifth booke is also named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which place he is expressely sayd to succeed Traian as Adrian did And in both places he is sayd to haue a name neare to the sea which in greeke is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of the Adriatike sea which was denominated of a Citty called Adria neere Venice in which this Emperour was also borne and from thence had his name Adrianus That other conceypt of M. Downam who thinketh that this name neere to Ponti is Pontifex is very farre fetched for what connexion is there betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke and Pons in latin especially since that Pontifex is no greeke word and the Sybil wrote in that language and consequently the name which she spake of must not be only among Latins Finally if we should admit this fond conceipt yet all might be applyed to this Emperour who as Platina writeth in vita Alexandri repayred one bridge at Athens and built another at Rome of his owne name and besides was consecrated Bishop of Ceres but this refuge is needlesse since we haue the former most manifest explication I haue stood longer vpon this then was necessary since that M. Downam confesseth that it is from the purpose to which now he promiseth to returne 3. And he goeth about to answere Bellarmines other proofe which is that Prophesies are obscure till they be fulfilled and cleere when they are fulfilled and his answere is that although they become more cleere after then before yet many tymes they remayne darke and obscure to very many And he exemplifieth in the Prophesies of Christ which are cleere to good Christians but not to the Iewes and confesseth that many Prophesies concerning Antichrist are plainely vnderstood of the true Professors yet they seeme darke and obscure to the followers of Antichrist Where me thinkes he granteth all that which he denyed before viz. that the name of Antichrist being once come shall be aswell knowne as that of Christ and besides he openly gainsayeth Marloratus who affirmeth that euen among M. Downams true Professors there are as many expositions as expositors of M. Downam contradicteth himselfe Marloratus this place And besides Bellarmine sheweth that euen the Iewes Turkes and Pagans graunt that the name of our Christ is Iesus which manifestly conteyneth the number 888. But all Catholikes and others are far from thinking that the Pope is to be called Romanus and Latinus except something els be added and besides these names conteyne not iustly the number 666. as Bellarmine proueth Hauing thus put off the Argument M. Downam maketh another digression taking hould of the former part of Bellarmines proposition that prophesies till they be fulfilled are for the most part darke and ambiguous and heereupon he inferreth that therefore the writinges of the Fathers who lyued before Antichrist were most vncertayne ghesses in their expositions of the Prophesies concerning him which illation we deny and rather inferre the quyte contrary that since the Prophesies are The necessity of the Fathers expositions obscure and ambiguous we had the more need to take some light and certainty from the Fathers writings who receaued their expositions from the light of Gods spirit and the certainty of the Apostles Traditions But M. Downam proueth his inferrence by Bellarmines confession euen in this Chapter and cyteth his wordes in the margent Sed necisti Patres voluerunt sententias illas suas alio loco haberi quà m suspicionum coÌ„iecturarum Neither would these Fathers haue those their opinions otherwise accompted of then as suspicions and coniectures which assertion of Bellarmine commeth far short of M. Downams position for he speaketh only of two Fathers Rupertus and Beda M. Downam speaketh in generall of all the Fathers Bellarmine calleth only those two particuler opinions of theirs suspicions and coniectures M. Downam would proue that all the opinions of all the Fathers concerning Downam proueth an vniuersall by a particuler prophesies not fulfilled are but ghesses which is to proue an vniuersall by a particuler a fit argument for M. Downams Diuinity if not for his Logick which perhappes the badnes of his Diuinity maketh him either to forget or forsake The like fault he committeth againe in alleaging S. Irenaeus who only speaketh of this one prophesy of Antichrists name and Andraeas maketh as little to his purpose only affirming with Bellarmine that experience will make manyfest to them that are vigilant both the exact computation of this number and all other thinges which are written of Antichrist which M. Downam seemed before to deny and now is as far The auctority of the Fathers from prouing that the Fathers expositions when they all agree make not a Prophesy certainely to be vnderstood though when they are deuyded their expositions be but probable and therefore because they were so in this place we see that Bellarmine grounded not his argument vpon any of them but vpon another certayne rule which they all agree in and M. Downam himselfe cannot choose but confesse in great part 4. Thus much for this digression Now M. Downam commeth againe to the purpose goeth about to answere Bellarmines Assumption which is that Antichrists name is Antichrists name yet vnknowne yet vnknowne where M. Downam distinguisheth confessing that in the Church of Rome it is not knowne of the ignorant nor acknowledged of the obstinate but in the true Church of God Antichrist is knowne and his name acknowledged But Marloratus affirmeth the contrary and M. Downam insinuateth as much saying that to the opinions which Bellarmine alleadgeth many more Downam contradicteth him selfe and Marloratus might be added which he will hardly make good except he haue recourse to his new Ghospellers who though they be vnited in malyee against the Pope yet their proud heads cannot agree in the exposition of this or almost any other place of Scripture And besides the agreement of Protestants in this or in any thing els must needs
doctrine of Antichrist But M. Downam giueth vs two differences betwixt these markes before Antichrists comming and after First vntill the yeare 607. there was not saith he in the Catholike Church an vniuersall subiection to the Pope as the head and consequently till then these things could not be vsed as signes thereof as since they haue But M. Downam may when it pleaseth him take the paines to peruse what Bellarmine The Church was alway subiect to the Pope bringeth in the 19. last Chapter of his second booke concerning this point I doubt not but he will acknowledge an vniuersall subiection to the Pope euen from the Apostles or if he be obstinate and will nor yield to an euident truth yet I am sure he will neuer be able to answere Bellarmines proofes if his pryde be such that he presumeth that he can let him begin when he will and see what he shall gaine by it The second difference which M. Downam alleadgeth is that before the yeare 607. these thinges were not imposed and inioyned vpon all by the lawes of the Pope as since they are so that the cause of vsing them now is not the example of the ancient Church but the authority of the Popes law But this is a very poore difference and argueth a wonderfull corruption in the ancient Church since that she was so forward to take Antichrists markes that she needed no commaund and besides if M. Downam maketh the ancieÌ„t Church to be very corrupt Downam will take the paines to peruse the ancieÌ„t Councells and Decrees of Popes which Bellarmine bringeth in these particuler controuersies he shall find that there was the same necessity for all men to performe these things then that there is now many of them being commaunded by Gods law and others not exacted of all and some not of any as the Reader may easily distinguish by considering the particulers 6. Wherefore now let vs consider how M. Downam answereth VII Bellarmines particuler obiectioÌ„s And first coÌ„cerning Chrisme vsed in the Church before the yeare 607. Chrisme he answereth that those three Fathers speake of the annoynting with oyle vsed in the Sacrament of Baptisme and addeth that this also without warrant of the Scripture is retayned among the Papists Where you see he maketh these three Fathers Papists in that point at the least and though it be true that they acknowledge that Cerimony of Baptisme yet in these places they speake most plainely of Chrisme and the Sacrament of Confirmation For Tâ—rtullian and S. Cyprian compare it with baptisme attributing to it the effects of grace aswell as to Baptisme and S. Augustine placeth it betwixt baptisme and the Eucharist and calleth it Chrisming which is the proper name of this Sacrament Wherefore M. Downam must of force confesse that these Fathers were Papists in this point also and that this marke was long before the yeare 607. Now whether this vnction were vsed in the primitiue Church or no is a new question belonging to another place and it is inough for vs now that it was long before Antichrist came according to the Protestants accompt and that they do not much vse euen the imposition of hands which they acknowledg was vsed in the primityue Church of which M. Downam can giue no better reason then for that it was abused by vs. By which in their opinion they might also leaue off Baptisme Eucharist and all other rites and exercises of How chrisme maketh vs Christians de Consecrat dist 5. c. Vt ieiun Ibid. c. De bis verò Christian Religion as indeed they haue done in great part only they loue to heare themselues talke in a Pulpit though they say neuer a true nor wise word I omit his other impertinent obiections out of the Canon law where first that holy Pope and Martyr Melchiades saith that a man shall neuer be a Christian meaning a strong and valiant or perfect Christian except he first receaue this Sacrament for so he vseth the name Christianus as the Latins vse Vir and the Aurelian Councell saith that this Sacrament is more to be reuerenced then Baptisme if we respect the person of him who ministreth it because he must of necessity be a Bishop How Chrisme is more to be reuerenced then Baptisme and besides this Sacrament supposeth and in some sort includeth baptisme and in that respect is said to be more venerable then baptisme by it selfe And this is all that M. Downam can say for himselfe or against vs for that which he addeth coÌ„cerning the ordayning of the Sacrament as though it were ordayned by the Church and not by Christ is a fond Chymera of his owne For we affirme that it was instituted by Christ as all other Sacraments were and besides it is now from the purpose since our whole question is whether this Sacrament were vsed before the yeare 607. which Bellarmine hath euidently conuinced that it was To the second obiection M. Downam answereth with a distinction that to cleaue to the Roman Church in ancient tyme was the note of a good Christian because then that Church was Apostolicall but now it is the marke of an Antichristian because now that Church is Apostaticall Where you find him still in the same fault of petitro principij And besides you see he graunteth asmuch as Bellarmine would haue him that in old tyme the cleauing to the Roman Church was so far from beeing the marke of Antichrist that it was the chiefest note to know a good Catholike Christian from a false and wicked heretike and consequently it is to be accompted so still For the heretikes in those tymes could say as M. Downam doth that the Roman Church was Apostaticall but they were not able to proue it any more then M. Downam is and all good Catholikes were then and are now certayne that it can neuer be so since Christ hath promised the contrary to S. Peter and his successors And besides it is very strange that Christ Antichrist cannot haue both one marke Christ and Antichrist should both haue one marke And that the argumeÌ„ts which the old Fathers vsed against heretikes should come to be vsed by Antichrist against Catholikes But to these absurdities must they needes fall who call light darkenes and darkenes light as M. Downam and all heretikes doe M. Downam goeth forward with his distinctions and differences affirming that in ancient tymes at 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 All which is false for now also other Churches cleaue to the Church of Rome as to their head and the Church of Rome cleaueth to them as to her members and it acknowledgeth many other particuler Churches besides it selfe still though all subiect and subordinate to it as they were euer How the Church of Rome is vnited standeth with other Churches And that which he addeth is a meere
cauill for the Church of Rome if we vnderstand that particuler diocesse is still accompted but a part of the Catholike Church and in this sense a man may still be a good Christian although he be not of the Church of Rome And in ancient tymes the Church of Rome alone that is the Church of which the Bishop of Rome is the chiefe Pastor was accompted the Catholike Church And consequently that he that was not a member of that Church was not taken for a Catholike or true Christian as appeareth sufficiently by the places which Bellarmine citeth to which I will only adde one more out of S. Hierome in his Epistle to Pope Damasus I am vnited in Communion saith he to thy Blessednes that is to the Chayre of Peter I know that the Church was built vpon that rock whosoeuer eateth the Lambe out of this house is prophane if any man be not in the Arke of Noe he will perish in the deluge I know not Vitalis I refuse Those which belong not to the Church of Rome belong not to Christ but to Antichrist Meletius I esteeme not Paulinus whosoeuer gathereth not what thee scattereth that is whosoeuer belongeth not to Christ belongeth to Antichrist Now let M. Downam compare the writing of any Catholike at this tyme and see if they attribute more to the Pope or Church of Rome at this tyme then S. Hierome did at that and with all consider if in S. Hieromes iudgement it be not a playne marke of an Antichristian to be against the Roman Church and of a good Christian to be vnited to it 8. To the third obiection M. Downam answereth that the Oath which Bellarmine alleadgeth is not an Oath of obedience and allegiance to the Pope but of faith and Religion towards God conformable to the faith and Religion then professed by the Bishop and The oath of obedience made to the B. of Rome before the yeare 606. Church of Rome But by M. Downams leaue the wordes of the Bishop are these Sub meiordinis casu spondeo atque promitto tibi perte Sancto Petro Apostolorum principi atque eius Vicario Beatissimo Gregorio vel successoribus ipsius me numquā c. ad schismata reuersurū sed semper me in vnitate Sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum Vnder perill of loosing my place I profer promise to thee and by thee to S. Peter Prince of the Apostles and to most blessed Gregory his Vicar or to the successors of him that I will neuer returne to schisme but will alwayes in all pointes remayne in the vnity of the holy Catholike Church and in the communion of the B. of Rome By which we see that the promise to remayme in the communion of the Pope was as absolute as that other to remayne in the vnity of the Catholike Church which I suppose M. Downam will admit to be perpetuall without limitation of any tyme. And this promise he presently cōfirmeth with an Oath by Almighty God by the 4. Ghospells which he held in his hands and by the health of Nations and of the rulers of his Common wealth Now it is a friuolous cauill to say that this Oath was taken vpon the occasion of his lapse for this Bellarmine denieth not but only affirmeth that it was taken before the comming of Antichrist according to the Protestāts accompt Neither is it to the purpose that now such Oathes are more generall and common for this Bellarmine denieth not and who seeth not that the exaction of Oaths may proceed vpon diuers occasions And if the Oath be lawfull the often exacting of it is not culpable but rather If the Oath be lawfull the often exacting of it is not culpable commendable arguing greater vigilancy in them which gouerne And the like may be said of some other clauses more expresly set downe in some other formes of oathes according to the necessity of tymes and the qualities of them who are to sweare M. Downam should shew vs that there is any oath exacted of any now that is not fit to be performed by them which thinke it necessary to liue in the communion of the Pope as this Bishop did as appeareth by his Oath wherein he promiseth as much in generall as any other can expresse in particuler for he protesteth that he will neuer be drawne from this cōmunion by any perswasions or any other meanes and consequently that he will alway remaine in the obedience of the Pope for he renounceth not any heresy as M. Downam supposeth but only schisme which he performed by returning ad vnitatem Sedis Apostolicae to the vnity of the Apostolike Sea which I hartily wish that M. Downam and his fellow Protestants may also doe for otherwise it would not be sufficient to renounce their heresies though this were a good step to that To the fourth after a fit of rayling M. Downam answereth Priestly vnction vsed before the yeare 606. Desacra vnctione c. Cum venisset at length that both the places of S. Gregory Nazianzen are to be vnderstood figuratiuely of consecration to the Ministry this he endeauoureth to proue by the testimony of Innoc. 3. by which it appeareth that this cerimony of annoynting was not vsed in the Greek Church whereof Naziāzen was but reiected as Iewish vntill he imposed the same vpon them about the yeare 1200. But M. Downam goeth beyond Innocentius for he only affirmeth that they to whom he wrote that is at the most the Grecians of his tyme were not wont to vse this cerimony of annoynting but that the Greeke Church had not vsed it before Innocentius affirmeth not and much lesse that they had reiected it as Iewish Wherefore these are M. Downams additions which we may bouldly reiect since he hath no proofe for them and consequently his figuratiue interpretation falleth to the ground and we are to take the words of S. Gregory Nazianzen as they sound especially since others as ancient as he both of the Greeke and Latin Church make expresse mention of this Cerimony as M. Downam may see in Bellarmine lib. 1. de Sacramento Ordinis cap. 12. where he also handleth this obiection out of Innocentius 3. and vrgeth it further then M. Downam Bellarmin vrgeth Downams obiection further then he doth himselfe doth whome I must intreat not to be angry though I passe ouer his rayling in silence since he saith nothing to the purpose which is not already answered for now all our question is how ancient this Cerimony is and for the lawfulnesse therof I remit him to the place of Bellarmine already alleaged where he solueth that obiection taken from the Iewes and whatsoeuer els M. Downam can inuent 10. To the fifth obiection M. Downams answere is that S. Augustine is to be vnderstood of Sacrifice of prayer and not of any propitiatory Sacrifice but by M. Downams leaue he cannot carry it so for we will appeale to S.
speaking to Rome say Shall I speake to thee who hast wiped away the blasphemy written in thy forehead with the confession of Christ Finally the same is manifest out of S. Iohn himselfe who saith that he speaketh of that Rome who held the Empire ouer the Kings of the earth and which was drunke with the bloud of Saints and with the bloud of the Martyrs of Iesus which certainly haue not place but in that Rome which in the raigne of Nero and Domitian slew the Martyrs Thirdly I say although that Woman were Christian Rome as the heretikes would haue it yet their argument hath no force at all for as we shewed before Antichrist shall hate Rome and fight with it and consume and burne it out of which it manifestly followeth that Rome shall not be the seate of Antichrist To the second we haue already said that S. Paul in that place speaketh of the Temple of Salomon and to the reason which we made I answere that the Iewish Sacrifice and Priesthood ceasing the Temple also ceased to be the Iewish Temple but it ceased not forth with to be the tēple of God for the same Temple might be the Temple of Christians and indeed it was so so long as it remained for the Apostles preached in it and prayed after the Ascension of Christ and the comming of the Holy Ghost as is manifest by those words Luc. vltimo They were alway in the Temple praysing and blessing our Lord. Likewise Act. 3. Peter and Iohn went vp into the Temple at the ninth houre of prayer and Act. 5. the Angell sayth to the Apostles Speake in the Temple to the people all the words of this life To that of Daniel I answere that eyther Daniel would say that the Temple is not to be built againe but in the end of the world which is true for Antichrist shall not come but in the end of the world or that the desolation shall remaine for euer because though it were built againe yet the Temple should neuer be but prophaned after the ouerthrow made by Titus for when it shall be erected by Antichrist thē chiefly shall the abhomination of desolation remaine in it that is Antichrist himselfe or his Image or finally that the Temple should neuer be perfectly built againe but yet that the building should be begun that Antichrist should sit in the Temple begun in some sort To the places of the Fathers we haue already answered that they affirme or at least deny not that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of Salomon and wheras many of thē add that Antichrist shall also sit in the Churches of Christians it is true and not contrary to vs for the Fathers meane not that Antichrist shall sit in the Church as a Bishop as Heretikes dreame but that he shall sit as God For Antichrist shall command that all the Temples of the whole world be conuerted to his worship and he will make himselfe to be adored in them He will command saith S. Chrysostome in this place himselfe to be worshiped and reuerenced for God and to be placed in the Temple not only of Hierusalem but also in the Churches and the rest speake in the same manner To the arguments taken out of the words of S. Gregory I answere that out of his words the contrary of that is deduced which the heretikes infer for they argue thus The Bishop of Constantinople did forerun Antichrist because he made himselfe the Vniuersall Bishop therefore Antichrist shall be some Vniuersall Bishop who shall vsurpe all to himselfe But the contrary is inferred for the forerunner is not to be the same with him whome he forerunneth but farre lesse though like him in some thing as appeareth in S. Iohn Baptist and Christ If therfore the forerunner of Antichrist be he who maketh himselfe the vniuersall Bishop the true Antichrist himselfe shall not make himselfe that but some other thing greater viz. he shall extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God or if the true Antichrist shall only make himselfe the Vniuersall Bishop that Iohn of Constantinople who did this was not the forerunner of Antichrist but the true Antichrist himselfe which notwithstanding neither S. Gregory nor our Aduersaries say Wherfore the sense of S. Gregories words is that because Antichrist shall be most proud and the head of all the proud so that he will not suffer any equalls therfore whosoeuer vsurpeth to himselfe any thing otherwise then he ought and will exceed and surpasse others is his forerunner and such were the Bishops of Constantinople who being in the beginning but Archbishops first vsurped to themselues to be Patriarches and after the title of Vniuersall In like manner when S. Gregory sayth an army of Priests is prepared for him he meaneth not that Priests as Priests belong to the army of Antichrist for so he should haue put himselfe in that army but that Priests as they are proude prepare an army for Antichrist for he speaketh of the same Iohn and of Priests like him who were extolled aboue the rest vniustly But hence it followeth not that Antichrist shall be the Prince of Priests but that he shall be the Prince of the Proud Out of this sixt head we haue a notable argument that the Pope is not Antichrist since his Seate is not Ierusalem nor in the Temple of Salomon yea it is credible since the yeare 600. no Bishop of Rome was euer at Hierusalem M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted 1. MAISTER Downam denieth that Antichrist shall fit at Hieresalem and to Bellarmines first proofe out of Apoc. 11. he answereth first that it may be doubted that S. Antichrist his Seate shall be in Ierusalē Iohn speaketh not of Antichrist because he seemeth to speake of the former beast Apoc. 13. which M. Downam supposeth not to be Antichrist But this is a very good confirmation that S. Iohn speaketh of Antichrist in this place also since it is certaine that he speaketh of him in the 13. chapter and expresseth Apoc. 11. Apoc. 13. See c. 5. §. 5. c. him by the former beast and in a manner all Interpreters agree that Antichrist is spoken of in both places and of this latter we haue said some thing before Secondly M. Downam confirmeth this his doubt that Antichrist is not spoken of Apoc. 11. because the Papists teach that Antichrist shall be the King of the Iewes and counterfaite Christians therfore by their owne Doctrine this persecution of the Church by the Gentiles should not be the persecution vnder Antichrist But the answere is easie as Ribera and others vpon this place learnedly declare for S. Iohn Why those that follow Antichrist are called Gentiles speaketh of the Church vnder the metaphor of the Temple and consequently calleth her enemies Gentiles because those that impugned the Temple were such and besides M. Downam cannot choose but know that the Papists thinke that all those which follow Antichrist though they were before Iewes and Christians
Church but only their owne fancies because so it seemed necessary for their reputation and credit or some other human and priuate respect how much soeuer they pretend to be only moued by Scripture for of this they admit no more The Protestants haue no probable rule of faith nor any true faith at al. then they please and for the interpretation they haue no other rule then their owne pruate spirit or fancy which is far of from being any probable rule of truth much lesse so certaine as is necessary for the certainty of diuine and supernatural faith to be built vpon And this is the true reason why the Church of God is but one because there is but one rule of fayth from which whosoeuer falleth cannot haue any true faith at all nor belong to the true Church of God The other comparison which M. Downam vseth is much les to the purpose for it is not the Church but the Bishop of Sardis as he himselfe saith that it is agreed by In his Sermō at Lābeth pag. 2. Apoc. ◠1. Interpreters both new and old who had a name that he liued but indeed was dead neither was this death for want of faith but of charity and good workes as is manifest and though it were otherwise yet M. Downam could proue nothing by this comparison except we would belieue his bare word that the Church of Rome were in this case which is our chiefe question and M. Downams wonted figure to take it as granted Wherfore since he can argue no better let vs see how he can answere 7. To Bellarmines first reply vpon Caluins deuise that the Roman Church is not the true Church but that there VIII remaine in it only the ruines and reliques of a true Church M. Downam granteth that all visible Churches may faile and fall away but not the inuisible Church of Christ which he calleth the Catholike Church nor any one sound Christian that is of this inuisible Church In which answere he graunteth Bellarmine as much as he went about to proue that the gates of hell in his opinion haue preuailed against Christs visible Church so that in a whole thousand yeares Christ had not so much as one constant professor of his truth and though I might easily proue that Christ spake of his visible Church and that it The visible Church is to endure to the end of the world was to endure vntill the worlds end yet now I will not trouble my Reader with so needles a digression since the matter is so plaine and euident in it selfe that me thinks any man which maketh accompt of Christ his passion and glory or of his desire to saue soules and to prouide for their conuersion and faith should stop his eares not to heare so great a blasphemy vttered as M. Downam is not ashamed to affirme yet if any man haue any doubt or desire to be more fully satisfied in this point let him read Bellarmine him selfe lib. 3. de Ecclesia militant cap. 12. 13. To Bellarmines second reply M. Downam answereth that it proueth nothing except he suppose that the Church of Rome is the only true Church But he should haue answered it in forme admitted only that which Caluin auoucheth that the Papists hold the ruines of the Church and the foundations yea the buildings themselues halfe throwne downe for out of this only Bellarmine argueth and sheweth that the Protestants can neither haue the whole intire church since in their opinion it is fallen nor the part which remaineth of it since they grant The Protestants cannot haue the Church of Christ but only some new building of their own it to be amōg the Papists to which delēma M. Downā answereth not a word but only braggeth that the Church of Rome may fall yet the Catholicke Church of God may stand yea shall stand c. But he forgetteth himselfe marketh not what his Maister Caluin hath graunted that not only the Church of Rome but euen the very Church of Christ is fallen and that the Papists haue as much as is left of it cōsequētly the Protestāts can only haue some new hereticall building of their owne though M. Downam be neuer so loth to acknowledge it Neither will the example of the Church of Iuda vnder Iosias serue his turne for that was only a reformation of manners and a destruction of Idolatry without any departing from the ancient Church of God in which remained the true succession of Priests and Gods true religion after a visible manner no otherwise then if it should please his Maiesty to put downe heresie and aduance Catholike Religion in his Kingdome which were only to imbrace the true Church of Christ and not to erect any new building as the Protestants haue done as Bellarmine conuinceth 8. M. Downam hauing thus impugned Bellarmines arguments commeth to refute his solutions to their obiections and wheras Bellarmine gaue three solutions to the first See part 2. cap. 2. M. Downam passeth two of them ouer in silence telling vs that he hath taken thē away in another place which how true it is the Reader shall be iudge when we come to that encounter Now let vs see how he refuteth the second solution which Bellarmine giueth that the harlot of which S. Iohn speaketh is Rome Ethnick raigning worshiping Idols and persecuting Christians and not Rome Christian the Apoc. 17. contrary of which M. Downam neuer goeth about to proue with any new argument as he should haue done it being his turne now to argue but only contenteth himselfe to answere Bellarmines proofe which he doth also by halfes for Bellarmine proueth his exposition euidently by the authority of Tertullian S. Hierome and sheweth the impudency of heretikes that are not ashmed to alleadg those authours altogeather against their meaning to proue that S. Iohn speaketh of Rome Christian To all which M. Downam giueth him not a word but is very well content to be thus beaten so that it may not be spoken of but to the other proofe he thinketh himselfe able to say something therfore answereth two wayes 1. that though Popish Rome had not dominion ouer the Kings of the earth and were not drunke with the blould of the Saints and martyrs of Iesus yet we might vnderstand the Apostle thus that that Citty which then had dominion ouer the Kings of the earth and then persecuted the Saints is called Babylon because it was to be the seate or sea of Antichrist So that as you see M. Downam will haue Rome to be called Babylon because it was to be the seate or sea of Antichrist which he supposeth as manifest though Bellarmine in this third solution and before also in one of his arguments both which M. Downam passeth ouer in silence sheweth manifestly that Antichrist shall hate this Babylon and not make it the seat of his kingdome So that this first solution is nothing but M. Downams wonted
to proue that he is not a true Bishop at this tyme. And to begin with Caluin thus he speaketh lib. 4. Instit cap. 7. § 23. 24. I would know what Episcopall thing the Pope hath First the chiefest thing in a Bishop is to teach the people with the word of God Another and next to this to administer Sacraments the third to admonish and exhort and to correct those who offend and to conteyne the people in holy discipline what of these doth he Yea what doth he seigne himselfe to do Let them say therefore how they will haue him to be accompted a Bishop who toucheth not with his least finger no not so much as in show any part of that office It is not the same of a Bishop and a King For a King although he doth not that which is proper to a King notwithstanding he retayneth his honour and title But in discerning a Bishop Christs commaundement is regarded which ought alway to be of force in the Church VVherefore let the Romanists vnty me this knot I deny that their Pope is Prince of Bishops since he is no Bishop So he If I be not decaued all this discourse may be reduced to this short syllogisme Since this is the difference betwixt a Bishop and a King that a King is a name of power and gouernment to which the office of gouerning the people is annexed but a Bishop is a name of the office only of mynistring the word of God and the Sacraments Certainely if neither King nor the Bishop preforme their office the King shall retaine his name and dignity and the Bishop shall loose his But the Bishop of Rome doth not performe his office so much as in shew since that he neither ministreth the word of God nor the Sacraments to the people wherefore the Pope of Rome hath lost his name and dignity and consequently cannot be called a Bishop Now the Madgeburgenses centur 9. cap. 20. col 500. go about to confirme the same with a coniecture and signe for they say that it was an euident signe of the changing of the Roman Church into the whore of Babylon that God would that aboue those tymes in which this change was made a certaine true Woman and harlot should sit in the Popish seate who was called Iohn 8. This they proue first out of the authors Platina Martinus Polonus Sigebertus and Marianus Scotus Secondly out of the stepps or signe thereof which haue remained to our tymes viz. by a certaine seate of Prophyry hollow within which remayned in the pallace of S. Io. Lateran the vse of which they say was appointed after the discouery of this cryme to wit to discerne whether the new Pope were a man or no. Likewise by a certaine Statua of a woman with childe which hath remayned to our tymes in that place where Iohn 8. is said to haue byn deliuered Finally for that the Popes when they go from the Vatican to S. Io. Laterans are wont to decline that place where this woman is said to haue bene deliuered in detestatioÌ„ of that fact For otherwise that is the right way but it is no hard matter to vnty these knots And first to answere to Caluin either he speaketh of the signification of the name or of the thing it selfe when he saith that a Bishop is a name of an office a King the name of dignitie if he speaketh of the signification of the name he is plainly deceaued for as Episcopus is deryued of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of considering or looking vpon and signifieth the office of looking to so also Rex is deriued of gouerning in latin à regendo and signifieth the office of gouerning and as Rex is the name of a Magistrate so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also among the Heathens was the name of a Magistrate viz. of the Pretor as is manifest out of Aristophan in auibus and that which is more the same name of Pastor in the Scripture is attributed to a Bishop and a King as is manifest Ephes 4. Isa 44. And if he speaketh of the thing it selfe he is no lesse deceaued for as Kingly office is not a simple office of iudgging as of other Iudges but a true Prefecture in politicall affayres that is a power of gouerning men that are subiect to him by coÌ„maunding punishing so also a Bishoprick is not a simple office of preaching as it is of many other who preach and are not Pastors but it it a true Ecclesiastical Prefecture that is a power to gouerne men in spirituall diuine affayres and consequently of coÌ„maunding punishing of which we haue said much already and yet will say more in the booke following Now it shall suffice to note a few but most cleere places The Apostle S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. saith I will dispose the rest when I come and 2. Cor. 13. that I deale not more seuerely according to the power which our Lord hath giuen me and Heb. 13. obey your Superiours be subiect vnto them and 1. Tim. 5. Receaue not aceusatioÌ„ against a Priest but vnder 2. or 3. VVItnesses Adde to this also that it is false the Popes performe not the Episcopal function for they are not bouÌ„d to preach and minister Sacraments themselues if they be hindred by some iust cause but it is sufficient if they procure that all this be done by others otherwise Bishops should be bound to impossibilityes for there is no Bishop so little who can be sufficient of himselfe to preach minister Sacraments in all his Diocesse As therfore he satisfieth if in that place where he cannot himselfe he preacheth by another so likewise he satisfieth if in all places he preacheth by another when he cannot do it himselfe in any Neyther want there examples of antiquity for Possidius writeth in the life of S. Augustine that S. Valerius Bishop of Hâ—ppe committed the office of preaching to S. Augustine his Priest because he being a Grecian could not preach himselfe to a Latin people and in the same place Possidius relateth that in the East Church many Bishops were wont to coÌ„mit the office of Preaching to their Priests which they could not exercise themselues And yet we caÌ„not say that eyther S. Valerius or others who preached not the word of God themselues were not Bishops To the argument of the Magdeburgians I say that their history of Pope Iohn the Woman is a fable which Onuphrius refuteth sufficiently in his addition to Platina And first it is conuinced to be a fable by the testimonie of Greek Latin Wryters The first of all who could wryte of this thing and who best knew it was Athanasius Bibliothec. who liued in that very time in which this Iohn â— is feigned to haue bene Pope viz. about the yeare 850. was present at the creation of many Popes who eyther were before or followed this Iohn He therfore writeth that after Leo 4. the Sea was vacaÌ„t 15. daies and presently by common
ought not to be fauoured or spared in a Christian Common wealth Fifthly that there can be no reconciliation betwixt Protestants and the Church of Rome Sixtly that Protestants ought to be thankefull to God who hath not suffered them to be carried away with this Catholike Apostasy By which last wordes we may also note that if this their position of the Pope being Antichrist doth fall they haue no colour left to accuse the Catholike Church of schisme or heresy and consequently it remayneth euident that she is the true Church of Christ For no schisme or heresy can be Catholike or vniuersall as the Roman Church is only the persecution and Apostasy of Antichrist may in some sort vsurpe this name because though it shall want the vniuersality of tyme being to remayne but a very short tyme yet it shal be very vniuersall in respect of place as is manifest by that which is said in this Treatise Thus much shall suffice of the importance and necessity of this my small labour And now I will briefely say some thing of Cardinall Bellarmine whome I defend and of M. Downam whome I confute And concerning this renowned and mâ—st learned Cardinall I shall not need to vse many wordes his fame being spred ouer the whole world by his large and profound disputations against all sortes of hereticks which haue risen or are extant in these our dayes Wherefore it shal be sufficient to note that which maketh to our purpose that in this his Treatise of Antichrist he vseth not so many arguments as some others haue don only contenting himselfe with those which are proper and peculiar to this place omitting others which do rather proue that the Pope is the chiefe Pastour of Christes Church then disprooue that he is not Antichrist which in him proceedeth from two causes the one is his exactnes in the method and diuision of his disputations which conteyne euery one seuerall questions and arguments the other for that hauing before sufficiently discussed the affirmatiue position that the Pope is and ought to be acknowledged to be the chiefe Pastour of Gods Church he would not make any needeles repetition of those demonstrations but rather proceed to other which hitherto he had not touched and which directly concluded that the Pope not only by reason of his office but also in respect of his person can in no sort be that Antichrist which the Scriptures and Fathers affirme that we are to expect towards the end of the world I shall not need to adde any more in commendation of this his worke for that the whole Treatise following hath no other subiect I haue translated his whole Booke verbatim so that the Reader may peruse it and iudge of it himselfe It were superfluous to giue any reason why in my allegations of this worthy Cardinall I only mention his name for the most part for any man may easily perceaue that I do it for breuities sake and according to the vse of Schooles and not for any want of respect to his place and person whome I honour from my hart and defend him in this Treatise so far as my poore ability will giue me leaue Concerning M. Downam for so I commonly call him to giue him to understand that I impugne not his person but his detestable heresy I shall haue something more to say for first the Reader must not be ignorant that he hath peruerted the order of this disputation For whereas Cardinall Bellarmine first demonstrateth that the Pope is not Antichrist and afterward answereth the obiections of his Aduersaryes M. Downam tooke it to be his best course first to obiect whatsoeuer either former heretikes had inuented or he himselfe could adde omitting altogeather the answers which Bellarmine gaue that by this meanes he might possesse his Readers mynd by inueighing against the Pope at his pleasure without any contradiction and so haue him the more fauourable when he came to make shew of answering to Bellarmins arguments This is the cause why I am constrayned to confute M. Downams second booke in the first place not producing the argumeÌ„ts without his solutions as he dealt with the Cardinall but examining whatsoeuer he answereth distinctly in so much that one Chapter excepted where his confusion would not permit Cap. 4. it in all the rest euery number of my confutation answereth to the same in him so that if any man hath a desire to confer what both he and I say he may easily do it by reading first one section or number in him then the same in me which I would require of all such as do any way doubt of my sincere dealing because he findeth not M. Downams wordes verbatim alleaged which could not be without great prolixity But he that goeth thus far should also do well to read so much in Cardinall Bellarmime as is discussed in euery seuerall number which that the Reader may conueniently doe I haue also prefixed numbers to the Cardinalls discourse and noted in the margent where that which is handled in euery seuerall place may be found in him without difficulty And by this meanes I hope the Reader may peruse this my labour with clarity and profit and discouer M. Downams false dealing aswell in this point specified as in many other which now it is no tyme to rehearse they beeing very neere as many as there be leaues in this whole Booke and they may easily be found by either perusing the marginall notes or seeking in the table at the word Downam And yet perhaps it will not be amysse to note one or two of them in this place which especially discouer the badnesse of M. Downams cause For what can be more absurd or hatefull to Christian eares then to heare the enemyes of Christ and his Church commended and imbraced and his true Seruants and Doctors insolently reiected and accused of errours And yet this is M. Downams case not once or twyce but throughout the whole course of this disputation for he doth not only agree in substance with the Samosatens who are knowne heretikes and condemned by his owne iudgement but also ioyneth himselfe ex professo with that vile Apostata and capitall enemy of Christ Porphiry not only against S. Hierome who most earnestly and learnedly confuteth him at large but also against all other Ecclesiasticall writers yea euen the very Iewes themselues who in that point agree with the Christians but in another where they are opposite to vs there M. Downam ioyneth with them so that it seemeth that M. Downam and his fellow Protestants seeke of purpose how they may oppose themselues to Christ and his Church yea that they esteeme more of Gentilles and Iewes then they do of Christian writers though neuer so many so worthy or so ancient And surely whosoeuer shall consider attentiuely how often and how scornefully the ancient Fathers and pillars of Christs Church be reiected by M. Downam cannot choose but admire yea â—hould vp his handes and blesse himselfe
be diligentlie explicated nine heads are to be treated of First of the name it selfe of Antichrist 2. VVhether Antichrist be one man or a kind of men 3. Of the tyme of his comming and death 4. Of his proper name 5. Of what nation he shal be borne by whome he shall chiefly be receaued 6. Where he shall fixe his seate 7. Of his doctrine and manners 8. Of his miracles 9. Of his kingdome and warres For out of all these it will most cleerely appeare with what impudencie the heretikes make the Pope Antichrist to which we will adde a Chapter wherin we will proue that the Pope is not onlie not Antichrist but that hee hath in no sort left to be the Bishop and pastour of the whole Church that nothing may remayne not solued of Caluins obiections For the first some of our aduersaries teach that the name of Antichrist doth properlie signifie the Vicar of Christ and therefore that the Pope who affirmeth himselfe to be Christs Vicar is Antichrist So teacheth VVolfgāgus Musculus in locis cap. de potest Ministrorū and he proueth it because that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth vice whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vice-Christi in Christs place as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth him who obtrudeth himselfe for Captaine that is who will be accompted the Captaynes Vicar The Magdeburgenses cent 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. colum 435. do teach that the Pope is therefore the true Antichrist because he maketh himselfe the vicar of Christ But without doubt they are deceaued or endeauour to deceaue for the name of Antichrist cannot in any sort signifie the Vicar of Christ but only some that is contrary to Christ and contrarie not howsoeuer but in such sort that he striueth with him for the seate dignity of Christ that is who is aemulus Christi at emulation with Christ and would be accounted Christ hauing cast him downe who is truly Christ That this is the signification of this name it is proued three waies First because among the Grecians the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth properlie signifie opposition and because not onlie those things are said to be opposed which are repugnant one to the other but also those which are of equall value from thence it proceedeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition sometyme signifieth contrarietie sometyme equiualence as is manifest in the examples of all such names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth an emulous in a combate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a cōtrary remedie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a cōtrarie speach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equiualent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equall to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the thumme because it is opposed against and is equiualent to all the rest of the hand and so of the rest But a Vicar doth not signifie opposition but subordination to another and therefore it cannot be expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie the Captaines Vicar but ordinarily a contrarie Captaine as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make warre and sometime him that is in the Captaines place not as subiect to him but as equall as among the Latins Propraetor or Proconsul doth not signifie the Vicar of the Pretor or Consul but him that is in some Prouince that which the Pretor or Consul is in the Citty and in this Musculus was deceaued for because he read in Budaeus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie a Propretor he thought that it doth signifie the Vicar of the Pretor which is false Secondly the same is proued out of the Scripture for although this name were of it selfe ambiguous yet as it is takē in Scripture it is not doubtfull and our question must not be of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolutelie but as it is taken in the Scriptures Now in the Scriptures Antichrist is said to be him who is extolled aboue all that is called God 2. Thess 2. which certainelie is not to be the Vicar but the enemy of Christ And 1. Ioan. 2. Antichrist is sayd to be him who denieth Iesus to be Christ that he may sell himselfe for Christ and Matth. 24. Antichrist is said to affirme himselfe to be Christ which certainily is not the part of a Vicar but of an Emulous Thirdly out of all the Authors who haue written of Antichrist and out of the common sense of all Christians who by Antichrist vnderstād a certaine notable false Christ In which sort expoūdeth also this word of the ancient Greeks S. Damascen lib. 4. de fide cap. 28. and after the same manner doth S. Hierome expound it of the Latins who notwithstanding was also most skilfull in the Greeke tongue quaest 11. ad Algasiam Lastlie so also expoundeth it in his Thesaurus lingnae Graecae Henricus Stephaenus who withstanding is one of the heretikes of Geneua Hence we haue our first argument against our aduersaries For since the name of Antichrist signifieth the enemy and emulous of Christ and the Pope confesseth himself to be Christs seruant and subiect to Christ in all thinges and in no sort saith that he is Christ nor maketh himself equall to him it is manifest that he is not Antichrist M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted 1. FIRST M. Downam telleth vs of two great aduātages that Bellarmine hath against him and all Protestants in this point 1. In respect of his great learning much reading 2. In that he is to proue the negatiue part so that it is inough for him if he Bellarmins aduantages in this cōtrouersy can but shew plainelie and euidently that any one seueral essential mark ascribed vnto Antichrist in the Scriptures doth not agree to the Pope All which wee willinglie acknowledg and from hence doe inferre M. Downams ignorance and impudency that whereas it had bene inough for Bellarmine to haue disproued him in one point it is not inough for him that he is disproued in all as the Reader will easilie perceaue in perusing the particuler arguments Likewise we acknowledg the controuersie to be of that importance and consequence that it manifestlie conuinceth them to be the limmes of Antichrist The importance of this cōtrouersy who are in errour cōcerning this point for this consequēce doth not onlie touch vs if we were in the wrong as M. Downam seemeth to insinuate by only naming vs but it cōcerneth them also as fullie since that it is euident that none but heretikes can charge any and much lesse the chiefe Pastour of Christs Church with so foule an imputation Now how true it is that all heretikes are lymmes of Antichrist I need not shew since that it is graunted on both sides And therfore it behooueth M. Downam and his fellows to haue as great a will to cleere themselues in this behalfe as it doth vs and so much the more also because we are but the defendants and they are the slanderous calumniators likewise for that
Chrysostome and S. Cyril vpon this place S. Ambrose vpon the 2. Chap. of the 2. Epist to the ThessaloniaÌ„s S. Hierome in his Epistle to Algasia the 11. question S. Augustine in 29. Tract vpon S. Iohn S. Irenaeus in the 5. book against the herefies of Valentinus Theodoretus in the Epitome of the diuine Decrees in the chap. of Antichrist Besides in this place our Lord doth oppose to himself another man that is person to persoÌ„ not Kingdome to Kingdom nor sect to sect as it appeareth in those words I Another In the name of my Father In his owne name Me Hym. Wherfore as Christ was one particuler man soe shall Antichrist be one particuler man Moreouer Christ saith in this place that Antichrist shall be receaued for Messias by the Iewes and it is certayne that the Iewes expect one certayne and particuler man In like maÌ„ner all false Prophets came in the name of another and not in their owne name Ierem. 14. The Prophets do falsely prophetize in my name I sent them not c. But heere our Lord speaketh of one certaine man which shall come in his owne name that is who shall acknowledg no God at all but shall extoll himselfe as S. Paul saith aboue all that is called God Finally very many false Prophets were come before Christ verie many also were to come afterward therfore our Lord would not haue said if another shall come but many do come if he would haue spoken of false Prophets The second place is 2. Thess 2. Vnles there come a reuolt first and the man of sinne be reuealed the sonne of perdition c. And aâ—â—er And then the wicked one shal be rauealed whom our Lord Iesus shal kil with the spirit of his mouth These words the Aduersaries themselues vnderstaÌ„d of the true Antichrist but the Apostle speaketh of a certaine determinate particuler persoÌ„ as appeareth by the Greeke articles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For as S. Epiphanius haeres 9. which is of the Samaritans teacheth the Greeke articles doe contract the signification to one certaine thing soe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth man in common but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a particuler man And surely it is marueile that none of the Aduersaties who notwithstanding do boast of skil in tongues haue obserued this The third place is where we read thus 1. Ioan 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he putteth the article before Antichrist so properly called he pronounceth the name of Antichrist commonly taken without the article most plainly shewing that Antichrist properly taken is one certaine person but Antichrist coÌ„monly so called is no certaine person but in general all heretikes The fourth is Dan. 7. 11. 12. Chapters where he speaketh of Antichrist as S. Hierome Theodoretus vpon that place Irenaeus lib. 5. August lib. 20. de Ciuitate Dei cap. 23. yea Caluin the Magdeburgenses Beza vbi supra do teach And there Antichrist is not called one Kingdome but one King who often Kings which he shall find in the world shall take three quite away shal subiect vnto himselfe the other seauen Besides Caluin saith that litterallie Daniel speaketh of Antiochus Illustris allegoricallie of Antichrist whom Antiochus figured which S. Cyprian teacheth in his booke of Exhortation to Martyrdome cap. 11. S. Hierome vpon the 11. 12. of Daniel But Antiochus was a certaine particuler person Therfore Antichrist must be also one certaine person The fifth and last place is Apoc. 13. 17. where S. Irenaeus lib. 5. affirmeth that Antichrist is spoken of and it is plaine by reason of the likenesse of Daniels S. Iohns words for both of them make mention of ten Kings which shal be in the world when Antichrist shall come and both of them foretell that Antichristes Kingdome shall endure three yeares and a halfe c. As therfore Daniel speaketh of one determinate King so also doth S. Iohn in the Apocalyps The same is proued out of the Fathers who with coÌ„mon consent doe teach of Antichrist First that he shal be a most chosen instrument of the Diuell so that in him shall inhabite all fulnesse of the Diuels malice corporally as in Christ being a man doth inhabite all plenitude of Diuinitie corporallie Secondly that Antichrist shall not raigne more then three yeares and a halfe and consequently they teach that Antichrist shal be only one man See S. Irenaeus lib. 5. towardes the end Cyril of Ierusalem Catechesi 15. S. Chrysostome in 2. Thess 2. Theodoret in cap. 7. Dan. Lactant. in epit diuin Inst cap. 11. S. Ambrose in cap. 21. Luc. S. Hierome in cap. 7. Dan. q. 11. ad Algasians S. Augustine lib. 20. de Ciuitate Dei in many Chapters and vpon the 9. Psalme S. Gregory lib. 32. Moral cap. 12. S. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 28. S. Hyppolitus Martyr in his Oration of the Consumation or end of the world To the first argument of Beza I answere that in the Apostles tyme Antichrist did begin secretly to giue onsetts not in his owne person but in his forerunners For as Christ began to come from the beginning of the world in the Patriarches and Prophets who went before him and did signifie him soe that the mysterie of piety may be said to haue begun to worke from the beginning of the world and notwithstanding he came not in his owne person vntill he tooke flesh of the B. Virgin So Antichrist straight after the Ascension of Christ into Heauen began to come in his forerunners the mysterie of iniquitie began to work to wit in the heretikes and I yrants which did persecute the Church and chieflie in Symon Magus who called himselfe Christ and in Nero who first began to impugne the Church and yet notwithstanding in his owne person he shall not come but in the end of the world Wherefore the spirituall persecution of Symon Magus and the temporall of Nero is called the mystery of iniquity because they were signes figures of Antichrists persecution That this is the true explication of the place of S. Paul may be proued in two sortes First by all the interpreters of that place for all doe by the mystery of iniquity which S. Paul mentioneth vnderstand either Nero's persecution as S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostome vpon this place and S. Hierom quaest 11. ad Algasiam or the Heretikes who do deceaue secretly as Theodoretus and Sedulius vpon this place S. Augustine lib. 20. de ciuitate Dei cap. 19. Secondly by a reason taken from the aduersaries confession For they say that Antichrist properly is the seate of the Bishop of Rome If therfore Antichrist so properly called was borne in the Apostles tyme it doth follow that S. Peter S. Paul were properlie called Antichrists although secret and that Nero or Symon Magus were the true Christ For it is well knowne that in the Apostles time there were
certaine that the day of oppression hath begun to be ouer our heades and the end of the world and tyme of Antichrist is approached S. Hierome ep ad Ageruchiam de Monogamia He which did hould is in making out of the way and doe we not vnderstand that Antichrist approacheth S. Gregorie lib 4. ep 38. All thinges which haue bene foretould are in doing the King of Pride is neere And in his Homylies vpō the Ghospells he doth bouldly pronounce that the end of the world draweth neere but these were suspicions and not errors For these Holy Fathers durst not set downe any certaine tyme. Others more bouldlie appointed a certaine tyme. One Iudas as S. Hierome relateth l. de Viris Illust thought that Antichrist should haue come and the world ended the two hundreth yeare after Christ who as is manifest was deceiued Lactantius l. 7. cap. 25. diuin Instit saith That all expectation seemeth to be for no more then two hundred yeares c. Where he teacheth that Antichrist was to come and the world to end within two hundred yeares after his tyme and he liued in Constātines tyme in the three hundreth yeare after Christ so that he thought the worldes end should haue bene the fiue hundreth yeare after Christ But he also was deceaued as experience witnesseth S. Augustine lib. 18. de ciuitate Dei cap. 53. mentioneth the errour of some others which said that the world should be ended the foure hundreth yeare after our Lords Ascēsion and of others which appointed the thousandth yeare who were all deceaued as it happened also to the Pagans who as S. Augustine witnesseth in the same place out of the answere of some Oracle gathered that Christian religion should endure only three hundred threescore and fiue years There was also a Bishop of Florence about the yeare of our Lord a thousand an hundreth and fiue who affirmed that Antichrist was then borne and therefore that the worldes end was at hand For which cause there was a Councell of three hundred and fourty Bishops gathered at Florence by Paschalis the second Pope of that name See the Chronicle of Matthew Palmer and Platina in the life of Paschalis the second Lastly it hath alway byn a famous opinion of many which affirme that the world shall last six thousand yeares since God created the world in six daies and a thousand yeares are with God as one daie So teach S. Iustine Martyr q. 71. ad Gentes S. Irenaeus lib. 5. Lactantius l. 7. cap. 14. S. Hilar. in cap. 17. Matth. S. Hierom. in Psal 89. ad Cyprianum with which doth also agree the opinion of the Thalmudists who say that they haue a Prophesy out of the Prophet Hely by which it is affirmed that the world shall endure six thousād yeares This opinion cannot yet be refuted by experience for according to the true Chronologie or accompt of times there are about fiue thousand and six hundreth yeares past since the world was made Wherfore S. Ambrose who l. 7. in Luc. cap. 2. reiecteth this opinion affirming that in his time there were 6. thousand yeares past is manyfestly deceaued S. Augustines moderation is very good who thought this opinion probable and followed it as probable l. 20. de Ciuit. Dei c. 7. Neither doth it follow from hence that we doe know the tyme of the last daie for we say that it is probable that the world will not endure aboue 6. thousand yeares but we doe not say that it is certaine Wherfore S. Augustine sharpely rebuketh those who affirme that the world shal be ended at some certaine tyme since our Lord said Act. 1. that it doth not belong to vs to know the tymes and moments which the Father hath put in his owne power See S. Augustine epist 80. ad Hesychium in Psal 89. lib. 18. de ciuitate Dei cap. 53. But omitting these let vs come to the Heretikes Wheras all the Heretikes of this tyme doe teach that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist and that he hath appeared already is now in the world notwithstanding they doe not agree among themselues of the tyme when he appeared for there be six opinions of theirs The first is of the Samosatenes which liue in Hungary and Transiluania who in a certaine booke which they intitle Forewarnings of Christ and the Apostles of the abolishing the true Christ by Antichrist do teach that Antichrist appeared a little after the Apostles time to wit when that doctrine began first to be preached that Christ is the euerlasting Sonne of God for they thinke that Christ is only man and that in God there is only one person and that this faith was preached by Christ and his Apostles but that a little after the Apostles death the Roman Antichrist came and hauing abolished the true Christ which was only man brought in another eternall Christ and made a threefould God and a twofould Christ This opinion besides the arguments which afterward we will bring against all Heretikes is most easilie refuted in two sortes First for that Antichrist when he commeth shall make himselfe God and not any other as the Apostle saith 2. Thess 2. but the Bishop of Rome as they themselues say hath not made himselfe God but preached Christ and of only man hath made him God Secondly because they saie that straight after the death of Christ and his Apostles the true faith of Christ was wholy extinguished by Antichrist and afterward in the whole world Christ was adored for God But Christ foretould that the gates of hell should not preuaile against his Church Matth. 16. and the Angell fortould that Christs Kingdome should endure for euer Luc. 1. and Dauid foretould that all Kinges should serue Christ Psal 71. how therefore is it true that in the very beginning the Church being yet but newly borne was destroyed by Antichrist The second opinion is of Illyricus who in his Catalogue of witnesses teacheth that Antichrist came when the Roman Empire began to incline to destruction but it is manifest that the Roman Empire began to decline after the tenth yeare of Honorius when Rome was first taken that is in the yeare foure hundreth and twelue as Blondus doth shew in the first booke of the first Decade of Histories from the declination of the Roman Empire But Illyricus doth seeme to vnderstand this of the conception not of the natiuitie of Antichrist for he himselfe Cent. 6. Cap. 1. in the beginning saith that Anchrist was conceaued after a certaine manner in the beginning of the 400. yeare after quickned formed and nourished in his Mothers wombe about the fiue hundreth yeare and lastlie borne the 6. hundreth and sixt yeare to wit when Phocas graunted to the B. of Rome that he should be called the head of the whole Church Againe cent 1. l. 2. cap. 4. colum 438. he affirmeth that Antichrist should reigne tyranize with the spirituall sword a thousand two hundred and threescore yeares and with
it selfe since he could haue no certaine ground to thinke soe vnles he had appeared in some sort soe is it also impertinent to the matter we haue in hand since our question is about his appearing and they which put it latest which are Luther and Bibliander make him to come euen with the temporall sword which cannot choose but appeare after the yeare of our Lord 1000. And this is the notable consent which M. Downam hath found among all his writers whom Bellarmine alleageth in this mayne poynt concerning the time of the comming of Antichrist 4. After hauing laboured to make an agreemēt betwixt his Doctours with the euent which you haue seene he maketh a shew as though he would answere all Bellarmines arguments against them beginning thus Now let vs see what he obiecteth against this receyued truth but comming to the point he only chooseth out Bellarmines answere to Chytraeus his secōd proofe for the first degree of Antichrists comming to wit with the spirituall sword which as you see is no argument at all but a peece of an answere to an argument so that to doe well M. Downam should replie and not answere But let Downam answereth when hee should reply vs not vrge the poore man too farre for it is pure want that driueth him to these miserable shiftes Wherefore let vs see how he can auoid Bellarmines answere Chytraeus proofe was this In the yeare 606. Bonifacius the third did obteyne of Phocas the title of vniuersall Bishop ergo Amichrist appeared about the yeare 600. To which Bellarmine answereth in these words Phocas gaue not the title of Vniuersall to the Pope but called him the head of the Churches But long before Iustiniā ep ad Ioā 2. had done the same before that also the Councell of Chalcedon in ep ad Leonem VVithout cause therefore is the comming of Antichrist put in the tyme of Phocas To which first as I haue noted M. Downam saith that Bellarmine obiected this whereas it is most manifest that he answereth an obiection Secondlie he addeth that good authors Phocas gaue not the title of Vniuersall to the Pope that which hee gaue the Pope had before affirme that he receyued from Phocas both the title of the Head of the Church and also of Vniuersall or Oecumenicall bishop but they are too good to be named or els M. Downam was ashamed of thē and therefore he must pardon vs if we belieue neither him nor them till we know what they are Thirdlie he auoucheth that there is no doubt but that Bonifacius sought for and by suite obteyned that which Iohn of Constantinople had before claymed But if he had remembred what himselfe wrote in his 1. chap. of his former booke of S. Gregorie the great his dislike of that title in Iohn of Constantinople he would haue seene that there had bene great doubt whether Bonifacius were not more likelie to approue his holy predecessors iudgment in refusing that title for due respectes though otherwise neuer soe due to him rather then his proud aduersaries opinion in desiring or vsing it at that tyme when at leastwise in that Iohn of Constantinoples sense it was not only scandalous See part 2. Chap. 1. but perfidiouslie false also Wherfore keeping the dignitie it selfe they vsed such wordes as might modestlie expresse what they had and no way signifie that which they had not themselues and much lesse Iohn of Constantinople who most arrogantlie vsurped that false and also foolish title being taken in the sense in which he vsurped it Fourthly M. Downam would shift of the matter with saying that there is no great difference betwixt these two titles as they are now giuen to the Pope saue that to be the head of the Vniuersall Church is the more Antichristian stile But this will not serue his turne neither for howsoeuer these titles be all one in substance yet since Chytraus and others will giue vs a reason why they assigne the first degree of Antichrists comming in the tyme of Phocas to wit because he first gaue the Pope the title of Vniuersall Bishop it is not inough when this is denied to tell vs that at least if he gaue him not that he gaue him another as great for all the force of the argument consisteth in this that this title of Phocas is a new one which the Pope neuer had giuen him before for otherwise there is no reason why Antichrist should be thought more to come in Phocas his tyme then before And this was that which Bellarmine answered and M. Downam hitherto hath not said any thing to the purpose against him Wherefore lastly he goeth about to make vs belieue that though he cannot deny but that the Pope had the same title which Phocas gaue him long before yet there was a great difference in the sense and meaning For he affirmeth that before this graunt of Phocas the Church of Rome had the preheminence and superioritie ouer all other Churches excepting that of Constantinople not in respect of Authoritie and Iurisdiction but in respect of order and dignitie and for this cause especiallie because Rome wherof he was Bishop was the chiefe Cittie for which he citeth the Councells of Chalcedon Constantinople And for the same cause saith he was the Patriarch of Constantinople sometymes matched with him for which he citeth Concil Chalcedon sometime preferred aboue him for which he noteth in the margent tempore Maurity because Constantinople which they called new Rome was become the Imperiall seate yea he addeth that the Bishops of Rauenna because their Cittie was the chiefe in the Exarchy of Rauenna wherevnto Rome was for a Downams answere or replie confuted by Bellarmine in other places tyme subiect stroue with the Bishop of Rome in the tyme of the Exarchies for superiority But all this discourse of his is refuted at large by Bellarmine in his second Booke of the Pope and if M. Downam will loose so much labour about the answering of that as he hath done about this other which is the third he shal be confuted I hope fully satisfied in this point also But now it were to great a labour to put downe all Bellarmines proofes Wherefore both I and M. Downam must of reason be content with briefly answering his obiections though that also in truth were not to be expected in this place but that I desire that M. Downam should haue no reason to complayne And first that the reason why Rome had the preheminence The reason of Romes preheminence is not because it is the chiefe Citty ouer all other Churches was not because it was the chiefe Cittie as M. Downam would proue out of the Councels of Chalcedon and Constantinople Bellarmine proueth by the authoritie of S. Leo. ep 54. ad Martianū where inueighing against the ambition of Anatolius then Bishop of Constantinople which he had discouered in that very Councell of Chalcedon which M. Downam mentioneth he hath these wordes Let
the world which how farre it is off can by no meanes be knowne This opinion which ouerthroweth all the former and cleerely sheweth that the Bishops of Rome are not Antichrists is demonstrated by six reasons For we must know that the Holy Ghost in the Scripture hath giuen vs six certaine signes of Antichrists coÌ„ming two going before Antichrist himselfe to wit the preaching of the ghospell in the whole world and the desolation of the Roman Empire two accompanying him to wit the preaching of Henoch and Helias and a most huge manyfest persecution so that publique Holies shall wholie cease two following to wit the destruction of Antichrist after three yeares and a halfe and the end of the world none of which wee see yet extant Wherefore the first demonstration is taken from the first signe going before Antichrist The Scriptures do testifie that the Ghospell is to be preached in the whole world before the last persecution commeth which shal be raised by Antichrist Matth. 24. This Ghospell of the kingdome shal be preached in the whole world in testimony to all nations And that this shal be before Antichrists comming might be proued by that reasoÌ„ because in Antichrists tyme the crueltie of that last persecutioÌ„ shall hinder all publique exercise of True Religion But because the aduersaries admit not this reason and it is no tyme now to deduce it out of her principles let vs proue the same out of the Fathers testimonies Wherefore S. Hilarie cap. 25. in Matth. expounding those wordes This Ghospell of the Kingdome shal be preached in the whole world and then the consumation shall come plainelie teacheth that Antichrist shall not come whom he calleth the Abhomination of Desolation vnles the preaching of the Ghospell in the whole world goeth before The same is expreslie taught by S. Cyrill catechesi 15. Theodoret in 2. Thess 2. S. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 28. and others And besides the same is gathered out of the text for it is said that the Ghospell is to be preached before that greatest and last tribulation commeth what manner of one neither hath ben before nor shal be after By which tribulation that Antichrists persecution is signified the Fathers teach and chieflie S. Augustine lib. 20. de ciuitate Dei cap. 8. 19. And that the Ghospell was not preached in the whole world at that time when the new Samosatenes saie that Antichrist came that is about the yeare of our Lord 200. or 300. is manifest by Origen who Homil. 28. in Matth. affirmeth that in his tyme the Ghospell was not yet preached euerie where Likewise by Ruffinus who lib. 3. hist cap. 9. testifieth that in the tyme of Constantyne the Emperour that is after the yeare of our Lord 3â—0 the Ghospell was preached to the more remote Indians whereas before that tyme they had neuer heard any thing of Christ Finally by S. Augustine who in his 80. epist saith that he had found by most certaine experience that in his tyme there were manie nations which had heard nothing of Christ And that the preaching of the Ghospell was not accoÌ„plished about the yeare 600. or 700. at which tymes the Centuriators Chytraeus Luther and Bullinger put the comming of Antichrist is mâ—nifest bâ— the conuersion of the Vandals Polonians Morauians and the like who as it is well knowne heard not the preaching of the Ghospel vntill after the yeare of Christ 800. as also the Centuriators confesse centur 9. cap. 2. col 15. 18. cent 10. cap. 2. col 18. 19. In like manner that the preaching was not coÌ„plete in the tyme of S. Bernard at which tyme VVolfgangus Musculus putteth the comming of Antichrist is manifest out of S. Bernard himselfe lib. 3. de consider where he affirmeth that yet in his time there were Nations which had not heard the Ghospell Finally that also in our tyme the Ghospell is not preached in the whole world experience teacheth for ther are most vast RegioÌ„s found in the hast West in which there is no memory of the Ghospell Neither can it be said that the Faith was there but was afterward extinguished For at leastwise some signes would remaine either there or in the writings of the Ancients Besides we know that where all the Apostles preached the places were knowne to many if not to all but the new world is now found was not knowne from the Apostles tyme but a little before our age Against this Demonstration there can only one obiection be made to wit because perhapps the Scriptures which say that the Ghospell is to be preached in the whole world speake not simple of the whole world but by the figure of intellection take the whole for a part as Luc. 2. where it is said There went out an Edict from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be described otherwise that will be false which S. Paul saith Rom. 10. euen then in his tyme That the sound of the Apostles was gone forth into all the earth and that which he saith Coloss 1. The Ghospell which is come to yow as it is in the whole world fructifying and increasing And after VVhich is preached to all creatures which are vnder Heauen I answere without doubt not by any figure but properly and simply in the whole world that is in euery NatioÌ„ the Ghospell must be preached and Churches instituted For first so expresly teacheth S. Augustine ep 80. ad Hesychium and the other Fathers alleadged thinke the same and besides Origen and S. Hierome and others in cap. 24. Matth. It may also be proued by three reasons First Christ saith that the preaching in the whole world is a signe of the consuÌ„mation of the world for so he addeth forthwith and then the consummatioÌ„ shall come but if not properly but by Synecdoche the Ghospell were to be preached in the whole world that signe were nothing worth for in that manner the Ghospell was preached in the whole world the first 20. yeares Secondly as S. Augustine reasoneth properly all Nations are promised to Christ Psal 71. All Nations shall serue thee And Christ died generally for all and therfore Apoc. cap. 7. the elected are described out of all Nations and people and tribes and languages VVherfore the preaching also must properly be generall Finally Match 24. it is said that the Ghospell is to be preached in the whole world in testimony to all Nations that is least any Nation in the daie of Iudgement might excuse their infidelity by the pretext of ignorance Wherfore before the generall iudgement the generall preaching must be To those places of S. Paul S. Augustine answereth epist 80. and saith that S. Paul when he saith Rom 10. their sound is gone out into all the earth tooke the tyme past for the tyme to come as Dauid had donne whose wordes those are And when he saith Colloss 1. that the Ghospell is in the whole world he would not say that it is actuallie but vertuallie to wit
because the seed of Gods word had bene cast into the world by the Apostles which fructifying and increasing by little and little was to replenish the whole world as one that had put fire to diuers parts of a Citty might trulie be said to haue set all the Cittie on fire because he had applied the fire which increasing by little and little was to consume the whole Cittie And this verie same signifieth the Apostle when he saith in the whole world it is fructifying and increasing for it had not taken possession wholie of the whole world seeing it was yet more and more spread afterward abroad and yet in a certaine manner it had taken possession that is vertuallie and not actuallie We might also answere with S. Hierome in Matth. 20. S. Thomas in Rom. 10. that the Ghospell came to all in two māners one way by fame another way by peculiar preachers and foundation of Churches and that in the first manner the Ghospell came to all Nations of the whole world then knowne in the tyme of the Apostles and that S. Paul speaketh of this in which sort also S. Chrysostome in Matth. 24. is to be vnderstood But in the second manner that it came not then but is to come in the tyme appointed and that our Lord Matth. 24. Luc. vlt. Act. 1. speaketh of this Adde lastlie that it is not absurd if we graunt that our Lord spake properlie and the Apostle figuratiuelie For the reasons which compell vs to take our Lordes wordes in a proper signification haue not the same force if they be applied to the wordes of S. Paul especiallie seeing our Lord spake of a thing to come and S. Paul of a thing past M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted 1. IT pleaseth M. Downam to be a little merrie about these 6. Demonstrations calling them six slender coniectures and thinking Bellarmyne troubled with melancholie for deeming otherwise But I will leaue it to the Readers iudgment if it be not more likely that he is loaden with folly Afterward he iesteth at Bellarmine for making Antichrists death the end of the world which shal be after his death to be two signes of his comming As though all this were not to fall out within 3. or 4. yeares after his comming and consequentlie did not plainelie demonstrate that he came not a 1000. yeares since which is that which Bellarmine goeth about to prooue and so might verie well vse these signes to demonstrate his not comming so long agoe 2. But comming to answere the first demonstration it is wonderfull to see how many wordes he spendeth in vaine and how few to the purpose For he being to answere Bellarmines proofes which I haue alleadged he scarse euer toucheth any of them but maketh a long discourse altogeather friuolous about the expositiō of that whole place Matth. 24. Wherefore I shal be inforced to gather vp heere and there some scattered denialls and so replie to this his broken and confused answere 3. And first to the Fathers which Bellarmine alleadgeth as his chiefest proofe I find only these wordes of his Or to what end saith he should I spend my tyme in answering the Testimonies of the Fathers who supposed that the Ghospell should be preached in all the world before the comming of Antichrist seing according to the meaning of our Sauiour Christ it was to be preached in all the world before the destruction of Ierusalem And is not this a wise answere thinke Downam reiecteth the Fathers you to accuse the Fathers to be against Christ because their doctrine is contrary to M. Downams But I take it few will belieue him vpon his bare word against Bellarmine alone much lesse hauing so manie ancient Fathers ioyned with him 4. Bellarmines other proofe was out of the text because by that great tribulation before which it is said that the Ghospell shal be preached in the whole world the Fathers and in particuler S. Augustine vnderstandeth Antichrists persecution But M. Downam neuer mentioning S. Augustine or other Father flatlie denieth their doctrine in this point as he had done in the former therefore indeed neuer goeth about to answere the argument but to denie the conclusiō whatsoeuer the proofes be 5. Yea that which is worse because he would seeme to say something he beareth the Reader in hand that Bellarmine had bene so simple as to prooue his conclusion only Downam omitteth Bellarmines proofes answereth his owne out of those wordes Matth. 24. This ghospell of the Kingdome shal be preached in the whole world in testimony to all Nations And then he answereth verie grauelie But our Sauiour Christ doth not saie that the Ghospell shal be preached throughout the world before the comming of Antichrist but before the end And is not this to get himselfe out of his Aduersaries reach and then to shew great valour in playing his prize by himselfe alone and beating the ayre 6. Another tricke of M. Downās is to answere an argumēt which Bellarmine thought better for breuities sake to leaue vnproued that is that in Antichrists tyme the cruelty of the last persecution shall hinder all publike exercise of true Religion To which M. Downam answereth That it is not necessary that the Ghospell should be preached generally throughout the world at one tyme for it might suffice that in one age it were preached to one Nation and in another age to another people and so in Antichrists tyme it might be preached to some Nations where it had not bene formerly preached therfore might be preached to all Nations before the destruction of Antichrist though it were not before his comming But Bellarmine neuer affirmed that the Ghospell should be generallie preached throughout the world at one tyme but M. Downam dreameth it And if he would haue said any thing to the purpose he should haue tould vs how the Ghospell can be preached to any Nation when the persecution is so great and generall that all publike exercise of true Religion doth cease in all places throughout the whole world And this is all that he bringeth in answere to the arguments Wherfore only there remayneth that we see whether he proueth his owne exposition in those two pointes in which he is contrary to Bellarmine and the Fathers any better 7. For first he will needes haue the consummatiō of which Matth. 24. our Sauiour speaketh to be the destruction of Ierusalem and not the end of the world but yet neuer answereth to any of those argumēts which Bell. hath in his answere to the obiection three o◠the which namelie the authoritie of the Fathers and the two latter reasons are so manifest that M. Downam Downam dissembleth the difficultie delt very politikely in dissembling them since he could not answere them And to proue his owne expositiō he bringeth a conceited inuentiō of his owne to witt that our Blessed Sauiour would comfort his Disciples by telling them that the successe of their Ministry
seemeth to be only to confirme Bellarmines assertion which wee onlie request him to graunt though wee would not haue him afraid to thinke that the persecution vnder Antichrist shal be greater then the calamities of the Iewes since the same wordes are vnderstood of both and that of the Iewes was but a figure in comparison of the other Wherfore Dan. also cap. 12. writeth that this shal be such a tyme as hath not bene since the Nations began to be And surely no persecutioÌ„ can be greater theÌ„ that in which the Diuell shall vse the vttermost of his owne all his followers forces as S. Augustine affirmeth he shall in this being then loosed from his long imprisonment as S. Iohn affirmeth whatsoeuer M. Downam imagineth 3. Well this supposed M. Downam will needes make vs belieue that this great persecution hath bene made by the Popes against men of his Religion and first he is fayne to tell vs of the Popes spirituall persecution wherin saith he he taketh such liberty to himselfe that if he carry whole troupes of soules into hell no man may say vnto him Syr why do you so But this is a A shameleslye shameslye especially now that it hath bene so fully discouered by the author of the VVarn-word against Syr Frauncis Hastings and O. E. otherwise M. Sutcliffe who patched vp a lie out Encount 2. cap. 13. 11. 16. of two places of the Canon law wherof one had no coÌ„nextion at all with the other as that Author at large declareth who likewise telleth him where and when some Catholikes were bayted by dogges in beares skins which to him is such great newes Ibid. cap. 2. n. 4. 4. And besides this allegation of spirituall persecution is from the purpose and a fault by some called petitio principij DownaÌ„s petitio principij because all Catholikes count it a great blessing and no persecution at all Secondly he goeth into France for Martyrs where he taketh into his accoumpt the Albigenses VVallenses ioyneth theÌ„ with his Hâ—gonâ—â—s so he may wel inough for they be Martyrs al alike to wit of the Diuell since they were al Heretiks though of diuers sects as he may be fully instructed by the same Author I mentioned before in his Treatise of Fox his Calendar-Martyrs And yet M. Downam part 1. cap. 3. shall not find so many Martyrs of these neither except he will number them who were miraculously slaine in lawful warre by Symon Momford theÌ„ Earle of Leicester after of Tolosa which were plaine rebells against their King Countrey And Iohn Fox could only find 13. of these two sects which he thought worth the putting into his Kalender as the same Author sheweth euery man may see in Fox himselfe After France he commeth into the Low CouÌ„tries there nuÌ„breth 36000. which the Duke of Alba caused to be executed which how many soeuer they were as al the world knoweth were open rebells as likewise those 40000. if they were so many killed in the Massacre at Paris But M. Downams religion hath this vertue in it that houlding but one or some few pointes DownaÌ„s Martyrs Heretikes Rebels of it a man may safely dye for any other heresy or crime yet by his fellow Hugonots be accompted a Martyr Lastly he citeth Vergerius and in the margent quoteth Io. Bale de act Pontif. who witnesseth that within the space of 30. yeares there were put to diuers fearfull deathes by the bloudy Inquisition an hundreth and fifty thousand Christians But we must haue better proofes then only the testimonie of two most violent and lying heretikes before we belieue this and besides it were necessary for M. Downam to proue that all those Christians were of his religion which wil be very hard for him to do since that these his Authors affirme no such matter 5. But why doth not M. Downam answere to Bellarmine who telleth him that all this persecution is but a ciuist warre since Protestants put Catholikes to death as well as they do Protestants and S. Augustine telleth vs that in Downam flieth the difficulty Antichrists persecution only the children of the Church shal be in Tribulation and not their persecutors The cause of this was because he saw there was no shew of answere to be made and therfore he thought it best to passe it ouer in silence hoping that the Reader would not take the paines to looke vpon Bellarmine nor any other to discouer his follies for he cannot deny but that Catholikes haue bene persecuted by ProtestaÌ„ts yet he would fayne diminish these persecutions against Catholikes by his brethren first hee auoucheth plainly that the warres which haue bene vndertaken by the Hugonots in France and Flanders for their owne defence that they Downam maynteyneth open Rebellion treasoÌ„ might be free from their Princes outrages were lawfull battailes euen as when the Machabees resisted Antiochus and other Tyrants So that you see open rebellion and treason mainteyned for lawfull by this new Ghospeller which defence notwithstanding cannot comprehend the manifold murthers of Priestes Religions and others which these Hugonots committed in cold bloud out of battaile of which M. DownaÌ„ could not be ignorant But let vs see what he saith of our English persecution for he is not afraid forthwith to charge all Priests and Catholikes put to death in our Countrey of treason and to complaine greatlie of the fauour which the Prince in some sort hath vsed to them in durance so cruell and bloudie a mynd carrieth this Minister with him being not ashamed to affirme that the life of the prisoners The persecutioÌ„ of Catholikes in England in VVisbich Framingham hath bene more easie and pleasant and mayntenance more plentifull then of the Students and ministers of his crew which all wise men will easilie laugh at except he should speake of spirituall and heauenlie comfortes which this poore Minister neuer tasted of for other ease pleasure or maintenance it were hard for them to haue liuing in prison and often in chaines hauing no other maintenance then the almes of poore Catholikes many of them being so impouerished with oppressions for their conscience that they should scarce be able to mainteyne themselues and their families were they not content to liue within their compasse and vnder their degrees whilst a sort of marryed Ministers feed vpon their substance which is another kind of persecution which Bellarmine vrgeth and M. DownaÌ„ passeth ouer in silence to wit to be cast out of their Churches and Church-lyuings Vniuersities and the like which were instituted for Catholikes by their Ancestors and are now vsurped by ProtestaÌ„ts altogeather against the Founders will intention and the like is of the Inheritances in some and of their Countrey in many And this shall suffice for these persecutions or rather the cyuill wars of this tyme betwixt Catholikes Heretiks only I could wish my Reader to reflect a
name of the beast that is the Latin or Roman State and vnlesse it be such a name as he to whome all other notes of Antichrist doe agree causeth men to take vpon them which is to harpe still vpon the same string and to sing the same song like a Cuckow for this name belongeth to no other beast but Antichrist and the other part is the mayne controuersy and therefore to assume it as a thing graunted is petitio principij a figure wherewith M. Downam is well acquaynted and therefore chooseth to make it his conclusion also as the Reader may see if he please to whose iudgment I leaue it to consider whether M. Downam hath answered Bellarmines argument or rather that it is altogeather vnanswerable and inuincible as Bellarmine deseruedly affirmeth THE ELEAVENTH CHAPTER Of the Character of Antichrist THERE are also saith Bellarmine two or three opinions of Antichrists Character The first is of the heretikes of this tyme who teach that the Character of Antichrist is some signe of obedyence and coniunction with the B. of Rome yet they do not explicate after the same manner what that signe is Hemicus Bullengerus scr 61. in Apoc. will haue it to be the vnction of Chrisme with which all Christians that are obedient to the Pope are signed in their foreheads Theodorus Bibliander in Chron. tab 10. saith that the Character of the Pope is the profession of the Roman faith so that he is not accompted a true Christian who professeth not that he cleaueth to the Roman Church Dauid Chytraeus besides these two addeth the Oath of Fidelity which many are compelled to make to the Pope Likewise the Preistly vnction which is receaued in the crowne and hand and imprinteth as the Papists call it quoth hee an indeleble Character Finally to fall downe before Images and consecrated bread and to be present at Masses of Requiem Neither are these thinges vnlike to those which Sebastianus Meyer and others alleadged by Augustinus Marloratuâ— in Apoc. 13. do teach But it is an easie matter to confute these toyes both because they agree not with the words of the Text and also because all these signes were in the Catholike Church before that Antichrist had appeared in their opinion First therefore we haue out of the text that the Character shal be one not many for the Scripture alway speaketh in the singular number both of the Character and of the name number of Antichrist Wherefore there shal be one Character likewise one proper name of Antichrist and one number of his name Wherefore when our Aduersaryes multiply so many Characters they shew that they know not which that is of which S. Iohn speaketh Secondly that Character shal be common to all men in Antichrists Kingdome as is playne by those words He shall make all little great rich poore free and bound to take his Character But the Oath of obedyence and Priestly vnction agree to few Thirdly the Scripture declareth that the Character shal be such that it may indifferently be carried in the right hand or forehead for so it saith He shall make all men receyue his Character in their right hands or foreheads But none of those thinges which our aduersaryes bring is such That the vnction of Chrisme cannot be receyued in the right hand The profession of the Roman Faith is neither in the hand nor forehead but in the mouth by confession in the hart by faith The Oath of Fidelity is taken with the hand and mouth but can in no wyse be carryed in the forehead The Priestly vnction is neither receaued properly in the right hand nor in the forehead but vpon the head and fingers of both hands Finally to be present at Masses for the dead to kneele before Images and the Eucharist belong not to the forehead or hand but to the whole body and chiefely to the knees Fourthly the same Scripture saith That in the Kingdome of Antichrist no man shal be permitted to buy and sell vnles he shew the Character or the name or the number of the name But how many doe buy and sell in the dominious of the Pope who are not yet chrismed nor haue taken the Oath of fidelity nor are Priests Doe not many Iewes euen in the very Citty of Rome where the Pope hath his Sea negotiate publikely buy and sell although they haue none of those signes Let vs come to the other reason prooue that all these signes are elder then Antichrist Antichrist by the opinion of our aduersaryes came not before the yeare 606. but Tertullian lyued about the yeare 200. and yet maketh mention of Chrisme lib. de resurrectione carnis The flesh saith he is washed that the soule may be clensed the flesh is annoynted that the soule may be consecrated S. Cyprian liued about the yeare 250. and maketh mention of Chrisme lib. 1. epist 12. He must necessarily be an noynted saith he who is baptized that hauing receaued Chrisme that is vnction he may be the aunoynted of God and haue in him the grace of Christ S. Augustine lyued about the yeare 420. and yet he saith tract in Ioan. 118. VVhat is it that all know the signe of Christ but the Crosse of Christ VVhich signe vnles it be applyed either to the foreheads of the faithfull or to the water with which they are regenerated or to the oyle with which they are Chrismed or to the Sacrifice with which they are nourished none of these thinges is rightly performed Likewise to cleaue to the Roman Church was the signe and Character of a true Catholike man before the yeare of our Lord 606. S. Augustine writeth epist 162. of Caecilianus who liued about the yeare 300. He needed not to care for the multytude of enemyes which conspired against him since he saw himselfe vnited by communicatory letters to the Roman Church in which the principality of the Apostolicall chayre alway flourished and to the other Countries from whence the Ghospell came into Africa S. Ambrose who lyued about the yeare of our Lord 390. in orat de obitu fratris sui He asked the Bishop saith he if he agreed in doctrine with the Catholike Bishops that is with the Roman Church Victor Vticensis who lyued about the yeare of our Lord 490. lib. 1. de persecut Vandal writeth that an Arian Priest going about to perswade the King not to put a Catholike to death vsed these wordes If thou puttest him to death the Romans will accompt him a Martyr In which place by the name of Romans the Catholikes of Africa are designed who doubtles are not called Romans by the Arians for any other cause but for that they followed the Faith of the Roman Church and not the misbeliefe of the Arians We find the Oath of obedience made to the B. of Rome in the tyme of S. Gregory lib. 10. epist 31. and therefore before the yeare 606. for S. Gregory lyued not so long Of Priestly vnction we haue the testimony of
to be baptized in this life when they are preached vnto but they are condemned in the other life when all Sermons are at an end for them And this out Sauiours words signify most exactely if M. Downams commentary be taken away And yet the matter is more cleere in the words which Bellarmine vrgeth in which there is no Participle in the Greeke as in the places which M. Downam compareth but the Verbe it selfe which cannot well be vnderstood but of things truly past as neither the Verbe in the future tense but of thinges truly to come and since the Apostle limitteth not that preter tense to any other tyme as our Sauiour doth it must be vnderstood to signify that which was past before the tyme of his writing But M. Downam obiecteth further that if Bellarmine will needes vrge the preter tense as though the Apostle meant that Antichrist should be receaued only of those who before that tyme had reiected the truth he must withall hould that Antichrist shal be receaued in the end of the world of those who dyed aboue 1500. yeares since But this is both a false and friuolous obiection false because it addeth the word Downam falsifieth Bellarmines wordes only which Bellarmine hath nor for he neuer went about to prooue that only the Iewes should receaue Antichrist but that they should receaue him friuolous because the Apostle Bellarmine also speake of the Nation of the Iewes and not of any particuler men as is manifest to any that is not wilfully blinded with malice of which number it grieueth me that M. Downam will needes be one 8. To the authority of the Fathers M. Downam briefly answereth that there is no probability in their assertion or exposition no more then in the former that Antichrist should be of the Tribe of Dan or in their expositions of the places of Scripture which they brought to that effect which sayth he no man now vnles he wil be too ridiculous can vnderstand of Antichrist Where I desire the Reader to cōsider the little accompt that M. Downam maketh of al the Fathers when they make against Downam reiecteth the Fathers him and as for his similitude I haue already shewed how vnlike it is aswell because the Fathers speake not resolutly thēselues in that point as they do in this and also because all the Fathers do not agree in that assertion or exposition And yet M. Downam is very insolent in condemning all for ridiculous which follow the Fathers exposition of those places of Scripture for first there is no doubt but that the two former may be mystically so vnderstood and the last can haue no other probable sense as hath sufficiently appeared Neither is that obiection of his worth the answering by which he would prooue that the Fathers might aswell prooue that Antichrist shall be of the Tribe of Beniamin because of him it is said in the same place that he shall raigne as a wolfe for M. Downam might haue added the other clause which is to be taken in good num 2. part and therfore cannot be applied to Antichrist but to some other who shall change his condition and of a rauening wolfe become a glorious Preacher and Apostle of Christ as S. Paul did of whom some of the Fathers mistically expound those words Wherfore M. Downam must be content though much against his will that both these assertions and expositions haue that probability and certainty which the Fathers affirme that they haue as Bellarmine hath sufficiently declared 9. Lastly to Bellarmines reason M. Downam answereth that Antichrist shall ioyne himselfe not to any whatsoeuer but to those in the Church that are ready to receaue him For proofe wherof he alleadgeth S. Cyprian epist 1. lib. 1. where he affirmeth that the Diuell troubleth the seruants of God and Antichrist impugneth Christians and seeketh not those whome he hath already subdued or desireth to ouerthrow those whome he hath already made his owne c. Which in truth is a strange proofe if you marke it well for M. Downam ridiculously impugneth himselfe Bellarmine speaketh not a word of troubling impugning or ouerthrowing but only of ioyning with the Iewes as with friends and M. Downam to proue that Antichrist shall not ioyne with them so alleadgeth S. Cyprian who affirmeth that he shall impugne Christians Would any man take M. Downam for a Doctor or Reader of Diuinity that should heare him dispute thus grossely bringing quid pro quo and impugning himselfe insteed of his aduersary But let vs pitty his folly and affirme with S. Cyprian and Bellarmine that Antichrist shall impugne Christians and to that effect first ioyne himselfe to the Iewes To Bellarmines minor that the Iewes are ready to receaue Antichrist M. Downam hath nothing to answere directly but only repeateth certaine assertions of his owne that Antichrist shall not be one particuler man c. which haue and shall be confuted in their due places But now M. Downam should haue impugned Bellarmines proofe which is that the Iewes expect a temporall King as Antichrist shall be and not only affirme vpon his bare word that Antichrist shall not b◠such a one as the expected Messias of the Iewes and that there is no necessity that there should such a one come to the Iewes as they expect both which assertiōs are ouerthrown by Bellarmines reasons and other proofes And to the second part that Christians expect Antichrist with feare and terrour M. Downam only answereth that vnsound and back-sliding Christians are ready to receaue Antichrist By which if he meaneth The difference betwixt Christians and Iewes in expecting Antichrist that they are in great danger to be drawne to him by little and little it is very true and that which Bellarmine affirmeth but if he would say that they expect Antichrist with ioy and desire as the Iewes do he is farre wide for the Iewes will receaue him the sooner because he is against Christ which very few Christians though neuer so vnsound will yield to at the first but rather be terrified with the very mention therof as M. Downam may experience amongst Protestants whome we accompt vnsound Christians and the world will testify of all Catholikes whome he taketh to be such Now for his supposition that Antichrist is come and that the Pope is Antichrist we know this to be the question and maine controuersy and therfore cannot but acknowledg M. Downams ordinary fault which is petitio principij 10. M. Downam hauing thus worthily answered Bellarmines first certaine position he commeth to the second which is that Antichrist shall be a Iew which Bellarmine proueth out of his former assertion that the Iewes shall receaue Antichrist which they would neuer do except he Antichrist shall be a Iew. were a Iew. To which M. Downam answereth that he hath ouerthrowne that former assertion which how true it is I remit to the Readers iudgment Secondly he obiecteth that the Herodians receaued Herod
for their Messias but he doth well not The Herodians to stand vpon this for the solution is euident for these Herodians were a few flattering Courtiers now we speake of the whole Nation of the Iewes and chiefly of those great Rabbynes who professe so great knowledge in Scripture which teacheth most euidently that the Messias is to be of the Iewish nation and the Tribe of Iuda though for this second they cannot now much striue because their Genealogies are so confounded and so it will be no hard matter for Antichrist to be taken for one of the Tribe of Iuda though indeed he be of the Tribe of Dan. To the authority of the Fathers he answereth according Downam reiecteth the Fathers to his custome that they are not to be belieued in this point which hath no ground in the word of God and still he insisteth vpon Bellarmines reiecting the twelue Fathers which affirmed that Antichrist should be of the Tribe of Dan for the same reasons But he abuseth both Bellarmine and the Fathers as the Reader may easily see Bellarmine for he reiecteth not the Fathers authority but imbraceth it as very probable which was as much as the most of them affirmed The Fathers because he reiecteth them all in a thing wherin they agree as certaine which they would neuer do without some certaine ground either of Apostolicall tradition or Scripture and reason which Bellarmine hath sufficiently explicated in his former assertion Finally M. Downam briefly passeth ouer the opposition which Bellarmine sheweth that the Iewes haue against the Pope because he was ashamed to see what Iewes the Protestants are in this behalfe but yet he is content to take hold of their application of the Prophesies of Daniel against the Pope because they are no parties and therfore their authority The Iews opposite to the Pope may be some inducement to thinke indeed that the Pope is Antichrist where I could wish the Reader to marke attentiuely the great connexion betwixt Iewes and Protestants in this point of impugning the Pope though vpon different grounds For if you examine a Iew why he is so eager against the Pope he will tell you that it is because he hateth Christ himselfe and for his sake all Christians but chiefly the Pope who is the chiefe of them Againe if you How the Iewes and the Protestāts agree and differ in impugning the Pope pose M. Downam with the same question why he cannot abide the Pope He will tell you another tale that it is because he loueth Christ and all true Christians to whome he thinketh the Pope and his adherents to be most opposite And is it not strange that these men should ioyne in the expositions of Scripture Yea that M. Downam should take the Iew to be no party against the Pope but an indifferent man and therfore thinketh his exposition fit to be some inducement to make men belieue his doctrine Is it not too plaine that M. Downam is in the high way to deny Christ howsoeuer he protesteth the contrary since he hateth the Pope whome the Iewes only detest out of their malice to Christ himselfe True it is that the consequence is not so necessary from the hatred of the Pope to the hatred of Christ as contrariwise but yet he that is come so farre as to hate Christs most principal seruant in the highest degree and with vnplacable hatred may easily be carried a step further except God giue him grace to turne back in time which I most hartily wish for M. Downam himselfe and all others that are in that most miserable and dangerous estate THE THIRTENTH CHAPTER Of Antichrists Seate TOVCHING the sixt saith Bellarmine our Aduersaries bouldly affirme that the chiefe Seat of Antichrist is Rome or the Apostolike Chaire founded there for they say that Antichrist shall inuade the Sea of Peter and raise it vp to a certaine soueraigne height from the which it shall rule and tyranniclly gouerne the whole Church And that Rome is the Kingly Citty of Antichrist they proue out of Apoc. 17. where S. Iohn speaking of the Seate of Antichrist saith that it is the great Citty which is scituated vpon seauen hills and which hath the Kingdome ouer the Kings of the earth And that at Romè not in the pallace of Nero but in the very Church of Christ Antichrist shall haue his Seate they proue out of S. Paul who 2. Thess 2. saith that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God for since he saith absolutly in the Temple of God he meaneth the true Temple of the true God and there is none such but the Church of God For the Temples of the Gentiles are true Temples but of the Diuels not of God And the Temple of the Iewes was indeed of God but it ceased to be a Temple when the Iewish sacrifice and Priesthood ceased for these three are so ioyned that one cannot be without the other Besides the Temple of the Iewes within a while after was to be desolated and neuer to be bult againe as Dan. cap. 9. saith and the desolation shall perseuere till the consummation and the end Wherfore the Apostle cannot speake of it And this argument is confirmed out of the Fathers S. Hierome quaest 11. ad Algasiam He shall sit saith he in the Temple of God either at Hierusalem as some thinke or in the Church as we thinke more truly and Oecumenius He saith not saith he the Temple of Ierusalem but the Churches of Christ Theodorus Bibliander addeth the testmony of S. Greg. who l. 4. ep 38. ad Ioan. Constantinopolitanū saith The king of pride is nigh and which is impious to be spoken an army of Priests is prepared for him Out of which words a double argument is drawne one thus Iohn of Constantinople is sayd to forerun Antichrist because he will be called the vniuersall Bishop therfore he shall be Antichrist who in very deed shall make himselfe the Vniuersall Bishop and shall sit in the Church as the head of all The other thus The army of Antichrist shall be Priests therfore Antichrist shall be the head of Priests By which arguments the heretikes thinke that they euidently shew that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist since he ruleth at Rome sitteh in the Temple of God and is called the vniuersall Bishop and is the Prince of Priests Notwithstanding the true opinion is that Hierusalem and not Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist and the Temple of Salomon and Throne of Dauid not the Temple of S. Peter or the Sea Apostolike which we can proue in two sorts First with an argument ad hominem Secondly out of the Scripture and Fathers First then I make this argument Antichrist shall sit in the Church of Christ and shall be accompted the Prince head of his Church and shall haue Magistracy and offices in it as Philippus Melanctonin apologia art 6. confess Augustanae Caluinus lib. 4. Iustit cap. 2. § 12. cap. 7.
Scripture and many of M. Downams bretheren are ashamed to deny it and by all probability he would be at least afraid to affirme the contrary if he were well examined by the temporall Maiestrate Secondly sayth M. Downam the Pope and Church of Rome 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 This is very true indeed for we thinke that there is but one faith and one Church and whatsoeuer One faith and one Church Christians are out of it must needes be schismatikes at least if not heretikes and I would haue thought that M. Downam would not haue beene so absurd as to deny this common principle agreed of by all which if he had graunted he would not much haue meruailed that we hould our selues to be of the true Church and consequently that all that are not vnited to vs are out of the Church for we do no more then all other Churches and Congregations do And finally M. Downam must of force put some limits to his Church also which if he make so capable that it may comprehend vs also we shall in some sort be beholding vnto him though we cannot requite him with the like But when we know all the conditions that are required to be of his Church it will be an easy matter to inferre that whosoeuer wanteth those conditions must of force be out of it and so this exposition will agree aswell to M. Downams Church and any other as to the Roman How the third exposition may be applied to the Pope M. Downam explicateth not but only affirmeth that this is the most true exposition and agreeth properly to the Pope of Rome Of the truth we shall see in due place but how properly it agreeth to the Pope is not so easy to conceaue For first all the Churches of those which M. Downam taketh to be the only true or at least the best Christians acknowledg not the Pope at all and Catholikes acknowledg him only to be Christs Vicegerent vpon earth which is far from that which Antichrist shall do when he shall so sit in the Temple of God that he shall shew himselfe as if he were God himselfe Concerning the fourth opinion which pleaseth not M. Downam first he denieth it to be the more common opinion as Bellarmine affirmed it was and yet wheras Bellarmin bringeth an cleauen Authors for his opinion M. Downam bringeth but fiue for his foure of which affirme also as much as Bellarmine doth and are by him alleadged to that purpose which M. Downam could not choose but see and therfore thought good to add that the being more common doth not proue it to be the more true for truth goeth not by voyces neither is it See Part. 2. cap. 4. §. 15. to be weighed by the multitude of suffrages but by weight of reason By which you may imagine what a great deale of reason and wit M. Downam thinketh him selfe to haue and how little he attributeth to the Fathers But all this is but in his owne proud and foolish conceipt for all but himselfe will be easily perswaded that there was more wit and true wisdome in the meanest of these ancient Fathers then there is in this insolent Minister though he had many of his fellow Ministers ioyned with him Secondly he denieth this exposition to be more probable because the Temple shall neuer be reedified which were his wonted figure of petitio principij but that he addeth as hath bene shewed Wherfore I will not censure him any further till the Reader hath seene how learnedly he sheweth it and whether the Fathers or he haue more reason and probability in this point Thirdly he addeth that it were not materiall though this exposition were more litterall vnles the litterall were vsuall And to shew that it is not vsuall he obserueth that in all the Epistles by the Temple of God is meant the Church where first the Reader must marke that the word Temple is not vsed in any Epistle but only in this place of the 2. to the Thessalonians and in the 2. to the Corinthians and only in 3. Chapters of them both in the which the faithfull and their bodies are called the Temple of God because the Holy Ghost is present and Temple what it signifieth in the new Testamēt remaineth with them But how can this be applied to Antichrist sitting in the Temple of God and shewing himselfe as if he were God Can Antichrist dwell in the soules and bodies of men as in his Temple Or if he could were this hidden and spirituall sitting any ostentation or shewing of himselfe as God And yet in this place S. Paul affirmeth that Antichrist shall do so for which no doubt he must sit visibly in a visible Temple by which most properly is signified the Temple of Hierusalem yea when S. Paul wrote and for many yeares after only that was so called as Bellarmine proueth and is to be seene in all the foure Euangelists and the Acts of the Apostles Wherfore since this place may yea indeed must litterally be vnderstood of a materiall Temple aswell as many other places of the new Testament it is ridiculous folly in M. Downam to tell vs that in some few places the word Temple is to be taken spiritually also and contrariwise the word Church materially for of this we neuer made question Yea but saith M. Downam to sit in the Temple of God as God is to rule and raigne in the Church of God as if he were a God vpon earth By which expositiō he maketh all Prelats Magistrats which rule and raigne in the Church of God to sit in the Temple of God as God in the manner that S. Paul saith that Antichrist shal sit in the Tēple of God which is a fit interpretation for a Puritanicall Minister who seeketh to peruert the whole order Hierarchy of Gods Church by with drawing the Christian people from the obedience of their lawfull Pastours prepare thē to receaue Antichrist himselfe when he commeth and in the meane time his forerunners the Heretikes of which because Downam seemeth to haue byn a Puritan whē he wrote this M. Downam is one himselfe no meruaile though he pleadeth so hard for himself his fellowes and Maister but if he had meant to deale sincerly he should haue proued his exposition out of the Fathers or answered the authority of those which Bellarm. alleadgeth for himselfe neither of which he once attempteth but yet remitteth vs to another place See part ◠§. 13. 14. 15. where God willing we will examine all that he obiecteth 4. M. Downam hauing in this sort answered to Bellarmines proofes out of the Scripture returneth to his argument ad hominem where first he taketh great exception at Bellarmine for not putting the word true in the premisses and
yet expressing it in the conclusion which is a meere cauill for Bellarmine would not add any word in the premisses which he found not in Melancthon Caluin and Illyricus whose opinion he alleadged In the conclusion which was his owne he might very well expresse that which was necessarily to be vnderstood as Bellarmin explicateth out of Caluin himselfe for M. Downams deuise that the Church of Christ The Church comprehendeth not al that professe the name of Christ may be taken for the company of Christians that is of those that professe the name of Christ is too ridiculous since by this meanes he includeth all heretikes whatsouer who are indeed the Synagogue of the Diuell so confoundeth the Church of God and the Sinagogue of the Deuill wheras S. Paul saith that Antichrist shall sit in the TeÌ„ple of God he meaneth according to M. Downams interpretation the temple of the Diuell All which is so obsurd that the authors with whom Bellarmine disputeth would haue byn ashamed of so ridiculous an assertion and therfore they sought other cuasions as we shal see forthwith but now let vs go on with the other illation that the Protestants are out of the true Church for how the Temple of Hierusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of God we shall see afterward in the discussion of Bellarmines answeres to the arguments of the Protestants 5. Wherfore M. Downam to saue himselfe and his brethren from being out of the true Church of Christ is driuen to this exigent to deny that there is any one visible Catholike Church but only one invisible Catholike Church and many particuler visible Churches which is a most extrauagant and absurd paradox contrary both to Scriptures Fathers and Councells as Bellarmine sufficiently proueth lib. 4. de There is one visible Catholicke Church Ecclesia militant cap. 10. But now I will only oppose to this insolent madnes the authority of the Creed generally receaued of all where the Church is called One Holy Catholike and Apostolike and who seeth not that all which belong truly to Christ must agree in one faith and not to be deuided by schismes and heresies which in M. Downams conceipt can only happen in particuler Churches or at least in them only be acknowledged and rooted out So that if any particuler Church will wholy fall to either or rather if the chiefe head and pastour of any such Church shal become either schismaticall or hereticall there is not meanes left for his reduction since that he is not bound to be at vnity with other particuler Churches nor to subiect himselfe to any visible Catholike Church or to any visible head therof which is as much in effect as to say that Christ hath left no meanes vpon earth to decide controuersies concerning Faith or to take away schismes diuisions but that euery particuler Church or Pastor yea indeed euery particuler man may freely follow his owne fancies without contradiction or controlement of any so long as he can pretend any text of Scripture though neuer so much wrested and falsly vnderstood for that which he is resolued to hould And is it meruarle that heresies and schismes be so rife in our daies since these absurd paradoxes are so currant But what should heretikes and schismatikes do but defend schismes and diuisions and imâ—ugne vnity and concord which if they would admit they must of force returne to the Catholike Church whereit is only to be found Since therfore the visible Church of Christ is one and by the aduersaries confession it is the RomaÌ„ it followeth manifestly that they themselues are out of Christs Church since that they The ProtestaÌ„ts are out of the Church of Christ are out of the Roman For the other cauill which M. Downam maketh that the RomaÌ„ Church is a particuler Church is not worth the answering for euery child can tell him that the Roman Church is taken for all those which agree in faith and are vnited with the Bishop of Rome who is not only Bishop of that particuler Citty but also the head and Pastor of the whole Church which of him her Head is called the Roman Church which coÌ„tinueth the true Church of Christ as Bellarmine proueth and Melancthon Caluin and Illyricus dare not deny howsoeuer M. Downam is so impudent in his rayling consorting himselfe with a vaine Poet whose meaning notwithstanding was far better then M. Petrarcha Downams is 6. M. Downam hauing thus shufled vp the matter hitherto at length commeth to explicate himselfe more plainly and agreeth with Caluin that 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 the Sacrament of Baptisme and the profession of the Name of Christ as also of some reliques and remainder as it were the gleanings of the inuisible Church for he doubteth not but that in the corruptest times of Popery the Lord hath reserued some who haue not receaued the marke of the beast And for explication he compareth the Church of Rome to the state of Israel vnder Ieroboam and Achab because they then retained the Sacrament of Circumcision and professed Iehoua to be their God although they worshipped him Idolatrously And euen vnder Achab the Lord had reserued 7000. who neuer bowed their knee to Baal In which comparison M. Downam insisteth wholy Downam his petitio principij vpon his wonted figure of Petitio principij and consequently all that he saith is but meere railing If he would haue said any thing to the purpose he should haue shewed two points in that example the first that the visible Church among the Iewes was altogeather ceased by that Idolatry of Israel The second that Israel departed not from the Religion which was generally houlden before but that the ancient Religion was by little and little changed to Idolatry and that those which came after separated themselues from the former and yet were the true Church With these two points M. Downam might haue made some comparison betwixt the people of Israel and the Church of Rome But since The Protestants like to Israel the Catholikes to Iuda neither of these are so but the quite contrary it will fall to M. Downam and his fellowes share to be like the people of Israel since they haue left the visible Church of which they once were as the other did and consequently the Church of Rome is like to the people of Iuda and the rest which ioyned with them since it continueth in the ancient faith generally holden throughout Christendome before there were any Protestants in the World Neither do we graunt that the Protestants haue any part of Christs Church no more then the Israelites had since they haue not any iote of true faith howsoeuer they make profession of some articles for the reason why they hould them is not the authority of God proposed by the Scriptures or the
the great which Appianus in Ciriaco and Clemens Alexandrinus in protreptico seeme to think to haue bene dedicated to Venus though the more probable opinion is that it was the temple of Diana but this is no proofe at all that he impugned Diana for religion or in Syria for he might haue pretended to haue brought that treasure from Persia where that temple was into his owne couÌ„try for certaine it is that he sought after the treasure not esteeming to whome it did belong wherefore we read of no such matter that he did in Syria it selfe though he had Daphne so neere him yea to omit the testimony of Polybius which M. Downam mentioned § 13. the Scripture speaketh of him still as of one that worshipped many Idolls but destroyed none for there is in diuers places mention of his Idolls 1. Mach. 1. 45. 50. besides that abhominable Idoll which was placed in the temple vpon the Altar v. 57. which seemeth to be the Idoll of Iupiter Olympius mentioned 2. Mach. Antiochus worshipped many Gods 6. v. 2. where also the Scripture speaketh of Iupiter Hospitalis placed in Garizim and v. 7. there is expresse mention made of the feasts of Bacchus which he caused the Iewes to celâ—brate and 2. Machab. 4. of Sacrifices to Hercules Finally there were other Idolls placed vpon the hill Modin as is plaine out of 1. Mach. 1. v. 23. which place M. Downams great frend Porphyry would needes haue had to be vnderstood by Maozim for which S. Hierome worthily laughed him to scorne as no doubt he would haue done M. Downam for his new and most absurd interpretation In which notwithstanding he proceedeth so far that he is not afraid altogeather to corrupt and alter the text to that end for thus he translateth the 38. v. And as touching the God Mahuzzim that is the God Almighty and there he pauseth in his place he will honour euen a God whome his Fathers knew not will he honour with gold and with siluer with precious stones and with Iewells and ver 39. he shall commit the munitions of Mahuzzim that is of the Almighty vnto a strang God where you see altogeather a new text quite contrary to that Downam corrupteth the text of S. Hierome for this is the pertinacy of heretikes that when they can by no meanes interprete the text according to their fancy they will rather alter the text it selfe then leaue their owne opinion or interpretations But any wise man will easily see that S. Hierome was both more learned and more indifferent then M. Downam and besides who knoweth not that the hebrew text may be altered by diuers pointings which M. Downam will no doubt vse to his owne aduantage And yet after all this he cannot frame his new text to his new interpretation except he suppose that Antiochus was the first in Syria which euer worshipped Iupiter Olympius which wil be very hard for him to do Neither is iâ— to the purpose to tell vs that the Syrians worshiped Apollo and Diana for this is no proofe that they worshiped not Iupiter and others also as we may plainly see by that which hath bene said that they did Bacchus and Hercules c. And Strabo whom he citeth doth not only tell vs of the temple and wood of Apollo and Diana in Daphne but also in the same 16. booke he maketh mention of the temple of Minerua and of the wood of Aesculapius and affirmeth that Hercules was greatly adored by them of Tyrus and all this long after Antiochus his tyme. And for his confirmation out of Dan. 7. 25. 8. 11. the former place is to be vnderstood of Antichrist and the later sheweth only how Antiochus was to spoile the temple of Ierusalem in which we graunt that he was a plaine figure of Antichrist but denie that he is spoken of in this other place 17. The application which M. Downam maketh of this prophesy interpreted by himselfe is ridiculous and without proofe and therefore not to be answered in this See part 2. c. 5. c. place but to be remitted to the second part of this Treatise where we shall examine not only these but also all other calumniations which he layeth vpon the Pope Now it is sufficient that it is plaine out of that which hath byn said that except M. Downam corrupteth the text either of Bellarmines solutions taketh away all obiections out of this place of Daniel 18. Wherefore now let vs see what M. Downam answereth to the Fathers to which he saith that Bellarmine faith or want of better proofes where I would willingly know what better proofes any man can bring after the Scripture then the Fathers especially in such a matter as this whereof there can no other reason be yielded but only Gods will in permitting and mans wickednes in attempting except we will add the Diuels mâ—lice also whom euery man knoweth to be ready inoâ—gh to tempt to any euill whatsoeuer well what answereth M. Downam to these Fathers that they either speake of the Idolls and Idolatry of the Gentils only or els if they speake of all Idolls in generall they deserue such an Antichrist as in this behalf is better then the Pope But who seeth not that the Fathers assertion is generall and withall M. Downams distinction foolish For who can worship Idolls but that he Downam reiecteth the Fathers with a scoffe shal commit Idolatry and conforme himselfe to the Gentils in that wherfore the Fathers are contrary to M. Downams in both points 1. that Antichrist shal be an Idolater 2. that the images of Saints are Idolls and therefore no meruaile though M. Downam is constrayned to reiect their authority with a scosse telling them that they deserued a better Antichrist then the Pope by which he confesseth that they would not haue taken the Pope to be Antichrist as he most impudently doth And as for M. Downams opposing the Scriptures to the Fathers it is his only refuge accompting nothing for Scripture but his owne fancyes and interpretations which how fond and foolish they are hath already sufficiently appeared 19. Lastly M. Downam commeth to Bellarmines answere to Illyricus his two arguments and first he is very angry with Bellarmine for saying that their doctrine is only built vpon the Scriptures falssy expounded by new glosses in token The Protestants doctrine built vpon new glosses of the Scripture whereof they alleadg not one interpreter or Doctor for them which he saith is a malicious slaunder witnes this place which Bellarmine mentioneth 2. Thess 2. where they proue by the consent of many of the Fathers that by the temple is meaÌ„t the Church of God and that in the Church of God Antichrist was to be reuealed after the Roman Empyre which hindred was taken out of the way c. which you see is but a very poore answere though it were all true but now it is also altogeather false for Bellarmine shewed before that those Fathers
true Messias wherefore all these miracles shall either be Antichrists or his Ministers Hence it followeth that the Pope is not Antichrist for neuer any Pope faigned himselfe to die and rise againe nor he himself or any of his preachers made fyre come downe from Heauen or the Image to speake But the Magdeburgenses object cent 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col 436. that there haue ben many lying myracles wrought by them which hould with the Pope as say they visions of soules babling of Purgatory and crauing Masses to be said for them and recouery from sicknesses which haue hapned to the worshippers of Statua's and vowers to Saintes I answere first These are not the miracles which S. Iohn writeth that Antichrist shall doe but to die and rise againe to send fier from Heauen and giue the Image power to speake wherefore let them shew that these haue ben don by the Pope or his followers Secondly those 3. kindes of miracles were vsed in the Church before that tyme in which our aduersaries say that Antichrist appeared for S. Gregory writeth lib. 4. dial cap. 40. that the soule of Paschasius a Deacon who liued in the tyme of Pope Symachus about the yeare of our Lord 500. appeared to S. German Bishop of Capua and desired him to praie for him that he might be deliuered from the torments of purgatory Certainely this miracle happened an hundred yeares before Antichrist appeared by the opinion of all the heretikes of this tyme. For none of them doth put the comming of Antichrist but after the yeare 600. and S. Gregories death The same S. Gregorie telleth of other apparitions of soules asking Masses in the same booke cap. 55. Of the miracles of healing diseases for the veneration of Images there is an example extant in Eusebius lib. 7. hist cap. 14. where he reporteth that there was a brasen Statua erected to our Sauiour by that woman which our Sauiour healed from the issue of bloud and that there was wont to grow an herbe vnder that Statua which being growne to the hemmes or skirts of the Image and touching it healed all kindes of diseases by which myracle it is euident that God would approue the worship of holy Images Of the Recoueryes graunted to them who had vowed any thing to the Saints there are innumerable Testimonies in the ancient Wryters but that which Theodoretus recyteth lib. 8. ad Graces qui est de Martyribus is notable that in his tyme the Temples of Martyrs were full of little Tablets or Portraicts of hands feete eyes heads and other parts of men by which were signifyed the diuers gifts of healings which men that had vowed had receaued of the holy Martyrs M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted 1. MAISTER Downam will not contend with Bellarmine but that Antichrist and his Adherents shall worke many signes and wonders and that they shall be lying signes and wonders both in respect of the end which is to seduce and confirme lyes and in respect of the substance which is counterfayt In which latter clause M. Downam is a little confused or at least not so cleere as Bellarmine who distinguisheth the substance into matter forme Antichrist shall work many signes and sheweth how Antichrists signes shal be lying in both But it is very likely that M. Downam past this ouer so sleightly because he agreed with Bellarmine fully in that point wherfore he commeth to the efficient and author of these myracles in respect of which Bellarmine also affirmeth that they are lying signes wonders because this efficient cause shal be the Father of lyes according to whose power Antichrist was to come who as some of the Fathers affirme was to be a Magiciā or notable Sorcerer And heere M. Downam is somwhat doubtful saying that it seemeth to be somwhat far fetched vnlesse we will take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be masculine as none doth But what meaneth M. Downam by this phrase of far fetched Is it not an ordinary matter that the effect should be denominated How Antichrists signes are said to be lying signes of the efficient cause Why was Manna called the Bread of Angells but because it was giuen by the Ministry of Angells Wherfore we shall not need M. Downams masculine for Bellarmine goeth not about to proue that the word lying signifieth that they shal be such by reason of the efficient cause But that since they are to be wrought by the Diuell as the Apostle affirmeth and M. Downam acknowledgeth and likewise all the Fathers agree and not some only as M. Downam alleageth Bellarmines words corruptly that Antichrist shal be a Sorcerer it is also manifest that they shal be wrought by the Father of lyes and consequently of him as well as for other respects be called lying But we shall not need to stand any longer vpon this since M. Downam is content to yield because he doth not doubt but that he can apply this note also to the Pope Church See part ◠c. 6. of Rome which how well he can do it is not now tyme to examine but in another place 2. The 2. Arguments which M. Downam frameth out of these two positions that Antichrist shall worke signes and that they shall be lying were too ridiculous for Bellarmine to haue made who only noteth those two points for explication of the whole matter and that the third point from which he draweth his argument may be the better vnderstood for who seeth not that those things which are cōmon Myracles in general belong both to good and bad both to good and bad as myracles in generall are can be no note only to know the bad by For that which M. Downam addeth that myracles in these latter tymes belong only to Antichrist is spoken without all ground eyther of Scripture or reason and only affirmed by Protestants because they can neyther worke true myracles being the Diuells Ministers nor false because their Maister is not let loose Why Heretiks can worke no myracles at all yet as he shal be in Antichrists tyme which is the reason why no Heretikes can worke any myracles at all but only the true Church true myracles so long as the Diuel is boūd because God is alway powerfull and Antichrists false myracles in that short space that the Diuell shal be loosed and permitted to vse this manner of seducing aswell as all the rest Now to proue or disproue that any is Antichrist because his signes are true or false is a harder matter then M. Downam taketh it to be as we shall see when we examine his See part 2. c. 7. obiections against the myracles which haue bene wrought in the Catholike Church and the Diuell will carry his matters so craftily in Antichrists tyme that it will not be easy to descry that his myracles are any way false as that of Caluin and some other Ministers was who were taken tardy by the punishment and confession of those whom they
the Kingdome of Gog shal be extolled But it is manifest that in the infancy of Christ no Kingdome was extolled but that of the Romans But without doubt the edition of the 70. is corrupted in this place for in Hebrew it is not Gog but Agag veâ—arom meagag malcho tolletur propter Agag vel prae Agag Rex etus And his King shal be taken away for Agag or in respect of Agag and the sense is according to S. Hierome in cap. 38. Ezech. and Saul the first King of Israel shall be taken away for Agag that is because he shall sinne not killing Agag or according to others Saul shal be extolled before Agag that is he shall preuayle and ouercome Agag Both are true And it is certaine that that place of Numer is vnderstood of the Kingdome of the Iewes and not of Christ or the Romans for it beginneth How faire are thy Tabernacles ó Iacob thy Tents ô Israel c. The fourth opinion is of others who by Gog and Magog vnderstand the battayles of the Diuell and his Angells long since past in Heauen with the good Angells which S. Hierome confuteth as destroying the letter in cap. 38. Ezechiel The 5. opinion of Theodorus Bibliander whom Chytraeus followeth in his Commentary vpon Apoc. 20. wherfore Bibliander Tab. 14. suae Chronologia where he treateth exactly of Gog and Magog and at length teacheth that the Prophesy of Ezechiel and S. Iohn pertayneth not to the same tyme but that the Prophesy of Ezechiel was fulfilled in the tyme of the Machabees and that Gog and Magog were Alexander the Great and his successors the Kinges of Egypt and Syria who fought many battayles with the Iewes and were at length ouercome by the Machabees and that the Prophesy of S. Iohn was fulfilled in the tyme of Gregory the 7. and of some ensuing Popes and that the Popes were Gog and Magog and the other Princes and armyes of Christians who fought a long tyme against the Saracens for the recouery of the holy Land and our Lords Sepulcher The first part of this opinion is also of Theodoretus in cap. 38. Ezech. but it cannot be defended First because without doubt the Prophesy of Ezechiel and S. Iohn is one and the same and therefore both are to be fulfilled after the comming of Christ for first S. Iohn saith that the army of Gog shall come from the foure corners of the earth and the same saith Ezechiel namely expressing that in the army of Gog there shal be Persians from the East Aethiopians from the South Tubal that is Spanyardes from the VVest and â—ogorma that is Phrygians from the coasts of the North. Secondly S. Iohn saith that this army shal be destroyed by fier sent from Heauen and the same affirmeth Ezechiel in the end of the 38. Chapter I will rayne saith he fier and brimstone vpon him and his Army Finally S. Iohn after this battaile presently addeth the renewing of Ierusalem that is the glorification of the Church and likewise Ezechiel from chap. 40. to the end of his booke treateth of nothing els but of the wonderfull renewing of Ierusalem Besides Secondly it is proued that the Prophesy of Ezechiel was not fulfilled in the tyme of the Machabees for Ezech. 38. it is said to Gog Thou shalt come in the last yeares but Alexander the Great with his came in the middle yeares Likewise Ezechiel expresly saith that in the army of Gog there shal be Aethiopians Lybians Spaniards Cappadocians c. which notwithstanding neuer fought against Ierusalem and chiefly in the tyme of the Machabees for only the Syrians and the Aegyptians fought against the Machabees Finally Ezechiel describeth such a victory against Gog and Magog that afterward no enemies were to be feared but all battayles should be ended but the victory of the Machabees was not such against the Kinges of Syria and Egypt for nether the Iewes did euer altogeather ouercome the Kinges of Syria and Egypt and a little after the Iewes were vexed and subdued againe by the Romans neither did they euer deliuer themselues out of their handes as S. Augustine deduceth and proueth lib. 18. de ciuitate Dei cap. 45. therefore the Prophesy of Ezechiel was not fulfilled before Christs tyme. The other part of Biblianders opinion which is his owne and peculiar to him is not only false but also impious for first S. Iohn saith that the battaile of Gog and Magog shal be against the Camp of the Saints and the beloued Citty that is against Gods true Church But the warre of the Christians for the recouery of the Holy Land was wholy against the Saracen Mahometans vnlesse perhaps Bibliander would haue the Mahometans to be the true Church and camp of the Saints Secondly S. Iohn saith that there shal be in the army of Gog men out of the 4. corners of the earth But in the Army of the Christians there were only out of the West and North that is French Germans Italians Besides S. Iohn saith that the warre of Gog and Magog being ended Hierusalem shall forthwith be renewed and glorified and that the Diuell Antichrist and the false Prophets shal be throwne into euerlasting fire But the warre of Christians for the Holy Land is long since ended and yet we see not any Hierusalem renewed nor the Diuell and the false Prophets cast into hell for now as our Aduersaries also confesse the Diuell and false Prophets most of all flourish Furthermore God himselfe by manifest signes and wonders aswell at Antioch of Syria as in other places manifestly shewed that that warre was acceptable vnto him of which see Gulielm Tyriâ—s lib. 6. de bello sacro and Paulus Aemilius lib. 4. de rebus Francorum Finally S. Bernard whom Bibliander calleth a Saint in Chronico where he treateth of the tymes of Eugenius the 3. besides other holy men was one of the chiefest Authors of this warre for he both by wordes and myracles perswaded an infinite multitude of French and Germans to go to that war as he himselfe sheweth initio lib. 2. de Consid and the author of his life lib. 2. cap. 4. writeth that S. Bernard after the battaile was ended restored a blind man to his sight in testimony that he had preached that warre in the name of God The 6. opinion is of the Magdeburgenses cent 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. column 435. where they teach that Gog Magog is the Kingdome of the Saracens or Turkes which opinion is wholy opposite to the opinion of Bibliander therfore it is better or rather lesse euill But yet absolutely it is falsâ— for Gog shall come in the last yeares and shall not endure long as it is plainly gathered out of S. Iohn Ezechiel But the Kingdome of the Saracens began long since and hath endured hitherto almost a thousand yeares which doubtlesse cannot be called a little tyme. The 7. is of S. Ambrose lib. 2. de fide cap. vlt. that Gog are the Gothes who destroyed
many Prouinces of the people of Rome S. Hierome maketh mention of this opinion in quaest heb cap. 10. and saith VVhether it be true or no the end of the warre will shew And now doubtlesse the issue of the war hath taught vs that it was not true for neyther hath there followed any renewing of the Church after the warre of the Gothes neither haue all warres ceased The 8. is of S. Hierome himselfe in cap. 38. Ezech. who seeing the difficulty omitting the litterall sense did mystically expound it of the Heretikes for he will haue Gog which in Hebrew signifieth the House top to signify the Heresiarches who like to the toppe of an House are lifted vp and proud and Magog which is interpreted of the toppe of an House to signify them who belieue these Arch-heretikes and are subiect to them as the House to the roofe or toppe This opinion taken for the mysticall sense is most true but not in the litterall for Ezech. cap. 38. saith that Gog shall come in the last yeares and S. Iohn Apoc. 20. saith that the same Gog shal come after a thousand yeares and by the name of a thousand yeares all Catholickes vnderstand all the time which is from Christs cōming to Antichrist Since therfore Gog shall not come but about the end of the world and heresies began in the beginning of the Church while the Apostles liued it is manifest that properly and litterally Gog doth not signifie the Hereticks We must also know that S. Hierome when he saith that Gog is interpreted an house roofe and Magog of an house roofe meaneth not that Gog and Magog in Hebrew are altogeather the same that an house roofe or of an house roofe with vs but he meaneth that it is in a manner the same for properly an house roofe is not Gog but Gog and of an house roofe is not Magog but Miggag The 9. opinion is of S. Augustine lib. 20. de ciuitate Dei cap. 11. who by Gog vnderstandeth the Diuell who is like a great house roofe that is a great house roofe in which all the euill do dwell and by Magog he vnderstandeth the army of Antichrist gathered of the Nations of the whole world which opinion doutbles is most true and to be imbraced in that it referreth Gog and Magog to the tymes of Antichrist aswell because all Catholike Authors which write vpon the Apocalyps do follow it as Arethas Primasius Beda Haym◠Rupertus Richardus Anselmus and others as also because that all which is said by Ezechiel and S. Iohn of Gog and Magog do most rightly agree to Antichrist for then truly shal be the last and greatest persecution and after it shall Ierusalem be renewed that is the Church glorified neither shall there any battailes be heard of after But in that by Gog it vnderstandeth the Diuell it seemeth not true for S. Iohn saith that the Diuell being let loose shall call Gog and Magog to warres wherefore the Diuell is one thing and Gog another Wherefore our opinion which is the 10. conteyneth three thinges First we affirme that the battaile of Gog and Magog is the battaile of Antichrist against the Church as S. Augustine rightly taught Secondly we say that it is very probable that by Gog Antichrist himselfe is signified by Magog his army For Ezechiel alway calleth Gog a Prince and Magog a Land or Nation Thirdly we say that it is probable that Gog is so called of Magog and not contrarywise so that Antichrist is called Gog because he is Prince of that Nation which is called Magog and that the army of Antichrist is called Magog of the Scythian Nation not that it consisteth of those Scythians which the Iewes faygne to be beyond Cancasus and the Caspian Sea but either because a great part of Antichrists army shall consist of Barbarous people which came out of Scythta as Turkes Tartars and the rest or which I rather thinke because it shal be a very terrible and cruell army for we call them Scythians which we would call bloudy For that Magog signifieth the Scythian Nation it is manifest out of Genes 10. where we read that the second sonne of Iaphet was called Magog of whome the Country of Magog was denominated which his posterity inhabited which was Scythia as Iasephus teacheth lib. Amiq. cap. 11. and S. Hierome in quest hebr in Gen. cap. 10. For as from the three sonne of Cham that is Chus Myrami and Chanaham Aethiopia is called Chus Aegipt Myrami and Palestina Chanaham so doubtles Scythia is called Magog of Magog the sonne of Iaphet And that Ezechiel naming Magog had relation to the Nation denominated of Magog the sonne of Iaphet it is manifest because in the same place he addeth as companions to Gog other Nations denominated of other sonnes or nephews of Iaphet as Gomer Togorma Mosoch Tubal c. Wherefore let vs conclude that the battaile of Gog and Magog is the last persecution which Antichrist shall raise in the whole world against the Church Neither is it against vs that Ezech. cap. 38. saith that the weapons of Gog and Magog shal be burnt for the space of 7. yeares wheras notwithstanding it is manifest that after Antichrists death there shall not be past 45. daies to the end of the world as is gathered out of Daniel 12. for Ezechiel speaketh not properly but figuratiuely after the manner of Prophets neither meaneth he that indeed those weapons are to be burned for the space of 7. yeares but that it shal be so notable an ouerthrow that the Launces and Targets of the slaine might suffice a very long tyme to make fires if need were One doubt remaineth whether by reason of the most cruell persecution of Antichrist the Faith and Religion of Christ shal be altogeather extinguished For Dominicus Soto in lib. 4. sent dist 46. q. 1. art 1. thought surely that it would be so The departing saith he and defection from that Seae shal be a signe of the cōsummation of the world And after Faith being extinguished by the departure from that Sea Apostolike the whole world shal be vayne and should without cause continue any longer And after Let therefore men be astonished how pestilent self loue is for thence floweth pussing vp and pryde which vnder the conduct of Antichrist shall at length consume the Citty of God But this opinion in my iudgment cannot be defended for first it is repugnant to S. Augustine who lib. 20. de ciuit Dei cap 11. saith that the Church shall be euer inuincible against Antichrist Neyther shall she saith he forsake her warfare who is called by the name of Tents Secondly it seemeth to me also to be repugnant to the Ghospell for Matth. 16. we read Vpon this Book I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall nor preuayle against her But how shall they not preuaile if they shall wholy extinguish her Likewise Matth. 24. Our Lord saith of the Ministers of Antichrist They shall giue great
there be betwixt Dioscorus Patriarch of the second Sea presiding in a generall Councell and Luther a simple Monke writing in his chamber But now leauing Luther let vs come to Melancthon THE NINTEENTH CHAPTER The trifles of the Smalchaldicall Synod of the Lutherans are confuted THERE is a booke of the Power Primacy of the Pope or of the Kingdome of Antichrist put forth in the name of the Smalchaldicall Synod which to me seemeth to be Melancthons but whosoeuers it be it hath nothing but words vayne bragging It is well knowne saith the Author of the booke that the Bishops of Rome with their members defend impious doctrine and impious worships and plainly the notes of Antichrist agree to the kingdome of the Pope and his members Hitherto the Proposition Now let vs heare the proofes for Paul ad Thessal describing Antichrist calleth him the aduersary of Christ extolling himselfe aboue all that is said or worshipped for God suting in the Temple as God wherfore he speaketh of some that raigneth in the Church not of Heathen Kings and him he calleth the aduersary of Christ because he shall inuent doctrine repugnant to the Ghospell and he will vsurpe to himselfe diuine authority Although all this if it were true would hurt vs very little yet I aske vpon what foundation this exposition is built S. Paul plainly saith that Antichrist shall extoll himselfe aboue euery God and that he shall sit in the Temple not as a King not as a Bishop but plainely as a God and this same expresly affirme S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose and the rest of the ancient Fathers interpreters of this place With what right do you then without witnesse and without reason affirme that he is Antichist who sitteth in the Temple not as a God but as a Bishop And is so far from extolling himselfe aboue euery God that he doth not only adore God the Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost but also in the presence of all the people prostrateth himselfe before the Sacrament of the Eucharist before the Tombes of the Apostles and Martyrs before the Crosse and Images of Christ and his Saintes which you your selues though impiously are wont to call strange Gods and Idolls But let vs see how you apply this same to the Pope The Synode And first it is manifest that the Pope reigneth in the Church and vnder the pretext of Ecclesiasticall authority and Ministry hath made himselfe this Kingdome for he pretended these wordes I will giue vnto thee the Keyes Bellarmine You say indeed that the Pope reigneth in the Church but you proue it not But we can easily shew the contrary for he that reigneth acknowledgeth not any superiour in his Kingdome but the Pope professeth himselfe to be the Vicar and Seruant of Christ his King And although he vseth most ample power in the whole House of God and in the vniuersail Kingdome of Christ notwithstanding that power exceedeth not the condition of an administrator and seruant for Moyses also as S. Paul saith Hebr. 3. was faithfull in the whole house of God but as a seruant and Christ as a Sonne in his owne But to go forward The Synode Besides the doctrine of the Pope is many wayes repugnant to the Ghospell and vsurpeth to himselfe diuyne authority in three manners First in that he taketh to himselfe authority to change the doctrine of Christ and the worships instituted by God and he will haue his doctrine and his worships obserued as if they were diuine Bellarmine This likewise you say but proue it not and it seemeth to vs not only false but also a most impudent lye for you are not ignorant that in the Catholike Church it is taught by all that the doctrine of Christ and worships cannot be changed by any man no nor by any Angell neither Was there euer any question betwixt you and vs whether that which Christ taught or commaunded ought to be belieued and done but whether you or we interprete better the doctrine and procepts of Christ In which question you in a manner are wont to bring nothing els but your owne interpretation but we bring the consent of the Fathers and either the decrees or customes of the Catholike Church for we do not oppose as you falsely brag the consents of the Fathers and the decres and customes of the Church to the word of God but to your iudgement and interpretation But let vs heere the second proofe The Synode Secondly because he taketh to himselfe not only power to loose and bynd in this world but also power ouer soules after this life Bellarmine This also is said but not proued for the Pope doth not take to himselfe authority ouer the soules of the departed since that he doth not absolue them from their sinnes and punishments by his authority but only communicate with them the prayers and the good workes of the faithfull which lyue by manner of suffrage And all the ancient Fathers do teach that the prayers and almes of the liuing and chiefly the Sacrifice of the Masse do profit the dead of which since we haue largely disputed els where it shal be sufficient to haue noted one testimony of S. Augustine in this place wherefore serm 34. de verb. Apost S. Augustine speaketh thus It is not to be doubted that the dead are holpen by the prayers of the holy Church and the wholsome Sacrifice and the almes which are giuen for their soules But let vs go on The Synode Thirdly because the Pope will not be iudged by the Church or any other and taketh away their authority from the iudgment of Councells and of the whole Church But this is to make himselfe God to refuse to be iudged by the Church or by any other Bellarmine Heere also two things are said which are not proued for first by what Scriptures by what Councells by what reason do you proue that the Pope ought to be iudged by the Councells or the Church For we read to omit other things which are sufficiently disputed in the former booke that it was said to S. Peter by Christ Iohn 21. Feed my sheep and we thinke that there can be no doubt that the sheep are to be ruled and iudged by the Sheepheard and not the Sheephard by the sheep We also read Luc. 12. that it was said to the same Peter VVho thinkest thou is a faithfull and prudent Dispenser whom the Lord appointeth ouer his family In which place we see a certain Steward put ouer the whole family of Christ certainly to gouerne it and not to be gouerned by it And least perhaps some should obiect what if he were a naughty Steward by whom shall he be iudged if he be aboue all and subiect to none Therfore our Lord addeth forth with And if that seruant shall say in his hart my Lord delayeth to come and shall begin to strike the Men and Maid-seruants and to eate and drinke and be drunke the Lord of that seruant will come in
and our Ancestors haue proued 〈◊〉 belieue and â—â—â—st that we shall alway be helped by the prayers of our speciall 〈◊〉 among all the laboures of the life to obtayne the mercy of God that by hâ—w much we are depressed by our sinnes so much we may be erected by Apostolicall merits So he And although we are not wont to speake so as Illyricus saith that we are saued by the merits of spirituall men yeâ— if any did speake so and would only signify that we are in some sort helped by the merites of Saints to obtayne saluation by Christ he could not be more reprehended then the Apostle S. Paul who 1. Cor. 9. saith Iam made all things to all men that I might make all men saued and the Apostle S. Iudas who speaketh in like manner when he saith Do you reprehead these indeed being iudged and saue those taking them from the fier And thus much of the Priesthood of Christ Illyricus goeth forward Now he taketh away Christs Kingdome from him because in earth he will be the head of the Church and in Heauen he appointeth vs other helpers and Sauiours to whome he commaundeth vs to fly in our miseries wherefore the Pope denieth that Iesus is Christ Heere first I aske whether the Pope or any of the Catholikes call the Saints Sauiours Then I adde if to affirme that he is the head of the Church vnder Christ as his Vicar and Minister which the Pope doth be to deny that Iesus is Christ why by the same reason whosoeuer affirmeth that he is Vice-roy or Gouernour of some Prince is not forthwith censured to deny the King to be his Lord Finally if to fly to Saints as helpers in miseries is to deny that Iesus is Christ how I pray you did not S. Paul deny Iesus to be Christ when he saith Rom. 15. I besâ—ech you brethren by our Lord Iesus Christ and by the charity of the Holy Ghost that you helpe me in prayers for me to God that I may be deliuered from the infidalls which are in Iudea How did not Basil the Great deny Iesus to be Christ when in orat de 40. Mart. he spake thus He that is oppressed with any distresse let him fly to these Againe he that reioyceth let him pray to these he to be deliuered from miseries this other that he may continue in prosperity I omit the rest of the Fathers for feare least if we examine them we shall find none who hath not denieth Iesus to be Christ Illyricus goeth on Dan. 11. describeth Antichrist by many notes First saith he he shall do what he will surely the Pope doth what he listeth But holy Daniel when he saith of Antichrist he shall do what he will signifyeth that Antichrist shall acknowledge no superiour at all no not God himselfe for so it followeth And he shal be extelled against euery God wherefore Antichrist neglecting also the law and commaundement of God shall liue at his owne will which cetainely the Pope doth not who denieth not that he is bound by the law of God and acknowledgeth Christ his Iudg and Superiour He himselfe saith Illyricus confesseth it dist 40. If the Pope should draw with him infinite soâ—â—es into hell yet no man must say vnto him what dost thou And the glosse saith the Popes will standeth for reason The Canon which beginneth Si Papa is not as Illyricus falsly saith of any Bishop of Rome but of S. Boniface Bishop of Meâ—tz Apostle of the Germanes and a Martyr who donieth not that the chiefe Bishop if he liueth ill is to be rebuked and admonished by brotherly charity but he denieth that he can be reprehended by authority and iudged since that he is the iudge of all men which Boniface also in those words which go before that Canon as is to be seene in the new edition of the Decree expresly calleth the Church of Rome the head of all Churches and affirmeth that the prosperity of the whole Church doth depend of the safety of the Bishop of Rome after God Wherefore I demaund of Illyricus whether the sentence of S. Bonifacius Apostle of the Germans be true or no for if it be not true why is it obiected vnto vs if it be true why is it not receaued I will say the same more plainely If that sentence be not true then it is not true that it may not be said to the Pope drawing many soules with himselfe into hell What doest thou If it be true then is the Pope truly the head of all Churches and being to iudge all is to be iudged by none Wherefore let Illyricus leane alleadging the Canons which can profit him nothing As for the glosse let Illyricus know that it is either taken away by the Pope himselfe as false in the new edition of the Decree or cls was neuer in the decree certainely I could not find it Illyricus goeth forward Secondly Daniel saith that he will extol himselfe aboue God that the Pope did as is manifest by that which hath ben said Likewise because he will have himselfe heard more then God and blaspheming he crieth out that the Scripture is the Fountaine of all heresies and schismas doubtefull and obscure c. But thou shouldest haue rehearsed Daniels wordes faithfully for he saith not he will extell himselfe aboue God but he shal be extelled against euery God and after Neither shall he care for any of the Gods because he shall rise against all Which note most clearely sheweth that the Pope hath nothing common with Antichrist for Antichrist will care for none of the Gods but the Pope worshippeth the only true God the Father the Sonne and holy Ghost Neither doth he that alone but also if we belieue you he adoreth openly so many Gods as there be Saintes in Heauen Images on earth and reliques vnder the earth Now that which thou addest that the Pope crieth out that the Scripture is the fountaine of heresy and schismes Certainely I neuer read it in the writinges of any Pope but I heare that it is the word of thy freind Luther that the Scripture is the booke of heretikes Luth. praefat historia qua contigit in Strasfort anno 36. which word if it be rightly taken I see not why it should be deseruedly reprehended for S. Hilarie lib. de Synod extreâ—â—o sheweth that most heresies arose out of the Scriptures ill vnderstood and Tertullian in lib. de praescript more bouldly saith thus Neither am I afraid to say that the very Scriptures are so disposed by the will of God that they might minister matter to Heretikes since I read Heresies must be which cannot be without Scriptures And that the Scriptures are ambiguous and obscure in many places not only the Pope most truly teacheth but also all the old Fathers and euen Luther himselfe whether he would or no was constreyned to confesse it when praefat in Psal he wrote thus I would not haue that presumed of me by any which none of the most
Fathers togeather euen those who were many ages before S. Gregory Heare in the name of the rest only S. Augustine epist 23. ad Bonifacium speaking thus VVas not Christ offered once in himselfe and yet in the Sacrament not only all the solemnityes of Easter but euery day he i◠sacrificed and offered for the people §. V. Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that not only outward actions repugnant to the law of God are sinne but also doubts of God carnall security and contumacy and concupiscence which is borne in vs and remayneth in those which are borne againe Rom. 7. The Papists deny that these euills remayning in those which are borne againe are sinnes repugnant to the law of God Bellarmine The Papists that is Catholikes teach in no place that only outward actions are sinnes but it is lawfull for you to lye for you learned that of your Father who stood not in truth Now we doubt not that doubtes of God carnall security contumacy and concupiscence are sinnes if they be voluntary but if they be inuoluntary as those desires of the flesh against the spirit were which S. Paul felt though he did not consent vnto them we constantly deny that they are sinnes Neyther do we striue with you about S. Paules words as though they seemed true to you and false to vs but about the interpretation of those wordes Neither must you take it ill if we preferre S. Augustine and all the Quyre of Saints before you new Vpstarts For thus speaketh S. Augustine lib. 1. cont duas epistolas Pelagianorum cap. 13. But concerning this concupiscence of the flesh I thinke they are deceaued or deceaue with which it is necessary that euen the baptized and this if he profiteth most diligently and be moued with the spirit of God doth striue with a pious mind But this although it be called sinne it is so called not because it is sinne but because it was made by sinne as a writing is called a mans hand because his hand made it §. VI. Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that man in his weaknesse of nature cannot satisfy the law of God and that he is not iust and free from all sinne by this perfect fulfilling of the law Rom. 8. The sense of the flesh is enmity against God for it obeyeth not the law of God neyther indeed can it The Papists striue that man may satisfy the law of God and that he is iust and deserueth euerlasting life with this fulfilling of the law Bellarmine The Papists that is the children of the Catholike Church say not that man in this weaknesse of nature is free from all sinne for we acknowledge and professe that it is most true which S. Iohn saith in the beginning of his first epistle If we shall say that we haue no sinne we seduce our selues But because these daily sinnes neither take away iustice nor are so much against as besides the law since that for the remission of such offences euery Saint prayeth in opportune tyme Psal 31. and all the children of God doubtlesse iust and holy are taught daily to say Forgiue vs our debts Matth. 6. Therfore we are not afraid to say that man being iustifyed by the grace of God may by the help of the same grace both fulfill the law of God and by that fulfilling merit euerlasting life for we know who said And his Commaundements are not heauy Io. 1. 5. and who likewise said Call the workmen and render them their reward Matth. 20. And againe Come you blessed of my Father possesse the Kingdome prepared for you c. for I was hungry and you gaue me to eate Wherefore S. Augustine lib. de gratia lib. arb cap. 16. It is certaine saith he that we keep the commaundements if we will but because our will is prepared by our Lord we must aske of him that we may will so much as is sufficient that willing we may do And de spirit lit cap. 10. Grace is therefore giuen not because we haue fulfilled the law but that we may fulfill the law Neither doth that word of the Apostle moue vs The sense of the flesh is enmity against God for the same Apostle had said before Rom. 7. Therefore I my selfe with my mind serue the law of God but with my flesh the law of sinne But that which we do with our mynd we truly do and that which we do with our flesh if the mind repugneth is not our deed as the same Apostle saith If I do that saith he which I will not now I worke it not §. VII Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that those only are good workes which are commaunded by God c. according to the rule which I commaund thee do only these thinges for thy Lord neither adde nor diminish The Papists contrarywise haue ouerwhelmed the whole Church with traditions c. Bellarmine These thinges haue bene already a thousand tymes repeated by you and refuted by vs. And it is false which thou saiest that it is in the Ghospell that those are only good workes which God hath commaunded for where I pray thee hath God commaunded virginity Doth not S. Paul say But of Virgins I haue not our Lordes precept 1. Cor. 7 And yet he saith in the same place that it is a good worke to remayne a Virgin Therefore saith he he that ioyneth his virgin in Matrimony doth well and he that ioyneth her not doth better Neither doth that rule much help thee Do only those things for the Lord which I commaund thee For God forbiddeth not any other thing in that place but that we corrupt not his preceptes but that we keep them entirely as he hath commaunded not declining to the right hand nor to the left Wherefore S. Aug. lib. de sanct virginit cap. 30. distinguishing precepts from counsailes for neither saith he as it is said Thou shalt not commit adultery Thou shalt not kill can it be so Thou shalt not marry those thinges are exacted these are offered If these be done they are praised vnlesse those be done they are condemned In those God commaundeth vs a debt in these if thou shalt supererogate or bestow any more Note he will restore it you at his returne §. VIII Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that both partes of the Sacrament of the Lordes supper are to be ministred to all Christians and truly of the cuppe he expresly saith Drinke all of this The Papists contrariewise determine and define c. Bellarmine Hitherto we haue not seene that place of the Ghospell where we are taught that both partes of the Sacrament of our Lords supper are to be ministred to all Christians For our Lord saith not of the chalyce Drinke all you Christians of this but drinke you all of this and who those all were S. Marke explicated when he added And they dranke all of it but all Christians dranke not but all the Apostles who only then did eate with our Lord. §. IX Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that true
will permit no other Gods besides himselfe cap. 14. 11. 12. He shall commit the greatest sinnes when he cannot all cap 14. n. 12. How he may extoll himselfe aboue God ibid. he shall not worship or honour many Gods c 14 n. 14. He shall adore the diuell secretly c. 14. n. 14. his disposition ibid. He shall worke many signes c 15. n. 1. he is not proued to be King of the Iewes because Antiochus was so c. 16. n. 9. he shall arise from base estate cap. 16. n. 14. sequ He shall ouercome ◠Kings cap. 16. n 12. he shall subdue the 7 Kings which remayne after the three and so he shal be monarch of the whole world cap. 16. n 14. he shall persecute the Christians through the whole world with an innumerable army cap. 16. n. 1◠c. 17. per totum Antichristianisme is not Atheisme c. 4. n. 12. Antiochus Epiphanes is not spoken of at all in the 7. 11. chap of Daniel cap 7 n. 7. he was an Idolater c. 14. n. 12. he impugned not the Gods of Syria c. 14. n. 16. he worshipped many Gods ibid he was a type of Antichrist only in some principall points cap. 16. n. 3. Only he among the Kings of Syria is in the Scripture accounted a persecutour of the Iewes c 16. n. 7. how he arose from base estate cap. 16. n. 14. seq he inuaded not Egypt oftner then twice c. 16. n. 13. Antiochus Magnus Seleucus Philopater his elder sonne were the Iewes benefactors c. 16. n. 7. Arias Montanus cap. 6 n. 3. S. Augustine answereth Downams obiection c. 6 n 5. 8. he maketh no more doubt that Elias shall come then that S. Iohn Baptist is come ibid. The Apostasy is not the mistery of iniquity c. 2. n. 16. c. 14. n. 3. B BELL ARMINES aduantage in this controuersie cap. 1. n. 1. He agreeth with former Catholikes c. 1. n. 2. he is vniustly charged by Downam cap. 7. n. 5. c. 8. n. 5. c. 10 n. 7. c 14 n 10. c 16. n. 11. he vrgeth Downams obiection further then he doth himselfe c. 11. n. 9. his sincere dealing cap. 12. n. 1. He reuerenceth the Fathers c. 14. n 7. C CALVIN thinketh that only Christ is in heauen and that others stay without cap. 6. n. 6. The Canons of the generall Coūcell c ◠n. 4. Catholike doctrine standeth not so much vpon denyalls as the Protestants doth c. 12. 13. The Character of Antichrist shall be common to all in his Kingdome c. 11. n. 4. It shal be carryed not only by Christians but also by Iewes ibid. It may be carryed in the right hand or in the forhead ib. It is not profession or practise ibid. It shal be visible c. 11. n. 12. Christs first comming was not terrible as his second shall be c. 6. n. 3. His power and knowledge are not to be limited by that which he did cap. 2. n. 17 He and Antichrist cānot haue both one marke c. 11. n. 7. The Church of Christ cānot haue the marke of Antichrist c. 11 n. 5. The Church was alwayes subiect to the Pope ibid. The Church cōprehendeth not all that professe the name of Christ cap. 13. n. 4. There is one visible Catholike Church cap. 13. n. 5. It is to endure to the end of the world cap. 13. n. 7. Chrisme vsed in the Church before the yeare 607 c 11. n 6. how it maketh vs Christians ib. how it is more to be reuerenced then Baptisme ibid. The Conuerting of one argueth more power then the peruerting of many cap 6. n. 6 The Councell of Chalcedon cap. 3. n. 4. D THE Tribe of Dan fell not first to Idolatry c. 12. n. 2. Why it is omitted Apoc 7. ib. Dayes are not taken for yeares cap. 8. n. 7. The Diuell is signified by the beast Apoc 17. c. 15. n 5 6. M. Downam seemeth not to haue read so much of Bellarmine as he impugneth cap. 3. n. 4. he omiteth Bellarmines proofes and answereth his owne cap 4 n. 4. 5. 6. 7. he changeth Bellarmines argument c. 5. n ◠3. c. 8 n. 7. c 13. n. 9. he taketh the obiection and omitteth the answere c. 6 n. 4. c. 13 n 9. 10. He cannot defend his fellowes c. 2. n. 14. c. 6 n. 6. c 8. n. 7. c. 14. n. 12. 19. c. 16. n. 14. he impugneth his fellowes cap. 8 n 7. c. 10. n. 7. He impugneth himselfe cap. 12. n. 2. 9. c. 15. n. 5. ◠he contradicteth himselfe cap. 5. n 5. c. 10. n. 3. 4. 6. c 11. n. 4. 12. c. 13. n. 1. c. 16. n. 5. 7. 12. he speaketh from the purpose c. 2. n 12. 15. c 14. n. 6. 8. 10. c. 16. n. 4. 8. his petitio principij c. 2. n. 17. 20. c. 5. n. 3. c. 6. n. 4. c 7. n. 3. 7. c. 10 n. 4. 5. 7. c. 11. n. 4. 7. c. 13. n. 6. 8. 10. he dissembleth the difficulty c. 2. n. 20. c. 4. n. 7. c. 7. n. 4. c. 16. n. 11. his poore shifts c. 3. n. 1. 5. c. 6. n 4. his iuggling c. 10. n. 2. c. 12. n. 2. c. 13 n. 1. 2. he translateth not well c 3. n. 1 c. 5. n. 4. c. 15. n. 3. he expoundeth the Scripture childishly c. 4. n. 8 He mangleth the scripture c. 5 n. 5. c. 6. n. 5. he admitteth what translation interpretation he listeth c. 6. n. 3. he condemneth Ecclesiasticus the Iewes of his time c 6. n 4. he condemneth the Apostles and in some sort our Sauiour himselfe c. 6. n. 5. he ioyneth with Porphiry an Apostata against all ecclesiasticall writers and Iewes also c. 5. n. ◠6. 7. n. 7. c. 16. n. 5. Our Sauiours words in his opinion are not true c. 14. n. 7. his boldnes with the Scripture c. 14. n. 16. he ioyneth with the Iewes in impugning the Pope c. 16. n. 3. his exposition contrary to all others euen his owne fellowes c 16. n. 7. he belyeth the Primitiue Church against the testimonies of the Fathers c 13 n. 9. he scoffeth at S. Gregory cap. 6 n. 7. c 8. n. 6. he corrupteth S. Ireraeus his words and meaning c 10. n. 7. he impugneth the fathers authority c. 12. n. 2. he acknowledgeth the Fathers to be against him c. 14. n. 19. he abuseth S. Hierome c. 16 n. 9 he maketh much account of one Father if he fauoureth his fancy c. 4. n. 1◠he forgetteth what he impugneth c 5. n. 2 c. 7. n. 6. he confirmeth one absurdity with another far greater c 5. n. 2. he cutteth of those wordes which make most to the purpose c 6. n. 3 he proueth an vniuersall by a particuler c 10 n 3. he rūneth to generalities when he cannot answere the particuler argument c. 1◠n. 4. his strange paradexe cap. 14. n. 9. he belyeth the Pope and Church of Rome c. 14.
n. 17 he weakneth his fellowes arguments c. â— n. 9. his absurd folly c. 2 n. 10. He censureth the Fathers c 2. n 13. His vayne bragging c 2 n. 19 c. 6. n. 8. he addeth an head of his owne to the 7. of the beast Apoc. 17. c. 2. n 21. he is nothing scrupulous in his account c. 3. n. 3. his fond imagination c. 4. n. 10. his immodesty c. 4. n. 14. he is not moderate in his censure c. 5. n. 3. his impudency c 5. n. 3. c. 6. n. 3. c. 14. n. 4. He seemeth to thinke that the Diuel can do true myracles c. â— n. 5. c. â—5 n. 3. he attributeth more to merits then euer any Catholik did c. 6 n. 3. In his opinion Enochs translation maketh as much for any other vertue as for pennance contrary to the Scripture c. 6 n 4. 8. his Martyrs heretikes and rebells c. 7. n. 3. he maintayneth open rebellion and treason c. 7. n. 4. his shamlesselye c. 7. n. 3. his Porphiryes pertinacy c. 7. n. 7. his conferrence of Scripture ibid. his and Foxes exposition of Scripture c. 8. n. 3. his and his fellowes manner of disputing c. 7. n. 7. his childish cauill c 8 n 1. he maketh the ancient Church to be very corrupt c 11 n 5. his blasphemy ibid. He seemeth to haue bene a Puritan when he wrote of Antichrist c. 13. nu 3. 10. his trifling c. 14. n. 4. he belyeth Gregory the 7. cap. 16. n. 12. He belyeth the Cardinalls ibid. Why he admitteth any of the Fathers c. 16. n. 14. E THE Booke of Ecclesiasticus Canoricall Scripture cap 6. n 4. Elias and Enoch shall preach in a manner as long as Antichrist shall raigne cap. 6. n. 7. Elias shall come in person cap. 2. n 13 cap 6 per totum How Elias shall restore all things ibid. The necessity of the comming of Enoch and Elias cap 6 n 5 Enoch Elias are not in heauen cap 6. n 6 Enoch and Elias shall begin to preach in the beginning of Antichrists raigne cap. 8 n 4. The End of the world is not only the last instant c 9 n 4. Whether they which liue at Antichrists death may gather how long it is to the end of the world c. 8. n. 4. Only the iust and learned shall make this collection ibid. The Trybe of Ephraim not omitted Apoc. 7. cap. 12. n 2. When the proper Exposition is to be preferred cap. 4 n 12. How far diuers Expositions are to be admitted cap. 2. n 16. F RHE necessity of the Fathers expositions c. 10. n. 3. Their authority ibid how Catholikes esteeme of them cap. 12. n. 1. The Foolish dreame of the feele Fox c. 8. n. 3. G HOvv the Ghospell was in the whole world in the Apostles tyme cap 4 n 14. The Ghospell shal be preached to all Nations before Antichrists comming cap. 4. per â—oâ—â—m Greeke article when it signifieth a particuler thing c. 2 n 4 S. Gregory answereth Downams obiection cap c. n 8. Gregory the 14. c. 16. n. 12. Gog Magog c. 17. per totum H A Great Happinesse to be put to death by Antichrist cap. 6. n 8. The Herodians c. 12. n 10. Why Heretikes can worke no myracles cap. 15. n. 2. The 7. Heads of the beast Apoc. 13. are not the same with Apoc. 17. cap. 15. n. 4. The little Horne Dan. 7. is not the same with that of Dan. 8. c. 16. n. 1. S. Hippolytus cap. 11. n. 12. I IANSENIVS cap. 6. n. 4. S. Ierome confuteth Porphiry Downam c 7. n 7. The Importance of the controuersie c 1 n. 1. The Interruption of the Iewes sacrifice was only 3. yeares c. 7. n. 7. Iosephus corrupted c. 8. n 2 Iupiter cap 14 n 12 K THE Kingdomes wherof Daniel speaketh were not to be ended before Christ cap. 16. nu 5. WheÌ„ our Sauiour is to destroy theÌ„ ibid. When he began spiritually to ouerthrow them ibid. The â— Kingdomes into which that of Alexander was deuided belong to the beast described Dan. 7. and not to the 4. c. 16. n 6. 18. The Kingdomes of the Lagidae and Seleuâ—idae caÌ„not be signified by the 4 beast Dan. 7. c. 16. n. 6. Why theâ— Kings which Antichrist shall slay are called the 3. first â—â— former c. â—â— n. 1â— L THE Latin Interpreter is nor to be reiected cap. 6. n. 4. The name of Latin cannot be giuen to the Pope c. 10. n. 4. It contayneth not the number 666. ib. n. 7. How Latria is giuen to the Crosse by Catholikes c. 11. n. 1â— Why the Tribe of Leui is often omitted c. 1â— n. 2. M MARTINVS 5. his Bul against the Huffites cap 11. n. 4. A Mortall man may be truly called God cap 14. n. 1â— Maozim signifieth not the true God c. 14. n 14. It may signify Antichrist ibid. It signifieth a strong tower cap 14. n. 15 Myracles in generall belong both to good bad c. 15. n 2. Why the diuells help is necessary to worke counterfait Myracles c. 5. n. 5. c. 15. n. 3. N THE Name which contayneth the nuÌ„ber 666. shal be the proper vsual name of Antichrist c. 10. n. 7. Many Names contayne that number ibid. Nilas cap. 15 n. 2. O THE Oath of Obedience made to the B. of Rome before the yeare 606. cap. 11. n. 8. If the Oath be lawful the often exacting of it is not culpable ibid. One faith one Church c. 13. n 3. P PROTESTANTS put Catholikes to death for ReligioÌ„n c 7. n. 4. An inuisible Persecution of an inuisible congregation cap. 7. n. 6. Phoâ—as gaue not the title of vniuersall to the Pope c. n. 4. And that which he gaue the Pope had before ibid. The Pope hath power to depose Princes for the spirituall good of Christs Church cap. 3. n. 5. The Popes whom the Protestants account Antichrist arise not from base estate cap. 16. n. 11. The Pope no temporal Monarch cap. 16. n. 14. The Protestants expositioÌ„ of Scripture not much worth cap. â— n. 16. How much they agree with the Samosatens and all other heretikes c. 3. n 2. Their disagreement about Antichrists coÌ„ming c 3 n. 3. The Prophesies concerning the destruction of Ierusalem and the end of the world intermingled c 4. n. 9. The Persecution of Catholikes in England c. 7 n. 4. R THE reason of Romes preheminence is not because it is the chiefe Citty c. 3. n. 4. X. Kings shall diuide the Roman Empyre among them so that there shal be no Roman Emperour in their time cap 5. n. 2. The Roman Empyre signified by the 2. iroÌ„ Legs of Nabuchodonosors Statua and the 4. beast Dan 7. cap. 5. n. 2. By the 10. toes of Nabuchodonosors Statua and the 10. hornes of the 4. beast Dan. 7. are signified the 10. Kings which shall deuide the Roman Empyre among them cap. 5. n. 2. The Roman Empyre shal be vtterly destroyed by the 10. Kings c. 5. n. 3. per totum How many wayes the Fathers affirme the vtter destruction of the Roman Empire why they speake sparingly of this point c. 5. n. 3. There is now a Roman Emp. indeed and not in name or title only cap. 5. n. 3. The name Romanus contayneth not the number 666 c. 10. n. 7. To cleaue to the Roman Church was the signe of a true Catholike before the yeare 696. c. 11. n. 7. How the Church of Rome is vnited staÌ„deth with other Churches ibid. Those which belong not to the Church of Rome belong not to Christ but to Antichrist ibid. Not Christian but Heathen Rome is called Babylon and an Harlot Apoc 17. c. cap. 13. n. 8. S SACRIFICE for the dead vsed before the yeare 606. c 11. n. 10. The difficulty of Scripture and why many erre in the interpretation therof cap 7. n. 7. When the Scripture is litterally to be vnderstood of the figure and when of the thing figured c. 14. n. 13. How we may argue from the mysticall sense of Scripture c. 10. n. 3. The mysticall Sâ—nse intended by the holy Ghost ibid. Except the litterall Sense be certaine we caÌ„not argue from it ibid. The consent of the Fathers maketh both Senses certayne ibid. Why Seleucus Philopater is called Vilissimus c. 16. n. 8. The Seauenty two Interpreters not to be reiected c. 6. n. 7. The Sybils verses of Adrian are expounded c. 10. n. 2. Why Symeon is omitted in Moyses his blessing cap. 12. n. 2. How the Signes of Antichrist shal be lying c. 15 n. 1. T TEMPLE what it signifieth in the new Testament c. 13. n. 3. How the Temple of Ierusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of God c. 13. n 9. And it shal be built again in the end of the world ibid. But it shal be alway prophane ibid. It shall not be finished ibid. The thousand yeares Apoc. 2. are to be taken indefinitely cap. 7. n. 2. By the great Tribulation Matth. 24. is meant the persecution of Antichrist a little before the end of the world cap. 4. n. 5. 13. The Turks inferior to Antichrist c. 14. n. 7. V VNCTION of Priests vsed before the yeare 606 cap. 11. n. 9. The word vntill signifieth neither continuance nor cessation but is indifferent to both cap. 13. n. 9. Vrbanus 7. cap. 16. n. 12. FINIS Faultes escaped in the Printing Page Line Fault Correction â—8 29. is forerunner is forerunne 41. 39. in the Apostasy in the Apostles time 133. 33. beginning neither beginning neither ibid. 8. hatred of hatred out of 172. 15. deemeth denyeth 180. 34. graunteth groundeth 192. 12. 19. and last chapter 19. last chapters 229. 34. former grounds founder grounds 237. 38. them so them so 266. 39. Antichrist sitting Antichrist his sitting 272. 20. all Idols also Idols 275. 2. frame himselfe feigne himselfe 276. 7. shewing as shewing himselfe as 281. 7. prouided proued 298. 5. proue that proue but that 310. 18. tortures torturers 315. 29. Antichrists Antichrist 320. 36. one and one And 335. 23. as neither the 2. as neither the 3. 339. 34. exposition wherof exposition wherof 380. 1. Maozim Neither Maozim who seeth not that Christ is the God Maozim Neither c. 387 13. bould of bloud of 413. 24. aboue those about those Other faultes of lesse moment by reason of the obscure copy and absence of the Author haue likewise escaped which the Reader may easily find and correct of himselfe