Empire as M. Downam rashelie auoucheth only because he would exceed Bellarmine in wordes since he cannot come neere him in proofes THE SIXT CHAPTER Conteyning the third Demonstration THE third demonstration saith Bellarmine is taken from the comming of Henoch and Helias who liue still and to this end that they may oppose themselues to Antichrist when he commeth conserue the elect in the Faith of Christ and at length conuert the Iewes which notwithstanding without doubt is not yet fulfilled There be foure places of Scripture concerning this matter the first Malac. 4. Behould I will send Elias the Prophet vnto you before the great daie of the Lord commeth and he will conuert the hartes of the Fathers to the Children and the hartes of the children to their Fathers The second Eccle. 48. where we read of Helias VVho wert receaued in a whirle-wynd of fire in a whirle-wynd of fyery horses who art written in the iudgments of tymes to asswage the Lordes anger to reconcile the hart of the Father to the sonne and to restore the Tribes of Israel And cap. 44. Henoch pleased God and was translated into Paradise to giue to Nations pennance The third Matth. 17. Helias indeed is to come shall restore all thinges The fourth Apoc. 11. I will giue to my two witnesses and they shall prophesie 1260. dayes Theodorus Bibliander alleadgeth also all these places in his Chronicle tab 14. but he saith that by Henoch and Helias are vnderstood all faithfull Ministers which God rayseth in the tyme of Antichrist of which sort were Luther Zuinglius and the rest and at length he concludeth VVherfore saith he it is a childish imaginatiō or a Iewish dream to expect either Helias or Henoch as persōs described by their particuler proprieties And the same teacheth Chytraeusin Comment Apoc. 11. and they prooue it because those thinges which are said of Helias by Malachie our Lord taught vs to be vnderstood of S. Iohn Baptish Matth. 11. He is Helias who is to come And S. Hierom in cap. 4. Malach. expoundeth it of all the quire of Prophets that is to say of the doctrine of all the Prophets But to vs it seemeth not a childish imagination but a most true opinion that Henoch and Elias shall come in their persons and that the contrary is eyther an heresie or an errour next doore to heresy It is proued first out of those foure Scriptures for that the wordes of Malachie cannot be vnderstood of any Doctors whatsoeuer as of Luther Zuinglius the like it is manifest for Malachie saith that the Iewes are to be conuerted by Helias and that he is chieflie to be sent for the Iewes as is manifest by that I will send vnto you And in Ecclesiasticus to restore the Tribes of Iacob But Luther and Zuinglius haue conuerted none of the Iewes That also they cannot be vnderstood litterallie of S. Iohn Baptist but only of Helias it is manifest because Malachie speaketh of the second comming of our Lord which shal be to iudge for so he saith Before the great and horrible day of the Lord commeth for the first comming is not called a great and horrible daie but an acceptable tyme and the day of saluation For which cause it is also added Least perhappes comming I strike the earth with anathema and curse that is to say least comming to iudgment and finding all wicked I condemne all the earth therfore I will send Helias that I may haue some to saue But in the first comming our Lord came not to iudge but to be iudged not to destroy but to saue To the wordes of our Lord Matth. 11. we wil answere a little after To S. Hierome Isay that though in Comment Malach he did not thinke that Malachie did speake of the true Helias yet in comment Matth. 11. 17. he thinketh teacheth the contrary Finallie S. Augustine lib. 20. Ciu. cap. 29. witnesseth that this is the common interpretation of the faithfull That likewise Ecclesiasticus speaketh of the persons of Henoch Helias and not of some other it is prooued for Ecclesiasticus saith that Henoch shall come to giue the Nations pennance who is translated into Paradise and that Helias shall come to restore the tribes of Israel who was taken away in a chariot of fiery horses which certainely agree not but to those particuler persons In which place I cannot sufficientlie meruaile what came into Bishop Iansenius his mind that expounding this place he should write Although it be the opinion of all the Ancients that Helias shall come yet it is not conuinced out of this place for it may be said that Ecclesiasticus wrote that according to the opinion receaued in his tyme by which it was belieued out of the wordes of Malachie that Helias shall trulie come before the Messias in his owne person whereas it was not to be fulfilled in his owne person but in him who was to come in the spirit and vertue of Helias For if it be so as Iansenius saith it followeth that Ecclesiasticus erred and wrote false thinges But if I be not deceaued Iansenius changed his opinion for writing in Cap. 17. Matth. he teacheth that the place of Malachie cannot be litterallie vnderstood but of the true Helias which he is likewise compelled to say of the place of Ecclesiasticus who without doubt expoundeth Malachy Now that the wordes of our Lord Matth. 17. are vnderstood of the true Helias yt is plaine because S. Iohn was alreadie come and had absolued his course and yet our Lord saith Helias shall come and that they are not vnderstood of all doctors but of one true Helias it may be proued first because the Apostles who moued the question of Helias where S. Peter S. Iames and S. Iohn and they tooke occasion by the Transfiguration of our Lord where they saw Moyses Helias wherefore when they aske why therefore doe the Scribes say that Helias must come first they speake of that Helias whome they had seene in the mountayne with Christ Therefore Christ answering Helias indeed shall come restore all thinges speaketh also of that particuler Helias who had appeared in the Transfiguration Secondly the same is manifest out of those wordes and he shall restore all thinges for S. Io. Baptist nor any other hath don that for torestore all thinges is to recall all Iewes and heretikes and perhappes many Catholikes deceaued by Antichrist to the true Faith But Bibliander vrgeth because our Lord Matth. 11. saith of S. Io. Baptist He is Helias who is to come as if he had said He is the Helias promised by Malachy I answere Our Lordes meaning is that S. Iohn was the Helias promised not litterally but allegoricallie for therefore he said first and if you will receaue him as if he said Helias indeed promised in his owne person is to come in the last comming yet if you will haue also some Helias in the first comming receaue Iohn Therefore also he addeth
leaue the principall question and refute other particulers altogeather from the present purpose which seemeth to be that which this Mynister desireth now and the whole crew of them are wont to practise in all disputations Wherfore I will end this Chapter requesting my reader to consider attentiuely if it be not euident out of this last proofe that Antichrist is not yet come that the Pope is most contrary to him and that Protestants are his forerunners as Bellarmine inferred THE EIGHT CHAPTER conteyning the fifth Demonstration THE fifth Demonstratiō saith Bellarmine is taken from the continuance of Antichrist Antichrist shall not reigne past three yeares a halfe But the Pope hath already reigned spiritually in the Church aboue 1500. yeares and there cannot be any assigned who hath byn accompted Antichrist who hath raigned precisely three yeares and a halfe Wherfore the Pope is not Antichrist nor Antichrist is yet come Now that Antichrists raigne shal be three yeares and a halfe it is gathered out of Dan. cap. 7. 12. and Apoc. 12. where we read that Antichrists raigne shall indure for a tyme and tymes and halfe a tyme for by a tyme is vnderstood one yeare by tymes two yeares and by halfe a tyme halfe a yeare For so S. Iohn explicateth who Apoc. 11. and 13. saith that Antichrist shall raigne 42. Monthes which rightly make 3. yeares a halfe cap. 11. he saith that Henoch and Helias shall preach 1260. dayes which make the same tyme for the Hebrews did vse the yeares and monthes of the Moone though they did reduce them to those of the Sunne by adding euery sixt yeare one Lunation And three yeares and a halfe of the Moone make iust 42. moneths or 1260. dayes For a full perfect yeare of the Moone cōsisteth of 12. monthes euery one of which hath 30. daies as S. August teacheth l. 15. deciu. Dei c. 14. Neither is it against this that Dan. 12. Antichrist is said to raigne 1290. daies that is 30. daies more then S. Iohn said for S. Iohn speaketh of Henoch and Elias which shal be slain by Antichrist one moneth before he perish To this the Aduersaries āswere in three sorts first Chytraeus in cap. 11. 13. Apoc. saith that these tymes cannot be taken for three yeares and a halfe because it is against experience S. Paul 2. Thess 2. saith that Antichrist shal indure vntill Christs comming Secondly he saith that a certaine tyme is put for an vncertaine and therfore for 42. monthes or 1260. daies there are to be vnderstood more then a 1000. years The same saith Bullenger serm 46. in Apoc. whose reason seemeth to be that which Luther insinuateth in supput temporum because it is manifest Apoc. 20. that the Diuell is to be loosed in the thousand yeare wherfore the comming of Antichrist with the temporall sword was the thousand yeare after Christ therfore now he hath raigned more then fiue hundreth yeares wherfore we must take those 42. monthes for an vncertaine tyme. Thirdly the Magdeburgenses answere cent 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col 438. that Daniel Iohn take a day for a yeare and therfore by a 1260. daies wee must vnderstand 1260. yeares the reason may be because also Dan. 9. the 70. weekes are vnderstood of all to be weekes of yeares and not of daies Ezech. 4. it is said I haue giuen thee day for a yeare Luc. 13. I must walk to day to morrow the next day that is liue three yeares which reason Chytraus giueth in cap. 11. Apoc. where he saith that these manner of yeares and monthes are called Angelicall and not Humane But against this is the common opinion of the Ancients who affirme by reasō of the places cited that Antichrist shall raigne only three yeares and a halfe S. Hippolytus Martyr in orat de consūmatione mundi Antichrist shall raigne vpon the earth three yeares and a halfe afterward his kingdome and glory shall be taken away S. Iren. lib. 5. in fine He shall raigne three yeares and six moneths and then our Lord shall come from Heauen And S. Hierome in cap. 7. Dan. A tyme signifieth a yeare tymes according to the propriety of the Hebrew speach who haue also the duall number presigure two yeares and halfe a tyme six moneths in which the Saiutes are to be permitted to the power of Antichrist S. Cyril catechesi 25. Antichrist shall raigne only three yeares and a halfe which wee speake not out of Apocriphall bookes but out of the Prophet Dan. And S. Aug. lib. 20. de Ciuitate Dei cap. 23. That Antichrists kingdome against the Church shal be most cruell though to be susteyned for a small space of tyme he that readeth these thinges euen halfe a sleepe is not suffered to doubt for that a tyme tymes and a halfe tyme are one yeare two and one half and consequentlie three yeares and a halfe it is plaine by the number of daies which is put afterward and sometyme it is declared also in the Scripture by the number of moneths The like hath Theodoretus in cap. 7. Dan. Primasius Beda S. Anselme Arethas Richardus Rupertus Secondly it is proued for that the Scriptures say that the tyme of the Diuel being loosed and of Antichrist shal be very short Apoc. 12. VVoe be to the earth and the sea because the Diuill goeth downe to you hauing great anger knowing that he hath a small tyme. And Apoc. 20. hee bound him for a thousand yeares and after this he must be loosed a small tyme. How I pray you shall this be true if Antichrist shall raygne 1260. yeares For so he shall be longer loosed then bound Thirdly because as S. Aug. argueth lib. 20. de ciuitate Dei cap. 8. and S. Gregory lib. 33. moral cap. 12. vnlesse that cruell persecution were most short many would perish which shall not perish Wherefore our Lord saith Matth. 24. vnlesse those dayes had bene abreuiated all flesh should not be safe But how shall it be most short which shall indure aboue a thousand yeares Fourthly Christ preached only three yeares and a halfe therefore it is also decent that Antichrist be not permitted to preach longer Fifthly because the summe of 1260. yeares which the Aduersaries appoynt cannot any way be accommodated to those wordes of Dan. S. Iohn a tyme and tymes and halfe a tyme for by a time without doubt must be vnderstood some one nūber as one day one weeke one moneth one yeare one Lustre one Iubily one age one Millenarie or thousand if wee take this last then Antichrist shall raigne 1500. yeares which the aduer saries admit not if wee take one age Antichrists tyme shal be 350. yeares which likewise they admit not and the same is manifest of a Iubily c. Sixtely because when Dan. 4. wee often read that 7. tymes shall passe in which Nabuchodonosor shal be out of his kingdome by those tymes all vnderstand 7. yeares for if wee would
S. Gregory Nazianzen who liued about the yeare 380. in Apologet. ad Patrem suum when he was made B. of Safimi There came vpon me againe quoth he the vnction and spirit and I haue new cause of mourning and sadnes In which place he maketh mention of a double vnction the one when he was made Priest and the other then at his consecrating Bishop Likewise orat 1. de pace speaking of S. Basil who being made Bishop refused the exercize of that authority Although he hath the spirit and talents and the care of a flock committed vnto him and is annoynted with the oyle of Priesthood and perfection yet his VVisdome delayeth to take vpon him the Prelacy Now for the Sacrifice for the dead it shal be sufficient in this place to bring S. Augustines testimony who lib. de hares cap. 53. saith That it was the peculiar fancy of Aerius the Arch-Heretike that we ought not to offer oblation for the dead Of the Adoration of Images only S. Hierome who liued about the yeare 400. shall suffice He in vita Paulae saith thus Prostrate before the Crosse she adored as though she had seene our Lord vpon it Finally of the adoration of the Eucharist S. Ambrose may deseruedly suffice who lib. 3. de Spiritu Sancto cap. 12. explicating that place Adore his footestoole Therefore saith he by the footestoole is meant the earth by the earth the flesh of Christ which at this day also we adore in the mysteryes and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Iesus as we haue said before which S. Augustine saith almost in the same wordes in explicat Psal 98. Since therefore all these thinges which our Aduersaries will haue to be the Characters of Antichrist were vsed by the Catholike Church many yeares before Antichrist was borne it must needes follow that either Antichrist learned them of that Church and to say this is to confound Antichrist with Christ or that none of these things belong to the Characters of Antichrist And this is that which we prooue Thus much shall suffice for this rash and most absurd opinion of our Aduersaries which they haue not proued by any witnesses or reasons The second opinion is of certaine Catholikes who thinke that Antichrists Character is the letters with which his name shal be written So thinke Primasius Beda and Rupertus who seeme to be deceaued because they read But he who hath the Character of the name of the beast or the number of his name But S. Iohn saith not so but thus But he who hath the Character or the name of the beast or the number of his name and the Greeke text agreeth with this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The third opinion is of S. Hippolytus Martyr orat de consummatione mundi some others that the Beastes Character shal be not to vse the signe of the Crosse but rather to execrate and abolish it In which the Caluinistes are egregious forerunners of Antichrist I rather thinke that Antichrist shall inuent a positiue Character also as Christ hath the signe of the Crosse knowne to all but it is not knowne what this Character is vntill Antichrist commeth as we said of the Name M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted 1. THOVGH Bellarmine frame no particuler argument from this discourse of Antichrists Character yet M. Downam will needes by resoluing the discourse it selfe and by conferring it with the former Chapter make him argue from the Character as he did from the number of the name About which we will not striue with him but rather supposing that this was Bellarmines mynd we will examine the solution he giueth to this argument so framed by himselfe 2. And first he would deny that Antichrists marke shal be knowne at his comming in the very same manner that he denyed before that the number of his name should be knowne Wherefore for this point I remit the Reader to that which hath bene said before 3. As also for the other that this Character is not yet knowne because there is so much controuersy about it for he only teacheth briefely that which he explicated more at large about the number of his name which we examined and confuted before Wherefore let vs see what he can say for the Protestāts or Heretikes of this tyme whose opinion Bellarmine impugneth by which we shall also discouer how much his explication helpeth them and what absurdity the opinion of Catholikes conteyneth Which two points M. Downam thought good to touch before he came to answere Bellarmines two proofes 4. And first to that out of the Scripture M. Downam granteth that the marke of Antichrist is but one meaning as he explicateth himselfe in substance although the same by diuers The mark or Character of Antichrist but one meanes may be diuersly expressed and testified that is subiection to the Pope as their head and the acknowledgment of the Sea of Rome and of the Popes Supremacy c. But what he meaneth by one in substance is not easy to conceaue except it be this that all the outward signes Characters and markes agree in this that they signify the same subiection to the Pope c. so that the markes shal be distinct and diuers in themselues and in their manner of signification though the thing by them signified be one But this is not sufficient to affirme that the Character of Antichrist is but one for in this sort the name and the number of the name and the Charcter are all one in substance since they signify the same thing and all signes which signify the same thing may be said to be one in substance as wryting speach gesture and the like and all the figures in the old Testament which signified Christ are but one figure in substance and all the Sacraments of the Church which signify grace shal be but one Sacrament which is too great an absurdity for M. Downam to defend consequently he must needes graunt that his fellow Ghospellers assigne more Characters then one contrary to the Scripture and therefore they are so farre from truly interpreting the Scripture that they wholy peruert it To Bellarmines second instance out of the Scripture M. Downam giueth no direct answere at all but would same put it off by telling vs that the Pope hath declared that it is necessary to saluation to be subiect to the Pope But this is only to shew that the body must be vnited with the head in which all Religions whatsoeuer yea all Societies must The mark of Antichrist shal be common to all in his King dome needes agree But Bellarmines instance impugneth two of the markes which some Protestants affirme to be the Characters of Antichrist by this euident proofe that the Character of Antichrist shal be common to all men in Antichrists Kingdome as the Scripture plainely affirmeth but the oath of Obedience and the Priestly vnction agree to few therefore these cānot be the Character wherof the Scripture speaketh
because the most of them tooke it not to be so and besides they were deuided in the expositioÌ„ of those places of Scripture some of them following the litterall sense and some the mysticall But here is no such diuision all agreeing both in the exposition of Scripture and also in the assertion it selfe 8. And thus we are to passe to the third doctrine For that which M. Downam sayth concerning the assumption is nothing but a little tast of his gift in railing against the Pope in which he is so expert that he cannot hould his babling though it be nothing at all to the purpose as in this place he himselfe confesseth that it is not for he goeth only about to shew that the Pope indirectly and by consequent maketh himselfe Christ Which if it were true would only proue him to be an heretike or a false prophet but not Antichrist himselfe of whome only we speake in this place But how false all this impudent calumniation of our chiefe Pastour is shall appeare in due place to which See part 2. cap. â— also M. Downam remitteth himselfe for his proofes 9. Concerning the third doctrine M. Downam denieth that it is necessary that Antichrist should in word plainely and openly professe himselfe to be God to the place of S. Paul he sayth that the meaning is that Antichrist shall rule raigne in the Church 2. Thess 2. of God as if he were a God vpon earth shewing himselfe not so much by words aâ— by deeds that he is a God and to mantaine this his exposition Antichrist shall openly name himselfe God he is content to helpe himself with the translation of the Rhemish and of the Latin vulgar edition who read tamquam fit Deus as though he were God and likwise with the exposition of S. Chrysostome Theophilact and Oecumenius whose words he putteth downe first in Greeke and after in English thus He sayth shewing himselfe he sayd not saying buâ— endeauouring to shew for he shall worke great works and shall shew forth wonderfull signes Finally he bringeth the authority of Beza who obserueth that the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shewing is answerable to the Hebrew Mozeh faciensse apparere praese ferens or as we say saith M. Downam taking vpon him as if he were God All which maketh nothing at all against Bellarmine but addeth this more that he shall not only say that he is God by which he would not be able to seduce many but shall likewise giue great shews therof insomuch that if it were possible the very elect should be seduced by him But M. Downams deuice is by telling vs that he shall endeauour to shew himselfe to be God by works and wonders to make vs belieue that he shall not be so shameles as to say plainly that he is God which is a very strange conceipt if you marke it well for he confesseth that by his actions he shall come to be acknowledged saluted and called God that he shall cause or at least suffer himselfe to be worshipped as God and finally that he shall challenge vnto himselfe those titles attributes and workes which are proper and peculier vnto the Lord and yet hauing done all this M. Downam wil by no meanes grant that he shall name himself M. DownaÌ„s straÌ„ge paradox God Is not this a strange paradox yet M. Downam will de fend it though it be neuer so absurde only for this cause that he can make a florish amongst fooles as though the Pope did all this but that the Pope calleth himselfe God he can by no deuice make it carry any colour This is the cause why Bellarmine is constrained to stand so much vpon the name so that he may leaue his aduersaries no starting-hole at all And this he manifestly proueth out of the text it selfe for S. Paul expresseth that Antichrist shall sit in the Why and how Antichrist shall sit in the Temple Temple not as others do but as God for if he would not be accompted and adored as God he might as well sit in another place as in the Temple but because that is his end he choseth to sit in the temple as in a place proper to his dignity for as the Throne is proper to a King so is a Temple proper to God and this is plaine in the greeke which hath shewing himselfe that he is God Against this M. Downam taketh many exceptions 1. That the Temple signifieth not the materiall See cap. 13 Temple at Hierusalem of which we haue treated before 2. That by fitting is not meant the corporall gesture of sitting in Apoc. 17. that materiall Temple But how chance he did not answere Bellarmines proofes to the contrary for he shewed that all the Fathers without controuersy vnderstood it so the words themselues are plaine 3. That the Temple is not to be erected to Antichrists honour since it is called the Temple of God This Bellarmine affirmed not for the Temple shall be erected in the beginning when Antichrist shall only discouer himselfe to be the Messias which when he hath obtayned then he shall affirme that he is their God himselfe and consequently that it belongeth to him to sit in that Temple and to be adored as God wherfore the Temple may very well be called the Temple of God because it shall be erected to him yet afterward Antichrist may sit in it as God And besides S. Paul calleth it the Temple of God because it was so in Why the Temple that Antichrist shall sit in is called the TeÌ„ple of God his time 4. That the greeke text hath not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which he hurteth Bellarmine sorely for it is manifest that this maketh his assertion proofs much more plaine since that the same thing is affirmed heere and he speaketh only of the last words which by the latin might seeme to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but is indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Bellarmine affirmeth Wherefore none of those foure deuices will serue the turne and Bellarmines argument is inuincible that Antichrist shall plainely professe himselfe to be God 10. The authorities of the Fathers are so plaine that M. Downam could not deuise what to say to them for they Downam omitteth Bellarmines argument expound a place of Scripture and therfore he could not reiect them vnder pretence of want of Scripture wherfore â—e thought it his best neuer to make mention of them hoping perhaps that his reader would neuer misse them And thus he commeth to the Assumption which is that the Pope acknowledgeth himselfe to be the seruant of God and not God To which he answereth that Bellarmine might as well conclude that the Pope neuer calleth himselfe Regem Regum terrae ac Dominum Dominorum the King of the Kings of the earth and Lord of Lords because he acknowledgeth himselfe Seruum seruorum Dei the Seruant of
vsuallie it signifieth terrour particulerlie in this place by the cōsent of all ancient interpreters Fathers we see no reason why we should imbrace this new particuler opinion but rather take the same sense in this place which is manifest that the same words haue Ioel 2. except M. Doumā can shew vs that the Sun was turned into darkenes and the Moone into bloud before the first comming of our Sauiour Finally there is no doubt but that the second comming is as full of reuerence and filiall feare as the first and consequently euen in this sense also were to be called horible and terrible Thus much for the 1. proofe that Malac. spake of the secōd cōming Cardinall Bellarmine his second proofe is because it is added least perhapps I come and strike the earth with a curse which M. Downam applyeth to the first comming because our Sauiour at his second comming shall without peraduēture strike the earth But he might easily haue bethought himselfe that at his first comming without peraduenture our Sauiour was resolued not to strike the earth with curses but to replenish it with blessings this resolution arose not from any merits or good disposition of any that liued eyther then or before or after but from his owne infinite mercy and goodnes by which he vouchsafed to make vs his friends being of our selues his enemies so vniuersally that there was not one that could appease his wrath and I meruayle much that M. Downam should vpon the suddaine only to auoide an argument attribute more to merits then euer any Downam attributeth more to merits thē euer any Catholike did Catholike did wherfore we may well hope that he wil admit free will also without which there is no merit and which indeed that peraduenture signifyeth in this place for in respect of Gods decre and knowledg there could be no doubt what he was to do at either comming but only how we would dispose our selues which by al probability those which shal liue at our Sauiours second comming and aboue others the Iewes would not do in any good sort especially hauing then more hinderances by reason of Antichrists persecution then euer before had they not the assistāce of these two holy Prophets Henoch and Helias Finally the authority of Arias Montanus will stand M. Downam in very little stead though he accounteth him the most learned writer among the Papists for how learned soeuer he was his priuate exposition plainely both against Arias Montanus the exposition of the Fathers and the text it selfe as Bellarmine hath proued can haue no great force and indeed this was the fault of that man that he trusted more to his owne iudgment then to the authority of others which must needes please M. Downam well and we are content to let it passe so long as he was content to submit all his priuate opinions to the Churches censure which M. Downam will not doe and therfore where the other was sometime rash he is still headlong that is an heretike and so we admit that Arias in a rashnes fauoured to much some of M. Downās heresies And this shall suffice for the first place of the Prophet Malachy 4. Bellarmines second Scripture is the booke of Ecclesiasticus out of which he alleadgeth two places the one for Helias and the other for Henoch to which M. Downam answereth Ecclesiasticus Canonicall Scripture First that although this booke be very commendable yet it is not of Canonicall authority being but an humane writing as appeareth not only by the former place alleadged but also by that erroneous conceipt concerning Samuel Chap. 46. 23. But that this booke is canonicall he may see manifestly proued in Bellarmine l. 1. de yerbo Dei cap. 10. 14. by the authority of Councells and Fathers Neither could Caluin D. Downams good Maister find any obiection against this booke in particuler though he censured it more hardely then M. Downam doth By which we imagine that it will be an easy matter to answere to these two obiections which M. Downam maketh in this place and indeed they are plaine fooleries and therfore no meruaile though Caluin had wit inough to omit them for what can be more foolish then to deny the authority of Scripture only Downās petitio principij because it fauoureth his aduersary in some questiōs in cōtrouersy Did euer any Heretike deny any part of Scripture with lesse reason then this And for the present question I hope the Reader will remayne satisfied with that which shal be said in this Chapter and for the other of Samuel cap. 46. 13. I remit him to that which Bellarmine writeth lib. 2. de Purgatorio cap. 6. Only I will oppose to M. Downam the authority of S. Augustine who as Bellarmine well noteth hauing bene doubtfull lib. 2. ad Simplicianū q. 3. whether Samuel himselfe appeared to Saul or no affirmed without doubt that it was Samuel lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 15. citing the place of Ecclesiasticus which before he had omitted M. Downams second answere is that in neither place it is said that either of them should come to oppose himselfe against Antichrist But what then at least wise it is said that they shall come to appease Gods wrath and to reconcile the hart of the father to the sonne and to restore the Tribes of Israel and of Henoch to giue pennance to Nations all which we learne out of the other places of Scripture by the exposition of the Fathers that it shal be in the tyme of Antichrist not long before our Sauiours second comming and consequently that they shall oppose themselues to Antichrist since he shall striue to drawe both Iewes and Gentills from Christ and they will labour to conuert them to Christ And heere I would haue my Reader note one of M. Downams ordinary shiftes to tell vs what the argument Downās ordinary shifte doth not proue omitting directly to answere to that which it proueth for which it is brought Thirdly he answereth seuerally that Ecclesiasticus in the first place wrote according to the receaued opinion of his tyme which in M. Downams opinion was Eccles 48. false But surely we haue no reason to belieue him better then Ecclesiasticus and the Iewes of his tyme who were no doubt the true people of God which whatsoeuer M. Downam may perswade himselfe by his speciall Faith others will greatly doubt of him and as for our Sauiours and the Prophet Malachies wordes we haue and shall sufficiently proue that they were not against Ecclesiasticus nor the receaued opinion of his tyme as neither against vs who all agree that Elias in person and litterally is to come before Downam condemneth Ecclesiasticus the Iewes of his tyme. the second comming of our Sauiour And surely M. Downam is to bould with Ecclesiasticus and those of his tyme to attribute vnto them the errours of those Iewes which liued in our Sauiours
to delude his Reader either by scoffiing or any other lewd trick he could deuise for lightly he could not inuēt a worse then to scoffe at Gods Saints and particulerly at those to whom we are most behoulding among which in the first place S. Gregory is to be accompted for the great loue he bare to all English men and the great good he procured them for which he is worthily called and honoured as the Apostle of our Nation 8. Finally M. Downam answereth to Bellarmines reason that of Enoch Elias their translation there is this reason that there might be euident examples of reward and happines laid vp both for the vpright in Enoch and for the zealous in Elias of their yet liuing in mortall bodyes if they did so according to the opinion of some of the Fathers that reason might be giuen which they alleadge to witt to conuert Downam maketh Enochs translation an example of vprightnes contrary to Scripture the Iewes Where in the first part I only note that M. Downā maketh Enoch an example for the vpright wheras the Scripture maketh him an example of pēnance But indeed according to this explication he may as I noted before be aswell an example of the one as of the other yea hardly of pennance since we read none he did but rather that he was alway vpright and iust But now the second reason which only maketh to the purpose is the same which Bellarmine vrgeth if M. Downam vnderstandeth it aright as the Fathers held it to wit that these two witnesses shall labour to conuert the Iewes at the end of the world when Antichrist shall most labour to peruert them which wil be to oppose themselues to him Wherefore M. Downam thought best to retire himselfe Downam reiecteth the Fathers and to tell the Fathers flatlie that it is vntrue which they say that they liue in mortall bodies or that they shall euer dye and he offereth to dispute this matter with them And first he asketh them where they liue in mortall bodies To which S. Augustine lib. 2. de peccato originali cap. 23. answereth That S. Augustine answereth to Downās obiection this is one of those questions which pertayne not to Faith where Enoch Elias are quostamen non dubitamus in quibus nati sunt corporibus viuere whome notwithstanding wee doubt not to liue in the bodies in which they were borne By which oppositiō he plainly declareth that he taketh this to be a matter of Faith And in the same place he testifieth that Christian saith doubteth not but that the paradise where Adam was placed is though it be doubtfull wher or in what maner it is all which is alleadged by Bellar. lib. de gratia primi hominis cap. 14. to proue that paradise is yet extant but I cānot find that distinction which M. Downam bringeth out of him lib. 1. de Sanct. beat c. 3. that although the place remaine yet no paradise remaineth in the former place he seemeth to teath altogeather the contray Secondly if they be in the earthly paradise and not in heauen he asketh how it is said of Elias that hee was taken vp into Heauen To which demaund S. Gregorie will answere him if he may be so bould Hom. 29. in Euang. Aliud est caelum aëreū S. Gregorie āswereth another aliud aethereum c. vnde aues caeli dicimus c. In caelum aëreum Elias subleuatus est vt in secretam quandam terrae regionem repentè duceretur vbi cum magna iam carnis spiritus quiete viueret quousque ad finem mundi redeat mortis debitum soluat Ille etenim mortem distulit non euasit The ayre is also called Heauen for which cause we say the byrdes of heauen according to the phrase of Scripture and into this heauen was El as taken vp that he might forthwith be carried into a certaine secret Region of the earth where he might lyue in great quiet of bodie and mind till he returneth at the end of the world and payeth death his due for he hath deferred not escaped death Where also M. Downam may learne what priuiledge Enoch and Helias haue aboue others and how Enoch was said to haue byn translated that he should not see death to wit at Heb. 11. that tyme nor according to the course of nature thē which a great deale lesse is sufficient that one hath escaped death And if M. Downā be capable of so high and perfect doctrine A great happinesse to be put to death by Anticrist heere hee may be tould that Enoch and Helias thinke it no misery but an exceeding great happynesse that they shal be put to death by Antichrist by reason of the great desire they haueto doe and suffer whatsoeuer for the loue of God and this not for the reward which they expect at his hand but because he deserueth much more then we are able to performe 9. But I will conclude leauing the indifferent Reader to iudge whether it hath not byn sufficiently proued that Enoch Elias are still in their bodies and that their bodies are mortall that they are to returne into the world and die and that in the tyme of Antichrist to oppose themselues against him and consequentlie that Antichrist is not yet come which if he iudgeth to be so as I perswade myselfe he cānot otherwise choose I will also craue him to Downās bragging giue his verdict of M. Downam whether he thinke him more foolish or impudent to deny all these particularyties with this flourishing bragge Must not this needes be a good cause that by so learned a man is so stoutlie prooued THE SEAVENTH CHAPTER Conteyning the fourth demonstration THE fourth demonstratiō saith Bellarmine is taken frō Antichrists persecution which certainely will be most grieuous and manifest so that all publique cerimonies and sacrifices of Religion shall cease none of which thinges wee see hitherto That this persecution shal be most gricuious is manifest by Matth. 24. Then there shal be a great Tribulation the like wherof hath not bene from the beginning of the world nor shall be And Apoc. 20. where we reade that Sathan shal be then loosed who vntill that tyme was bound Of which place S. Augustine disputing l. 20. de Ciuitate Dei cap. 8. and 9. saith that in Antichrists tyme the Diuell is to be loosed and therfore that persecution shal be more grieuous then all the former by how much the Diuel can rage more cruelly being loosed then being bound Wherfore he saith that the Diuell then shall vexe the Church with al his owne his followers forces and S. Hippolytus Mart. in orat de mundi consum S. Cyril catechesi 15. do say that the Martyrs which Antichrist shall put to death shal be more renowned then all those which went before because they fought against men the diuells ministers but these shall fight against the Diuell himselfe persecuting in
as S. Augustine expoundeth it l. 20. Ciuit. Dei c. 19. where he deduceth this exposition out of the manner of S. Pauls speaking who sayd not in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Templo but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Templum as if he should say that Antichrist shal sit in TempluÌ„ Dei that is as though he and his were the TeÌ„ple of God although this annotation of S. August is not necessary for though in Latine we cannot wel say sedere in TempluÌ„ for in Templo yet in greeke it is not euill said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea it is commonly so said Some also vnderstand the Churches of Christians which Antichrist shall command to serue him as S. Chrysostome interpreteth it yet the more common more probable and the more litterall exposition is of them who teach that the temple of Salomon is vnderstood by the Temple of God in which after some sort repaired Antichrist â—â—all fit For first in the Scripture of the new Testament the Churches of Christians are neuer vnderstood by the Temple of God but alway the Temple of Hierusalem and that which is more the ancient Fathers Latine and Greeke for some ages neuer called the Churches of Christians Temples which in greeke are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in this place of S. Paul but they called them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Oratoria Ecclesias Domas orationis Basilicas Martyria Certainely neither S. Iustine nor S. Irenaeus nor Tertullian nor S. Cyprian do vse the name of Temple when they treat of the Churches of Christians and S. Ierome ep ad Riparium saith that Iulian the Apostata commanded that the * Basilicae Churches of the Saints should either be destroyed or turned into Temples And the reasons why the Apostles call not the Churches of Christians Temples are two the one because then they had not any Temples but only in priuate houses they appointed certayn places for praier Sermons and saying of Masse The other reason is because the memory of the Iewish Temple was fresh least the Apostles might seeme to bring in some thing like to them and that they might distinguish the Church from the Synagogue they abstained from the name of Temple As also for the same reason the Apostles in the Scripture neues call Christian Priests Sacerdotes but only Episcopos and Presbyteros But after that Hierusalem was ouerthrowne and the Temple burnt and the memory of the old Temple and Priesthood abolished the holy Doctors began to vse commonly the name of Temple and Priesthood Since therfore the Apostle writing that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God said somthing which he would haue vnderstood of them to whome he wrote and they then did not vnderstaÌ„d by the name of Temple any other but the Temple of Hierusalem it seemeth certaine that the Apostle spake of it which is also confirmed by the common exposition of the Fathers S. Irenaeus lib. 5. VVhen Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of Hierusalem then our Lord will come c. S. Hippolytus Mart. orat de mundi consummat He shall build the Temple at Hierusalem And S. Martin apud Sulpitium lib. 2. dial teacheth the same S. Cyril Hierosol cateches 15. VVhat manner of Temple meaneth the Apostle In the Temple of the Iewes which is remayning for God forbid that it should be done in this in which we are And S. Hilary can 25. in Matt. Antichrist being receaued of the Iewes shall stay in the place of Sanctification Where he plainly speaketh of the Temple of the Iewes for he calleth the place of Sanctification that which Christ Matth. 24. calleth the holy Place when he saith VVhen you see abhomination standing in the holy place S. Ambrose in c. 21. Luc. saith that Antichrist according to the history shall sit in the Temple into which the Romans cast the head of a swine in the time of the Emperour Titus and according to the mysticall sense that he shall sit in the inward Temple of the Iewes that is in their perfidious minds Sedulius vpon this place of the Apostle explicateth that in the Temple of God He will endeauour to repaire the temple of Hierusalem c. S. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 28. In the Temple sayth he not ours but the old Iewish S. Chrysostome Theodoret and Theophilact who say that Antichrist shall sit in the Churches of Christians affirme also that he shall sit in the Temple of Salomon for S. Chrysostome writeth thus vpon this place He shall command himselfe to be worshipped for God and to be placed in the Temple not only of Hierusalem but also in the Churches The same say Theophilact and Theodoret. S. Augustine also lib. 20. Ciuit. Dei cap. 19. S. Hierome quaest 11. ad Algasiam do not deny that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of Salomon Only Oecumenius denieth that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of the Iewes but he is the last of all and by no meanes to be preferred before all the Fathers perhaps also his text is corrupted there wanteth but one particle only for it is not credible that he would depart from S. Chrysostome Theodoret and Theophilact whome in all other things he alway followeth Now let vs answere to the arguments of our Aduersaries which we proposed before To the first I answere in three manners First it may be sayd with S. Augustine in Psal 26. Arethas Haymo Bede and Rupert in cap. 17. Apoc. that by the Harlot which sitteth vpon seauen hills and hath her Kingdome ouer the Kings of the earth Rome is not vnderstood but the whole Citty of the Diuel which in the Scripture is often called Babylen and is opposed to the Citty of God that is to the Church which is called Hierusalem and that by the seauen hils is vnderstood the vniuersality of the proud and chiefly of the Kings of the earth Secondly it may be sayd and in my iudgment better that by the harlot is vnderstood Rome as Tertull. l. cont Indaeos lib. 3. cont Martian and S. Hierome ep 17. ad Marcellam quast 11. ad Algasiam but â—thnick Rome raigning worshipping Idols and persecuting Christians and not Rome Christian for so those Authors expound And surely meruailous is the impudency of Heretikes who to proue that the Roman Church is the purple Harlot vse the testimony of Tertullian and S. Hierome for since at that time Heathen Rome was contrary to Christian Rome which of them I pray you do those Fathers call the purple Harlot If heathen Rome why then do the Heretikes abuse their testimonies If Christian Rome it followeth that the Roman Church had degenerated then and Antichrist did raigne then which they themselues do not graunt Furthermore if Christian Rome was Babylon then why doth Tertullian de praescript say Happy Church to which the Apostles powred out their whole doctrine with their bloud And why doth S. Hierome lib. 2. cont Iouinianum in the end
those of Bellarmin And first concerning 2. Thess 2. he leaueth his brethren the Magdeburgians 2. Thess 2. Downam caÌ„not defend the MagdeburgeÌ„ses in the plaine field neuer so much as opening his lips in their defence wherin he seemeth to acknowledge that Bellarmine confuted them throughly wherfore admitting that the place is wel explicated he denieth the consequence For sayth he Antichrist may aduance himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped and yet suffer â—ea require them to be worshipped In proofe wherof he bringeth three instaÌ„ces 1. Iupiter was supposted amongst the Heathens to aduance himselfe aboue all other Gods and yet suffered them to be worshipped as Gods 2. The second beast Apoc. 1â— doth the like with the Image of the former beast Apoc 1â— 3. The Pope also aduanceth himselfe aboue Angells Kings and Princes who are called Gods aboue the Saints the Host the Crosse and whatsoeuer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Church of Rome But M. Downam is much mistaken in the matter for Antichrist shall not only extoll himselfe aboue all other Gods but oppose himselfe against them all for so S. Paul Antichrist shall not extoll him self aboue all other Gods but also oppose himself against them all sayth Qui aduersatur extollitur who is opposed and extolled Now how this aduancing and opposing himselfe can stand with suffering yea requiring them to be worshipped as God wil be very hard for M. Downam or any other to explicate Iupiter was supposed by the Gentiles to be the Father and King of the other Gods but likewise he was supposed to loue them as his children and seruants and not to oppose himselfe vnto them The other two instances are both false and foolish for that second beast is not Antichrist as M. Downam supposeth nor yet aduanceth himself aboue the former Iupiter by which indeed Antichrist is signified and not the renowned Empire The Pope aduanceth not himselfe aboue the Angels Saints the Host the Crosse c. as M. Downam Downam belyeth the Pope belieth him He is indeed the Pastour and the Bishop of KIngs aswell as of others and in that respect preferred before them by Christ himselfe But what hindrance is this that he may not command Princes to be honored and obeied by their subiects as he doth Or what haue any of these comparisons to do with the odoration of God as God which he that is opposite and extolled aboue all them that take that name vpon them should suffer or require it to be giuen to others And besides it is plaine that this opposition and aduancement of Antichrist aboue all other Gods shall be for no other cause but because they are called Gods for if the cause were particuler the quarrell would not be so general As if it should be true of any King that he opposeth and aduaÌ„ceth himself aboue al that are called Kings it were euident that his quarrel against theÌ„ were no other then for that they were Kings and were to called and it were manifestly Why Antichrist aduanceth and opposeth him self aboue all other Gods against his will that any other King should raigne or be acknowledged for a King but himselfe and he would be far inough from suffering yea requiring that any of them should be worshipped and further also from acknowledging or worshipping any of them himselfe for King Secondly M. Downam confirmeth this his answere by the example of Antiochus Epiphanes who aduanceth himselfe against euery God yea against the God of Gods Dan. 11. 56. and yet he was neuer Antioch ' an Idolatour so mad as to professe himselfe the only God But to this the answere is easy that this place cannot be vnderstood of Antiochus but only of Antichrist as S. Hierome sheweth for this very reason that Antiochus did not aduance himselfe against euery God for he was a great Idolater himselfe Thirdly M. Downam supposeth that he hath proued Antichristianisme not to be open Atheisme but a mystery of iniquity c. But we proued before that it cannot be the mystery of iniquity yet it shall not Antichristianisme is not Atheisme properly be Atheisme since those which follow Antichrist shall take him for their God and he himselfe though openly he will worship no God because he will professe himselfe to be God himsefe yet secretly it is not vnprobable that he will adore the Diuell as his God Fourthly M. Downam argueth out of the text it selfe which he sayth doth not ascribe to Antichrist so great an extolling of himselfe as the Iesuite imagineth first because he is called a man of sinne and Sonne of perdition and therefore we are to conceaue of such an aduancement of himselfe as is incident to a mortall and wretched man But to this of the mortality I haue answered sufficiently before and the words of the text rather giue vs occasion to increase then any way to diminish Antichrists sinne since that he is called Antonomasticè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ille home peccati and filius ille perditionis that man of sinne and that sonne of perdition Antichrist shall commit the greatest sins when he cannot all Which giueth vs iust occasion to thinke that there shall be no sinne nor perdition possible for any man to run into from which Antichrist shall be free or rather because some sins be contrary one to the other that he shall fall into the depth of them all by imbracing the greatest when he caÌ„not all Secondly by al that is called God in this place M. Downam will haue vs to vnderstand all to whome the name of God is communicated as to Angels in Heauen to Kings and Princes on earth and of this aduancing aboue Kings he would haue this place vnderstood because afterward it is said that the Roman Empire hindered Antichrists aduancing or reuealing himselfe and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would haue vs to vnderstand any thing that is worshipped as God or wherin God is worshipped Such in the Church of Rome saith he are the Host the Crosse the Saints and their Images and reliques Aboue all which he thinketh that a man may aduance himselfe as the Pope doth and yet may acknowledg some other God besides himselfe But to How the Pope may be called God answere briefly though it be true that Kings c. and coÌ„sequently the Pope also may be called God in some sort yet M. Downam will neuer be able to proue that God himselfe is also called God and likewise the false Gods wherfore S. Paul must needs comprehend these also vnder all that â—â— called God And M. Downams proofe is very weake that because the Roman Empire is sayd to hinder Antichriste reuealing therfore he shall only aduance himselfe aboue it for though it be true that he cannot aduance himselfe till he be reuealed yet afterward he may and shall not only aboue the Roman Empire for that he did
with Antichrist which they cannot do without yielding themselues vnto him since it is certayne that he shal be the Moâ—â—â—ch of the whole world and because the Scripture is not so expresse Bellarmine only saith that it may be inferred out of that place as it may likewise out of the 12. and 13. Apoc. as in part hath ben touched And is it not euident inough of it selfe that the little horne which presumed to encounter if not all the 10. yet Apoc. 12. 13. at least three of them while he was so little will not stay there when he is growne great but cause the other 7. to subiect themselues vnto him The other questions and assertions which M. Downam hath are already confuted and therefore not to be repeated now againe Wherefore let vs see what he saith to the testimonies of S. Chrysostome and S. Cyril I answere saith he that for substance these Fathers held the truth for what Monarch hath there byn in the VVest these 5. or 6. hundreth yeares besides the Pope c where I beseech the Reader to Why M. Downam admitteth any of the Fathers marke attentiuely M. Downams reason why he alloweth the testimony of the Fathers which is no other but because they are against the Pope in some sort according to his conceipt for otherwise we may see by that which he answeteth to the 3. former and that which he saith of them all in generall a little before how little he setteth by their authority Now for the Monarchy of the West it is euident The Pope no temporall Monarch that it remaineth in the Emperours and that which he attributeth to the Pope euery child will see how different it is from the Monarchy of the Romans and how small a thing it is if you take away his spirituall authoritie which no doubt is the greatest vpon earth But what is that to the temporall power of which these Fathers speake Now how the Pope is Lord of the whole earth and how he disposeth of the new found world we shall examine at large in the second part and how the gouernment of Rome belongeth not to Antichrist in whose time it shal be destroyed as neither the 2. beast Apoc. 13. nor the 7. head Apoc. 17. to the Pope hath bin already sufficiently declared 15. To the 4. argument M. Downam answereth nothing Antichrist shall persecute the Christians through the whole world with an innumerable army which Bellarmine himself hath not confuted at large in his discourse of Gog and Magog which M. Downam wholy omitteth vnder pretext of not troubling his Reader but indeed because he would not discouer his owne shame for otherwise at least he might haue answered to so much of it as made against himself The like deceipt he vseth in passing ouer Bellarmines answers to the Protestants obiections or arguments wherby they indeauour to proue the Pope Antichrist because he saw that they contayned in effect an answere to his former booke But I may not omit either that so the Reader may iudge how well M. Downam hath cleared them in his former booke of which he seemeth himself to make some doubt by telling vs that the controuersie betwixt vs is not whether euery argument that hath bin produced by euery one doth necessarily conclude the Pope to be Antichrist and that that discourse is rather personall then reall and therfore he letteth it passe THE SEAVENTENTH CHAPTER Of Gog and Magog WHERFORE the first opinion or rather errour saith Bellarmine is of the Iews who teach that Gog is Antichrist Magog innumerable Scythian Nations which lurke within the Caspian Mountaynes and that Antichrist shall come with Magog that is with an Army of Scythians at the same tyme that the Messias shall first appeare in Hierusalem and that there shal be a battaile fought in Palestine and such an ouerthrow in the Army of Gog that for 7. yeares the Iewes shall not cut any wood from trees to make fire withall but shall burne the speares bucklers and other weapons which shal be found with the dead bodyes and that afterward there shall be a golden world c. S. Hierome relateth this opinion in cap. 38. Ezech. and Petrus Galatinus lib. 5. cap. 12. cont Iudaeos and Rabbi Dauid Kimhi in his CoÌ„mentary vpon the Psalmes in many places but the Iewes erre in two things First that they think the battaile of Gog Magog shal be in the first comming of Christ confouÌ„ding the first with the second Wheras notwithstanding the Scriptures plainly teach that Christ in his first coÌ„ming was to come in humility and as a meeke sheep to be sacrificed as it is manifest Isa 53. and in other places Secondly in that they thinke that Antichrist shall come against them and fight with their Messias wheras indeed Antichrist shall be their Messias and shall fight with the Iewes against our Sauiour the true Christ The second opinion is of Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 24. 25. 26. who thinketh that the battaile of Gog and Magog shall be a thousand yeares after the death of Antichrist for he teacheth that after 6000. yeares from the beginning of the world Antichrist shall come and raygne three yeares a halfe and that then Antichrist shal be slayne Christ shall appeare the Resurrection shall be and the Saints shall raign heere with Christ vpon earth for a thousand yeares in great peace and tranquillity the Infidels not being wholy rooted out but seruing peaceably Which ended the Diuell shal be loosed againe and a most fierce warre of all Nations be raysed against the same Saints which they serued for a thousand yeares and this is the battaile of Gog and Magog of which Ezechiel and S. Iohn do speake But that a little after all the wicked shal be slayne by God and that then the second Resurrection shall be and the world be wholy renewed This opinion was also of many of the ancient Fathers as Papias S. Iustine S. Irenaeus Tertullian Apollinaris and some others as S. Hierome relateth in cap. 36. Ezech. and Eusebius lib. 3. hist cap. vlt. But it is long since exploded as a manifest errour for our Lord Matth. 24 and â—5 plainly teacheth that after the persecution of Antichrist the last iudgment shall follow forthwith and that all the good shall go into euerlasting life and all the euill into euerlasting fire and therfore that afterward there shall not be another thousand yeares nor euer after any more battailes The third opinion is of Eusebius who lib 9. demonst Euang. cap. 3. thinketh that Gog is the Roman Emperour and Magog his Empire But he buildeth vpon a false Foundation for he deduceth this opinion ouâ— of Numb 24. where according to the translation of the 70. we read the kingdome of Gog shal be extolled and his Kingdome shal be increased God hath brought him out of Egypt c. where the Scripture seemeth to say thaâ— when Christ shall returne out oâ— Egypt in his infancy
Chronol following Luther praiseth S. Gregory exceedingly and saith that it may be knowne by his bookes how much be profited in piety and learning Which doubtles is most true for his writinges breath out a wonderfull holynes Neither is that lesse vaine which Chytraus addeth of the smoke of the pitte which he interpreteth the corruptions of doctrine brought in by S. Gregory and his Successors into the Church For S. Gregory innouated nothing which belonged to doctrine but concerning rites and discipline he corrected many thinges which had crept in by abuse many thinges he restored which by negligence of tymes were forgotten he instituted a new very few thinges and those with mature counsaile as may be knowne both by the 4. bookes of his life written by Ioannes Diaconus as also by his 63. epist lib. 7. where he giueth accompt of the rites which he renewed or ordeyned But this will be most plaine if we runne ouer the antithesis or opposition betwixt the doctrine of the Ghospell and the Pope which Chytraeus proposeth and to which he often afterward remitteth his Readers §. I. Of the true Knowledge and Inuocation of God Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that one only God is to be innocated and worthipped as he hath commaunded himselfe to be worshipped in his word and that all the confidence of our saluation is to be placed in the only goodnes and mercy of God The Papists commaund vs not to call vpon one only true God but also vpon dead men or Saints and to aske and expect their aide and help in dangers c. Besides also plainely after an heathen manner they tye the inuocation and worship of God to certaine Statua's in such sort as if God were more fauourable and propitious to him that calleth vpon him at this or that Status then in other places Bellarmine Because we haue els where at large treated of these controuersies which are touched in this antithesis heere we will only most briefly demonstrate that the doctrine which Chytraeus calleth Popish is neither repugnant to Gods word nor began in the tyme of S. Gregory Therefore the word of God teacheth indeed that one only God is to be worshipped and inuocated with that inuocation and adoration which is only due to God for the true God who is also a zealous God doth not suffer vs to take any creature for the Creator In the meane tyme notwithstanding the very same word of God biddeth vs honour the more excellent creatures and inuocate also some not as God but as deere and familiar freindes to God As Kinges would be much offended if they should see Kingly honours giuen to their seruants who notwithstanding are well pleased if they see the same seruants honoured and obserued Adore saith Dauid psal 98. the footestoole of his feete And Iob. 5. Call saith he if there be any man that may answere thee and turne thy selfe to some of the Saintes Wherefore Abdias a great and holy man adored Elias prostrate vpon the earth 3. Reg. 18. And the children of the Prophets when they heard that the spirit of Elias had rested vpon Flizaeus comming to him they adored him prostrate vpon the earth 4. Reg. 2. And the Apostle S. Paul almost in euery Epistle craueth the praiers of Christians that by them he may be deliuered from many dangers Neither can there any reason be giuen why the honour due to God is diminished if we aske of the spirits of Saintes that they will pray for vs it is not diminished if we aske the very same of the lyuing Finally S. Ambrose was 200. yeares elder then S. Gregory and yet lib. de riduis he speaketh thus The Angells are to be beseeched who are giuen vs for our defence The Martyrs are to be beseeched of whom we seeme to challenge acertayne patronage by the pledge of the body And after Let vs not be ashamed to take them for intercessours of our infirmity c. Moreouer we do not tye the worship and inuocation to the Statua's of Saintes to the memories of Martyrs and other religious monuments in any other sort then God in times past tied them to the sanctuary or Temple of Salomon for although God heareth vs euery where and we may lift vp our hands to God in euery place yet not without cause the holy Ghost in Isaias cap. 56. and Christ in S. Matth. cap. 21. called the Temple of God the House of prayer nor without cause the most pious Emperour Theodosius to omit many other examples of antiquity went with the Priests and the people about all the places of Prayer lay prostrate in hair-cloth before the shrines of the Martyrs and the Apostles and craued assured help by the intercession of Saintes And certainly Theodosius who did this Russinus who wrote this lib. 2. hist Eccles cap. 33. were before S. Gregory almost 200. yeares §. II. Of the Office and Benefits of Christ Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that remission of sinnes eternall saluation is giuen to vs for the only alone Sōne of God our Lord Iesus Christ crucified for vs dead and risen againe freely not for any works or merits of ours And that this is the proper honour of God alone as it is said Isa 43. I am I am he who taketh away iniquities likewise there is no saluation in any other The Papists contrariwise do teach that we are iustifyed and saued not for the merits of Christ alone but partly for Christ partly for contrition and obedience Bellarmine The Catholike doctrine hath not this that sinners are iustifyed partly for Christ partly for their workes as though the workes themselues merit any thing without Christ For we distinguish three kinds of workes one of those which are done out of the only forces of nature without faith or the grace of God and of these we plainly pronounce with the Apostle that man is not iustified by works but by faith and if any were iustified by such workes he should haue glory but not with God as S. Paul saith of Abraham Rom. 4. wherfore of these workes there is no controuersie betwixt vs although euery where with a most impudent lye you attribute this to vs that we teach that workes without the merits of Christ are meritorious Another kind of workes there is which proceedeth from faith and the Grace of God and disposeth to reconciliation with God and remission of sinnes of which sort are almes prayers fastings sorrow for sinnes and other like which workes we affirme not to be meritorious ex iustitia of our reconciliation but rather contrariwise we heare the Councell of Trent saying Sess 6. cap. 8. that men are freely iustifyed because neyther faith nor workes which goe before iustification deserue it to wit of Iustice as though iustification were due to workes we confesse notwithstanding that these workes as they proceed from Faith and Gods help are diuine workes and merit in their manner that is obtayne by way of request the remission of sinnes