directly and expresly deny Iesus to be Christ. Notwithstanding seeing they are called Antichrists not onely because they belong to the Antichristian body as inferiour members thereof but also as it may be thought because they did after a sort deny Christ as the great Antichrist also should doe although not after the same manner I doe therefore thus farre graunt the proposition it selfe that Antichrist was in some sort to denie Christ. For Iohn speaketh not of the manner how he doth denie Christ. Neither are we to thinke that Antichrist will denie him after euerie manner but in such sort as shall be most consonant to the whole mysterie of iniquitie and suteable to the rest of his lying and deceipt That is to say in outward 2. Thess. 2. shewe and semblance to professe Christ as those Antichrists did of whom Iohn speaketh but in deed and in truth to denie him To come therfore to the assumption let vs consider whether the Pope and church of Rome doe not in some sort denie Christ Christ may be denyed either in deeds or words Quisquis autem factis negat Christum is Antichrist us est And whosoeuer in deedes saith Augustine denieth Christ he is Antichrist Let vs therefore marke saith he who it is that denieth Tract 3. in Epist. Ioan. let vs not attend to his tongue but to his works I regard not what he speaketh but how he liueth Works do speake and do we require words He is the more lying Antichrist who with his mouth prosesseth Iesus to be Christ and by deeds denyeth him According to the Lawyers rule it is more to testifie a matter by deedes then by words And Tullie saith that where the things themselues Contra Salust beare witnesse words are needlesse And as Antichrist was thus to deny Christ both as he is the man of sin and an aduersary oppugning Christ and his church So doth the Pope howsoeuer in word he professeth Christ. For euen the diuells themselues haue in word confessed Christ whom notwithstanding by their deeds they deny If therefore the Pope be a man of sin which we shall proue anone and an aduersary opposed vnto Christ which now we haue in hand to proue then it cannot be denyed but that indeed he denieth Christ. 7 Secondly Christ may be de denyed in word doctrine and that either indirectly and by consequent or else directlie expresly He that denieth Christ by consequent howsoeuer openly he doth confesse him doth indeede deny him as those which deny either of his natures or any of his offices For such is the necessary coherence of truth within it selfe as nothing can by necessarie consequence be deducted from it which is not also true And therefore it is impossible that the consequent should be false the antecedent being true Whereupon it followeth that whosoeuer denieth the consequent doth indeed deny the antecedent Iesus is Immanuel and consequently God and Man He is Christ and consequently annointed of God to be our King our priest our prophet He therefore that denieth any of these denieth Iesus to be Christ. And further is Christ truly God then is he also Iehouah one that is of from himself namely as he is God theÌ„ is he also the Lord creator of al things gouerning all things with his presence and prouidence Is he truly man then hath he a true body consisting of three dimensions length bredth thicknes circuÌ„scribed visible conâ—…ined in one place at once as being but one body not discontinued Is he the true Messias Mediator betwixt God man then is he the only mediator for there is but one Wherefore 1. Tim. 2. 5. Act. 4. 12. whosoeuer saith that Christ is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himself he denieth him to be God or preferreth any creature before him either in heauen or in earth he denieth him to be the Lord and maker of al or assigneth a vicar vnto him to supply his absence on earth denieth his omnipreseÌ„ce Again whosoeuer saith that Christ his body doth not consist of 3. dimensioÌ„s that it is not circuÌ„scribed that it is not visible that it is not coÌ„tained in one place as al other bodies yea as al other finite natures are he denieth Iesus to be truly man consequently denieth him to be Christ. Lastly whosoeuer adioyne other mediators vnto Christ and in some respects preser others aboue him deny him to be the only mediator therfore deny him to be the true mediator for there is but one consequeÌ„tly deny Iesus to be christ And thus as the Antichrists wherof Iohn speaketh according 1. Iohn 2. 22. Lib. 3. de pont Rc. ap 14. to Bellarmin his own expositioÌ„ did as the graund Antichrist according to our coÌ„fessioÌ„ doth deny Christ not only in deed but also in word and doctrine although not openly and expressely yet indirectly and by consequent So doth the Pope and church of Rome deny Iesus to be Christ. For what a God and Lord what a creatour and gouernor of all things the Pope and Papists make our Sauiour Christ you may easily conceiue First when they deâ—…y him to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himselfe and consequently Iehouah For whosoeuer is Iehouah he is of and from himselfe True indeed it is that Christ is filius a patre sed Deus a se quate nus est Deus that is sonne of and from his father but God of and from himselfe namely as he is God And if he were not of and from himselfe he were not God And although in the concrete we may and must say with the councel of Nice that Christ is God of God that is Christ who is God is from the father who is God the word God beeing taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 personallio because the person of the sonne who is Deus genitus God begotten is from the person of the father who is Deus gignens God begetting yet it is not likewise true in the abstract For howsoeuer the Godhead is communicated from the father to the sonne by eternall generation and from the father and the sonne to the holy ghost by eternall procession yet the deity of the sonne and so of the holy ghost beeing the selfe same infinite eternall and indiuisible essence of the father is from and of and by and for it selfe And who knoweth not that such is the simplicity of the diuine nature as that God is the godhead and the godhead is God and consequentlie that Christ as he is God is the Godhead which is of and from it selfe And therefore to conclude Christ is God of God in respect of his person and he is also God of himselfe in respect of his essence which is of it selfe he is God of God the name God being vsed personally and relatiuely for hee is God the sonne of God the father and God begotten of God begetting and he is God of himselfe the name God beeing taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
singuler person Therefore the Pope is not Antichrist To the proposition I answere that as the Pope is one so is Antichrist The Pope is one person not in number and nature as one certaine and singuler man but one at once by lawe and institution though successiuely so many as haue enjoyed the Papacie For euen as the Papists when they say that the Pope hath beene the head of the Church and Vicar of Christ these 1500. yeares doe not meane See lib. 1. cap. 1. 〈◊〉 4. any one Pope but the order and succession so we when we say that the Pope hath beene Antichrist almost these thousand yeeres wee meane not any one Pope onely but the whole rowe or rabble of them since the yeere 607. And thus Antichrist that is the head of the Antichristian body which was reuealed after the taking away of the Romane Empire is to continue after a sort vntill the end of the world is one person one I say at once ordinarily but continued in a succession of many The proposition thus denied by vs Bellarmine laboureth to confirme by authoritie of the Scriptures and testimonies of the Fathers Out of the Scriptures he produceth fiue testimonies The first out of the Gospell of Iohn chapter 5. verse 43. I am Iohn 5. 43. come in my Fathers name and you receiue mee not if another shall come in his owne name him will you receiueâ—… In which wordes Bellarmine vnderstandeth Christ to speake of Antichrist as of one singuler person And that he would prooue by testimonies of the Fathers and foure reasons But Bellarmine and the rest of the Papists which make this collection out of this place either ignorantly mistake or wilfully depraue this text For first whereas our Sauiour Christ speaketh indefinitely of any false teacher which should come vnto them in his owne name that is not sent of God they expound him as if he had spoken definitely of one singuler Antichrist Secondly whereas Christ speaketh not onely indefinitely but also conditionally If another come they expound him as if in a simple and proper axiome or proposition he had prophecied of the comming of Antichrist as if he had said that other counterfeit Messias that is to say that singuler Antichrist sha'l come in his owne name and him you will receiue And thirdly whereas Christ speaketh of those Iewes to whom he speaketh they vnderstand him to speake of those which shal be in the end of the world But let vs consider his proofes The Fathers saith he doe testifie that these words are spoken de vno Antichristo of one Antichrist First I answer that although diuers of the Fathers expound these words of Antichrist yet none of them hath that word Vno one and therefore the Iesuites collection is absurde The Fathers vnderstand this place of Antichrist therefore Antichrist is one singuler person For the Fathers also vnderstand that place Mat. 24. 24. of Antichrist where our Sauiour Christ speaketh in the plurall number of false Christs and false Prophets which should arise and confer that place with this And therefore they may seeme to vnderstand this speech of our Sauiour as if he had said If another come Mat. 24. 5. 24. in his owne name as many indeed shall come such will you receiue And sure it is that the Iewes haue receiued more then one of such as haue come in their owne name And secondly I answer that the Fathers had no reason to restraine these words vnto Antichrist alone as though Christ had prophecied of the Iewes receiuing of Antichrist for their Messias seeing his speech is neither simple nor definite but conditionall and indefinite Whereby our Sauiour Christ would shew the vntoward disposition of the Iewes who as they rejected him who was sent of God so they would be ready to receiue any other that should come in his owne name not sent of God And so Nonnus in his Paraphrase vpon this place expoundeth these words Ei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But if any other come c. And lastly if these answers will not suffice let the aduersary conclude his argument drawne from the authoritie of the fathers in a Syllogisme and when he hath so done let him prooue the proposition which must be this whatsoeuer those fathers write concerning Antichrist is true and then the assumptioÌ„ which is to this effect but this those fathers write that Christ speaketh those words de vno Antichristo of one singuler Antichrist then which will neuer be I will yeeld to the conclusion 2. But omitting his testimonies let vs come to those arguments which he draweth out of the text to proue that Christ in these words speaketh of one singuler Antichrist First saith he Christ opposeth vnto himselfe another man that is person to person as appeareth by these words I another c. His reason is thus to be framed where these two words I and another are opposed one to the other we are to vnderstand that as I signifieth one singuler person so also another but in this place I and another are opposed therfore c. I answere where the other is taken definitely for that other as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed Iohn 18. 16. and 20. 2. 3. 4. there the proposition may be true But where it is vsed indefinitely as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another in this place it is most false for in such speeches to a certaine and definite person is opposed an indefinite and vncertaine As for example Iob. 31. 8. What I sowâ—… let another reape meaning any other 1 Cor. 3. 10. I haue laide the foundation another buildeth thereon but let euery one take heed how he buildeth thereon Such examples are ordinary As if I shoud say this argument I call a childish reason another would call it a dotage and so I let it passe His second reason is this Whom the Iewes shall receiue for their Messias he is but one particular man Antichrist shall be receiued of the Iewes for their Messias as Christ here saith therefore Antichrist is but one singuler man Answer Christ dooth not here foretell that Antichrist shal be receiued of the Iewes for their Mesias For first his speech is conditional therefore not a prophecie Neither doth he foretel what they were to do but sheweth them what in respect of their present disposition they were ready to doe if any false teacher should obtrude himselfe vnto them Secondly it is indefinite and therfore not to be restrained to a certaine person Thirdly he doth not say that they shall receiue another for their Messias coÌ„ming in his owne name but onely that they shall receiue him Fourthly those Iewes to whom of whom our Sauior speaketh were not to be aliue at the comming of the great Antichrist according to the opinion of the Papists themselues therefore our Sauiour speaketh not of the Iewes receiuing of Antichrist much lesse of Antichrist as one particular person Thirdly saith he all false
Thou bearest the person An. Do. 862 Annal. Boior lib. 4. of a Bishop say they but thou playest the tyrant vnder the habite or attire of a pastour wee feele a Wolfe the lying title calleth thee Father thou in thy deedes boastest thy selfe to be another Iupiter When as thou art the seruaunt of seruants thou striuest to be the Lorde of Lords c. Hee counterfeiteth the Lambe in calling himselfe the vicar of Christ and exercising the very same office which Christ himselfe had Bellarm. whiles he was vpon the earth And because by horne in the Scriptures often is meant power he may be saide to haue two hornes like the Lambe whiles he challengeth that two-fold power which is peculiar to Christ the Lambe as our King and Priest and vsurpeth both the swordes I meane both spirituall and temporall He speaketh like the Dragon in teaching those doctrines of Diuels mentioned 1. Tim. 4. 3. forbidding to mary and commaunding abstinence from meates in belching foorth most horrible blasphemies whereof wee will remember some in the next chapter in his diuellish curses against the Saints and Satannicall promises of the worlde and kingdomes thereof to them that will adore him Luc. 4. 6. Ecce in potestate nostra est imperium vt demus illud cui volumus Auentin Annal Boior lib. 6. saith Adrian the Pope Beholde the Empyre is in our power that wee may giue it to whom wee will And whereas Hierome writing of those wordes 1. Tim. 4. They speake in Hypocrisie saith he who being not continent would seeme to be so chaste as that they condemne mariage and so abstemious as that they iudge those who vse the creature sparingly whereas thēselues are giuen ouer to belly cheere what could haue bene spoken more fitly to shewe foorth the hypocrisie of the Pope Papists For do not they whiles they condēne contemne mariage vnder the shew of vowed chastity practise all vncleannesse and whiles they cōdemne all moderate eating of flesh do not they vnder a colour of fasting feast feed themselues with the choisest dainties Doe not many of them vnder the pretence of voluntary pouerty gather infinite riches And doth not all their religion stande in Opere operate in the bare performaunce of the outwarde worke that is to say in hypocrisie Neither are wee to omitte an hypocriticall pollicie which of late they haue vsed For when as they coulde not preuaile with their Sophistry that is to say with their Bookes of controuersies they hoped to preuaile among the simple with their hypocrisie that is to say with their bookes of deuotion Wherein there is a notable shewe of counterfait deuotion zeale and holinesse to bleare the eyes of the simple and vnstaied But it were to be wished that as they are so they were esteemed to be no better then baits of Antichrist seruing to allure men vnder shew of deuotion vnto idolatry apostasie from God especially if we cōsider that the principall of these bookes were set forth by Parsons other Iesuits who Quodlibet c. are plainly discouered euen by some of their owne side to be mere Machiuilians and wicked Atheists 5. Thus you see what maner of aduersary Antichrist is Now wee must shewe in particular wherein he is opposed to Iesus Christ. He is opposed vnto him as he is Christ and as he is Iesus as hee is Christ that is as he was annointed of God to be our Prophet our King and our Priest in which respect especially he is called Antichrist He is also opposed vnto him as he is Iesus that is to say as he is our Sauiour So that Antichrist opposeth himselfe both to the offices of Christ signified in the name Christ and also to the benefites signified in the name Iesus Now these things also most fitly agree to the Pope who opposeth himselfe to Christ in all these respectes not indeede aperto Marte as an open and professed enemy for so it becōmeth not Antichrist who was to be an hypocrit sitting in the Church of God c. but couertly and cunningly For we must remember that Antichristianisme is the mystery of iniquity wherin Christ was in word shew to be professed but indeed truth denied First thē to Christ our Prophet he is opposed partly as he oppugneth the prophecy of Christ and partly as himselfe is a false Prophet He oppugneth the prophecy of Christ First in denying Christ to be our onely Prophet whose voice in the canonicall Scriptures concerning matters necessarily to be beleeued vnto saluation wee ought onely to heare whiles he and his followers do teach that the scriptures are not perfect and that besides the Apocryphall writings which they haue matched with the canonical their owne traditions also are necessary and of equall authority with the scriptures Secondly by withholding from the people the scriptures which containe the whole doctrine of Christ our prophet in a strange language and also by reading and preaching vnto them their owne fancies and inuentions out of the legends and liues of saints and festiualls c. in steede of the sincere truth of God And by these two practises the Pope whiles he leaueth to Christ the name and title of beeing our prophet he taketh the thing to himselfe Againe he is opposed to Christ our prophet as himselfe is the false prophet spoken of in the Apocalypse teaching Antichristian errours and doctrines of diuells For so many errors as are taught and held by the Pope and church of Rome are so many oppositions betwixt him and Christ our prophet Of the errours of the Romish church there be many centuryes or hundreds and diuerse of them fundamentall In respect whereof wee may truly say that the catholike Apostasie for so I call the Romish religion is the common sewre of many grosse heresyes 6 But it will be said that howsoeuer the Pope holdeth diuerse errours yet he teacheth not those which the holy ghost hath noted as the peculiar doctrines of Antichrist Whereof the authour of the Wardword reckoneth vp three and Bellar-mine hath a fourth But neither of them durst mention those two doctrines of diuells which Paul assigneth to that Apostasie 1. Tim. 4. 3. whereof Antichrist is the head The first doctrine of Antichrist say they is to deny Iesus to be Christ. Which they Of this see more in the 2. booke and 14. chapter would proue out of 1. Iohn 2. 22. 4. 3. and 2. Iohn 7. But the Pope say they doth not deny Iesus to be Christ. To the prosyllogisme or proofe of the proposition I answere that these places of the Apostle Iohn doe not speake properly of the graund Antichrist who is the head of the Antichristian body but of certaine petite Antichrists or heretickes of those times which denied either of the natures of Christ for he speaketh of such as were then already come into the world and therefore from thence it cannot be proued that the great Antichrist shall
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 essentially absolutely namely as he together with the father and the holy ghost is one and the same eternall Iehouah and onely true God In which respect if the Papists deny Christ to be God of himselfe as they do when they accuse this our doctrine of heresie and deny him so to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himself as we affirm they do also deny him to be God SecoÌ„dly when as not onely in heauen they set aboue him his mother whom they cal the Queene of heauen desiring her to coÌ„maund him to shew her selfe to be a mother as though Christ were as they paint him a baby vnder his mothers gouernmeÌ„t for so they say Iube natuÌ„ iure matris impera againe monstra te esse matreÌ„ c. but also on earth when euery shaueling priest caÌ„ by breathing out a few words out of his vnclean mouth create his maker for so they teach Sacerdos est creator creatoris sui that is the priest is maker of his maker And againe Qui creauit Stella clericor serm discip serm 111. apud Iuellum vos dedit vobis creare se Hee which made you gaue you power to make him when he hath so done offer him vp to his father Wherein euery priest amoÌ„g theÌ„ being the sacrificer is after a sort preferred aboue Christ who is the sacrifice Thirdly when as they appoint vnto Christ a vicar to supply his absence vnto whom they assigne all power which is in heaueÌ„ and earth yea Vid. Cap. 5. infinit power which they say is translated froÌ„ Christ vnto him what do they else but make Christ a titular king and with the Epicures an idle God who hath as it were resigned al his right authority to the Pope What a man they make our Sauiour Christ who knoweth not when they hold with fire fagot persecute those that will not hold the same that his body is multipresent that is present in many or rather infinit places at once and that discoÌ„tinued for they say that it being in heauen is also present really and corporally vpon the earth wheresoeuer their Masse is celebrated or their hoste reserued howsoeuer it is not in the space betwixt heauen and earth nor in those places where the host is not which is to assigne many or rather innumerable bodies to our Sauiour Christ. And further that his very body which they say is really preseÌ„t in the Masse is void of quantitie qualitie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not circuÌ„scribed not visible nor any way sensible coÌ„sequently no body The which in effect is as much as to denie that Christ is come in the flesh which is the doctrine of that Antichrist whereof John speaketh And here by the way note the absurditie of Papists 1. Iohn 4. 3. 2. Iohn 7. who circumscribe the deity of the father whiles they resemble the same by pictures or images and denie the humanitie of the sonne to be circumscribed consequently against all reason make the deitie finit and the humanitie infinit The office of Christ is his mediation Now what a mediatour they make him you may easily iudge wheÌ„ they ioyne infinit others with him For the Apostle saith that there is but one mediatour 1. Tim. 2. 5. betwixt God and man and this one alone our Sauiour Christ is or else he is none at all 8. Again Christ may be denied directly expresly that may be done either secretly in priuate or else opeÌ„ly in publick profession After the latter sort Antichrist was not to denie our Sauiour Christ because he was to be an hypocrite a disguised enemy as hath bene proued Neither was it necessary that he should deny Christ expresly directly yet this also may bee proued of diuerse Popes Who howsoeuer they professed publickly that Iesus is Christ which is all that our aduersaries alledge in this case and yet that all is nothing for the Diuels theÌ„selues haue publickly professed Iesus to be Christ yet priuately and among their fauourets they haue denied Christ not that onely but haue shewed theÌ„selues also to haue bene meere Atheists diuels incarnat For to omit Iohn the 22. who denied the immortality of the soule of some is called the 23. of others 24. were not Alexander the 6. Sixtus the fourth Iulius 2. and Paulus 3. besides diuers others very Atheists were not more then twenty of them knowne Necromancers and sorcerers not to speake of them which were not knowne which renouÌ„cing Christ our Sauiour betooke theÌ„selues to the Diuel As namely Siluester 2. Benedict 9. Gregory 5. Gregory the 7. who also in a rage cast the Eucharist that is according to their opinion the very body of Christ into the fire because it did not answere to his questions when as he consulted therewith And what may we thinke of Clement the seueÌ„th who when he was at deaths doore said he should now be certified of three things wherof he had doubted al his life viz. whether there be a God whether the soule be immortall and whether there be a life after this life Or of Iulius the 3. who being forbidden by the Physitians the vse of Porke commaunded his porke to be set before him Al dispette di Dio In despite of God As for Pope Leo the 10. hee did plainely enough denie Christ when as more then once he called the Gospell the fable of Christ For wheÌ„ he had receiued an incredible summe of money for indulgences he said to Bembus O quantum nobis Ex. Sibrand â—…ull de pap Rom. l. 10. c. 18 profuit illa de Christo fabula O how much that fable of Christ hath profited vs And another time when Bembus alledged for his comfort a testimonie out of the Gospell he answered Quid mihi narras fabulamillaÌ„ de Christo What doest thou tell me of that fable of Christ If therefore this bee a property of Antichrist to denie Christ then it cannot be auoided but that according to our aduersaries owne groundes the Pope who so many waies denieth Christ is Antichrist And so much of his opposition to the Prophecie of Christ. For of the other three doctrines which the Papistes assigne to Antichrist See booke 〈◊〉 chap. 14. we are to intreat when wee come to answere the obiections of the Papists 9. To the Priesthood of Christ our only priest and mediatour who according to the Scriptures with the oblatioÌ„ of himselfe once made hath perfectly redeemed vs are opposed 1. Heb. 10. 12. 14 Their priesthood whereby Christ is daily offred and his sacrifice repeated in their abominable sacrifice of the Masse propitiatory as they say both for the quicke and the dead 2. Their owne satisfactions as prices of sinne opposed to the satisfactioÌ„ of Christ 3. Their adioyning vnto Christ other intercessours and mediatours by whose not onely intercession they hope to be heard but also merites hope to be saued
worth yet he was content to make a flourish with it because he had some of the Fathers to father it vpon Afterwards he commeth nearer to the purpose and saith that Caluin as some of the Fathers before him to wit Cyprian and Ierome affirmeth and so doth Bellarmine himselfe else where that Daniel speaketh of Antiochus Epiphanes who was a type of Antichrist Therefore leauing his former hold he reasoneth thus Such as is the type or figure such is the thing figured Antiochus the type was but one singular person therfore Antichrist that is figured is but one The proposition is to be vnderstood of the proportion and likenesse onely in those things in respect whereof the type is a figure and not generally in all things As for example the High-priest was a type or figure of Christ but therefore it doth not follow that there was but one High-priest because Christ is one The Papists holde that Melchisedec who was but one was a type of their Masse Priests which are many Iosuah Dakid and Salomon were types of Christ but therefore not like vnto him in all things So Antiochur may not vnfitly be said to haue beene a type of Antichrist because as Pharaoh was a type of other tyrants which oppressed the Church of God so he in falshood deceit pride idolatry cruelty and persecuting of the Church of God resembled Antichrist the man of sinne which is an enemie and is listed vp about all that is called God or that is worshipped In which respects Antiochus was so fit a type of Antichrist that R. Leui Gerson alledged by Bellarmine in the end of the 12. chap. applieth whatsoeuer is spoken of him Dan. 7. 11. to the Pope of Rome If therefore you vnderstand the proposition generally it is false if particularly the whole argumentation is a fallacion 8. His fift testimonie is Apoc. 13. 17. For these places are to be vnderstood of Antichrist as Irenaeus teacheth and as it is plaine by the likenesse of the words in Daniel and Iohn c. His reason is thus framed If Daniel spake of one King then also Iohn but the former is true therefore the later The proposition wherin there is indeed no coherence he prooueth by the similitude of their words First because both make mention of ten Kings which shal be in the earth when Antichrist shall come It is true that both make mention of ten hornes but with such difference as that otherwise there is no likenesse Antiochus in Daniel by whom Bellarmine would haue vs to vnderstand Antichrist is the last of the ten not one besides the ten otherwise the fourth beast were a beast of eleuē hornes Antichrist is one besides the ten hornes in the Reuelation and of Bellarmine somtimes is called the eleuenth Bellarmines Antichrist in Daniel is the little horne signifying indeed but one man but the true Antichrist in the Reuelation is called not an horne but the beast whereby not one man but a state is signified The ten hornes in Daniel are so many kings which succeed one another in the kingdome vsurped ouer the Iewes before the cōming of the Messias the ten hornes in the Reuelation are so many rulers ouer diuers kingdomes which receiue their kingdome together not only after the incarnatiō of Christiō but also after the dissolutiō of the Roman Empire So that in truth nothing is here alike saue that in both there is mention of ten hornes Secondly saith Bellarmine both of them foretel that the kingdome of Antichrist shall continue three yeares and an halfe But I answer that neither of both assigne that time to Antichrist For first Daniel assigneth a time and times and parcell of time that is three yeers and ten daies to the persecution vnder Antiochus wherby the publick worship of God was for that time interrupted viz. from the 15. day of the month Casleu in the 145. yeare of the kingdome of the Seleucidae See Chap. 16. 1. Mac. 1. 57. vnto the 25. of the month Casleu in the yeare 148. 1. Mac. 4. 52. But of this more hereafter Neither doth Iohn any where assigne three yeers an halfe to the raigne of Antichrist but to the beast with seuē heads ten hornes which signifieth the Roman state either generally as it is opposed vnto Christ or particularly as it was gouerned by the sixt head that is the emperors he assigneth fortytwo Apoc. 11. 2. 7. and 13. 1 5. months which are not literally to be vnderstood Now Antichrist is not the beast with seuē heads but one head of the seuē is described vnder the second beast as our aduersaries also confesse which in plaine terms is called another beast For how can he be that beast if he be another Apoc. 13. 11. And of this also I shal haue better occasiō to speake more fully hereafter Lastly he flieth to the authority of the fathers as his last refuge but neither do these fathers expresly say that Antichrist shal be See Chap. 8. but one man neither if they did can any sound argument be drawne from their testimonies vnlesse Bellarmine be able to prooue that whatsoeuer these fathers haue written concerning Antichrist is true And againe diuers of the Fathers as Irenaeus Origen Chrysostome Ierome Ruffinus Primasius Augustine expounding that place Math 24. 24. which speaketh of more then one as spoken of Antichrist they could not vnderstand Antichrist to be but one Yea but the Fathers say that Antichrist shall be a most choise instrument of the Diuell that in him shall dwell all the fulnesse of diuellish malice bodily euen as in the man Christ dwelleth the fulnesse of the diuinitie corporally But although this allegation were true as I will not thereof dispute yet is it impertinent for the Pope meaning the whole succession of Antichristian Popes may be a notable instrument of the diuell c. and yet hereof it followeth not that there hath beene but one Pope As touching the other assertion of Antichrists raigne three yeares and a Chap. 8. halfe we are hereafter to intreate 9. Now that Antichrist is not one singuler man but a whole state and succession of men it may appeare by these arguments First by conference of 2. Thes. 2. with the Epistles of Iohn for Iohn plainely 1. Ioh. 4 3. 2. Iohn 7. 1. Ioh. 2. 18 saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antichrist of whom they had hard that he should come was in his time And of whom had they heard it but of Paul in the 2. Thes 2. where in like sort the Apostle saith that euen in his time the mysterie of iniquitie that is Antichristianisme was working noting that Antichrist in some of his members was already come although he were not reuealed vntill that which hindered was taken out of the way Now as Paul and Iohn doe both testifie that the Antichrist was in their time so Paul also sheweth that Antichrist shall remaine vnto the second comming of Christ
spoken of is to be vnderstoode of the calamities of the Iewes in the siege of Ierusalem as I haue manifestly proued And secondly that we are to distinguish betwixt the time of Antichrists continuance and the time of his hotest persecution which Bellarmine confoundeth the latter notwithstanding beeing much shorter then the former Fourthly saith he Christ preached onely three yeeres and a halfe therefore decet etiam it is also fit that Antichrist be suffered to preach no longer Answere 1. In this argument Bellarmine presupposeth that Antichrist is but one man as Christ is which we haue proued to be most false 2. he taketh vpon him to be the Lords counsailour auouching that it is not fit that Antichrist should preachlonger then Christ did he might haue added that it was not fit or to speake more fitly not like that Antichrist in the same time should be able to preuaile with more then Christ did much lesse to peruert almost the whole world in three yeeres and a halfe whereas Christ as he was man could conuert but a few of the Iewes c. 3. Although Christ in his owne person preached but a few yeres yet he being the eternall word and wisdome of his father hath euer since the beginning spoken by the mouth of his Prophets ministers by whose ministerie also as it were the breath of his mouth he shall waste and consume Antichrist 4. Neither can it be prooued by any shew of reason that Antichrist is to preach just so many yeeres as Christ our Sauiour did Or that he shall in three yeeres and an halfe subdue by force I know not how many kingdomes conuert by preaching gather to himselfe the remnāt of the Iewes and all counterfeit Christians dispersed through so many nations as a man cannot trauell through in three yeeres and a halfe not to speake of his repairing Ierusalem erecting the temple and many good morrowes which by many poëticall fictions the Papists assigne to their deuised Antichrist His fift and sixt reasons are not worth the mentioning For the time and times and halfe a time as hath bin shewed belong not to Antchrists raigne and therby we vnderstand 3 yeeres a halfe as also by the 7. times Dan. 4. 19. in the 4. of Daniel 7. yeeres according to the interpretatiō of the holy Ghost expoūding as it seemeth times by yeres Dan. 11. 13. 7. In the last place he laboureth to take away the exceptions which some particular man as namely Chytraeus Bullinger the authors of the Centuries make against his former allegatiōs out of Daniel the Apocalypse but scarsly toucheth any one of the 6 exceptions before mentioned For whereas Chytraus answereth §. 3. 4. that the 42. moneths in the 11. and 13. of the Apoc. may not be vnderstood literally for three yeres and a halfe because it is contrary to experience and besides the Apostle affirmeth that Antichrist shall continue vntill Christs comming Bellarmine replieth that he beggeth the question But I answer againe as before that experience sheweth that the persecutions vnder the beast with 7 heads continued longer then three yeeres and a halfe when as Iohn affirmeth that the Antichrist was come in his time Paul foretelleth that he should after a sort continue though at the last in a kind of consumption vnto the second comming of Christ surely their meaning was that he should continue aboue three yeeres and a halfe 2. He findeth fault with him Bullinger who thought that the holy ghost mentioning 42. moneths 1260. dayes by a certaine time meant an vncertaine replying that the nūber which is meant is certaine when it consisteth of great small nūbers mixed But they speake of the time and he of the number and therfore his reprehension is vnjust For although the holy ghost do meane no other number then 42 and 1260 yet by the certaine time mentioned that is moneths dayes he meaneth an vncertaine which may be as some thinke 42. sabbothes of yeeres and 1260 yeeres And thirdly whereas Illyricus and the other authors of the Centuries by 1260. daies vnderstand so many yeeres Bellarmine denieth that daies are put for yeeres any where in the scripture and yet cannot deny but that by 390. dayes in Ezechiel is Ezec. 4. 5. 6 meant 390. yeeres and by 40. dayes so many yeares a day for a yeere as the holy ghost speaketh And likewise Apoc. 2. 10. by ten Vid. Iun. in Apoc. 2. daies is meant 10. yeeres as some of the learned thinke Indeed if any shall by 1260 dayes vnderstand as Bellarmine doth the just time of Antichrists reigne and withall expound them either by 1260. yeeres as Bellarmine chargeth some or by three yeeres and Cap. 3. a halfe as the Papists do they may be refuted by the reason before alledged because after the reuelation of Antichrist the speciall time of Christs comming may according to this exposition be foretold which notwithstanding shall not come by obseruation but suddenly neither shall precisely be foreknowne as being knowne onely to the Lord. The 9. Chapter answering his sixt demonstration concerning the end of the world 1. THe sixt and last demonstration to proue that Antichrist is not yet come is taken frō the end of the world But because Bellarmine saw that this could not be made a signe of Antichrists comming without absurdity for it is absurd thus to reason the world hath not yet an end therefore Antichrist is not yet come therefore he changeth the question For whereas he propounded this question to be concluded that Antichrist is not yet come he concludeth that he came not long since So that for all this demonstration Antichrist may alreadie be come although perhaps not so long since as some doe imagine But let vs see how he proueth that he was not come long since If Antichrist were come long since then also the world long since should haue had an end but the world hath not yet an end therefore Antichrist was not come long since The proposition he proueth because Antichrist commeth a very little while before the ende of the world and as it were immediately before the second comming of Christ. But this whole demonstration may easily be refuted by this one distinction for we must distinguish betwixt the comming of Antichrist and his death betwixt his beginning and his ende Antichrist indeed is not vtterly to be destroied before the second comming of Christ but this doth not proue that therefore he was not come long since The Apostle Paul doth tell vs that Antichrist is to be destroied at the second comming of Christ notwithstanding both he doth insinuate and Iohn plainely professeth that the Antichrist which they had heard was to come in the last houre was alreadie come in his time and thereupon inferreth that euen then was the last houre or age of the world which the holy ghost calleth an houre that we should not thinke it long 2. Now al the
he shall aduance himselfe against God against Christ our Sauiour list vp himself aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped yet he shall professe himselfe to be the seruant of Christ and a worshipper of God Fourthly the words of the text do not ascribe to Antichrist so great an extolling of himselfe as the Iesuit imagineth For first he is called a man of sinne sonne of perdition therfore we are to conceiue of such an aduancement of himselfe as is incident to a mortall wretched man SecoÌ„dly he is said to extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped By all that is called God we are to vnderstand all to whom the name of God is communicated as to Angels in heauen to kings and Princes on earth And of this aduancing aboue Kings we are the rather to vnderstand this place because afterwards it is said that the Romane Empire hindered Antichrists aduancing or reuealing himselfe And by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to vnderstand any thing which is worshipped as God or wherein God is worshipped Such in the Church of Rome are the Host the Crosse the Saints their Images reliques Aboue al which a man may aduance himselfe as the Pope doth and yet may acknowledge some other God besides himselfe Thirdly the greatest height of pride that is incident to any creature whatsoeuer is not to seeke to be aboue God for that cannot be imagined but to be as God And indeed the height of Antichrist his pride and aduancing of himselfe is noted in the words following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in so much that he shall sit in the temple of God as God Whosoeuer therefore being but a mortall man shall aduance himself aboue all that is called God worshipped insomuch that he shall sit in the temple of God as God that is ruleth in the church of Christ as if he were a God vpon earth he is to be deemed Antichrist that is aemulus Christi one that would faine be equall to Christ although he neither professe himselfe to be the onely God who onely is to be worshipped neither yet abolish all other worship of God both true and false And if in this sense this place do properly agree to the Pope as indeed it doth then can it not be auoided but that he is Antichrist 13 The second testimony which he alledgeth to prooue this fond conceit is Dan. 11. 37. neither shall he care for any of the Gods but shall rise against all I answere Daniel in this place speaketh not of Antichrist and he of whom he speaketh was an Idolater and therefore this allegation is altogether impertinent As touching the first it is euident that Daniel from the 21. verse of that chapter to the end doth most plainly properly describe Antiochus Epiphanes For howsoeuer in this place Bellarmine would proue by the authoritie of Ierome that these words are to be vnderstood of Antichrist not of Antiochus yet in another place when part of this verse is obiected Li. 3. ca. 21 by some protestants as sitting the Pope he telleth vs plainly that Daniel speaketh ad literamâ—… literally of Antiochus who was a figure of Antichrist Secondly hee of whom Daniel speaketh was an Idolater and establisher of Idolatry So farre was hee from professing himselfe to be the onely true God or suffering none to be worshipped besides himselfe For if he speake of Antiochus Epiphanes as most certainly he doth it may easily be proued both by Historie of the Machabees and by other stories that he was both an Idolater himselfe and an inforcer of Idolatry vpoÌ„ others See I. Maccab. 1. 50. 2. Mac. cab 6. 2. c. Polybius also testifieth that in sacrifices honouring the Graecian Gods he surpassed other Kings which went before him Apud Athenaeum as might appeare by the Olympiaeum at Athens and the Images about the altar at Delos This Ierome also auoucheth and Bellarmine confesseth But of whomsoeuer Daniel speaketh he doth plainly describe him in the next verse to be an Idolater Ver. 38. And it is a world to see what silly shiftes the Iesuit maketh to auoyd this truth For first he readeth the words thus And he shall honor the God Maozim in his place Secondly he omitteth the words following the God which his fathers knew not he shall honour with golde c. which most plainly specifie his Idolatry who is here described and busieth himselfe wholy in giuing a false interpretatioÌ„ to the god Maozim The God Maozim saith he signifieth either Antichrist himself and then the meaning is he shall honor himselfe that is cause himselfe to be worshipped or else it signifieth the diuel whom Antichrist being a sorcerer shall worship in secret which interpretation he preferreth before the other And therefore this place doth not proue that he which is here described shal be an Idolater 14 I answere first that although either of his interpretations of the God Maozim were true as neither is yet the one hindreth not and the other proueth that he which is heere described is an Idolater For let the word Maozim signifie what it may yet the words following plainly conuince the partie here described of Idolatry the God which his fathers knew not he shall worship with gold And if the God Maozim signifie any but the true God and if also the words are so to be read as Bellarmine readeth them And he shall honor the God Maozim and the God whoÌ„ his fathers knew not he shall worship with gold and siluer c. then by these words the Idolatry is encreased For first it is said that he shall worship the God Maozim according to Bellarmines reading whereby is not meant as he saith the true God nay he saith to make Christ the God Maozim Li. 3. ca. 21 it is intollerable blasphemy O therefore first in these words is signified an Idolater and secondly it is added that the God also which his fathers knew not hee shall worship where againe his Idolatry is most plainely noted 2. But indeede Bellarmines interpretation is meerely false and that which he inferreth therevpon altogether absurd The God Mahuzzim signifieth the God of fortitudes that is the most mightie or almightie God which title as it is proper to the Lorde as Ieremy calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iehouah my Iere. 16. 19 strength and fortitude And likewise Dauid Psal. 31. 5. so may it not be ascribed to any other And therefore it is a sencelesse imagination that Daniel by the God of fortitudes would signifie either Antichrist himselfe a wicked and wretched man or the father of Antichrist the Diuell And further as touching the former interpretation it seemeth to be absurd that when Daniel according to his reading saith he shal worship the God Maozim his meaning should be that Antichrist should worship himselfe as though he that worshippeth and hee that is worshipped were one and the same And theÌ„
in like sort in the latter clause by the God which he shall worship which his fathers knew not we must absurdly vnderstand himselfe For whereas he cauilleth at the word worship and saith wee must reade glofie as though Daniels meaning were that Antichrist should glorifie himselfe and cause himselfe to be worshipped it is certaine that the vulgar Latine which hee preferreth before the Hebrew and which by the Councell of Trent hee is bound to stand to hath venerabitur shall worship himselfe both in the second clause of the verse hee readeth according to the vulgar colet shall worship and in his second interpretatiō which he saith is the better he doth so reade and vnderstand the word His first interpretation therfore that the God Maozim should signifie Antichrist himselfe is sottish and absurd 15 Let vs therefore consider whether the second which he preferreth before the other be any better In the second place saith he it may be said which pleaseth me better that Antichrist shall be a Magician or sorcerer such as very many Popes of Rome haue bene and that according to the manner of other Magicians he shall in secret worship the Diuell as diuers of the Popes haue done homage vnto him by whose helpe he shall worke wonders and that he is called the God Maozim Answ. Whereas Bellarmine preferreth this exposition before others it seemeth hee hath forgotten the question which hee tooke vpon him to defend namely that Antichrist shall not be an Idolater For if he shall be a worshipper of the diuell and also of a God whom his fathers knew not I hope by this exposition he shall bee proued an Idolater But let vs see what hee further alledgeth to proue this exposition which although it be false for Daniel here neither speaketh of Antichrist nor yet of the Diuell yet it maketh against himselfe Forsooth Maozim as hee supposeth is not the name of God but of a certaine strong and secret place in which shall be the chiefe treasures of Antichrist and wherein he shall worship the diuell For it followeth in Daniel that he shall fortifie Maozim with a strange God whom hee knew and surely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mahoz signifieth as well fortitude as a tower or place of munition His meaning then is that the diuell is here called the God Maozim because Antichrist shall worship him in a certaine tower which if it were true hee should rather bee called the God Maoz but Daniel speaketh in the plurall number the God of fortitudes or munitions signifying according to the Hebrew phrase the most mightie and strong God Deum summiroboris as Tremellius readeth And whereas hee saith it followeth that hee shall fortifie Maozim with a straunge God whom he hath knowne I answere that there is no such matter in the originall text which word for word is thus And he shall doo to the munitions of Mahuzzim with a straunge God that is hee shall commit the munitions of Mahuzzim that is Ierusalem and the citties of Iewry to a straunge God Yea but faith Bellarmine one of these interpretations either that Antichrist is the God Maozim or if he be any other for he dare not now say it is the diuell hee shall not be worshipped of Antichrist but secretly and in a most hidden place one saith hee of these interpretations must be good or else there will bee a repugnancie in Daniels words For if he care for no God how shall he publikely worship Idols yea rather if he care for no God how shall he worship any priuately For it is more like that he which is an Atheist and careth for no God indeed will in Machiuilian policie worship some God publikely although priuately he careth for none And it more fitteth the disposition of Antichrist to be secretly an Atheist and openly an Idolater then contrariwise although Bellarmine here doth hold the contrary 16 But now perhaps you expect that hauing freed this place of Daniel from Bellarmines corruptions and deprauations I should open vnto you the true meaning thereof and shewe how this prophesie was fulfilled in Antiochus who in many things was a type of Antichrist And the King saith the Angell Verse 36. or this King Hamelec that is Antiochus Epiphanes of whom I haue all this while entreated namely from the 21. Verse hee shall doo what hee will his will shall be to him for a lawe wherein hee might seeme to be a liuely figure of the Pope of whom it is saide Sic volo sic iubeo slat pro ratione voluntas And againe Iudiciumque est pro lege suum And this was the ground of all his actions wilfully following in all things his owne will Then more particularly the Angell describeth his actions both in respect of religion and policie His actions tending to irreligion of which onely we are now to speake are first summarily comprised Verse 36. and afterward more fully expressed The summe is this that hee should alter and abrogate all the religions of the Syrians as well the false religions of the Idolaters as the true religion of the Iewes The abrogation of all the religions of the Syrians is here called the magnifying himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aboue or against euery god whose worships he did put downe The prophanation of the Iewish religion ordained by the true God the God of Gods is here signified by speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great swelling 1. Mac. 1. 43. 46. 2. Mac. 6. 2. words against him which wee are to vnderstande of his blasphemous edicts to abolish the whole religion of God both which we see performed by Antiochus Epiphanes 1. Macab 1. 43. 46. c. The same thinges are againe repeated Verse 37. 38. First as touching the goddes and religions of the Syrians in generall whether true or false he saith Verse 37. that vnto the Gods of his fathers he shall not attend neither will hee listen to the desires of women that is as some expound his wiues who entreated the continuance of those religions whervnto themselues were addicted so that neither the reuerence of his fathers nor the loue of his wiues could stay him from following his owne will in abrogating their religions neither will be regard any of the Gods viz. of the Syrians because hee will magnifie himselfe against all in abrogating the religions of them all whether true or false And more particularly concerning the true religion of the true God he saith Ver. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as touching the God Mahuzzim that is the God almightie and there he pauseth in his place he will honour euen a God whom his fathers knew not will he honour with golde and with siluer with precious stones and with Iewels and verse 39. hee shall commit the munitions of Mahuzzim that is of the Almightie vnto a strange God that is he shall deale so despightfully with the God of Israel the Lord of Hosts that hauing abrogated his worship and religion he shall
set vp in the temple of God the Idoll of Iupiter Olympius to be worshipped as it is recorded 2. Mac. 6. who was a God whom his fathers knew not that is acknowledged Strabo geograph lib. 16. not nor worshipped For the Syrians worshipped Apollo and Diana And the munitions of Mahuzzim that is Ierusalem and other cities of Iewry which had bene as it were the munitions and cities of God hee committed them to the tuition of a strange God namely Iupiter Olympius The same prophesie in effect was before deliuered Dan. 7. 25. See Tremell in Dan. 7. 8. 8. 11. by conference of which places with this in hand it is manifest that by the God Mahuzzim is meant the true God 17 This prophesie therefore being meant of Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled in him cannot properly belong to Antichrist or any other Notwithstanding as in some other things so in the premisses Antiochus may not vnsitly be thought to haue bene a type or figure of Antichrist In so much that both the auncient Fathers haue vnderstood these prophesies of Antichrist and many also of the late writers besides the Iewes haue applyed the same particularly to the Pope For besides that it is most true of the Pope that hee doth what he will seeing Legi non subiacâ—…t vlli hee is subiect to no lawe and no man may say to him Sir why doo you so The rest also after a sort may be verified of him that both hee setteth himselfe against the Idols of the Gentiles and also hath abrogated the true worship of God And that in stead of Christ the Almightie God he hath set vp in his churches besides many other Idols the abhominable Idoll of the Masse a God which his fathers the first Bishops of Rome knew not which notwithstaÌ„ding he honoreth with gold and siluer and precious stones and hath committed the churches cities and countries of Christendome to the tuition and patronage of diuers Saints who as they are indeed so are they called by Paulus Ionius a Popish Bishop the tutelar Gods of the Papists Hist. lib. 24. in fine 18 And these were his testimonies of scripture In the next place for want of better proofes he slyeth to the authoritie of the Fathers as his last refuge as though they testified that Antichrist shall not be an Idolater nor one that will suffer Idols But I answer that the Fathers do either speake of the Idols and Idolatry of the Gentiles onely and in that sence their speeches are verified in this behalfe of the Pope who neither honoreth nor suffereth the Idols of the Gentiles or else if they speake of all Idols and Idolatry in generall when they say Idola seponet as Ireneus or adidololatriam non admittet as Hippolitus or idola odio habebit as Cyrill or adidololatriaÌ„ non adducet ille as Chrysostome they deserue such an Antichrist as in this behalfe is better then the Pope But indeed as the Pope is so Antichrist in the scriptures is described to bee an Idolater as hath bene shewed 19 Hauing thus doughtily proued this Popish conceit the Iesuit proceedeth to the disproofe of our assertioÌ„s expositions of some places of scripture and especially that of 2. Thess 2. Our assertion concerning the doctrine of Antichrist hee saith is onely built vpon the scriptures falsely expounded by new glosses In token whereof saith hee they alledge not one Interpreter or Doctor for them But this is a malicious slaunder witnesse this place which he mentioneth 2. Thess. 2. where we proue by the consent of many of the Fathers that by the Temple is meant the church of God and that in the church of God Antichrist was to be reuealed after the Romane Empire which hindered was taken out of the way c. Our assertions concerning Antichrist are grouÌ„ded on the prophesies of scriptures expounded by the euent which is the best expóunder of prophesies And with our assertions the opinions of the Fathers agree where they are consonant to the scripture and the euent Contrariwise the assertions of the Papists concerning Antichrist as they are repugnant to the scriptures and the truth of the euent so are they wholy grounded either vpon the vncertaine and many times misalledged coniectures of the Fathers who were no Prophets and therefore being not able to foresee the euent did not many times vnderstand the Prophesies or else on the blinde conceits of Popish writers who being deceiued with the efficacie of illusion and made drunke with the whore Babylons cuppe of fornications were giuen ouer to beleeue lyes And whereas our writers expounding those wordes of the Apostle 2. Thess. 2. 4. who is lifted vp aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped doo apply the same vnto the Pope vpon very good and sufficient proofes and from thence do plainely conclude the Pope to be Antichrist for euidence whereof I referre the Reader to the 5. chapter of my former booke He culleth out some stragling sentences out of some one of the vnsoundest writers of our side as their maner is which he may best hope to answere As though we had no more nor no better arguments to proue that the Pope aduanceth himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped then these two First because he professeth himselfe to bee the Vicar of Christ And secondly whereas Christ subiected himselfe willingly vnto the scriptures the Pope challengeth authoritie to dispense with the scripture Howbeit the former of these two reasons hee depraueth and the latter he is not able to satisfie For Illyricus his reason to proue that the Pope aduanceth himselfe aboue all that is called God is not because he maketh himselfe the Vicar of Christ but this because hee vaunting himselfe to be the Vicar of Christ doth notwithstanding vsurpe greater authoritie then the sonne of God claimed vnto himselfe of which that which Bellarmine Catalog test pag. 3. alledgeth as a second reason is by Illyricus added as a proofe Wherevnto Bellarmine is no otherwise able to answer then by impudent and shamelesse deniall either that Christ subiected Contrary to Galat. 4. 4. Luke 2. 51 himselfe to the lawe and word of God or that the Pope taketh vpon him to dispense with the scriptures or that any Catholike meaning Popish writer hath said that he may dispense with diuine precepts both which notwithstanding I haue heretofore proued by many instances and most euident allegations See the first booke chap. 5. § 10. 11. 12. For that which hee addeth of Christs subiecting himselfe to the prophesies and not to the precepts as though Illyricus had spoken of the one in his proposition and of the other in the assumption it is partly false and partly ridiculous and indeede not worth the answering Chap. 15. Of the miracles of Antichrist 1 WEe are now come to the eight maine argument which Bellarmine vseth to proue that the Pope of Rome is not Antichrist because forsooth those things
wicked man shal be reuealed That this is to be vnderstood of the Romane Empire he not onely affirmeth but also confirmeth by the testimonies of diuers of the Fathers the which we are so farre from denying that from hence as one especiall argument we prooue the Pope to be Antichrist But neither the Apostle nor any of the Fathers excepting Lactantius whose Prophecie in this point the Papists themselues do thinke to be erronious doth say that the Empire of Rome shall so vtterly be abolished as that not so much as the name of the Emperour or King of the Romanes shall remaine which Bellarmine should haue prooued For otherwise that the Empire was indeed dissolued before the reuelation of Antichrist the holy Ghost prophecied the euent hath prooued and we doe willingly confesse Quâ—… tenebat de medâ—… fit Ad Gerontid de Monogamia saith Ierome in his time non intelligimus Antichristum appropinquare He which held is taken away and doe we not vnderstand that Antichrist is at hand Yea but saith Bellarmine the Romane Empire is not yet vtterly destroyed and therefore Antichrist is not yet come Neither is it necessary it is sufficient that he which hindered the reuelation of Antichrist waâ—… done out of the way which was done first by remoouing the Imperiall seate from Rome which was to be the seate of Antichrist as hath beene prooued secondly by the dissolution of the Empire in the West As for the Empire renued by the Pope that hindereth not Antichrist but rather furthereth as hath beene shewed and therfore there is no necessitie that it should be taken away Neither is there now an Emperour of the Romanes indeed but onely in title without the thing it selfe as enjoying neither the citie of Rome it selfe nor yet the Prouinces And therefore either vnskilfully or sophistically are these Emperors which haue no imperiall authoritie either in the citie or the prouinces compared with those ancient Emperours who although they had the Empire wanted Rome it selfe 5. And hereby appeareth the error of our aduersaries who thinke that Antichrist commeth not before the vtter desolation of the Romane Empire whereas neither of the Apostles Paul or Iohn do say so but rather the contrary as hath bin shewed For to omit the rest before alledged Iohn saith Apoc. 13. That one head of the beast meaning the state of the emperors had indeed â—…ceiued deadly wounâ—… both in respect of Rome the head city and of the Emperours in the West but was cured therefore not vtterly destroyed and cured by the Pope both in respect of the city and in regard of the Emperour And therefore the Pope is Antichrist as some of our writers infer because this wound was to be cured by the second beast which figureth Antichrist And Ambrose saith vpon 2. Thes. 2. That Antichrist shall restore libertie to the Romans but in his owne name Bellarmine answereth That he readeth no where in Iohn that the beast which signifieth the Romane Empire was to be cured by antichrist Yea but this he might haue read that the second beast which is Antichrist causeth the image of the beast that is the new Empire to be made and putteth life vnto it For by this renuing of the Empire Bellarmine elswhere De translat imperij lib. 1. c. 4. prosesseth that the Romane Empire was restored to the same estate wherin it was before Augustulus But what hath Bellarmine read in Iohn Forsooth That one of the heads of the beast should dye and shortly after rise againe by the helpe of the diuel which the Ancient expouÌ„d of Antichrist who shall faine himselfe to be dead and by diuellish art rise againe that so by resembling the true death and resurrection of Christ he might seduce many First it is euident that the former beast figureth not Antichrist but the Romane state and that vnder the Romane Emperors especially Secondly it is not said that one of the heads did faine it selfe dead and by the helpe of the diuell did rise againe which needed not if the death were couÌ„terfeit but that one of the heads had receiued a deadly wound was cured againe The head was the state of the Emperours to wit the sixt head which receiued a deadly wound in Augustulus after whom the Empire in the West lay voide 325. yeares But this head was cured after a sort in Charlemaine his successouâ—…s in whom there was an image of the former Emperours erected by the Pope And therefore this state of Emperours renued in Charlemaine and his successours is said to be the eight head of the beast yet is one of the seuen So that the sixt head which before was wouÌ„ded to death was cured after a sort repaired in theÌ„ This in substance is confessed by Bellarmine himself in this chapt where vnderstanding by the two legs of the image §. quod 〈◊〉 in Daniel the Westerne and Easterne Empire he saith That the Westerne which was the one leg failed namely in Augustulus and was after erected in Charlemaine and that as else-wheré he boasteth by the Pope Now whereas Bellarmine laboureth to prooue that this head which was wounded to death and reuiued againe is not Charles the great he sheweth himselfe rediculous in fighting with his owne shadow For by the head is not meant any one man but the state and succession of Emperours which was interrupted and cut off in Augustulus renewed in Charles the great and his successours And that which is added concerning the vniuersalitie either of worship or of rule is not spoken of the head which was reuiued but of the beast which was to Apoc. 13. 7. 8. haue one of his seauen heads wounded to death cuted againe The sixt Chapter answering his third demonstration concerning Enoch and Elias 1. NOw we are to come to those signes which in Bellarmines conceit are to accompany Antichrist the former wherof is the comming of Enoch and Elias in the flesh to oppose themselues against Antichrist and to conuert the Iewes From whence Bellarmine reasoneth thus If Enoch and Elias be not yet come againe in the flesh then Antichrist is not yet come But Enoch and Elias are not yet come againe in the flesh and therefore Antichrist is not yet come To the proposition I answer first that if Enoch and Elias were to come in their owne persons before the second comming of Christ as some of the Ancient haue thought and that to oppose themselues against Antichrist as the Papists dreame yet it followeth not that therefore Antichrist should not be come before their comming It is sufficient that they come before his ouerthrowe and the second comming of Christ. And therefore if they were indeed to come their coÌ„ming might yet be expected notwithstanding the truth of our assertion that Antichrist is already come But if Enoch and Elias be not to come againe in their owne persons before the end of the world to fight against Antichrist what force of
argument is there in this worthy demonstration This therefore Bellarmine maketh the question which he goeth about to prooue First by testimonies of Scripture Secondly by consent of the fathers Thirdly by reason 2. There be foure Scriptures saith Bellarmine to prooue that Enoch and Elias in their owne persons shall come against Antichrist Howbeit this is a manifest vntrueth for no place of Scripture speaketh of Enoch his returne The first Malach. 4. 5. Behold I will send vnto you Elias the Prophet before the great and fearefull day of the Lord come and he shall turne the hearts of the fathers vnto the children and the hearts of the children vnto their fathers This place maketh no mention of Enoch but onely of Elias and by Elias is meant not Elias the Thesbite but Iohn the Baptist who as the Luke 1. 17. Angel applying to him this prophecy saith should go before the Lord Iesus in the spirit and power of Elias that he may turne the hearts of the fathers vnto the children c. And our sauior Christ Mat. 11. 14 most plainely affirmeth that Iohn Baptist is that Elias who was to come and if you will receiue saith he that is if you will giue credit to my speech this is that Elias who was to come And addeth he that hath eares to heare let him heare Which sheweth that the Papists neither haue harts to beleeue Christ nor eares to heare him but haue opē both hearts to receiue and eares to heare the fables of the Iewes who as they yet looke for their Messias so they looke also for Elias to be his forerunner For as Ierome writeth vpon this place of Malachy the Iewes and Iudaizing heretickes thinke that before their Messias Elias shal come and restore all things Hence it is that vnto Christ this question is propounded in the Gospell what is that which the Pharisies say that Elias shall come to whom he answered Elias indeed shal come and if you will beleeue he is already come by Elias meaning Iohn And therefore in Ieromes iudgement it is but the opinion of a Iudaizing hereticke to expect the comming againe of Elias in his owne person Yea but saith Bellarmine this place cannot be vnderstood of Iohn Baptist but of Elias onely For Malachy speaketh of the second comming of Christ which shal be vnto iudgement For so he saith before the great terrible day of the Lord come for his first comming is not called great and terrible but the acceptable time day of saluation Whereupon it is also added least when I come I strike the earth with a curse But Christ in his first comming came not to judge but to be judged 3. Answ. Bellarmine must giue vs leaue to beleeue the Angell Luke 1. 17 Mat. 11. 14 Math. 17. of God and our Sauiour Christ rather then himselfe who is not affraid as it seemeth to giue the lie to the spirit of God speaking in both Neither can he prooue that Malachie speaketh of the second comming of Christ for therin the Papists erre worse then the Iewes For both the text it selfe also the application therof by the Angell and our Sauiour Christ do prooue that Elias was to come before the first comming of Christ which is great to the godly and terrible to the wicked And therfore in the beginning of the third Chapter the Prophet speaking most plainly of the first comming of Christ before which the Lord promiseth to send his messenger that is Iohn Baptist to prepare the way before Mat. 11. 10. Mark 1. 2. him signifieth that this comming is great and fearefull verse 2. But who may abide the day of his comming and who shall endure when he appeareth for he is like a purging fire and like Pullers Sope and he shall sit downe to trie and fine the siluer Of the same comming he speaketh in the beginning of the fourth Chapter Behold the day commeth that shall burne as an Ouen c. shewing how terrible it shall be to the wicked But vnto you that feare my name saith the Lord verse 2. shall the sunne of righteousnesse arise and health shall be vnder his wings c. And before this great day commeth he promiseth them to send them Elias that is Iohn Baptist to whom our Sauiour applieth the Prophesie of Malachie both Chapter 3. 1. and Chapter 4. 5. In like sort Iohn Baptist himselfe describeth the first comming of Christ as terrible in respect of the wicked Now saith he is the Axe laide to the roote of the trees c. Math. 3. 10. and verse 11. and 12. He that commeth after me is mightier then I he will Baptize you with the holy Ghost and with fire which hath his Fanne in his hand vsing the like similitude that Malachie did and will purge his Floore and gather his Wheate into his Garner but will burne vp the Chaffe with vnquenchable fire Symeon also saith of our Sauiour that he was appointed both for the fall of the wicked and Luke 2. 34. rising of the godly And elsewhere he is called a stumbling stone and a Rocke of offence vpon which stone whosoeuer falleth Rom. 9. 33. he shall be broken in peeces but on whomsoeuer it shall fall it shall all Mat. 21. 44. to grind him If notwithstanding all this which hath beene alledged any man shall thinke the first comming of the Lord not so fitly to be called terrible I further answer that the Hebrew word Norah signifieth also reuerend to be feared or had in reuerence as Gen. 28. 17. Deut. 7. 21. and so is translated by Tremelius and Iunius in this place of Malachie And thus both that word and others of the same roote are vsed in the signification Psal. 130. 4 of reuerence or filiall feare And whereas it is added that Elias should be sent to conuert the people Least when I come saith the Lord I should strike the earth with a curse the meaning is that the Lord would send his messenger to prepare the way before him that some of the people at the least might be ready to receiue our Sauiour Christ least if all should reject him he should be prouoked to strike the land for at his second comming he shall without peraduenture strike the earth And in this exposition of Malachie besides others Arias Montanus the most learned writer among the Papists doth wholy agree with In Malach. vs expounding this Prophesie of Iohn Baptist whom he calleth another Elias and of the first comming of Christ. Thus therefore I answer First that Malachie speaketh not of Enoch but of Elias onely and secondly of Elias his comming not with Antichrist but before Christ thirdly that before the first comming of Christ fourthly and consequently not of Elias literally but of Iohn Baptist who came in the spirit and power of Elias 4. The second place is Ecclesiastic 48. 10. 44. 16. In the former place it is said of Elias That he was appointed to