only within their owne Trib◠for I can assure him that neither the Kings nor the Nobility of England will imitate those of Iuda in this and it will be their only way to get a Law enacted that their generation may succeed them in their Ministry which M. Downam seemeth to wish and to mislike that law not a little which in a parenthesis he telleth vs hath otherwise prouided These are the base and carnall cogitations of these new Ghospellers and yet all will not serue for they shall neuer find a remedy for this their griefe except they returne to the Catholike Church whom◠they may thanke for the liuing they haue But in it God hath prouided for this all other inconueniences that can any way arise and in particuler for the deciding of all questions and controuersies Wherefore if the Protestants and Puritans will haue an end of this of their Bishops and Presbitery they must of necessity stand to the Catholike Churches iudgment in which they shall find Bishops established and yet sometimes by reason of persecution Priestes only without Bishops as now we see in our Country where conformable to that which in their iudgmēt was practised in the Primitiue Church in many places at least for a tyme we haue hitherto only Priestes subordinate to an Arch-Priest but yet we are far from misliking Bishops but do both wish and expect them when our lawfull Superiour who succeedeth the chiefest of the Apostles shall see it conuenient M. C. A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS of this first Part of Antichrist THE disputation of Antichrist is propounded and the first Argument from the name it selfe discussed CHAP. I. That Antichrist shal be a certaine determinate man CHAP. II. That Antichrist is not yet come CHAP. III. The first demonstration That Antichrist is not yet come CHAP. IIII. The second demonstration CHAP. V. The third demonstration CHAP. VI. The fourth demonstration CHAP. VII The fifth demonstration CHAP. VIII The sixt demonstration CHAP. IX Of Antichristes Name CHAP. X. Of Antichristes Character CHAP. XI Of Antichristes Generation CHAP. XII Of Antichristes Seate CHAP. XIII Of Antichristes doctrine CHAP. XIIII Of Antichristes myracles CHAP. XV. Of Antichristes Kingdome warres CHAP. XVI Of Gog and Magog CHAP. XVII The dotages of Heretikes are confuted with which they do not so much proue as impudently affirme that the Pope is Antichrist CHAP. XVIII The trifles of the Smalcaldicall Synod of the Lutheranes are confuted CHAP. XIX Caluins lyes are refuted CHAP. XX. The lyes of Illyricus are refuted CHAP. XXI The fooleryes of Tylemanus are refuted CHAP. XXII The lyes of Chytraeus are refuted CHAP. XXIII The arguments of Caluin and Illyricus are confuted who go about to proue that the Pope is no longer a Bishop where also the fable of Pope Ioane the Woman is confuted CHAP. XXIIII CARDINALL BELLARMINES THIRD BOOKE of the Pope THE FIRST CHAPTER VVherin the disputation of Antichrist is propounded WEE haue demonstrated hitherto saith Bellarmine that the Pope succeedeth S. Peter in the chiefest Princedome of the whole Church It remayneth that wee see whether at any tyme the Pope hath fallen from this degree for that our aduersaries contend that hee is not at this time a true Bishop of Rome whatsoeuer hee was before And Nilus in the end of his booke against the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome speaketh thus But let that be the summe and head of my speach that while the Pope keepeth in the Church a conuenient heauenly and of ancient tyme appoynted order while hee holdeth and defendeth the heauenlie truth while he cleaueth to Christ the chiefe and true Lord and head of the Church I will easilie suffer him to be both the head of the Church the chiefest Priest the successor of Peter or els if he will of all the Apostles that all obey him and that whatsoeuer belongeth to his honour be in nothing diminished but if he be departed from the truth will not returne to it he ought deseruedly to be accounted of as one that is condemned and reiected But he should haue shewed into what errours the Bishops of Rome are fallen and when and by whome they were condemned For we know that in the Generall Lateran Councell vnder Innocentius the third and of Lyons vnder Gregory the tenth and of Florence vnder Eugenius the fourth the Greekes being conuicted of errour returned to the Faith of the Latins and afterward alway returned to their vomit againe and were therefore most grieuouslie punished by God but we neuer read that the Latins came to the Faith of the Greekes Neither can there any Ecclesiasticall iudgmēt be produced against the Latins as wee bring many against the Greekes Now Caluin Lib. 4. cap. 7. § 22. Let saith he all those things be true which notwithstanding wee haue now wrested from them that Peter was by the voice of Christ appointed Head of the vniuersall Church that he left the honour giuen vnto him in the Roman Sea that this was established by the authoritie of the auncient Church confirmed by long vse that the chiefest authoritie was alway due from all to the Bishop of Rome and that he was the iudge of all causes and men that he was subiect to the iudgement of none let them haue more also if they will Yet I answere in one word that nothing of this standeth in force except the Church and Bishop be at Rome And after § 24. Let the Romanists vntie me this knott I deny that their Pope is the Prince of Bishops since that he is not a Bishop And after Let Rome in tymes past haue bin the Mother of all Churches but since she began to become the seate of Antichrist she left to be that which she was And after § 25. VVee seeme to some backbyters and slanderers when wee call the Bishop of Rome Antichrist but they which thinke soe vnderstand not that they accuse Paul of immodesty after whome we speake yea out of whose mouth we speake soe And least any obiect that we wrongfullie wrest Paules wordes against the Pope which perteine to another purpose I will brieflie shew that they cannot be vnderstood otherwise then of the Popedome So he The like teach al the heretikes of this tyme chieflie Luther in supput temporum in assert art 28. 36. and often in other places Likewise the Magdeburgenses Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. colum 434. sequent and in all the following Centuries cap. 4. 7. 10. Illyricus in lib. de primat Dauid Chrytraus in cap. 9. 13. Apoc. Likewise VVolsgangus Musculus in loc commun tit de Ecclesia Theodor. Beza in Com. 2. Thessal 2. Theodor. Bibliander in Chron. tabul 10. 11. 12. 14. Henricus Pantaleon in Chron. Henricus Bullinger praesat in suas homil ad Apocal. And before all these Iohn VVicklisse art 30. amongst those which are condemned in Concil Constantiensi sess 8. pronounced the Pope to be Antichrist VVherfore that this question may
there be betwixt Dioscorus Patriarch of the second Sea presiding in a generall Councell and Luther a simple Monke writing in his chamber But now leauing Luther let vs come to Melancthon THE NINTEENTH CHAPTER The trifles of the Smalchaldicall Synod of the Lutherans are confuted THERE is a booke of the Power Primacy of the Pope or of the Kingdome of Antichrist put forth in the name of the Smalchaldicall Synod which to me seemeth to be Melancthons but whosoeuers it be it hath nothing but words vayne bragging It is well knowne saith the Author of the booke that the Bishops of Rome with their members defend impious doctrine and impious worships and plainly the notes of Antichrist agree to the kingdome of the Pope and his members Hitherto the Proposition Now let vs heare the proofes for Paul ad Thessal describing Antichrist calleth him the aduersary of Christ extolling himselfe aboue all that is said or worshipped for God suting in the Temple as God wherfore he speaketh of some that raigneth in the Church not of Heathen Kings and him he calleth the aduersary of Christ because he shall inuent doctrine repugnant to the Ghospell and he will vsurpe to himselfe diuine authority Although all this if it were true would hurt vs very little yet I aske vpon what foundation this exposition is built S. Paul plainly saith that Antichrist shall extoll himselfe aboue euery God and that he shall sit in the Temple not as a King not as a Bishop but plainely as a God and this same expresly affirme S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose and the rest of the ancient Fathers interpreters of this place With what right do you then without witnesse and without reason affirme that he is Antichist who sitteth in the Temple not as a God but as a Bishop And is so far from extolling himselfe aboue euery God that he doth not only adore God the Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost but also in the presence of all the people prostrateth himselfe before the Sacrament of the Eucharist before the Tombes of the Apostles and Martyrs before the Crosse and Images of Christ and his Saintes which you your selues though impiously are wont to call strange Gods and Idolls But let vs see how you apply this same to the Pope The Synode And first it is manifest that the Pope reigneth in the Church and vnder the pretext of Ecclesiasticall authority and Ministry hath made himselfe this Kingdome for he pretended these wordes I will giue vnto thee the Keyes Bellarmine You say indeed that the Pope reigneth in the Church but you proue it not But we can easily shew the contrary for he that reigneth acknowledgeth not any superiour in his Kingdome but the Pope professeth himselfe to be the Vicar and Seruant of Christ his King And although he vseth most ample power in the whole House of God and in the vniuersail Kingdome of Christ notwithstanding that power exceedeth not the condition of an administrator and seruant for Moyses also as S. Paul saith Hebr. 3. was faithfull in the whole house of God but as a seruant and Christ as a Sonne in his owne But to go forward The Synode Besides the doctrine of the Pope is many wayes repugnant to the Ghospell and vsurpeth to himselfe diuyne authority in three manners First in that he taketh to himselfe authority to change the doctrine of Christ and the worships instituted by God and he will haue his doctrine and his worships obserued as if they were diuine Bellarmine This likewise you say but proue it not and it seemeth to vs not only false but also a most impudent lye for you are not ignorant that in the Catholike Church it is taught by all that the doctrine of Christ and worships cannot be changed by any man no nor by any Angell neither Was there euer any question betwixt you and vs whether that which Christ taught or commaunded ought to be belieued and done but whether you or we interprete better the doctrine and procepts of Christ In which question you in a manner are wont to bring nothing els but your owne interpretation but we bring the consent of the Fathers and either the decrees or customes of the Catholike Church for we do not oppose as you falsely brag the consents of the Fathers and the decres and customes of the Church to the word of God but to your iudgement and interpretation But let vs heere the second proofe The Synode Secondly because he taketh to himselfe not only power to loose and bynd in this world but also power ouer soules after this life Bellarmine This also is said but not proued for the Pope doth not take to himselfe authority ouer the soules of the departed since that he doth not absolue them from their sinnes and punishments by his authority but only communicate with them the prayers and the good workes of the faithfull which lyue by manner of suffrage And all the ancient Fathers do teach that the prayers and almes of the liuing and chiefly the Sacrifice of the Masse do profit the dead of which since we haue largely disputed els where it shal be sufficient to haue noted one testimony of S. Augustine in this place wherefore serm 34. de verb. Apost S. Augustine speaketh thus It is not to be doubted that the dead are holpen by the prayers of the holy Church and the wholsome Sacrifice and the almes which are giuen for their soules But let vs go on The Synode Thirdly because the Pope will not be iudged by the Church or any other and taketh away their authority from the iudgment of Councells and of the whole Church But this is to make himselfe God to refuse to be iudged by the Church or by any other Bellarmine Heere also two things are said which are not proued for first by what Scriptures by what Councells by what reason do you proue that the Pope ought to be iudged by the Councells or the Church For we read to omit other things which are sufficiently disputed in the former booke that it was said to S. Peter by Christ Iohn 21. Feed my sheep and we thinke that there can be no doubt that the sheep are to be ruled and iudged by the Sheepheard and not the Sheephard by the sheep We also read Luc. 12. that it was said to the same Peter VVho thinkest thou is a faithfull and prudent Dispenser whom the Lord appointeth ouer his family In which place we see a certain Steward put ouer the whole family of Christ certainly to gouerne it and not to be gouerned by it And least perhaps some should obiect what if he were a naughty Steward by whom shall he be iudged if he be aboue all and subiect to none Therfore our Lord addeth forth with And if that seruant shall say in his hart my Lord delayeth to come and shall begin to strike the Men and Maid-seruants and to eate and drinke and be drunke the Lord of that seruant will come in
vs see therfore how he answereth to Bellarmines reasons First to the Fathers he saith that none of them hath that word vno as though it were not sufficient that they haue others equiualent and yet S. Augustine lib. 2. contra Aduersar legis cap. 12. expresly distinguisheth the chiefe Antichrist froÌ„ others in that he is vnâ—â— maior ceteris and they multi And S. Hierom in Dan. 7. calleth him vnum de hominibus Secondly he sayth that the Fathers vnderstand that place also of S. Matth. 24. v. 24. Matth. 24. where our Sauiour speaketh in the plurall nuÌ„ber of Antichrist as though the chiefe proper Antichrist may not be one man because there will be others like vnto him though farre inferiour in malice Wherfore when our Sauiour speaketh generally of all false Prophets no doubt he excludeth not the chiefest of them but includeth him in the first place so that whatsoeuer is common to all doth most fitlie agree to him and therfore it is noe meruaile though the Fathers take it as spoken principally of him But on the other side when our Sauiour maketh mention only of one he is not to be vnderstood of all And this is the difference betweene the Fathers exposition and M. Downams that they obserue the first and he the second and therefore it is no meruaile though they do not agree Neither is it against the Fathers that the Iewes haue receaued more then one but it is against M. Downam that they haue not receaued all that came besides that it is hard to shew that so many of the Iewes receaued any one false Prophet as those were that receaued the true Christ whereas our Sauiour plainly affirmeth that they shall generally receaue him of whoÌ„ he speaketh Wherfore thirdly he telleth the Fathers roundly that they had no reason to restraine those words Downam reiecteth the Fathers vnto Antichrist alone against them all opposeth Nonius a Poet in his paraphrase who expoundeth it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but if any other come As though this Poets authority were equall to all the Fathers or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might not signify aliquu or quidaÌ„ aswell as â—llâ—â— or quis some or acertayne aswell as any especially in a Poet who is sometime constrained to straine the sense to make vp his verse Lastly he addeth if these answeres of his will not suffice theÌ„ yet he will not yield except he see first proued that whatsoeuer those Fathers wrote concerning Antichrist is true But I hope he will be better aduised and thinke it sufficient that whatsoeuer our Sauiour saith of Antichrist is true and that in vnderstanding his meaning we must rather belieue such learned men as haue the authority of the Fathers on their side theÌ„ those that trust only to their owne wits hauing neither more learning nor iudgment then the other For I perswade my selfe that M. Downam wil not preferre himselfe before Bellarmine in either 2. To the first confirmation he answereth that when alius is taken definitely as Io. 18. 16. 20. 2. 3. 4. then it is true but where it is vsed indefinitely as Iob 31. 8. 1. Cor. 3. 10. and in this place then it is not And by his citing of the Greeke word in the first sense with an article and in the second without it Downam mistaketh Bellarmine should seeme he would haue that to be the signe in whether sense it is to be taken But all this discourse proceedeth from want of vnderstanding Bellarmines confirmation for he goeth not about to proue that our Saniour speaketh of the cheife and proper Antichrist but this supposed gathereth that he shall be one particuler man for that he opposeth him as one person to himselfe who was one particuler person also To which M. Downam answereth not but onlie denieth the supposition as though Bellarmine had gone about to proue that with this confirmation neither doth that rule of the greeke article hould alway especially in M. Downams sense and opinion as we shall see a little after To the second confirmation he denieth that Christ foretel leth that Antichrist shal be receaued of the Iewes for their Messias First because his speach is conditionall and onlie sheweth them what in respect of their present disposition they were ready to doe As though this were not inough for Bellarmines confirmation for it is certayne they would not haue receaued him as their Messias if he were not a particuler man which is all that Bellarmine intendeth to proue Now besides in the Scripture the word if somtime signifieth when which the Fathers iudge also If for when Esay 4. 4. Ioan 14. 3. to be in this place Secondly M. Downam saith that the word alius is indefinite But that is onlie his owne interpretation against the Fathers Thirdly he saith that our Sauiour did not say that they would receaue him for their Messias but so he is to be vnderstood For that they were to receaue him as they were bound and refused to receaue our Sauiour for of this he speaketh Fourthly he saith that the Iewes to whome of whome our Sauiour speaketh shall not be aline at the comming of the great Antichrist according to the opinion of the Papists themselues But M. Downam should haue remembred that not a whole leafe before he himselfe said that Bellarmine and the rest of the Papists vnderstand Christ to speake of those Iewes which shal be in the end of the world To the third Confirmation first M. Downam saith that it would proue Antichrist to be us false Prophet which is true if he speake of the infeour sort of false Prophets After he giueth another exposition that he shall come vnsent of God or as Lyra sayth that he shall not haue testimonies from God as Christ had neither of which are contrary to Bellarmines exposition but rather both included in it But besides the negatiue he shall also haue the affirmatine as both our Sauiour S. Paul saith against whome M. Downams argument concludeth not which is thus The Iewes expect their Messias from God and consequently he shall professe himselfe to be sent from God for what knoweth M. Downam whether he will say that he is their God himselfe not sent by any other person for that he will deny the Trinity or though at the first he should deale otherwise it is certaine that at length he will extoll himself aboue all Gods as S. Paul saith and consequently then he will professe himselfe to come in his owne name for that he acknowledgeth no Superiour or equall in whose name he should come To the fourth CoÌ„firmation he answereth that because our Sauiour speaketh conditionally and indefinitelie there is not so much as any shew of reason in it But Bellarmine proued that our Sauiour spake definitely of the chiefe and proper Antichrist and though he speaketh conditionally his confirmation is in force for that hindereth not the particularity of him whom he speaketh
vpon denials as his doth but rather vpon the affirmative Catholike doctrine standeth not so much vpoÌ„ denialls as that of ProtestaÌ„ts and so though we affirme and proue that the Ghospell is to be preached in the whole world before the end of the world yet we deny not but that it was in some sort so preached before the destruction of Ierusalem thinke that our Sauiour with his diuine wisdome comprehended both in the same wordes for the one being a figure of the other the same wordes may very well be vnderstood of both as we see they were by the Fathers though chiefly for the most WheÌ„ the proper expositioÌ„ is to bee preferred part of the proper distinct preaching in the whole world as the wordes properly taken doe import And wee thinke S. Augustins rule very true that when the wordes may be so taken without manifest absurditie that is the true sense most certaine for otherwise we should haue no certainty lib. 3. de doct christia cap 7. in vnderstanding Scripture at all and in this case admitting both senses may fitly be vsed that vulgar saying of the Mathematicians Quod fit in circulo fit in caelo that which agreeeth in a circle may due proportion obserued be applied to the Heauens which are like to a circle in being round as likewise the end of the world is to the destruction of Hierusalem in many thinges And thus much for the first difference about the word Consummation 13. But now there remaineth another about the great Tribulation which M. Downam likewise denieth to be any other then that of the Iewes and would faine father this exposition vpon S. Chrysostome also which as in the other wee may graunt to be probable but onlie M. Downam will deny that of S. Augustine and other Fathers for none of theÌ„ By the great Tribulation Matth. 24. is meant the persecution of Antichrist a little before the end of the world are so forward as he in denying because they had not his spirit of contradiction and indeed the matter is so plaine that he had need to haue an hard forhead that should deny it S. Marke cap. 13. saith In illis diebus post tribulationem illam sol contenebrabitur c. In those dayes after that Tribulation the sunne shal be darkened c. which happened not after the destruction of Hierusalem except M. Downam will run to that shift to say that it happened after though it were long first which though it were very ridiculous and absurd in it self yet S. Matth. also wholy excludeth it with adding statim forthwith Statim autem post tribulationem dierum illorum sol obscurabitur c. And straight after the tribulation of those daies the sun shal be darkened c. And heere I leaue M. Downam in this strait hoping he will learne to attribute more to the Fathers expositioÌ„s hereafter seeing them so conformable to Gods word 14. And to conclude this Chapter let vs see what M. Downam hath replyed against Bellarmines answere to the obiection where we must note that he endeauoreth onlie to impugne the first answere and to the other two hath not so much as a word to saie for that indeed whatsoeuer he had said against them had byn also against himselfe as likewise against all experience and the proofes with which Bellarmine proued his Minor to wit that at none of those tymes which the heretikes assigne for Antichrists coÌ„ming and much lesse in the Apostles tymes the Ghospell had bene preached properlie in the whole world and therefore wheÌ„ the Apostle saith that it had bene preached in the whole world he were either to be vnderstood figuratiuelie or by fame which are Bellarmines two latter solutions not misliked by M. Downam though if his distinction of preaching but not receauing the Ghospell in the whole world were to the purpose he should graunt the preaching to haue bene properlie in the whole world and so contradict himselfe and fall into the absurdities before mentioned or els be inforced to yield to Bellarmines first solution also which he so eagerlie impugneth that S. Paul Rom. 10. tooke the tyme past for the tyme to come which he calleth a cauillation Rom. 10. thinking that he may be bould with Bellarmine but yet he might haue borne a little more respect to S. Augustine whose Downams immodesty solution it is especiallie hauing so little to say against it You shall heare his owne wordes But say I the Apostle proueth that the Iewes had heard the Ghospell because the sound of the preachers thereof was gone through all the earth and therefore they from whome the Ghospell proceeded to other Nations caâ—â—not be ignorant therof And now let any man iudge if it had not bene more wisdome modestie for M. Downam to haue alleadged S. Chrysostome whose exposition this is as Bellarmine did S. Augustine then to come out with an I say only affirming but prouing nothing neither by authoritie or reason as likewise to haue admitted both these expositions for probable as Bellarmine doth and not set one Father against another who agree well inough and are not so addicted to their owne priuate iudgment that they condemne any other probable opinion though they thinke their owne more probable Now whether of these two opinions is more probable I leaue to others to examine since it were from my purpose to discusse that question But if M. Downam will needes contend I remit him to Cardinall Tolets exposition vpon this place where he explicateth and defendeth S. Augustines opinion against whome if he hath any thing to say in this point he shall not goe vnanswered But I would wish him rather to prooue then to scoffe especiallie at S. Augustine other Fathers otherwise to any discret Reader he will seeme too ridiculous though he vseth all his Sophistrie as he doth heere by telling vs that the Ghospell could not bring How the Ghospell was in the whole world in the Apostles tyme. forth fruite vnlesse it were actuallie and to shew his great learning noteth the same sense in the margent both in latin and greeke But he must know that as it is necessary that the Ghospell should be actuallie in some place of the world before it bringeth forth fruit so is it sufficient that it be vertuallie in the whole world the verie increasing extending it selfe is one manner of â—ringing forth fruite of which the Apostle speaketh which could not be if already the Ghospell had bene actuallie in the whole world and therefore it is to be vnderstood only vertuallie in respect of the whole world as is well declared by the example of a Citty set on fire in some places which may trulie be said to be all on fire vertuallie though actuallie onlie some parts of it be soe And thus wee haue seene what M. Downam hath ben able to saie for himselfe not hauing omitted anie shift of his except he would haue vs
in euerie Scripture of these foure both Henoch and Helias had byn named or at leastwise spoken of for so M. Downam seemeth to charge him saying forth with Howbeit this is a manifest vntruth for no place of Scripture speaketh of Henoch his returne But Bellarmines words are these Quatuor Scripturae exstāt de haec re There be foure Scriptures cōcerning this matter Now whether any of these places speake of Henoch his returne or no we shall see Downam alleageth Bellarmines wordes falslie ere long in the meane tyme it is sufficient that the Reader note M. Downams shuffling and that Bellarmine affirmeth not that all these Scriptures speake of Henoch nor yet that he is named in any of them wherefore his note in the first place is either malicious or foolish that this place maketh no mention of Henoch but onlie of Helias for of this there was neuer made any question but by himselfe Wherefore leauing these his shiftes let vs heare what he can answere to that place of Malachy He denieth that by Elias is meant Elias the Thesbite but Iohn the Baptist which he Malach. 4. will needes prooue also because Luc. 1. the Angell saith that S. Iohn should go before our Lord in the spirit and vertue of Helias Luc. 1. that he may turne the hartes of the Fathers vnto the Children c. but who seeth not that this is onlie to be Helias spirituallie and vertuallie or as Bellarmine speaketh allegorically which no Catholike denieth but withall wee affirme that Helias litterallie is to come in the tyme of Antichrist as Bellarm. proueth out of the place of Malachy which it seemeth M. Downam is loath to heare of and therefore he interrupteth him so disorderly with prouing when it is his turne to answere But we will beare with his rudenesse so that he will be satisfied with any reason Wherfore secondly be bringeth Matth. 11. where he saith that our Saviour most plainaly affirmeth I. IX that Iohn Baptist is that Helias who was to come But we must Matth. 11. tell him ere he passe any further that he is somewhat too bould to change our Sauiours wordes who not without great cause said not who was to come as M. Downā would make Downam corrupteth the Scripture him but who is to come signifying plainely that S. Iohn Baptist comming had not fulfilled the prophesie of Malachie since that Elias was still to come after him and consequentlie that S. Iohn Baptist was onlie Elias spirituallie c. as hath bene said because he endeauoured to conuert the Iewes which lyued then as Elias shall do those which shall liue in the time of Antichrist both of thē haue for office to prepare for our Sauiours comming S. Iohn for the first and Elias for the second I omit M. Downams exposition of the other words in that place as impertinent because they are not to this purpose and as for his railing wee must be content to put vp that and more at such good fellowes handes Thirdly M. Downā alleageth S. Hierome who affirmeth that the Iewes and Iudaizing Heretikes thinke that before their Messias Elias shall come and restore all thinges Hence it is that vnto Christ this question is propounded in the Ghospell what is that which the Pharisies say that Elias shall come To whom he answered Elias indeed shall come and if you will belieue he is alreadie come by Elias meaning Iohn And therefore saith M. Downam in Hieromes iudgemēt it is but the opinion of a Iudaizing heretike to expect the comming againe of Elias in his owne person But sure wee are that this is not S. Hieromes iudgement if wee speake of the second comming of our Sauiour since hee himselfe in the 17. of Matth. affirmeth of Helias that he shall come then iuxta corporis fidem in bodilie presence and that in the first comming he came by S. Iohn in vertue and spirit by which it most plainelie appeareth that hee onlie condemneth them for Iewes and Iudaizing heretikes which will not receaue any Messias till they first see Elias in his owne person because they expound the Prophet Malachy of the first comming of the Messias as M. Downam doth only they differ that M. Downā thinketh that Helias is not litterally spoken of In which point he erreth more grossely then they as we shall see afterward 3. Now that M. Downam hath spent his owne proofes be is content to begin to answere Bellarmines who proueth that Malachy speaketh of the second comming because he calleth it a great and horrible day Where M. Downam is not ashamed to say that Bellarmine giueth the lie to the spirit of God speaking in the Angel Luc. 1. and our Sauiour Matth. 11. 17. But Downame impudenty surely he deserueth to haue the lye giuen him that is not afraid nor ashamed to behaue himselfe so impudently VVell it is our hard happe to haue to doe with such men Let vs see what he answereth for the application of the Angell and our Sauiour wee haue already seene that it was only a spirituall vertuall or allegoricall application which hindereth not the litterall sense of the second comming as Bellarmine prooueth Malach. 3. v. 1. But M. Downam answereth to his argument that the first comming may also be called terrible which he confirmeth out of Malac. 3. v. 1. where he speaketh most plainly of the first cōming and yet saith who may abyde the day of his comming and who shall endure when he appeareth for he is like a purging fier and like fullers sope and he shall sit downe to try and fine the siluer But we may well oppose the authority of S. Augustine to M. Downam without doing him iniury He therfore lib. 18. Ciu. cap. 35. and lib. 20. cap. 25. 26. as likewise Euseb lib. 5. demonst Euang. cap. 28. and Theodoretus expound these wordes of the second comming though immediately before the Prophet spake of the first But yet we will do M. Downam the courtesy to graunt that they are to be vnderstood of the first with S. Cyril Rupertus and others so that he will admit their interpretation in other points for the sense is who can so much as think how great the glory of this day is by reason of the benefites which the Messias shall bring with him to mankind and who can sufficiently admire or rather looke vpon so great a light and goodnesse For he shal be like a purging fyre by reason of the labours and afflictions or rather of the holy Ghost which shall come in fyery tongues with which he shall purge the hartes of those which belieue in him like the sope or her be of Fullers by reason of his grace with which he shall make the soules of men most pure and white and he shall do this most seriously and with great diligence All which signifyeth not the torrible and horrible day but an acceptable and healthsome tyme. And heere by the way wee may
which he saith that Irenaeus preferred another name before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and M. Downam graunteth that it is true indeed that he seemeth to do so and addeth that they buyld not vpon Irenaeus his authority but vpon those reasons whereupon his coniecture is grounded which are two the one because it is the name of that Kingdome which is figured vnder the former beast Apoc. 13 7. whos 's authority Antichrist was to vsurpe and he translateth Irenaeus thus It is the name of that which most truly is called the Kingdome for they are the Latines that now raigne and addeth his Apoc. 13. owne exposition making Irenaeus say that it is the name of the former Beast spoken of Apoc. 13. 1. which figureth verissimum Regnum Downam corrupteth Irenaeus his wordes meaning that Kingdome which most truly is called a Kingdome that is the Latin or Roman State All which is a plaine corruption both of Irenaeus his wordes and meaning For there can be nothing more playne then that Irenaeus attributeth this number to Antichrist himselfe whome also he vnderstandeth to be signified by that former beast as commonly all other Authors doe only he giueth a reason why he thought it probable that Antichrist should take that name as Bellarmine truly explicateth and withall sheweth that though that reason might seeme to haue some force in Irenaeus his tyme now it hath none at all because the Kingdome of the Latins is decayed since that tyme. And if Irenaeus had thought that this name was to be attributed to a Kingdome or State surely he had no reason to preferre the name of Teitan before Lateinos as he did Neither are we to make any accompt of M. Downams confirmation vpon supposition that Antichrist it come for this is his ordinary fault and is called petitio Antichrist shal be a most potent King principij and his deniall that Antichrist shal be a most potent King is tooto shameles and disproued vpon diuers occasions and in this very place according to the best exposition he is said to haue the power of the 4. Monarches for the 10. Princes which shall deuyde the Roman Empire amongst them shall belong to him and he shal be like to a Pard and haue feete like a Beare and a mouth like a Lyon which are the three beastes to which the other three Monarches are compared by Daniel and lastly the Diuell signified Dan. 7. by a Dragon shall giue him his force and great power The other reason of S. Irenaeus vpon which M. Downam now saith that he graunteth his opinion though a little before he said it was easy to answere is because the letters of the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make the number 666 to which Bellarmine obiecteth that the name of Latin as it signifieth a Roman is not written with ◠but which a simple iota and then it maketh not that number M. Downam answereth that the ancient Latines vsed to write and pronounce ◠long by ◠dipthong and the Grecians vsually expresse ◠long by ◠and he obserueth The name of Latin containeth not the numbe◠666 that S. Irenaeus setting downe these two names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as conteyning 666. taketh it for graunted that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be so written whereas of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith that it maketh that number if it be written with ◠dipthong For answere of all which I reply first that M. Downam should haue shewed vs that the ancient Latins euer wrote their owne name by ◠diphong which I can hardly belieue since they tooke it from Latium which can hardly be so writtē Secondly the Grecians did not vsually write ◠long by ◠and we need go no further then to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for an example Thirdly the reason why S. Irenaeus expressed the diuersity of writing in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is plaine because he writing in greeke could not alter the greeke Orthography without much note in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a greeke word but for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he made no such difficulty because he respected only the sound and pronunciation as we commonly doe in all Greeke wordes which we wryte or vse as Latin But this hindreth not but that there is a difference betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Latinus except M. Downam thinketh that the changing or taking away of a letter will not alter the signification which were too absurd and grosse And no doubt we must rather stand to the Latin then to the Greeke Orthography of a Latin word The like obiection maketh Bellarmine The name Romansh cōteynet◠not the number 666. against Romanus for it maketh not the number except it endeth in Tau and be a feminine whereas Antichrist is to be a man by the consent of all Authors To which M. Downam answereth that collectyue names in Hebrew are indifferently expressed in either genders but he neither telleth vs what names be collectiue nor sheweth that Romanus is one of them nor produceth any authority for that he saith and therfore we are rather to stand to Bellarmines iudgment who hath written an Hebrew grammer then to M. Downams of whō we are not sure that he can read Hebrew and if by a collectyue name he exclude a proper he is farre wyde His second answer is that because the name heere spoken of is the name of the Roman State it may be feminyne since that elswhere that State is called the whore of Babylon a woman But we deny that the name is to be attributed to any other then to Antichrist himselfe and with vs agree in a manner all Authors and indeed the matter is euident and els where sufficiently See cap. 5. n. 5. c. proued Another obiection of Bellarmine is that the name signified by this number is to be the proper and vsuall name of The name which cōteyneth the number 666. shal be the proper vsuall name of Antichrist Antichrist whereas Latinus is neither and Romanus was only the proper name of one Pope who lyued but 4. monethes To which M. Downam giueth no other answere but this in these wordes Neither ought it seeing it is the name of the beast which signifieth a whole State and in setting downe Bellarmines obiection he omitteth the one halfe that it must be vsuall only making mention of the other that it must be proper And as you see his answere is as slender still running vpon that erroneous conceipt of his owne that this is not Antichrists name but of the Roman State Finally Bellarmine obiecteth that there are innumerable names which make the same number To which M. Downam after a little cauilling at some of the names which Bellarmine bringeth answereth that though it be so yet none can be the name heere spoken of vnlesse also it be the
figure of Petitio principij not only without any proofe as commonly he vseth it but against euident proofe which also he is forced to do now and then His second solution is that these notes agree also to Popish Rome both in respect of dominion vsurped more insolently ouer the Kings of the earth by the Pope then by any Emperour and in regard of most cruell persecution of the Saintes of Christ To which impudent assertion of his I see not what The Pope hath only a spiritual power ouer Princes other answere can be giuen but to refer the matter to the Readers iudgment who will easily perceaue that the Pope hath now only a spirituall power ouer Kings aswell as ouer other Christians for the good of their soules without exacting or vsurping any temporall dominion ouer their persons or estates as the old Roman Emperours did to whome they were Tributary if not altogeather subiect and whatsoeuer the Pope doth in temporall affaires it proceedeth from his spirituall authority to which no doubt temporall things do so farre belong as they may hinder or help the good of soules and no further as is largely explicated by Cardinall Bellarmine and other Catholike Deuines And as for M. Downams Saints which the Pope doth persecute I am content to referre the decision of this question whether Christian Rome may be called Babylon or no till he hath shewed vs an authenticall canonization of these his Saints and in the meane time it shall be also as certane that Ethnick Rome is meant by Babylon as that those blessed Martyrs which died in those daies were truly the Martyrs of Christ and glorious Saints 9. Thus much M. Downam thought sufficient to reply to Bellarmines answeres of their first argument and comming to the second where they contend that Antichrist shall sit in the Church of Christ because S. Paul saith that he shal sit in the temple of God he is content to let passe Bellarmines solution to the first proofe that the Apostle vnderstood the Church of Christ by the Temple of God which was because when the Apostle wrote there was no other Temple of God but the Church of Christ since that the Temple of the Iewes was ceased to be a Temple when the Iewish Sacrifice and Priesthood ceased To which Bellarmine answered that though it had ceased to be the Iewish Temple yet it ceased not forth with to be the Temple of God but belonged to the Christians so long as it remained as he proueth Downam omitteth Bellarmin his answere out of the Scriptures To which as I said M. Downam hath not one word for which cause I might also haue passed it ouer in silence but that I promised a little before to shew in this place how the Temple of Ierusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of God which as you see is no hard matter to do since that he speaketh of it as it was in his time whē it was most truly the Temple of God and besides since Antichrist shall build it againe for the Iewes and pretend not to withdraw them from the true God but to professe himself to come from him at least before he discouereth himselfe further the temple erected by him may be called the Temple of God though when he shall sit in it and shew himselfe as God he will professe himselfe to be the true God and so either auouch that he is the God of the Iewes in whose Temple he shall sit or els extoll himselfe aboue him for so much the words of S. Paul do import as we shall see afterward Concerning the place of Daniel M Downam hath foūd his tongue againe and giueth words inough but indeed nothing but words Well he replieth to all Bellarmines answers and to the first he vrgeth our Translation vsque ad consummationem finem perseuerabit desolatio and S. Hierome who saith Dan. 9. vsque ad finem mundi and others whome he nameth not because as it seemeth they were not worth the naming vsque The tēple of Hierusalem shall be built againe in the end of the world ad consummationem eamque praecisam and then he alleadgeth three places of Scripture out of which he inferreth that the word vntill signifieth rather a perpetuity then cessation before the time which seemeth therby to be limited But first we must charge M. Downam with a manifest falsification of Bellarmines words for he alleadgeth them in a different letter thus Danyel would say that the Temple should not bee reedified vntill a little before the end of the world wheras Bellarmines words are these Adillud ex Daniele respondeo vel Daniclem voluisse dicere non esse reedificandum Tēplum Downam corrupteth Bellarmines words nisi in fine mundi To that of Daniel I answere that either Daniel would say that the Temple is not to built againe but in the end of the world and is not this a great shame for a Doctour of Diuinity to be taken in so grosse an absurdity that either he must confesse that he cannot conster two words of latin or els that he is a wilfull falsifier Well now that we haue Bellarmines true words let M. Downam vrge our text and S. Hierome and see if he can pick any more out of them then that the Temple is not to be built againe before the end of the world which Bellarmine affirmeth also and only addeth that it may be Daniel meant that it was to be built in the end of the world but not before But against this M. Downam vrgeth the authoritie of others who add the word pracisam by which we might coniecture that they were some Precisians but whatsoeuer they be if by the precise consummation they meane the indiuisible instant which the Philosophers call vltimum quod non they shew thēselues to be more precise then wise for the Scripture is not to be interpreted so precisely or metaphysically but after the manner of common and ordinary speach as when we say such a man made not his will till his death we meane that he made it then c. And as for the three authorities of Scripture it were no hard matter to find 300. for M. Downams three where it is otherwise taken but now one or two shall suffice as Gen. 49. when Iacob foretould that the Scepter should not be taken from Iuda vntill the comming of Gen. 46. 2. Reg. 1. The word Vntill signifieth neither continuance nor cessation but is indifferent to both the Messias the sense is plaine that it was to be taken from them then yea a little before also if M. Downam will needes vrge that point Likewise 2. Reg. 1. where Dauid and those which were with him are said to haue mourned for Saul and Ionathas c. vsque ad vesperam vntill the euening I hope M. Downam will giue vs leaue to thinke that they left mourning then wherfore it is a fond illation of M. Downam to inferre a perpetuity out of
the day which he hopeth not and in the houre he knoweth not and will deuide him and put his part with Infidels Do you heare who is the Iudge of the euill Steward whome our Lord hath appointed ouer his Family For Christ saith not that he shal be iudged by a Councell but the Lord will come in the day which he hopeth not and that which followeth Wherfore our Lord reserueth to himselfe the iudgment of that Seruant whom he hath appointed ouer all his Family and therfore the Pope taketh not away their authority from the iudgment of the Councells and the whole Church when he suffereth not himselfe to be iudged by it for that caÌ„not be taken away which was neuer giuen But neuer did the Councells rightly congregated euer take that to themselues that excepting the case of Heresy they would giue sentence against the Pope But of this we haue said inough in due place The other thing which you say and proue not is that this is to make himselfe God to refuse to be iudged by the Church or by any other for when you say of any without doubt you meane of any man for you are not ignorant that the Pope belieueth and professeth that he is to be iudged by Christ Now how doth he make himselfe God who belieueth that he is to be iudged by God Besides certainly the Kings of the earth do not acknowledge any Iudge vpon earth for so much as doth belong to politicall affayres and in your opinion who take coactiue power from Bishops they haue not any Iudge euen in Ecclesiasticall matters shall there therfore be so many Gods as Kings I do not thinke that you are so mad as to say this wherfore it remayneth that it is not true that he forth with maketh himselfe God who will not be iudged by any man Lastly you adde The Synode These so horrible errours and this impiety he defendeth with exceeding great cruelty and killeth them who dissent from him Bellarmine Now how impudently you lye in this place you may know euen by this one instance that I my selfe who write these things do openly affirme and that in the Citty of Rome not vnknowne to the Pope that the Pope may not change the doctrine or worships of Christ nor institute new worships which should be held for diuine or should any way be repugnant to the Ghospell and yet I am not only not killed by him but neyther receaue any molestation Because the Pope knoweth very well that I say true you lye As also a little after when you adde The doctrine of pennance is altogeather depraued by the Pope and his members for he teacheth that sinnes are remitted for the worthines of our works Likewise they neuer teach that sinnes are freely remitted for Christ Which surely are not our opinions but your lyes for we teach not that but altogeather the contrary as the Councell of Trent plainly witnesseth Sess 6. cap. 5. 6. 7. 8. But of this inough I passe to Caluin THE TVVENTITH CHAPTER Caluins lyes are refuted WHEREFORE Iohn Caluin expounding the place of the Apostle 2. Thess 2. VVho extolleth himselfe aboue all that is called God saith indeed many thinges and with great pompe of wordes but he proueth in a manner nothing Paul saith he signified in these wordes that Antichrist would vsurpe to himselfe those thinges which are proper to God alone so that he will extoll himselfe aboue all diuine power and the whole religion and all the worship of God shall lye vnder his feet And after Now whosoeuer shal be taught out of the Scripture what thinges are most proper to God and on the other side shall behould what the Pope vsurpeth to himselfe although he be a child of ten yeares old he will not much labour in the discerning of Antichrist Surely a magnificall promise But let vs heere with what reasons he proueth at length that which he hath proposed for peraduenture they wil be such that children of 10. yeares old will not labour much in soluing them The Scripture pronounceth that God is the only law-giuer Isa 33. v. 22. who can keep and destroy Iacob 4. v. 12. The only King whose office is to gouerne soules with his word it maketh him likewise the author of all holy thinges it teacheth that iustice and saluation is only to be sought for of Christ it assigneth also the manner and meanes There is none of these thinges which the Pope affirmeth not to belong to his power he glorieth that it is his office to bind consciences with what lawes he thinketh good and to subiect them to eternall punishements He either instituteth new Sacraments at his pleasure or corrupteth and vitiateth yea wholy abolisheth those which were instituted by Christ that he may substitute in their place the sacriledges which be hath seygned He forgeth meanes of obtayning saluation altogeather repugnant to the doctrine of the Ghospell Finally he doubteth not to change the whole Religion at his beck what I beseech you is it to extoll himselfe aboue all that is reputed God if the Pope doth it not Did not I â—ay well that many thinges are said by Caluin little or nothing proued For that the Pope glorieth that it is his office to bind consciences with what lawes he thinketh good that he instituteth new Sacraments that he abolisheth the old that he forgeth meanes to saluation repugnant to the doctrine of the Ghospell that he changeth all religion Caluin saith so indeed but he proueth it not And if to say with him be to proue by like reason to deny must be to refute Certaynely all we Catholikes which obey the Bishop of Rome Christs Vicar say freely and without any iniury to him that it is not lawfull for him to bynd men with any lawes whatsoeuer that is with pernicious also and vniust nor to institute new Sacraments nor to corrupt and abolish those which are instituted by Christ nor to inuent meanes to Saluation repugnant to the doctrine of the Ghospell nor to peruert or change Christian Religion and this we say the more willingly because we know that he also thinketh and saith so for if he thinketh not so if he thinketh that he may make vniust lawes institute new Sacraments abolish the old and do other thinges of that sort how doth he suffer vs to speake so who notwithstanding are in his power and not in I know not what corner but teach in the Citty of Rome it selfe by his knowledge and will But they will say the Pope saith not that it is lawfull for him to do these things but yet in very deed and in fact he striueth that it is lawfull for him to do them Let it be proued then that he hath done any of these thinges for otherwise to assume that which is to be proued which indeed is common with our Aduersaries is called by the Logicians petitiâ— principâ— Now these two places Isa 33. and Iac. 4. which Caluin only produceth are not any