no other Bishops of Rome but S. Peter S. Paul For Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. doth plainly affirme that the Sea of Rome was founded by S. Peter and S. Paul and that they were the first Bishops there which all the auncient Fathers which I cited before doe also testifie It is also well knowne that both Symon Magus and Nero did coÌ„tend with S. Peter and S. Paul Wherfore if the Aduersaries mislike that S. Peter and S. Paul were Antichrists and Symon Nero the true Christ they are forced to confesse that in the Apostles tyme Antichrist was not come in himselfe but only in a certayne Type of his by which meanes Beza's consequence with which he concluded that Antichrist cannot be one man vnles we could giue him one man who should liue from the Apostles tyme to the end of the world is shewed to be ridiculous To confirme this I say that S. Iohn doth speake in that manner as our Lord speaketh of Elias Matth. 17. Elias indeed shall come and restore all things and I say vnto you that Elias is already come and they did not know him that is Elias in his owne person shall come but Elias in his like is come already to wit in S. Iohn Baptist To the second Argument First it is denied that alway Daniel by particular beasts doth vnderstand seuerall Kingdomes for by one beast he doth sometymes signify one Kingdome as in the 7. Chap. where by the Lion he vnderstandeth the Kingdome of the Assyrians by the Beare the Kingdome of the Persians by the Leopard the Kingdome of the Grecians by the other beast vnnamed the Kingdome of the Romans Sometymes one King as in the 8. Chap. where by the Ram he doth vnderstand Darius the last King of the Persians by the Goate Alexander the Great Secondly I deny the consequence of his argument for S. Paul by the man of sinne doth not vnderstand any of the foure beasts described by Daniel but he vnderstandeth that little horne which as Daniel writeth preuailed against the ten hornes of the fourth beast that is that one King who from a little beginning did so increase that he subdued all the other Kings vnto him To the last Argument I answere many wayes that it may be vnderstood how impudently Caluin wrote that they do wilfully erre who do not gather out of that argument of his that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist First by the Apostasy in S. Paul most rightly Antichrist himselfe may be vnderstood for so with common consent do the Greeke Interpreters teach S. Chrysostome Theodoretus Theophilactus and Oecumenius and besides S. Augustine lib. 20. de ciuit Dei cap. 19. and Antichrist is called the Apostasy both by the figure called Metonymia because he shal be the cause that many forsake God and also by a certaine excellency for he shal be such a notable Apostata that he may be called the Apostasy it selfe Secondly by the Apostasy may be taken the defection or falling from the Roman Empire as many of the Latins do expound as S. Ambrose Sedulius and Primasius For as in the Chapter following we will demonstrate that Antichrist shal not come before the Roman Empire doth wholy perish Thirdly if we admit that by the Apostasy is meant the defectioÌ„ or failing from the true Faith religion of Christ as Caluin doth shew we are not driuen into any straits or difficulties For it is not necessary that S. Paul speaketh of the Apostasie of many ages for he might speake of some very great and singular apostasy which shall only be in that very short time in which Antichrist shall raigne and so S. Augustine in the place before cited that is l. 20. de ciuit Dei cap. 19. writeth that this place was vnderstood of many Ancients who probablie did teach that Antichrist appearing all Heretikes or faygned ChristiaÌ„s should wholy come to him by that meanes there would be at that tyme a very great Apostasy such as neuer had bene before Fourthly if we graunt to Caluin that S. Paul speaketh of another Apostasy of many ages yet he shall get nothing For we may say that that Apostasy doth not necessarily belong vnto one body Kingdome of Antichrist nor require one head but that it is a disposition to Antichrists Kingdome that it is made in diuers places vnder diuers Kings and vpon diuers occasions as now we see that Africa is failed or reuolted to Mahomet a great part of Asia to Nestorius and â—â—â—â—â—hes and other Prouinces to other Sects Fiftly and lastly if we should graunt to Caluin that the generall Apostasy from the fayth and which endureth now many yeares is Antichrists Kingdome it would not straightway follow that the Pope is Antichrist for that question were to be handled who hath failed or reuolted from the Faith or Religion of Christ we or they that is the Catholikes or the Lutherans Though they say that we are those which haue failed notwithstanding they haue not yet proued it nor hath it bene declared by any common Iudge And truly we can farre more easily prooue that the Lutherans are those who haue failed then they prooue that the Catholikes haue failed For that they haue failed from the Church in which they were before they themselues do not deny For to let passe the rest Erasmus Sarcerius vpon that of the 2. Thessal 2. Then the wicked one shal be reuealed doth plainely confesse that almost all the predecessors of the Lutherans and he also did sometimes obey the Bishop of Rome therfore they haue fayled from the Church and Religion of their predecessors But that we haue failed from any Church neither haue they demonstrated hitherto neither will they euer be able to demonstrate Wherfore when they read in S. Paul Vnles the reuolt or Apostasy be come and the wicked one reuealed c. and thinke that they are departed from the Church in which they were and that we do perseuer alway in the same ordinaÌ„ces it is meruaile if at least they do not feare least S. Paul spake of them Out of this second head we haue the second argument to prooue that the Pope is not Antichrist For if Antichrist be only one person and there haue bene and shall be many Popes endued with the same dignity and power certainely Antichrist is to be sought els where then in the Roman Sea M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted 1. MAISTER Downam denieth that Antichrist shall be one particuler person and to Bellarmins first place of Scripture he answereth that in that place of S. Iohn Christ speaketh indefinitely of any false teacher which should come to the Iewes Ioan. 5. in his owne name that is not sent of God Secondly he speaketh also conditionally If another come Thirdly he speaketh of those Iewes to whom he speaketh and not of those Iewes which shal be in the end of the world In which exposition of his and especially in the first and third point he is contrary to Bellarmine Let
yet the Kingdomes in his exposition were signified by the fourth Beast and iron legges and the Kinges by the 10. hornes and 10. toes And is not M. Downam a wise man thinke you to confirme one absurditie with another farre greater and which he knoweth his aduersary will much lesse graunt then that Downam childishly confirmeth one absurditie with another farre greater which he goeth about to proue Besides that this deuise is so foolish that euery child will laugh at M. Downam for it for who seeth not that the King succeedeth not his Kingdome as the ten toes doe the iron legges and the ten hornes by the consent of all Ecclesiasticall writers the 4. beast but must of force be vnited togeather except we will make the Kingdomes of the Seleucidae and Lagidae or of the Romans to haue byn without their Kings and Emperours and afterward againe the Kinges Emperours without their States which is so grosse an absurditie as mee thinkes M. Downam should see it and it is little lesse to call these Kinges the toes of their Kingdomes whereas euerie man els accompteth them the heads in respect of their owne Kingdomes howsoeuer in respect of others they may be called toes because of their succession in the last place And by this that hath byn said I doubt not it will appeare to the iudicious Reader whether Bellarmines argument or M. Downams answere be more impertinent and friuolous 3. To the second proofe out of the Apocal. 17. M. Downam hath very little to answere therfore he is glad to take hould Apoc. 17. of euery word spoken obiter and by the way as that Rome is the Harlot wherof S. Io. speaketh and that the seauen heads signify all the Emperours of Rome the first of which M. Downam liketh very well but the second he affirmeth to be vntrue because they are numbred fiue are fallen the sixt is and the 7. is not yet come in which point I will not now much cōtend because M. Downam confesseth that it is besides the purpose And if hereafter he can bring any other exposition more probable he shall find me very ready to allow of it though he might haue vsed more moderation in his censure Downam not moderate in his censure since he cannot choose but know that many great authors haue taken the number of 7. in this place indefinitely as without all question in many other places it is to be taken and his difficulty must be solued by himselfe since that in this very chapter he affirmeth that Apoc. 13. by the Beast with 7. heades is meant the Roman State and that vnder the Roman Emperours especially and yet by the head which was wounded which he maketh the 6. he likewise vnderstandeth the State of the Emperours which besides the difficulty common to Bellarmine inuolueth a contradictiō peculier to M. Downam Neither will I stand now to discusse with M. Downam whether Rome be the Seate of Antichrist or no or how and in what state only I must aduise him that Bellarmine affirmeth not that the VVhore of Babylon is the seate of Antichrist as neither that Rome after the desolation of the Empire is the VVhore of Babylon but these are M. Downams owne additions See cap. 13. which if he will haue graunted he must first proue them in their due places But now to come to that which Bellarmin would proue M. Downam first is inforced to yeild that these ten hornes signify 10. Kinges which shall raigne togeather and only can help himselfe with affirming that these are not the same ten hornes whereof Daniel speaketh which raigned successiuelie For which point I remit my selfe to that which hath byn said in the former proofe besides that it is no small confirmation that S. Iohn must needes be vnderstood of 10. Kinges which raigne togeather since their wordes are so like and S. Iohn may be thought to expound Daniel whome heere M. Downam citeth cap. 11 perhaps through the Printers fault since that chapter maketh not to his purpose and therefore was neuer mētioned in the whole precedent discourse Well it is now at length agreed vpon that there shall 10. Kinges raigne togeather Wherfore it only remayneth to proue that in the time of these 10. Kings there shal be no Roman Emperour consequently that the Roman Empire shal be vtterly destroyed and so it is tyme for M. Downam to bestirre himselfe and to vse al his iugling tricks First then he bringeth in Bellarmines first proposition in the beginning of the question for an argument in this place and not truly neither But it will be best to heare M. Downams owne wordes How then saith he doth Bellarmine proue that before Antichrist commeth the Roman Empire shall be so vtterly destroyed as not the name of a Roman Emperour or King of the Romans should remayne because the Empire shall be deuided among 10. Kinges which are not Roman Kinges c. Wheras Bellarmines wordes are these VVe must know that the Roman Empire is at length to be deuided into ten Kinges of which none shal be or be called King of the Romans where you see not only the being but also the name of Roman Kinges is excluded But saith M. Downam he that is none of those 10. Kinges may haue the name of the Emperour or King of the Romans as namely the beast which was is not though it be which is the 8. head and is one of the 7. that is to say the Emperour erected by the Pope This found and foolish conceipt that the beast which was and is not is the Emperour erected by the Pope shall in other places be largely confuted Now I would only know how this Emperour can be when the whole Empire is deuided among those other 10. Kinges as Bellarmine affirmeth and proueth out of this very place as we should haue seene ere this had not M. Downam interrupted vs with his impertinent disgressions which perhaps foreseeing and fearing he putteth another question somewhat more to the purpose And why may none of these be called the King of the Romans first forsooth because they shall hate Rome and make her desolate But he might haue kept his first forsooth in his purse insteed of money for Bellarmine giueth but one reason which is the foresaid wordes of Scripture adding only the exposition of them which because M. Downam could not impugne he though best to deuide that so hauing separated the exposition from the place of Scripture the one might want authority and the other be easily shifted of as he doth in these words As though he that hath the title of the King of the Romans may not hate Rome notwithstanding that title as indeed some of the Emperours haue done which euasion had byn too ridiculous if he had added Bellarmines exposition to wit that the Scripture testifieth that these Kings shal hate the harlot and make her desolate and naked and shall eate her flesh and shal burne her
with many other concerning the consummation of the world to which the comming of Antichrist doth belong And this both the text it selfe and S. Hierome and all other Ecclesiasticall Wryters perswade vs and therfore we must needs thinke so vntill M. Downam conuinceth euidently the contrary which I am affraid he will very hardly doe But let vs see what he can say for himselfe Secondly therfore he faith that Daniels Prophesies concerne either such terrestriall Kingdomes vnto whose Tyranny the Iewes were subiect before the comming of the Messias or else the spirituall Kingdome of Christ before Downam contradicteth himselfe which all the former Kingdomes were to haue an end But this seemeth somwhat contrary to that he said before when he confessed that Daniels Prophesie reacheth to the finall destruction of Ierusalem by the Romans and consequently there must needes in his opinion be mention in Dan. of the terrestriall Kingdome of the Romans which without doubt was not ended before the comming of Christ well we will not vrge him too far with this but rather consider The King domes where of Daniel speaketh were not to be ended before Christ how he proueth that all the terrestriall Kingdomes of which Daniel speaketh were to haue an end before the spirituall Kingdome of Christ for it seemeth somewhat contrary to Daniel himselfe who affirmeth that the Kingdome of Christ should be raised by God in the daies of those Kingdomes wherof he spake In diebus autem Regnorum illorum suscitabit Deus Cali Regnum quod in aeternum c. But yet M. Downam bringeth for the contrary Dan. 2. 4. 35. and 7. 11. and ver Dan. 2. 26. 37. The first of which places is a little misprinted for that 4. should be 34. in which and the following verse it is said that the stone which was cut out of the Mountayne without handes that is our Sauiour borne of our Blessed Lady by the holy Ghost without the seed of man should strike the Statua vpon the yron feet and breake them and by that meanes the whole should be dissolued and come to nothing But I cannot see how this proueth M. Downams intent but rather the quite contrary for if our Sauiour shall destroy these Kingdomes surely they were not to be ended before his comming and at least the feet and the ten toes must remayne and be stroken by this stone as indeed they shall at his second comming when he shall ouercome the ten Kinges among whom the Roman Empyre shal be diuided who shall fight against him as S. Iohn recordeth Apoc. 17. both before the comming of Antichrist and after also so many and so long as they shall continue When our Sauiour is to destroy the Kingdomes signified by the Statua of Nabuchodonosor Neither may it seeme hard that Nabuchodonosor in his dreame related by Daniel did see the stone first strike the Statua after become so great that it filled the whole world for this is to be atributed to the obscurity of Prophesies and therefore Daniel in his explication standeth not vpon that circumstance but rather insinuateth the contrary explicating first the stability and perpetuity of Christs Kingdome in this world and then how he should destroy all the Kingdomes of this world and finally reigne for euer in the next The second place cap. 7. 11. is most plainely against M. Downam for in the two precedent verses is described Da◠7. the comming of God to iudgement before which no doubt all these Kingdomes and Kinges together with Antichrist himselfe shall haue an end and the same is as plainely repeated v. 26. in which is declared both the comming of God to Iudgement and the finall ouerthrow and destruction of the wicked and v. 27. the amplitude and perpetuity of the Kingdome of Christ and his Saintes which is chiefly to be vnderstood of the next world and only When Christ began spiritually to ouerthrow those Kingdomes spiritually in this after which manner Christ began to ouerthrow all the Kingdomes of the world from the beginning by rooting out Idolatry and planting his Church through the whole world Those other places which M. Downam quoteth concerning the comming of Christ into this world and the destruction of Ierusalem make nothing against vs though some of them are not very fitly applied by him as the Reader will easily discerne of those which he bringeth out of the new Testament But I will let them passe and only note that which maketh a little Matth. 2. 3. Mar. 1. 10. to our purpose that M. Downam misinterpreteth Dan. 7. 13. of the ascension of our Sauiour wheras it is euident by the text that it is to be vnderstood of his comming to Iudgement of which it is said v. 10. Iudicium sedit libri aperti Dan. 7. sunt that God the Father did fit in Iudgment and the bookes were opened that is it was the tyme of Iudgement when Daniel did see our Sauiour come to him After this M. Downam only reciteth his exposition of the 4. beast cap. 7. and the leggs and feete of the Statua cap. 2. which he will needes haue to be the Kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae but Dan. 2. 7. how foolishly we shall see after when he commeth to his proofes for now he only affirmeth it vpon his bare word which with vs hath no credit at all and I thinke will not haue much with any man els at least if he be any thing indifferent and will vouchsafe to read this discourse 6. Well M. Downam goeth forward with his exposition such as it is especially of the 11. Chapter of Dan. in which he saith many thinges called in question by none Dan. 11. and others denied by all of the first sort I need say nothing and the other are so apparently false and foolish that it wil be inough to touch them briefly as first when he saith The 4. Kingdomes into which that of Alexāder was deuided belong to the 3. beast described Dan. 7. not to the 4. that in the 8. and 11. chap. the 3. latter and especially the last Kingdome spoken of cap. 2. and 7. is prophesied of who seeth not the absurdity of this assertion for what can be more plaine then that the foure Kingdomes into which Alexanders Kingdome was deuided after his death belong to the same Monarchy signified by the 3. beast cap. 7. which for this cause is said to haue 4. heads in that place and in the 8. chap. the same are signified by the 4. hornes and they all were Greeks as M. Downam confesseth nu 10. and is euident out of the same 8. Chapter and of the Seleucide the same appeareth 1. Machab. 11. and besides all these 4. Kingdomes were ended before the comming of our Sauiour who notwithstanding is said to ouerthrow the 4. beast and consequently all the rest in him since that he had succeded in their places Porphiry did see this difficulty
belly for the locust hath a great belly and therefore it can neither go nor fly well but skippeth a little vp and presently falleth downe to the ground againe signifieth that the heretikes of this tyme are men addicted to their bellies enemies of fasting and continency and therefore they can neither go by the way of the commandements nor fly to the contemplation of heauenly thinges They indeauour indeed sometyme to erect themselues and amend their manners but they presently fall to the earth againe like Locusts of which the Saxonicall Visitation may serue for an example For when Luther cōsidered that by reason of the Euangelicall liberty which he preached and the abrogation of all Ecclesiasticall lawes the people did runne into all vices without a bridle he ordayned a Visitation and admonished the Pastors that they should preach pennance the feare of God obedience good workes c. but it profited nothing See Cochlaeus in vita actis Lutheri anno 1527. In like manner they endeauour to fly by contemplation and they write euery where bookes of the Trinity of the Incarnation and of such other mysteries but they fall into most grieuous errours yea most pernicious heresies as is manifest of the Vbiquists who destroy the whole mystery of the Incarnation and Trinity The Crownes vpon the heads of the Locusts signify the arrogancy and pride with which they extoll themselues aboue all men There is a booke of Luthers extant to Duke George In it he saith thus From the tyme of the Apostles no Doctor or VViter no Deuine or Lawyer hath so notably and cleerely confirmed instructed and comforted the consciences of secular states as I haue done By the singular grace of God I know this certainely that neither Augustine nor Ambrose which notwithstanding are the best in this assayre are equall to me in this What that not only Luther and Caluin do set nothing by a 1000. Cyprians and Augustines but also euery paltry Minister accompt all Papists asses and blocks Now these Crownes were as it were of gould that is they seemed of gould but they were not because they faigne that they are moued to that which they say with the zeale of Gods honour and charity whereas notwithstanding they know nothing lesse then the zeale of God The Lions teeth signify the detractions with which both in writing speaches they teare the fame of Bishops Clerkes Monkes and of the very Saints themselues which reigne happily with God And surely they seeme to be nourished with detraction and they say so many thinges which neither are or haue bene and perhaps shall neuer be that they seeme to haue cast of all conscience this is manifest inough aswell by other thinges which are euery where read in their bookes as by those which we cited a little before out of the Smalchaldicall Synod Illyricus Tilemanus Caluin and Chytraeus The brest armed with an iron plate signifieth their obstinacy for they are so obdurate that though they be most plainely conuinced yet they neuer yeild and many tymes they had rather die then leaue their obstinacy The likenes of horses which seemed prepartd to warre signifieth their bouldnes and temerity for they most bouldly prouoke all to warre whereas notwithstanding afterwards for the most part they bring only lyes for arguments Luther in assertione art 25. Come hither saith he all you Papists togeather ioyne all your studies if perhaps you can vndoe this knot In which manner do almost all the rest speake Now the similitude of the flying chariots signifieth the swiftnes which this new heresy vseth in taking possession of diuers Countries for in short tyme it hath not only inuaded many Kingdomes in the North partes but also durst runne out to the Indians although God permitted not that is could stay there for that new and tender Church of Christ did not deserue so great a scourge Finally the Angell of the bottomelesse pit is said to be the King of these Locusts for although the Locusts haue not a visible King as we said before yet they cannot want an inuisible King that is the Diuell for he is King ouer all the children of Pride Iob. 41. Now the King of the Locusts is called an Exterminatour because the Diuell neuer so destroyed and wasted the Church by any heresie or persecution as he hath done by the Lutherans for other heresies for the most part destroyed one or two articles but did not wholy ouerthow the whole order and discipline of the Church But the Lutheran Heresie partly by herselfe and partly by her ofspring the Anabaptists Caluinists Trinitarians Libertines hath destroyed all the good thinges which the Church had in the places where it could preuayle for it hath taken from God the Trinity by the new Samosatenes the Deity from Christ by the same men and his Humanity by the Anabaptists from all the Angells and Saintes all worship and inuocation from Purgatory the suffrages of the liuing yea it hath exterminated Purgatory it selfe From the Church which is in earth it hath taken away many bookes of diuine Scripture in a manner all Sacraments all Traditions the Priesthood the Sacrifice Vowes Fasts Holy-dayes Temples Atars Reliques Crosses Images all Monuments of piety Likewise all Ecclesiasticall lawes all discipline and order But perhaps she hath spared hell least she should wrong her King the Angell of the bottomlesse pitte She hath not For many of the Lutherans do also deny the true and locall hell and feygne I know not what imaginary hell as we shewed before in the disputation of Christs descending into hell Truely therfore this may be called an exterminating heresie and worthy of that Captaine who is called in Hebrew anaddoch in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latin Exterminator And surely it were a wonder if the Lutherans themselues did not admire this extermination vnlesse they were altogeather blinded with the smoke of which we spake before But amidst so many euills there is one consolation that as S. Iohn saith these Locusts hurt not the greene herbs and trees but only those men that haue not the signe of the liuing God for since that this heresie is wholy carnall it cannot easily deceaue good men and those in whose minds religion and piety is greene and doth flourish So we see that it hath seldome or neuer happened that any hath fallen from the Church to the Lutherans who began not first to be of a corrupt and loose life among Catholiks But thus much of this THE XXIIII CHAPTER 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 THERE remaineth that which we propounded in the last place viz. that we shew that the Bishop of Rome is not only not Antichrist but that he hath not lost his Bishoprick by any other meanes for Caluin and Illyricus the one with a reason the other with a certaine coniecture go about
n. 17 he weakneth his fellowes arguments c. â— n. 9. his absurd folly c. 2 n. 10. He censureth the Fathers c 2. n 13. His vayne bragging c 2 n. 19 c. 6. n. 8. he addeth an head of his owne to the 7. of the beast Apoc. 17. c. 2. n 21. he is nothing scrupulous in his account c. 3. n. 3. his fond imagination c. 4. n. 10. his immodesty c. 4. n. 14. he is not moderate in his censure c. 5. n. 3. his impudency c 5. n. 3. c. 6. n. 3. c. 14. n. 4. He seemeth to thinke that the Diuel can do true myracles c. â— n. 5. c. â—5 n. 3. he attributeth more to merits then euer any Catholik did c. 6 n. 3. In his opinion Enochs translation maketh as much for any other vertue as for pennance contrary to the Scripture c. 6 n 4. 8. his Martyrs heretikes and rebells c. 7. n. 3. he maintayneth open rebellion and treason c. 7. n. 4. his shamlesselye c. 7. n. 3. his Porphiryes pertinacy c. 7. n. 7. his conferrence of Scripture ibid. his and Foxes exposition of Scripture c. 8. n. 3. his and his fellowes manner of disputing c. 7. n. 7. his childish cauill c 8 n 1. he maketh the ancient Church to be very corrupt c 11 n 5. his blasphemy ibid. He seemeth to haue bene a Puritan when he wrote of Antichrist c. 13. nu 3. 10. his trifling c. 14. n. 4. he belyeth Gregory the 7. cap. 16. n. 12. He belyeth the Cardinalls ibid. Why he admitteth any of the Fathers c. 16. n. 14. E THE Booke of Ecclesiasticus Canoricall Scripture cap 6. n 4. Elias and Enoch shall preach in a manner as long as Antichrist shall raigne cap. 6. n. 7. Elias shall come in person cap. 2. n 13 cap 6 per totum How Elias shall restore all things ibid. The necessity of the comming of Enoch and Elias cap 6 n 5 Enoch Elias are not in heauen cap 6. n 6 Enoch and Elias shall begin to preach in the beginning of Antichrists raigne cap. 8 n 4. The End of the world is not only the last instant c 9 n 4. Whether they which liue at Antichrists death may gather how long it is to the end of the world c. 8. n. 4. Only the iust and learned shall make this collection ibid. The Trybe of Ephraim not omitted Apoc. 7. cap. 12. n 2. When the proper Exposition is to be preferred cap. 4 n 12. How far diuers Expositions are to be admitted cap. 2. n 16. F RHE necessity of the Fathers expositions c. 10. n. 3. Their authority ibid how Catholikes esteeme of them cap. 12. n. 1. The Foolish dreame of the feele Fox c. 8. n. 3. G HOvv the Ghospell was in the whole world in the Apostles tyme cap 4 n 14. The Ghospell shal be preached to all Nations before Antichrists comming cap. 4. per â—oâ—â—m Greeke article when it signifieth a particuler thing c. 2 n 4 S. Gregory answereth Downams obiection cap c. n 8. Gregory the 14. c. 16. n. 12. Gog Magog c. 17. per totum H A Great Happinesse to be put to death by Antichrist cap. 6. n 8. The Herodians c. 12. n 10. Why Heretikes can worke no myracles cap. 15. n. 2. The 7. Heads of the beast Apoc. 13. are not the same with Apoc. 17. cap. 15. n. 4. The little Horne Dan. 7. is not the same with that of Dan. 8. c. 16. n. 1. S. Hippolytus cap. 11. n. 12. I IANSENIVS cap. 6. n. 4. S. Ierome confuteth Porphiry Downam c 7. n 7. The Importance of the controuersie c 1 n. 1. The Interruption of the Iewes sacrifice was only 3. yeares c. 7. n. 7. Iosephus corrupted c. 8. n 2 Iupiter cap 14 n 12 K THE Kingdomes wherof Daniel speaketh were not to be ended before Christ cap. 16. nu 5. WheÌ„ our Sauiour is to destroy theÌ„ ibid. When he began spiritually to ouerthrow them ibid. The â— Kingdomes into which that of Alexander was deuided belong to the beast described Dan. 7. and not to the 4. c. 16. n 6. 18. The Kingdomes of the Lagidae and Seleuâ—idae caÌ„not be signified by the 4 beast Dan. 7. c. 16. n. 6. Why theâ— Kings which Antichrist shall slay are called the 3. first â—â— former c. â—â— n. 1â— L THE Latin Interpreter is nor to be reiected cap. 6. n. 4. The name of Latin cannot be giuen to the Pope c. 10. n. 4. It contayneth not the number 666. ib. n. 7. How Latria is giuen to the Crosse by Catholikes c. 11. n. 1â— Why the Tribe of Leui is often omitted c. 1â— n. 2. M MARTINVS 5. his Bul against the Huffites cap 11. n. 4. A Mortall man may be truly called God cap 14. n. 1â— Maozim signifieth not the true God c. 14. n 14. It may signify Antichrist ibid. It signifieth a strong tower cap 14. n. 15 Myracles in generall belong both to good bad c. 15. n 2. Why the diuells help is necessary to worke counterfait Myracles c. 5. n. 5. c. 15. n. 3. N THE Name which contayneth the nuÌ„ber 666. shal be the proper vsual name of Antichrist c. 10. n. 7. Many Names contayne that number ibid. Nilas cap. 15 n. 2. O THE Oath of Obedience made to the B. of Rome before the yeare 606. cap. 11. n. 8. If the Oath be lawful the often exacting of it is not culpable ibid. One faith one Church c. 13. n 3. P PROTESTANTS put Catholikes to death for ReligioÌ„n c 7. n. 4. An inuisible Persecution of an inuisible congregation cap. 7. n. 6. Phoâ—as gaue not the title of vniuersall to the Pope c. n. 4. And that which he gaue the Pope had before ibid. The Pope hath power to depose Princes for the spirituall good of Christs Church cap. 3. n. 5. The Popes whom the Protestants account Antichrist arise not from base estate cap. 16. n. 11. The Pope no temporal Monarch cap. 16. n. 14. The Protestants expositioÌ„ of Scripture not much worth cap. â— n. 16. How much they agree with the Samosatens and all other heretikes c. 3. n 2. Their disagreement about Antichrists coÌ„ming c 3 n. 3. The Prophesies concerning the destruction of Ierusalem and the end of the world intermingled c 4. n. 9. The Persecution of Catholikes in England c. 7 n. 4. R THE reason of Romes preheminence is not because it is the chiefe Citty c. 3. n. 4. X. Kings shall diuide the Roman Empyre among them so that there shal be no Roman Emperour in their time cap 5. n. 2. The Roman Empyre signified by the 2. iroÌ„ Legs of Nabuchodonosors Statua and the 4. beast Dan 7. cap. 5. n. 2. By the 10. toes of Nabuchodonosors Statua and the 10. hornes of the 4. beast Dan. 7. are signified the 10. Kings which shall deuide the Roman Empyre among them cap. 5. n. 2. The Roman Empyre shal be vtterly destroyed by the 10. Kings c. 5. n. 3. per totum How many wayes the Fathers affirme the vtter destruction of the Roman Empire why they speake sparingly of this point c. 5. n. 3. There is now a Roman Emp. indeed and not in name or title only cap. 5. n. 3. The name Romanus contayneth not the number 666 c. 10. n. 7. To cleaue to the Roman Church was the signe of a true Catholike before the yeare 696. c. 11. n. 7. How the Church of Rome is vnited staÌ„deth with other Churches ibid. Those which belong not to the Church of Rome belong not to Christ but to Antichrist ibid. Not Christian but Heathen Rome is called Babylon and an Harlot Apoc 17. c. cap. 13. n. 8. S SACRIFICE for the dead vsed before the yeare 606. c 11. n. 10. The difficulty of Scripture and why many erre in the interpretation therof cap 7. n. 7. When the Scripture is litterally to be vnderstood of the figure and when of the thing figured c. 14. n. 13. How we may argue from the mysticall sense of Scripture c. 10. n. 3. The mysticall Sâ—nse intended by the holy Ghost ibid. Except the litterall Sense be certaine we caÌ„not argue from it ibid. The consent of the Fathers maketh both Senses certayne ibid. Why Seleucus Philopater is called Vilissimus c. 16. n. 8. The Seauenty two Interpreters not to be reiected c. 6. n. 7. The Sybils verses of Adrian are expounded c. 10. n. 2. Why Symeon is omitted in Moyses his blessing cap. 12. n. 2. How the Signes of Antichrist shal be lying c. 15 n. 1. T TEMPLE what it signifieth in the new Testament c. 13. n. 3. How the Temple of Ierusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of God c. 13. n 9. And it shal be built again in the end of the world ibid. But it shal be alway prophane ibid. It shall not be finished ibid. The thousand yeares Apoc. 2. are to be taken indefinitely cap. 7. n. 2. By the great Tribulation Matth. 24. is meant the persecution of Antichrist a little before the end of the world cap. 4. n. 5. 13. The Turks inferior to Antichrist c. 14. n. 7. V VNCTION of Priests vsed before the yeare 606 cap. 11. n. 9. The word vntill signifieth neither continuance nor cessation but is indifferent to both cap. 13. n. 9. Vrbanus 7. cap. 16. n. 12. FINIS Faultes escaped in the Printing Page Line Fault Correction â—8 29. is forerunner is forerunne 41. 39. in the Apostasy in the Apostles time 133. 33. beginning neither beginning neither ibid. 8. hatred of hatred out of 172. 15. deemeth denyeth 180. 34. graunteth groundeth 192. 12. 19. and last chapter 19. last chapters 229. 34. former grounds founder grounds 237. 38. them so them so 266. 39. Antichrist sitting Antichrist his sitting 272. 20. all Idols also Idols 275. 2. frame himselfe feigne himselfe 276. 7. shewing as shewing himselfe as 281. 7. prouided proued 298. 5. proue that proue but that 310. 18. tortures torturers 315. 29. Antichrists Antichrist 320. 36. one and one And 335. 23. as neither the 2. as neither the 3. 339. 34. exposition wherof exposition wherof 380. 1. Maozim Neither Maozim who seeth not that Christ is the God Maozim Neither c. 387 13. bould of bloud of 413. 24. aboue those about those Other faultes of lesse moment by reason of the obscure copy and absence of the Author haue likewise escaped which the Reader may easily find and correct of himselfe
of Antichrist doe oppose themselues to the members of Christ contending which of them are to haue that appellation so Antichrist properlie taken shall striue with Christ whether of them is to be accounted trulie and properly Christ And when S. Iohn speaketh of such enemies as professe the name of the true Christ he meaneth only of Antichrists forerunners and members which are only the members of Antichrist and not properly Antichrist himself who notwithstanding at the first till he hath gotten credit authority will perhaps deale deceitfully but afterwards will plainely oppose himself to Christ as S. Matth. S. Paul S. Iohn also doe teach in the place which Bellarmine alleadgeth in which S. Iohn speaketh of an open professed enemy as is manifest And M. Downam should haue answered to that place directly and not haue run to others and so bouldly affirmed that S. Iohn speaketh only of hidden enemies against the expresse place which he was to answere To the third proofe he only answereth that if all Authours meane that Antichrist shal be such a false Christ as shall plainely and directly affirme himselfe to be Christ the only Messias then their affirmation Downam reiecteth all authors agreeth not with that Antichrist whome the Scriptures describe which is in effect to admit that all those authors are against him but that he vnderstandeth the Scripture better then they all only he vouchsafeth to answere in particuler to his good friend Henricus Stephanus saying that neither he nor any approued author denieth but that Antichrist may signify him who being an enemy of Christ professeth himself to be his Vicar Now you must suppose that no Authors are approued whome M. Downam mislikes and besides consider how any Author can take occasioÌ„ to deny that which they neuer heard brought in question and withall we are to note that may of M. Downams which only importeth that the name of Antichrist may be applied to his meÌ„bers but now our question is what is the proper signification of that word as it is vnderstood of the chiefe Antichrist himselfe and not of his members 5. To the assumption he answereth graunting it in all that the Pope confesseth of himselfe in word but in deedes he saith that the Pope in many things matcheth himself with Christ and in some thinges aduanceth himselfe aboue him which he saith that he hath proued els where which we are to examine in that place Now it is sufficient for vs that the Pope is See cap. 14. noe open enemy of Christ as Antichrist shal be For of this it followeth euidently that the Pope is not the chiefe Antichrist properly so called which is all that Bellarmine intendeth to proue in this place THE SECOND CHAPTER That Antichrist shal be a certaine determinate Man NOvv concerning the second saith Bellarmine we agree with our Aduersaries in one thing differ in another We agree in that that as the name of Christ is takeÌ„ in two sorts somtime properly for one excellent singular Christ who is Iesus Nazarenus somtime commonly for all those who haue likenesse with Christ in being annointed in which sort all Prophets Kings Priests are called Christs Psal 104. Touch not my Christs So also the name of Antichrist somtime is taken properly for one notable enemy of Christ of whome there is mention 2. Thess 2. Ioan. 5. and in other places and somtime commonly for all who in any sort impugne Christ For 1. Ioan. 2. we read You haue heard that Antichrist commeth and now many are become Antichrists That is yow haue heard that Antichrist shall come and now thought that singular Antichrist be not yet come yet many seducers are already come who also may be called Antichristes But we disagree of Antichrist properly so called whether he be one singular man For all Catholikes thinke so that Antichrist shal be one certaine man but all the heretikes before alleadged teach that Antichrist properly so called is not any singular person but a singular Throne or TyraÌ„nical Kingdome and Apostolicall seate of them who gouerne the Church The Magdeburgenses cent 1. lib. 2. c. 4. col 435. The Apostles teach say they that Antichrist shall not be only one person but an whole kingdome by false Doctors ruling in the temple of God that is in the Church of God in the great Citty that is in the Roman Citty gotten by the worke fraude and deceipt of the Diuell So they The like are in others before alleadged Their reasons are these First S. Paul 2. Thess 2. saith that already euen in his time Antichrist had begun to be in the world the mystery of iniquity doth worke now And notwithstanding he sayth in the same place that Antichrist shal be slaine by Christ in the end of the world From hence Beza concludeth thus vpon 2. Thess 2. They are manifestly deceaued whosoeuer thought that this was to be vnderstood of one Man vnlesse they giue me some one who may remaine aliue from Paules tyme vntill the day of Iudgement Soe also doth Caluin argue in the place which I cyted before This reason is confirmed out of S. Iohn who in the first Epistle and fourth Chapter saith Euery spirit that dissolueth Iesus is not of God and this is Antichrist of whome you haue heard that he commeth and now he is in the world Beza's second reason is because Daniel in his 7. Chapter by the particuler names of the beastes a Beare a Lion and a Leopard doth not vnderstand particuler Kings but seuerall Kingdomes one of which conteyneth many Kings therfore after the same manner Paul 2. Thess 2. who doth wonderfullie agree with Daniel by the man of sinne and sonne of perdition doth not vnderstand one particuler person but as it were a certayne body of many Tyrants The 3. reason is Caluins vpon the 2. Chap. of first Epistle of S. Iohn where he saith that they doe dote and willfullie erre who belieue that Antichrist shall be one man seeing that Paul 2. Thess 2. hath written that the Apostasy shall come and that Antichrist shal be the head of it For Apostasy is a certaine generall failing or defection froÌ„ the Faith which indeed maketh one body â—nd one Kingdome is not a matter of a few yeares that it can be accomplished vnder one King For all this the truth is that Antichrist shal be one particuler man which is proued out of all the Scriptures Fathers who treat of Antichrist The places of Scripture be fiue the first is in the Ghospell of S. Iohn cap. 5. I came in the name of my Father and you receaued me not if another come in his owne name him will you receaue Musculus Caluin in Marlor in Comment huius loci will haue these words to be vnderstood of false Prophets in generall and not of any one but their exposition is repugnant to the ancient Fathers and with the text it selfe For that these wordes are spoken of Antichrist do witnes S.
Chrysostome and S. Cyril vpon this place S. Ambrose vpon the 2. Chap. of the 2. Epist to the ThessaloniaÌ„s S. Hierome in his Epistle to Algasia the 11. question S. Augustine in 29. Tract vpon S. Iohn S. Irenaeus in the 5. book against the herefies of Valentinus Theodoretus in the Epitome of the diuine Decrees in the chap. of Antichrist Besides in this place our Lord doth oppose to himself another man that is person to persoÌ„ not Kingdome to Kingdom nor sect to sect as it appeareth in those words I Another In the name of my Father In his owne name Me Hym. Wherfore as Christ was one particuler man soe shall Antichrist be one particuler man Moreouer Christ saith in this place that Antichrist shall be receaued for Messias by the Iewes and it is certayne that the Iewes expect one certayne and particuler man In like maÌ„ner all false Prophets came in the name of another and not in their owne name Ierem. 14. The Prophets do falsely prophetize in my name I sent them not c. But heere our Lord speaketh of one certaine man which shall come in his owne name that is who shall acknowledg no God at all but shall extoll himselfe as S. Paul saith aboue all that is called God Finally very many false Prophets were come before Christ verie many also were to come afterward therfore our Lord would not haue said if another shall come but many do come if he would haue spoken of false Prophets The second place is 2. Thess 2. Vnles there come a reuolt first and the man of sinne be reuealed the sonne of perdition c. And aâ—â—er And then the wicked one shal be rauealed whom our Lord Iesus shal kil with the spirit of his mouth These words the Aduersaries themselues vnderstaÌ„d of the true Antichrist but the Apostle speaketh of a certaine determinate particuler persoÌ„ as appeareth by the Greeke articles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For as S. Epiphanius haeres 9. which is of the Samaritans teacheth the Greeke articles doe contract the signification to one certaine thing soe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth man in common but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a particuler man And surely it is marueile that none of the Aduersaties who notwithstanding do boast of skil in tongues haue obserued this The third place is where we read thus 1. Ioan 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he putteth the article before Antichrist so properly called he pronounceth the name of Antichrist commonly taken without the article most plainly shewing that Antichrist properly taken is one certaine person but Antichrist coÌ„monly so called is no certaine person but in general all heretikes The fourth is Dan. 7. 11. 12. Chapters where he speaketh of Antichrist as S. Hierome Theodoretus vpon that place Irenaeus lib. 5. August lib. 20. de Ciuitate Dei cap. 23. yea Caluin the Magdeburgenses Beza vbi supra do teach And there Antichrist is not called one Kingdome but one King who often Kings which he shall find in the world shall take three quite away shal subiect vnto himselfe the other seauen Besides Caluin saith that litterallie Daniel speaketh of Antiochus Illustris allegoricallie of Antichrist whom Antiochus figured which S. Cyprian teacheth in his booke of Exhortation to Martyrdome cap. 11. S. Hierome vpon the 11. 12. of Daniel But Antiochus was a certaine particuler person Therfore Antichrist must be also one certaine person The fifth and last place is Apoc. 13. 17. where S. Irenaeus lib. 5. affirmeth that Antichrist is spoken of and it is plaine by reason of the likenesse of Daniels S. Iohns words for both of them make mention of ten Kings which shal be in the world when Antichrist shall come and both of them foretell that Antichristes Kingdome shall endure three yeares and a halfe c. As therfore Daniel speaketh of one determinate King so also doth S. Iohn in the Apocalyps The same is proued out of the Fathers who with coÌ„mon consent doe teach of Antichrist First that he shal be a most chosen instrument of the Diuell so that in him shall inhabite all fulnesse of the Diuels malice corporally as in Christ being a man doth inhabite all plenitude of Diuinitie corporallie Secondly that Antichrist shall not raigne more then three yeares and a halfe and consequently they teach that Antichrist shal be only one man See S. Irenaeus lib. 5. towardes the end Cyril of Ierusalem Catechesi 15. S. Chrysostome in 2. Thess 2. Theodoret in cap. 7. Dan. Lactant. in epit diuin Inst cap. 11. S. Ambrose in cap. 21. Luc. S. Hierome in cap. 7. Dan. q. 11. ad Algasians S. Augustine lib. 20. de Ciuitate Dei in many Chapters and vpon the 9. Psalme S. Gregory lib. 32. Moral cap. 12. S. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 28. S. Hyppolitus Martyr in his Oration of the Consumation or end of the world To the first argument of Beza I answere that in the Apostles tyme Antichrist did begin secretly to giue onsetts not in his owne person but in his forerunners For as Christ began to come from the beginning of the world in the Patriarches and Prophets who went before him and did signifie him soe that the mysterie of piety may be said to haue begun to worke from the beginning of the world and notwithstanding he came not in his owne person vntill he tooke flesh of the B. Virgin So Antichrist straight after the Ascension of Christ into Heauen began to come in his forerunners the mysterie of iniquitie began to work to wit in the heretikes and I yrants which did persecute the Church and chieflie in Symon Magus who called himselfe Christ and in Nero who first began to impugne the Church and yet notwithstanding in his owne person he shall not come but in the end of the world Wherefore the spirituall persecution of Symon Magus and the temporall of Nero is called the mystery of iniquity because they were signes figures of Antichrists persecution That this is the true explication of the place of S. Paul may be proued in two sortes First by all the interpreters of that place for all doe by the mystery of iniquity which S. Paul mentioneth vnderstand either Nero's persecution as S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostome vpon this place and S. Hierom quaest 11. ad Algasiam or the Heretikes who do deceaue secretly as Theodoretus and Sedulius vpon this place S. Augustine lib. 20. de ciuitate Dei cap. 19. Secondly by a reason taken from the aduersaries confession For they say that Antichrist properly is the seate of the Bishop of Rome If therfore Antichrist so properly called was borne in the Apostles tyme it doth follow that S. Peter S. Paul were properlie called Antichrists although secret and that Nero or Symon Magus were the true Christ For it is well knowne that in the Apostles time there were
Sonne for S. Iohn speaketh not generallie of euery one that denieth Iesus to 1. Iohn 4. 5. be Christ as M. Downam affirmeth Likewise Cap. 4. 5. S. Iohn only affirmeth that it is the spirit of Antichrist to denie Christ and that he was to come in himselfe and was then in the world in his members and the like he repeateth Epist 2. v. 7. that all those which denied Christ to be come were 2. Iohn 7. members of the chiefe Seducer and Antichrist which was to come after and teach that doctrine more then any of the former The rest which M. Downam hath in this place be the obiections which Bellarmine maketh solueth as we shall see not long after 7. To the fourth place M. Downam answereth that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist at all which he proueth by the authoritie of the learned of our times but nameth not any perhaps because Dan. 7. 11. 12. he was ashamed to oppose them to those which Cardinall Bellarmine cited especially to his good Maisters Calwin the Magdclurgenses and Beza Afterward he proueth the same Downam peruerteth Daniel egregiously with reason for that Daniel describeth him whome M. Downam will haue to be Antiochus only as the tenth and Cardinall Bellarmine maketh him the cleauenth as if it were a beast of cleauen hornes which trulie is a straÌ„ge bouldnes in M. Downam the words of Daniel being so cleere for hauing said Cap. 7. v. 7. that the fourth beast had ten hornes he forth with added â— 8. Consideraham cornua ceâ—â— corâ—u aliud parâ—â—ulum orium est de medio eorum c. I did consider the hornes no doubt the ten which he had said that the beast had and behould another little horne rose vp in the mydst of theÌ„ so that he distinguisheth it froÌ„ the other ten by three notes 1. calling it another 2. a little one no doubt in respect of the other ten and 3. that it rose vp in the midst of them signifying that they appeared before this and that it was not the tenth may also be gathered by that it arose in the midst and not in the same place as it should haue done if it had signified one of the ten Kings of the Seleucida and Lagidae in Syria and Egipt as M. Downam would haue it Where we may also note that these 10. Kings were all of distinct Prouinces and at one time for otherwise this last horne could not haue risen in the midst of them And againe v. 20. he that expounded the visioÌ„ to Daniel saith thus Et de cornibus decem quae habebat in capite de alio quod ortuÌ„ fuerat c. And of the ten hornes which he had on his head and of the other which arose c. caÌ„ any thing be more plaine theÌ„ that the other which arose was none of the ten But v. 24. more plainly porrò cornua decem ipsius regni decem Reges eruÌ„t alius consurget post eos ipse potentior erit prioribâ—â— c. Moreouer the ten hornes of his kingdome shal be ten Kings and another shall arise after them he shal be more potent theÌ„ the former c. Now what a strange man is M. Downam to say that he is the tenth And by this it is easy to gather how true his exposition is in the rest as that those 10. Kings ruled succeffiuelie euer the Iewes and that 6. for the most part were dead before the 10. was borne of which we shall haue Chap. 16. occasion to speake hereafter Now it is sufficient to note that Bellarmine addeth that of the subuing seauen out of the 12. 23. and 17. of the Apocalyps togeather with the 7. of Daniel for in all those places there is mention made of the 10. hornes but with this difference that in the 12. chap. of Apoc. 3. v. there be togeather with the 10. hornes 7. heads with 7. diadems in the 13. there be also 7. heades vpon the hornes 10. diadems of which difference in the diadems that in the former place they be but 7. and in the latter ten the reasoÌ„ is for that Antichrist shall kill three Kinges and so there shall only 7. remayne But of this wee shall likewise haue occasion to speake more heereafter Now therefore let vs goe forward with M. Downam who saith that if Antiochus be Chap. 16. spoken of and Antichrist be by him figured it followeth not that Antichrist shal be a particuler man as Antiochus was for that the likenes doth not hould in all thinges but only in those in respect whereof the type is a figure as the high Priest of the Iewes was a figure of Christ and yet they were many Melchrsedeth was as Papistes say a figure of theyr Priestes and yet was but one Iosuah Dauid Salomon types of Christ and yet not like him in all As though Bellarmine said that Antichrist shal be like Antiochus in all thinges or in any other thing then that which is set downe in the Scripture and confirmed againe in the new Testament so vnderstood by the Fathers as in his victories and such other circumstances that cannot agree to many but only to one particuler man as Antiochus was and Antichrist shal be 8. To the 5. place M. Downam answereth that S. Iohn Daniel speake of diuers matters For confirmation wherof he denieth againe the 11. horne in Daniel adding this proofe Apoc. 13. 17. that otherwise the 4. beast were abeast of 11. hornes To which it is easie to answere that before that little horne arose that beast is described with 10. hornes and after he had but 7. left for three of them were pulled vp by this little horne and by See cap. 1â— this all the difference he putteth betwixt the 10. Kinges in Daniel and S. Iohn is ouerthrowne After he commeth to the tyme of the persecution of Antiochus Antichrist for the former he graunteth that it endured only from the 15. day of the moneth Casleu in the 145. yeare of the Kingdome of the Seleucidae 1. Macah. 1. 57. vnto the 25. of the moneth Casleu in the yeare 148. 1. Macab 4. 52. which make 3. yeares and ten daies which is all that Daniel assigned by a time and times and parcell of a tyme. Where he maketh bould with Daniel changing halfe a tyme vnto a parcell of a tyme for the Prophet saith plainly Downam corrupteth the text of Daniel Dan 7. 12. both cap. 7. v. 25. vsque ad tempus tempora diâ—â—diunt temporis and againe cap. 12. v. 7. he saith that the Angell swore by him that lyueth for euer quia in tempus tempora dimidium temporis and after he counteth it also by dayes dies mille duceuts â—â—naginta and yet all this will not keep M. Downam from taking away so much as he thinketh necessary for to make his interpretation good But when he commeth to the Apocalyps
were not necessary that he himselfe should bealiue at that tyme and consequently he might well inough be shine at the end of the world yet be no very old mā neither for that it is vncertaine when he was to be borne For certaine it is that he needed not to be in S. Pauls and S. Iohns tyme if they speake not of him in person but onlie of some of his members which for ought S. Paul and S. Iohn say or M. Downam can proue might be in the world before he himselfe came in person not only manie an hundreth yeare which M. Downam graunteth of 600. but also many thousands 13. Lastly M. Downam commeth to Bellarmines answere to the confirmation where first he censureth that tradition which the Fathers gather commonly out of the Scripture that Elias shall come in person before the second comming Downam censureth the Fathers of Christ for a Iewish fable and yet doth he not so much as goe about to proue with any argument that it shall not be soe but only confirmeth that S. Iohn Baptist was called Elias and giueth the reason why he was so called in which there is no controuersy And at least wise he might haue vouchsafed to haue tould vs out of his high learning what our Sauiour meant in that place which Bellarmine citeth by saying that Elias indeed shall come for this cannot be vnderstood of S. Iohn Baptist who as our Sauiour affirmeth in the same place See Chap. 6. was alreadie come wherfore till M. Downam bringeth some better proofes I take it any wise man will not only suppose as he giueth him leaue to do but also hold for certaine that Elias shall come in person though he be said to haue come Elias shall come in person in S. Iohn Baptist for that he had a spirit like vnto his consequently that it is not necessary that there shall come no other Antichrist in person at the end of the world because S. Iohn saith that he was come in his tyme in some of his members whose spirit was like his for Bellarmine disputeth not now but answereth by producing another place of Scripture like vnto that which is obiected which cannot be denied to be a good manner of answering But M. Downam bringeth forth a place of Scripture where Dauid is promised to come after he was dead and yet it is not vnderstood Ezech. 34. of King Dauid but of Christ and therfore neither is Elias to come againe But M. Downam will easily see if it pleaseth him to put this argument in forme in which he seemeth to take particuler delight that one may well answere him nego consequentiam and withall he may note how that name Dauid is somtime taken properly and sometime for a distinct person which is figured by the former which is somewhat harder then that the type should take the name of the chiefe and principall in that kind which it figureth and as it were noe good argument to say Dauid shall come therfore he is not come for there be two to whome the name of Dauid agreeth so likewise the argument which we haue bene discussing all this while concludeth not since it is only thus Antichrist is already come therefore he shall not come in the end of the world for that there be more then one Antichrist and the chiefest is not come any otherwise yet then in his members 14. Concerning Bezas second reason M. Downam addeth to the 7. of Damel also the 11. and besides the 13. and 17. Apoc. and saith that in all these places vnder the name figure of a beast is not described one singular thing or person but a whole state or succession and in the assumption insteed of 2. Thess 2. he putteth down Apoc. 13. where he saith Antichrist is described vnder the name figure of a beast then he proueth the proposition by induction out of the 7. 8 of Daniel and Apoc. 13. so that he hath made a Downam cannot defend Beza new argument of his owne for that belike he could not saue his M. Beza from absurdities if he should haue followed his Argument against Bellarmines answere and yet he putteth downe Bellarmines answere as though it had bene giuen to this new Argument which he hath coyned himselfe In Downam applieth Bellarmines answere to a wrong argument Dan. 8. which he sheweth lesse vpright dealing then Bellarmine doth with the Scriptures by saying that in the 8. Chap. of Daniel the Ram and the Goat signify but two seuerall Kinges which M. Downam thinketh to be against the Scripture for that in the 20. v. where the vision is expounded there is in Hebrew the word Kinges in the plurall number and for that afterward Daniel addeth of the Goat that the great horne which was betwixt his eyes is the first King namely Alexander and consequently the Goat whose horne this was could not be the same Alexander For the first part of which obiection M. Downam must be content that we attribute asmuch to S. Hierome both in skill in the Hebrew tongue and in Scripture as to himselfe and S. Hierome translateth the Hebrew word in the singular number Rex Medorum est atque Persarum so that either he thought that the plurall number was put for the singular as it is vsuall in Scripture or els in the Hebrew text in his tyme it was also in the singular number and the first reason hath the more probability in this place for that Darius was in effect two Kings since he had two Kingdoms which is also signified by the two hornes which the Ramme had And this is so much the more plaine for that it is manifest that he who was ouerthrowne by Alexander was no other then Darius one King as we read in 1. Machab 1. and Iustine lib. 11. and Plin. lib. 10. cap. 7. doe also testify Now for the second part M. Downam might easily see that both the Goat and the horne being called a King in the same 21. v. either doe both signify Alexander or else if the one doe signify the King and the other the Kingdome he must giue vs some reason why rather the former should be taken for the kingdome then the latter especially since we see in the same Chapter that by the two hornes of the Ram are signified his two Kingdomes and besides it is well knowne that he who did conquer and ouercome the King of the Medes and Persians was no other then Alexander who is also called Hircus caprarum after the Hebrew phrase which signifieth a yong Goat as I might proue by many examples but that I suppose M. Downam to be so cunning both in Scripture and Hebrew that he will not contradict it for that he was not past 20. yeares ould when he began his Monarchie by his admirable victories for which in the 5 verse he is said to haue gone so swiftly as though he had slowen in the ayre and not touched the
certaine that the day of oppression hath begun to be ouer our heades and the end of the world and tyme of Antichrist is approached S. Hierome ep ad Ageruchiam de Monogamia He which did hould is in making out of the way and doe we not vnderstand that Antichrist approacheth S. Gregorie lib 4. ep 38. All thinges which haue bene foretould are in doing the King of Pride is neere And in his Homylies vpō the Ghospells he doth bouldly pronounce that the end of the world draweth neere but these were suspicions and not errors For these Holy Fathers durst not set downe any certaine tyme. Others more bouldlie appointed a certaine tyme. One Iudas as S. Hierome relateth l. de Viris Illust thought that Antichrist should haue come and the world ended the two hundreth yeare after Christ who as is manifest was deceiued Lactantius l. 7. cap. 25. diuin Instit saith That all expectation seemeth to be for no more then two hundred yeares c. Where he teacheth that Antichrist was to come and the world to end within two hundred yeares after his tyme and he liued in Constātines tyme in the three hundreth yeare after Christ so that he thought the worldes end should haue bene the fiue hundreth yeare after Christ But he also was deceaued as experience witnesseth S. Augustine lib. 18. de ciuitate Dei cap. 53. mentioneth the errour of some others which said that the world should be ended the foure hundreth yeare after our Lords Ascēsion and of others which appointed the thousandth yeare who were all deceaued as it happened also to the Pagans who as S. Augustine witnesseth in the same place out of the answere of some Oracle gathered that Christian religion should endure only three hundred threescore and fiue years There was also a Bishop of Florence about the yeare of our Lord a thousand an hundreth and fiue who affirmed that Antichrist was then borne and therefore that the worldes end was at hand For which cause there was a Councell of three hundred and fourty Bishops gathered at Florence by Paschalis the second Pope of that name See the Chronicle of Matthew Palmer and Platina in the life of Paschalis the second Lastly it hath alway byn a famous opinion of many which affirme that the world shall last six thousand yeares since God created the world in six daies and a thousand yeares are with God as one daie So teach S. Iustine Martyr q. 71. ad Gentes S. Irenaeus lib. 5. Lactantius l. 7. cap. 14. S. Hilar. in cap. 17. Matth. S. Hierom. in Psal 89. ad Cyprianum with which doth also agree the opinion of the Thalmudists who say that they haue a Prophesy out of the Prophet Hely by which it is affirmed that the world shall endure six thousād yeares This opinion cannot yet be refuted by experience for according to the true Chronologie or accompt of times there are about fiue thousand and six hundreth yeares past since the world was made Wherfore S. Ambrose who l. 7. in Luc. cap. 2. reiecteth this opinion affirming that in his time there were 6. thousand yeares past is manyfestly deceaued S. Augustines moderation is very good who thought this opinion probable and followed it as probable l. 20. de Ciuit. Dei c. 7. Neither doth it follow from hence that we doe know the tyme of the last daie for we say that it is probable that the world will not endure aboue 6. thousand yeares but we doe not say that it is certaine Wherfore S. Augustine sharpely rebuketh those who affirme that the world shal be ended at some certaine tyme since our Lord said Act. 1. that it doth not belong to vs to know the tymes and moments which the Father hath put in his owne power See S. Augustine epist 80. ad Hesychium in Psal 89. lib. 18. de ciuitate Dei cap. 53. But omitting these let vs come to the Heretikes Wheras all the Heretikes of this tyme doe teach that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist and that he hath appeared already is now in the world notwithstanding they doe not agree among themselues of the tyme when he appeared for there be six opinions of theirs The first is of the Samosatenes which liue in Hungary and Transiluania who in a certaine booke which they intitle Forewarnings of Christ and the Apostles of the abolishing the true Christ by Antichrist do teach that Antichrist appeared a little after the Apostles time to wit when that doctrine began first to be preached that Christ is the euerlasting Sonne of God for they thinke that Christ is only man and that in God there is only one person and that this faith was preached by Christ and his Apostles but that a little after the Apostles death the Roman Antichrist came and hauing abolished the true Christ which was only man brought in another eternall Christ and made a threefould God and a twofould Christ This opinion besides the arguments which afterward we will bring against all Heretikes is most easilie refuted in two sortes First for that Antichrist when he commeth shall make himselfe God and not any other as the Apostle saith 2. Thess 2. but the Bishop of Rome as they themselues say hath not made himselfe God but preached Christ and of only man hath made him God Secondly because they saie that straight after the death of Christ and his Apostles the true faith of Christ was wholy extinguished by Antichrist and afterward in the whole world Christ was adored for God But Christ foretould that the gates of hell should not preuaile against his Church Matth. 16. and the Angell fortould that Christs Kingdome should endure for euer Luc. 1. and Dauid foretould that all Kinges should serue Christ Psal 71. how therefore is it true that in the very beginning the Church being yet but newly borne was destroyed by Antichrist The second opinion is of Illyricus who in his Catalogue of witnesses teacheth that Antichrist came when the Roman Empire began to incline to destruction but it is manifest that the Roman Empire began to decline after the tenth yeare of Honorius when Rome was first taken that is in the yeare foure hundreth and twelue as Blondus doth shew in the first booke of the first Decade of Histories from the declination of the Roman Empire But Illyricus doth seeme to vnderstand this of the conception not of the natiuitie of Antichrist for he himselfe Cent. 6. Cap. 1. in the beginning saith that Anchrist was conceaued after a certaine manner in the beginning of the 400. yeare after quickned formed and nourished in his Mothers wombe about the fiue hundreth yeare and lastlie borne the 6. hundreth and sixt yeare to wit when Phocas graunted to the B. of Rome that he should be called the head of the whole Church Againe cent 1. l. 2. cap. 4. colum 438. he affirmeth that Antichrist should reigne tyranize with the spirituall sword a thousand two hundred and threescore yeares and with
repeate the same thing as often as he doth as now at the verie end citing afresh those wordes of S. Paul that the Ghospell is preached among all creatures that are vnder Heauen which Bellarmine did put in obiection and answered three wayes as wee haue seene THE FIFTH CHAPTER Conteyning the second Demonstration THE second demonstration saith Bellarmine is taken from the other signe going before Antichrists tymes which shal be an vtter desolation and ouerthrow of the Roman Empire for we must know that the Roman Empire is at length to be deuided into ten Kinges of which none shal be or be called the King of the Romans although all of them shall occupie some Prouinces of the Roman Empire as now the King of France the King of Spaine the Queene of EnglaÌ„d perhaps some others doe hould some partes of the Roman Empire and yet are no Roman Kinges or Emperours and so long as this is not effected Antichrist cannot come This Iraeneus proueth l. 5. out of Dan. cap. 2. 7. out of the Apocal. cap. 17. for in the 2. chap. of Dan is described the successioÌ„ of the chiefest Kingdomes vnto the worldes end by a certayne Statua or Image whose golden head signifieth the first Kingdome that is of the Assyrians the siluer breast is the second Kingdome that is of the Persians the brasen belly the third kingdome that is of the Grecians the Iron legges the fourth kingdome that is of the Romans which for the longest space was two fould as the legges are two and longest Furthermore out of the two legges there grew ten toes and in them the whole Statua ended for that the Roman Empire was at length to be deuided into ten Kinges none of which shal be the King of the Romans as none of the toes is a legge Likewise in the 7. Chapter the Prophet Daniel most clearly designeth the same 4. Kingdoms by 4. beastes and addeth that out of the last Beast there shall arise ten hornes which signifyeth the ten last Kings which shall arise out of the Roman Empire but shall not be Roman Emperours as the hornes arise out of the Beast but are not the Beast it selfe Finally S. Iohn cap. 17. Apoc. describeth a beast with 7. heades ten hornes vpon which a certain woman did sit and he explicateth the woman to be the geat Citty which is situated vpon 7. hills that is Rome that the seauen heads are those 7. hills and likewise 7. Kinges by which number are vnderstood all the Roman Emperours The ten hornes he saith to be ten Kinges who shall raigne togeather at one tyme. And least we should thinke that these shal be Roman Kinges he addeth that these Kinges shall hate the harlot and make her desolate because they shall so deuide the Roman Empire amongst themselues that they shall vtterly desâ—roy it Besides the same is proued out of S. Paul 2. Thess 2. where he saith And now what deteyneth you know that he may be reuealed in his tyme only that he which now houldeth do hould vntill he be taken out of the way and then shall that wicked one be reuealed c. where S. Paul not daring to write plainly of the ouerthrow of the Roman Empire which notwithstanding he had by word of mouth plainly explicated vnto them speaketh in that sort and the sense is Yow know what hindereth the comming of Antichrist for I haue tould you that the Roman Empire hindereth for that their sinns are not yet at their ful height and Antichrist shall not come before who shall take away this Empire for their sinnes Therfore let him that now holdeth the Roman Empire hould it stil that is let him raigne till he be taken out of the way that is abolished and then that wicked one shal be reuealed So doe the Greeke Latin Fathers expound it S. Cyril Catechesi 15. disputing of this place The foresaid Antichrist saith he shall come when the tymes of the Roman Empire are expired S. Chrysostome vpon this place VVhen the Roman Empire shal be taken away then shall Antichrist come Theophilactus and Oecumenius write to the same effect Of the Latines Tertullian in Apologerico cap. 32. saith that Christians doe praie for the continuance of the Roman Empire because they know that when that Empire is ouerthrowne there shall a great calanuty fall vpon the world And Lactantius l. 7. cap. 15. explicating those thinges which shall goe before Antichrist and the end of the world saith the Roman name by which the world is now gouerned my mind is afraid to speake it but I will speake it because it shal be shal be takeÌ„ from the earth the Emptre shall returneinto Asia the East shall ruie again and the west serue S. Ambrose vpoÌ„ 2. Thess 2. saith that after the defection and abolition of the Roma Kingdome Antichrist shall come S. Hierome quaest 11. ad Algasiam expounding the a me place of S. Paul saith Vnles there come a reuolt first that all Nations which are subiect to the Roman Empire reuolt from them and vides the Roman Emotre be first desolate and Antichrist goe before Christ will not come onlie that the Roman Empire which now houldeth all Nations passe and be taken away and then Antichrist shall come Finally S. Augustine lib. 20. de â—iuitate dei cap. 19. expoundeth the same place thus Only let him which now reigneth raygne till he be take out of the way and then that wicked one shal be reuealed by whome no man doubteth but that Antichrist is signified Now that this signe was not fulfilled at those tymes in which the Anti trinitarians of Transiluania say that Antichrist came that is about the yeare of our Lord 200. it is manifest because then most of all did the Roman Empire flourish and so continued long after Likewise that it hath not bin fulfilled at any tyme hitherto it is plaine because as yet there remayneth the succession and name of the Roman Emperours and by the wonderfull prouidence of God when the Empire failed in the West which was one of the leggs of Daniels Statua the empire of the East remayned sound which was the other legge But because the Empire of the East was to be destroyed by Turkes as we see now it is God erected againe the former legge in the VVest that is the VVest Empire by Charles the Great which Empire lasteth still Neither is it any obstacle that Rome it selfe according to S. Iohns prophesy is after a certaine manner fallen hath lost the Empire for the Roman Empire may well stand without the Cittie of Rome and he be called the Roman Emperour who hath not Rome so that he succeedeth another Roman Emperour in the same dignity power whether he hath more or fewer Prouinces vnder his empire otherwise neither Valens nor Arcadius nor Theodosius the yonger nor other their successours to Iustinian none of which had Rome could haue byn called Roman Emperours Neither Charles the
not to come so long as there is any Roman Emperour remayning how many Kinges soeuer besides come or go and they will likewise smile at M. Downams cunning which he vsed to bring in this returning Argument in that he putteth Bellarmins argument into a new forme and maketh him immediatly infer the not comming of Antichrist by the not comming of the Downam changeth Bellarmines argument 10. Kinges wheras he only proueth the vtter desolation of the Roman Empire by their comming and succeding in al the Dominions of that Empire finally som of his friends will wish that he had kept that diuersity of reading the Scripture some hauing after the Beast others with the Beast Apc. 17. 12. till it might haue stood him in better steed But yet you shall heare M. Downam dispute more deeply for hauing cited part of Bellarmines words he setteth downe his first answere in these wordes Answere 1. This argumentation of Bellarmine implieth a contradiction for if there be in Daniel described a succession of Kingdomes which shall continue to the end of the world wherof the Roman is the last then the Roman Empire shall not viterly be destroyed before the comming of Antichrist which goeth before the end of the world But what will you say M. Downam if the Roman Empire be not the last Kingdome which Daniel describeth Will you coÌ„fesse that it shal be destroyed before the comming of Antichrist as well as before the end of the world Doth not Bellarmyne vrge out of Daniel as the last succession ten Kinges signified by the ten toes and the ten Downam forgetteth what he impugneth hornes Is not all this disputation about them Are you growne into that heate of passion that you forget what you impugne Surely theÌ„ it is time for you to dispute no longer and if you will needes be doing at leastwise take heed of these returning arguments Thirdly M. DownaÌ„ confessing that he leaueth the coÌ„mon opinion and followeth another of the learned especially of these later times affirmeth that the 4. Kingdome mentioned in those Chapters of Daniel is that Kingdome of the Seleucidae Lagida which tyrannized ouer the people of Iury the former being Kings of Syria the later of Egypt but this he proueth not any otherwise but by a bare repetitioÌ„ of the same assertion though he beginneth with a For as though he would haue said something but we are coÌ„tent to think that he hath somwhat in store for hereafter since he promiseth that hereafter this shal be shewed to be most true only in the meane time he must giue vs leaue to hold the coÌ„mon opinioÌ„ till we know who See Chap. 16. these learned men be that durst inuent a new particuler opinion except they can proue it most clearly as M. DownaÌ„ saith and we will belieue wheÌ„ we see it for now it seemeth very probable that those iron leggs signify the Roman Empire as well for their length as Bellarmine well noted M. DownaÌ„ negligently if not craftily omitted in the allegâ—tion of his wordes putting in an c. when he came to that place as also for their strength in which the 4. Beast also excelleth The Roman Empire signifyed by the 2. iron leggs of Nabucodonozors statua the 4. beast Dan. 7. as the Prophet himselfe expresseth Quomodo ferruÌ„comminuit domat omnia sic coÌ„minuet conteret omnia haec As iron breaketh and tameth all thinges so shall that kingdome breake and teare in peeces all these former kingdomes neither would I haue the Reader deceaued with the opposition of learned to common which he findeth made by M. Downam by thinking that he meant that the ancient opinion was houlden only by the common sort of people for no doubt he will acknowledg Bellarmine to be as learned as him selfe no disprayse to him who is the only learned man that yet he expresseth to hould this new opinion and besides he will not easily condemne S. Irenaeus whom Bellarmine cyteth for vnlearned and yet his once not vouch safing to name him may make some doubtfull and therefore I will adde S. Hierome whome no man but an ignorant will accompte vnlearned He therfore vpon this verie place Daniel 2. saith RegnuÌ„ quartum perspicuè pertinet ad Romanos The 4. Kingdome perspicuously beloÌ„geth to the RomaÌ„s cap. 7. QuartuÌ„ quod nunc orbem tenet terrarum ImperiuÌ„ RomanoruÌ„ est The fourth which now possesseth the world is the Empire of the Romans Thus much for the fourth Beast and Iron leggs But now concerning the ten toes and ten hornes M. Downams learned opinion is that by them were signified the ten Kinges of the two foresaid Kingdomes which successiuelie vsurped dominion ouer the Iewes but for his proofes and authors By the 10. toes of Nabuchodonozors Statua the 10. hornes of the 4. beast Dan. 7. are signified the ten Kinges which shall deuide the Roman Empire among them he remitteth vs to heereafter as in the former and soe wee must be content to expect his leasure neither will we do him that iniury to accompt Porphyrius against whom S. Hierome writeth cap. 7. to be one of his great learned men though his opinion be somewhat like for by the 4. Beast he vnderstaÌ„deth not the RomaÌ„ Empire but Alexander the great his 4. successors and afterward for the ten hornes reckoneth vp ten Kinges till Antiochus syrnamed Epiphanes which ruled in Macedonia Syria Asia Egypt and all this to the end that those wordes osloquens ingentia might be thought to be spoken of Antiochus and not of Antichrist But howsoeuer M. Downam wil be ashamed to partake with this Apostata yet am I sorie that he commeth so neere and must be inforced to oppose himselfe not onlie against S. Hierome but also against all Ecclesiasticall writers till his tyme for so he affirmeth Dicamus quod omnes Scriptores Ecclesiastici tradiderunt in consummatione mundi quando regnum destruendum est Romanorum decem futuros Reges qui orbem Romanum interse diuidant vndecimum surrecturuÌ„ c. Let vs say that which all Ecclesiasticall Downam ioyneth with Porphyry an Apostata against all Ecclesiasticall writers writers haue deliuered vnto vs that in the end of the world when the Roman Kingdome is to be destroyed there shal be ten Kinges who shall deuide the RomaÌ„ world among them that there shall arise an eleuenth little King c. But if M. Downam wil be so mad as to oppose himselfe to them all surelie we haue no reason to follow him but rather to endeauour to recall him as we hartilie wish we might Finallie M. Downam is content to suppose that Daniel had spoken in those places of the Roman Empire and then he will haue the 10. hornes and 10. toes to signifie the seuerall Kinges of that kingdome which euasion verie worthilie he confirmeth by the example of the Seleucidae Lagidae their Kingdomes and Kinges which were not all one and
will say that Ezechiels sleeping is to be vnderstood litterally of Gods tolerating so that when he was bidden to sleepe so many dayes God was litterally commaunded to sleepe so many yeares Neither is M. Downams addition out of some of the Ezech. 4. learned namely Iunius any thing to the purpose For Apoc. 2. only the number of 10. is put indefinitely as is vsually in Scripture so that 10. daies is all one as if he had said many dayes And this is all that M. DownaÌ„ can say for his fellow Dayes are not taken for yeares Ministers Now he will say some thing against them telling them plainly that if they take daies for yeares it will follow that the speciall tyme of Christs comming may be fore tould after the Reuelation of Antichrist which he thinketh Apoc. 2. must in no wise be graunted and we haue shewed how far the Catholikes may fortell it without danger of any inconuenience Wherfore we may now conclude this Chapter in which it sufficiently appeareth that Antichrist is not come as the heretikes affirme THE NINTH CHAPTER Conteyning the sixt Demonstration THE sixt Demonstration saith Bellarmine is taken from the last signe which shall follow after Antichrist which shal be the end of the world for the comming of Antichrist shal be a little before the end of the world Wherefore if Antichrist had byn come long since the world should haue byn ended long since also The Prophet Dauid cap. 7. speaking twice of Antichrist once telling his vision and afterward expounding it both times addeth that after Antichrist shall forth with follow the iudgment I considered sayth he the bornes and behould another little horne arose and three of the first hornes were pulled of before his face I beheld vntill the Thrones were placed and the Ancient of daies sate c. And after expounding the vision The fourth beast saith he shal be the fourth Kingdome and the 10. hornes shal be 10. Kinges and another shall arise after them and he shal be more potent then the former and shall humble 3. KInges c. and they shal be deliuered into his hand for a time and tymes and a halfe a tyme and Iudgment shall sit c. The like Prophesie hath S. Iohn Apoc. 20. After these things he must be loosed a tittle tyme and I saw seates and they sate vpon them and iudgement was giuen vnto them c. And againe the Prophet Dan. after hee had said cap. 12. that Antichrists Kingdome should endure 1290. daies addeth Blessed iâ—â—e which expelleth and commeth to 1335. daies that is to 45. daies after Antichrists death for then will our Lord come to iudgement and will restore the Crownes of Iustice to the conquerors as S. Hierome and Theodoret expound it in their Commentaries vpon this place Besides the same is gathered out of Matth. 24. This Ghospell of the Kingdome shal be preached in the whole world for a testimony to all nations and then shall the end be that is a little after shall the end of the world be and after forthwith After the tribulation of those daies the sun shal be darkened and the moone shall not giue her light and then shall the signe of the Sonne of man appeare c. The same appeareth out of 2. Thess 2. Then shall that wicked one be reuealed whom our Lord Iesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth shall destroy with the brightnes of his comming c. where the Apostle teacheth that almost immediatly after Antichrist Christ shall come viz. there shal be a very little tyme betwixt them and the fraudes and deceiptes of Antichrist which were begun to be destroyed by Helias and Henoch shal be wholy destroyed by the comming of Christ himselfe and the fearefull signes which shall goe before Finally wee haue the same 1. Ioan. 2. My children it is the last houre and as you haue heard that Antichrist commeth and now there are many become Antichrists whereby we know that it is the last houre Where S. Iohn saith that this tyme from Christ to the end of the world is the last houre that is the last tyme or the last age as S. Augustine expoundeth it and he proueth it excelleÌ„tly out of this principle because wee knovv that Antichrist shall come in the end of the vvorld For S. Iohn maketh this argument Wee knovv that Antichrist shall come in the end of the vvorld but now wee see many of his forerunners or little Antichrists present wherfore it is a certayne signe that this is the last houre or age As one might argue of the houre last of the night wee know that the sunne shall rise in the end of the night but now we see many of his beames enlighten the aire wherefore wee know that this is the last houre of the night To conclude the same is confirmed by the common consent of the Fathers Iren. l. 5. in fine Tertul. l. de resurrect August l. 2. ciu cap. 19. others by our Aduersaries coÌ„fessioÌ„ for our Aduersaries acknowledge that Antichrist shall raigne to the end of the world and therfore a little after his destructioÌ„ the â—nd of the world shal be From this signe then togeather with the former we haue inuincible demoÌ„stration by which it is proued that Antichrist is not yet come nor is the Bishop of Rome For if forth with after the death of Antichrist the world shal be ended and Antichrist shall not liue after he hath appeared and begun to reigne but 3. yeares and a halfe then he shal not appeare nor begin to reigne but three yeares a halfe before the worldes end But the Pope hath already reigned with both swordes euen in the opinion of our Aduersaries aboue 500. yeares yet the world endureth still M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted 1. MAISTER Downam first cauelleth with Bellarmine because he will not prooue that Antichrist is not yet come but only that he is not come long since As though Bellarmine had taken vpon him to fight with the wind and not to impugne M. Downam and his fellowes who affirme that Antichrist came long since Wherfore this shift will not serue his turne but he must either yield himselfe or answere the argument which he will do very substantially with a distinction that the comming of Antichrist and his death are two thinges so that though it be true that he is not vtterly to be destroyed before the second comming of Christ yet he came euen in the Apostles tymes as S. Paul insinuateth and S. Iohn plainely teacheth VVhere we must put M. Downam in mynd that these The end of the world shal not be loÌ„g after Antichrists coÌ„ming two Apostles only teach that Antichrist came in their tyme only in his forerunners but now we seeke for him in persoÌ„ or as M. Downam speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which sort he and his fellowes make him to haue raigned a 1000. yeares vvhich Bellarmine impugneth because presently after his
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
name of the beast that is the Latin or Roman State and vnlesse it be such a name as he to whome all other notes of Antichrist doe agree causeth men to take vpon them which is to harpe still vpon the same string and to sing the same song like a Cuckow for this name belongeth to no other beast but Antichrist and the other part is the mayne controuersy and therefore to assume it as a thing graunted is petitio principij a figure wherewith M. Downam is well acquaynted and therefore chooseth to make it his conclusion also as the Reader may see if he please to whose iudgment I leaue it to consider whether M. Downam hath answered Bellarmines argument or rather that it is altogeather vnanswerable and inuincible as Bellarmine deseruedly affirmeth THE ELEAVENTH CHAPTER Of the Character of Antichrist THERE are also saith Bellarmine two or three opinions of Antichrists Character The first is of the heretikes of this tyme who teach that the Character of Antichrist is some signe of obedyence and coniunction with the B. of Rome yet they do not explicate after the same manner what that signe is Hemicus Bullengerus scr 61. in Apoc. will haue it to be the vnction of Chrisme with which all Christians that are obedient to the Pope are signed in their foreheads Theodorus Bibliander in Chron. tab 10. saith that the Character of the Pope is the profession of the Roman faith so that he is not accompted a true Christian who professeth not that he cleaueth to the Roman Church Dauid Chytraeus besides these two addeth the Oath of Fidelity which many are compelled to make to the Pope Likewise the Preistly vnction which is receaued in the crowne and hand and imprinteth as the Papists call it quoth hee an indeleble Character Finally to fall downe before Images and consecrated bread and to be present at Masses of Requiem Neither are these thinges vnlike to those which Sebastianus Meyer and others alleadged by Augustinus Marloratuâ— in Apoc. 13. do teach But it is an easie matter to confute these toyes both because they agree not with the words of the Text and also because all these signes were in the Catholike Church before that Antichrist had appeared in their opinion First therefore we haue out of the text that the Character shal be one not many for the Scripture alway speaketh in the singular number both of the Character and of the name number of Antichrist Wherefore there shal be one Character likewise one proper name of Antichrist and one number of his name Wherefore when our Aduersaryes multiply so many Characters they shew that they know not which that is of which S. Iohn speaketh Secondly that Character shal be common to all men in Antichrists Kingdome as is playne by those words He shall make all little great rich poore free and bound to take his Character But the Oath of obedyence and Priestly vnction agree to few Thirdly the Scripture declareth that the Character shal be such that it may indifferently be carried in the right hand or forehead for so it saith He shall make all men receyue his Character in their right hands or foreheads But none of those thinges which our aduersaryes bring is such That the vnction of Chrisme cannot be receyued in the right hand The profession of the Roman Faith is neither in the hand nor forehead but in the mouth by confession in the hart by faith The Oath of Fidelity is taken with the hand and mouth but can in no wyse be carryed in the forehead The Priestly vnction is neither receaued properly in the right hand nor in the forehead but vpon the head and fingers of both hands Finally to be present at Masses for the dead to kneele before Images and the Eucharist belong not to the forehead or hand but to the whole body and chiefely to the knees Fourthly the same Scripture saith That in the Kingdome of Antichrist no man shal be permitted to buy and sell vnles he shew the Character or the name or the number of the name But how many doe buy and sell in the dominious of the Pope who are not yet chrismed nor haue taken the Oath of fidelity nor are Priests Doe not many Iewes euen in the very Citty of Rome where the Pope hath his Sea negotiate publikely buy and sell although they haue none of those signes Let vs come to the other reason prooue that all these signes are elder then Antichrist Antichrist by the opinion of our aduersaryes came not before the yeare 606. but Tertullian lyued about the yeare 200. and yet maketh mention of Chrisme lib. de resurrectione carnis The flesh saith he is washed that the soule may be clensed the flesh is annoynted that the soule may be consecrated S. Cyprian liued about the yeare 250. and maketh mention of Chrisme lib. 1. epist 12. He must necessarily be an noynted saith he who is baptized that hauing receaued Chrisme that is vnction he may be the aunoynted of God and haue in him the grace of Christ S. Augustine lyued about the yeare 420. and yet he saith tract in Ioan. 118. VVhat is it that all know the signe of Christ but the Crosse of Christ VVhich signe vnles it be applyed either to the foreheads of the faithfull or to the water with which they are regenerated or to the oyle with which they are Chrismed or to the Sacrifice with which they are nourished none of these thinges is rightly performed Likewise to cleaue to the Roman Church was the signe and Character of a true Catholike man before the yeare of our Lord 606. S. Augustine writeth epist 162. of Caecilianus who liued about the yeare 300. He needed not to care for the multytude of enemyes which conspired against him since he saw himselfe vnited by communicatory letters to the Roman Church in which the principality of the Apostolicall chayre alway flourished and to the other Countries from whence the Ghospell came into Africa S. Ambrose who lyued about the yeare of our Lord 390. in orat de obitu fratris sui He asked the Bishop saith he if he agreed in doctrine with the Catholike Bishops that is with the Roman Church Victor Vticensis who lyued about the yeare of our Lord 490. lib. 1. de persecut Vandal writeth that an Arian Priest going about to perswade the King not to put a Catholike to death vsed these wordes If thou puttest him to death the Romans will accompt him a Martyr In which place by the name of Romans the Catholikes of Africa are designed who doubtles are not called Romans by the Arians for any other cause but for that they followed the Faith of the Roman Church and not the misbeliefe of the Arians We find the Oath of obedience made to the B. of Rome in the tyme of S. Gregory lib. 10. epist 31. and therefore before the yeare 606. for S. Gregory lyued not so long Of Priestly vnction we haue the testimony of
Chrysostome S. Sacrifice for the dead vsed before the yeare 606. Cyril and S. Augustine himselfe For first S. Chrysostome lib. 6. de Sacerdotio writeth thus The Priest is an Embassador for the whole world and an intercessour with God that he wil be propitious to the sinnes of all men not only of the liuing but also of the dead Cyrillus Hieros cateches 5. mystag VVe belieue saith he that it is the greatest help of those soules for which the obsecration of that holy and dreadfull Sacrifice which is laid vpon the Altar is offred And S. Augustine himselfe quaest 57. in Leuit. affirmeth that in this Sacrifice vera fit remissio peccatorum sinnes are truly forgiuen and tract 84. in Ioan. answering directely M. Downams distinction he writeth thus Therefore at the Table in selfe we do not so make Commemoration of the Martyrs as of others who rest in peace so that we also pray for them but rather that they may pray for vs. By all which it is plaine that in the tyme of these Saintes Masses were offered for the dead in the very same manner that they are offered now and consequently this is no marke of Antichrist except M. Downam wil be so bould as to marke these holy Fathers with it by which amongst wise men he shall only get to himselfe the opinion of an impudent heretike one of the forerunners of the true Antichrist indeed 11. To the sixt for we will omit his citation of Bishop Iewell as sufficiently answered by D. Harding M. Downam answereth first that the adoration which holy S. Paula Adoratiō of Images vsed before the yeare 606. vsed was not a common practice but peculiar to her But we must intreate him to let her haue S. Hieromes company at least who commendeth this her deuotion Secondly he saith that it was not vsuall vnto her but only at that tyme and that place But how will he prooue this Was it not asmuch to kisse the stone of the Sepulcher and to licke the place where Christs body lay as to kneele downe before the Crosse Thirdly he saith that the did not worship the Crosse as Papists doe but falling before that Crosse worshiped Christ Well then will M. Downam be content to do asmuch We will only desire thus much of him that he will apply that outward reuerence to the Crosse because it representeth Christ whome he inwardely submitteth himselfe vnto and adoreth And so much it is plaine that S. Paula did in this and her other actions of kissing and licking the Sepulcher and in this sort How Latria is giuen to the Crosse by Catholikes only doe we attribute the worship of Latria to the Crosse so that the outward reuerence be exhibited to the Crosse as a thing belonging to Christ to whome the inward submission is wholy and entirely giuen To the authority of S. Amborse for the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament he answereth that Christ may be adored in his Sacraments but the Sacrament is not to be adored To which I Adoratiō of the Eucharist vsed before the yeare 606. answere that we adore the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament which the Protestants will not allow of but S. Ambrose doth the Sacrament it selfe that is euen the forme of bread and wyne may be adored in that manner that we haue explicated of the Crosse that is as a thing belonging to Christ but alway the inward submission and adoration is to be referred to the person of Christ which must needes be in the Sacrament since his body and humanity is there as S. Ambrose affirmeth Now that which M. Downam addeth out of S. Ambrose in the same place is nothing to the purpose For we know very well that our B. Lady is not to be adored with that adoration which is due to the Holy Ghost and Christ which is all that S. Ambrose there affirmeth as appeareth euidently euen by those words which M. Downam alleadgeth Finally his euasion to the authority of S. Augustine is very friuolous for he neuer goeth about to answere the words but supposeth that S. Augustine would not affirme the reall presence which yet his wordes must needes import since he saith that we eate Christs flesh and that no man eateth but he first adoreth which is the very same that M. Downam will needes haue to be the marke of Antichrist so that if we will belieue him all the Christians in S. Augustines tyme had the marke of Antichrist for which his pleading no doubt if M. Downam lyue to see Antichrists raigne he shall haue a good fee and howsoeuer he cannot goe vnrewarded since the Dragon to whom Antichrist belongeth taketh a record of all such worthy enterpryzes that tend so highly to the aduancement of his Kingdome God graunt that M. Downam may take a better course in time 12. Thus we might conclude this Chapter but that we will not omit to examine how M. Downam impugneth the Catholikes opinion in generall for that they seeme to num 3. agree in this that the Character is a visible marke of Antichrists name which notwithstanding he might haue seene denied by Bellarmine prouing out of the Scripture that the marke of Antichrist and his name or the number of his name are not all one But indeed that which M. Downam chiefely impugneth is that it shal be visible and yet in this num 2. also he is deceyued For S. Hippolytus Martyr thought that i◠should be a priuatiue signe that is the not vsing the signe of the Crosse which is the marke of Christ for which M. Downam was so angrie with him and with Bellarmine both that he calleth him a counterfaite Author and chargeth the other with falsifying his testimony But for S. Hippolytus Eusebius l. 6. cap. 14. and S. Hierome in Scriptoribus will answere who recount many of his learned workes and S. Hierome nameth this of Antichrist S. Ambrose the Martyr thought him a fit man to propose to learned Origen to imitate Now how Bellarmine hath falsified his testimony M. Downam doth not tell vs nor we can imagine except it be for that illation of his that in S. Hippolytus his iudgment Protestants are notable forerunners of Antichrist which notwithstanding is most manifest since they neither vse themselues nor will suffer others by their good will to vse the signe of the Crosse vpon their foreheads or to carry the picture of it in their handes or to haue it before their eyes as the Christians vsed in S. Hippolytus daies who liued not 200. yeares after Christs Passion and Catholikes vse to this day But let vs see how M. Downam impugneth those Catholike Antichrists marke shal be visible Authors that thinke it shal be a visible marke his first argument is because it is a grosse thing to imagine that Princes and Magistrates and men of all sortes would euer suffer themselues to be branded as it were with Antichrists visible marke To which I answere that it
for their Messias but he doth well not The Herodians to stand vpon this for the solution is euident for these Herodians were a few flattering Courtiers now we speake of the whole Nation of the Iewes and chiefly of those great Rabbynes who professe so great knowledge in Scripture which teacheth most euidently that the Messias is to be of the Iewish nation and the Tribe of Iuda though for this second they cannot now much striue because their Genealogies are so confounded and so it will be no hard matter for Antichrist to be taken for one of the Tribe of Iuda though indeed he be of the Tribe of Dan. To the authority of the Fathers he answereth according Downam reiecteth the Fathers to his custome that they are not to be belieued in this point which hath no ground in the word of God and still he insisteth vpon Bellarmines reiecting the twelue Fathers which affirmed that Antichrist should be of the Tribe of Dan for the same reasons But he abuseth both Bellarmine and the Fathers as the Reader may easily see Bellarmine for he reiecteth not the Fathers authority but imbraceth it as very probable which was as much as the most of them affirmed The Fathers because he reiecteth them all in a thing wherin they agree as certaine which they would neuer do without some certaine ground either of Apostolicall tradition or Scripture and reason which Bellarmine hath sufficiently explicated in his former assertion Finally M. Downam briefly passeth ouer the opposition which Bellarmine sheweth that the Iewes haue against the Pope because he was ashamed to see what Iewes the Protestants are in this behalfe but yet he is content to take hold of their application of the Prophesies of Daniel against the Pope because they are no parties and therfore their authority The Iews opposite to the Pope may be some inducement to thinke indeed that the Pope is Antichrist where I could wish the Reader to marke attentiuely the great connexion betwixt Iewes and Protestants in this point of impugning the Pope though vpon different grounds For if you examine a Iew why he is so eager against the Pope he will tell you that it is because he hateth Christ himselfe and for his sake all Christians but chiefly the Pope who is the chiefe of them Againe if you How the Iewes and the Protestāts agree and differ in impugning the Pope pose M. Downam with the same question why he cannot abide the Pope He will tell you another tale that it is because he loueth Christ and all true Christians to whome he thinketh the Pope and his adherents to be most opposite And is it not strange that these men should ioyne in the expositions of Scripture Yea that M. Downam should take the Iew to be no party against the Pope but an indifferent man and therfore thinketh his exposition fit to be some inducement to make men belieue his doctrine Is it not too plaine that M. Downam is in the high way to deny Christ howsoeuer he protesteth the contrary since he hateth the Pope whome the Iewes only detest out of their malice to Christ himselfe True it is that the consequence is not so necessary from the hatred of the Pope to the hatred of Christ as contrariwise but yet he that is come so farre as to hate Christs most principal seruant in the highest degree and with vnplacable hatred may easily be carried a step further except God giue him grace to turne back in time which I most hartily wish for M. Downam himselfe and all others that are in that most miserable and dangerous estate THE THIRTENTH CHAPTER Of Antichrists Seate TOVCHING the sixt saith Bellarmine our Aduersaries bouldly affirme that the chiefe Seat of Antichrist is Rome or the Apostolike Chaire founded there for they say that Antichrist shall inuade the Sea of Peter and raise it vp to a certaine soueraigne height from the which it shall rule and tyranniclly gouerne the whole Church And that Rome is the Kingly Citty of Antichrist they proue out of Apoc. 17. where S. Iohn speaking of the Seate of Antichrist saith that it is the great Citty which is scituated vpon seauen hills and which hath the Kingdome ouer the Kings of the earth And that at Romè not in the pallace of Nero but in the very Church of Christ Antichrist shall haue his Seate they proue out of S. Paul who 2. Thess 2. saith that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God for since he saith absolutly in the Temple of God he meaneth the true Temple of the true God and there is none such but the Church of God For the Temples of the Gentiles are true Temples but of the Diuels not of God And the Temple of the Iewes was indeed of God but it ceased to be a Temple when the Iewish sacrifice and Priesthood ceased for these three are so ioyned that one cannot be without the other Besides the Temple of the Iewes within a while after was to be desolated and neuer to be bult againe as Dan. cap. 9. saith and the desolation shall perseuere till the consummation and the end Wherfore the Apostle cannot speake of it And this argument is confirmed out of the Fathers S. Hierome quaest 11. ad Algasiam He shall sit saith he in the Temple of God either at Hierusalem as some thinke or in the Church as we thinke more truly and Oecumenius He saith not saith he the Temple of Ierusalem but the Churches of Christ Theodorus Bibliander addeth the testmony of S. Greg. who l. 4. ep 38. ad Ioan. Constantinopolitanū saith The king of pride is nigh and which is impious to be spoken an army of Priests is prepared for him Out of which words a double argument is drawne one thus Iohn of Constantinople is sayd to forerun Antichrist because he will be called the vniuersall Bishop therfore he shall be Antichrist who in very deed shall make himselfe the Vniuersall Bishop and shall sit in the Church as the head of all The other thus The army of Antichrist shall be Priests therfore Antichrist shall be the head of Priests By which arguments the heretikes thinke that they euidently shew that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist since he ruleth at Rome sitteh in the Temple of God and is called the vniuersall Bishop and is the Prince of Priests Notwithstanding the true opinion is that Hierusalem and not Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist and the Temple of Salomon and Throne of Dauid not the Temple of S. Peter or the Sea Apostolike which we can proue in two sorts First with an argument ad hominem Secondly out of the Scripture and Fathers First then I make this argument Antichrist shall sit in the Church of Christ and shall be accompted the Prince head of his Church and shall haue Magistracy and offices in it as Philippus Melanctonin apologia art 6. confess Augustanae Caluinus lib. 4. Iustit cap. 2. § 12. cap. 7.
as S. Augustine expoundeth it l. 20. Ciuit. Dei c. 19. where he deduceth this exposition out of the manner of S. Pauls speaking who sayd not in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Templo but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Templum as if he should say that Antichrist shal sit in TempluÌ„ Dei that is as though he and his were the TeÌ„ple of God although this annotation of S. August is not necessary for though in Latine we cannot wel say sedere in TempluÌ„ for in Templo yet in greeke it is not euill said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea it is commonly so said Some also vnderstand the Churches of Christians which Antichrist shall command to serue him as S. Chrysostome interpreteth it yet the more common more probable and the more litterall exposition is of them who teach that the temple of Salomon is vnderstood by the Temple of God in which after some sort repaired Antichrist â—â—all fit For first in the Scripture of the new Testament the Churches of Christians are neuer vnderstood by the Temple of God but alway the Temple of Hierusalem and that which is more the ancient Fathers Latine and Greeke for some ages neuer called the Churches of Christians Temples which in greeke are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in this place of S. Paul but they called them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Oratoria Ecclesias Domas orationis Basilicas Martyria Certainely neither S. Iustine nor S. Irenaeus nor Tertullian nor S. Cyprian do vse the name of Temple when they treat of the Churches of Christians and S. Ierome ep ad Riparium saith that Iulian the Apostata commanded that the * Basilicae Churches of the Saints should either be destroyed or turned into Temples And the reasons why the Apostles call not the Churches of Christians Temples are two the one because then they had not any Temples but only in priuate houses they appointed certayn places for praier Sermons and saying of Masse The other reason is because the memory of the Iewish Temple was fresh least the Apostles might seeme to bring in some thing like to them and that they might distinguish the Church from the Synagogue they abstained from the name of Temple As also for the same reason the Apostles in the Scripture neues call Christian Priests Sacerdotes but only Episcopos and Presbyteros But after that Hierusalem was ouerthrowne and the Temple burnt and the memory of the old Temple and Priesthood abolished the holy Doctors began to vse commonly the name of Temple and Priesthood Since therfore the Apostle writing that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God said somthing which he would haue vnderstood of them to whome he wrote and they then did not vnderstaÌ„d by the name of Temple any other but the Temple of Hierusalem it seemeth certaine that the Apostle spake of it which is also confirmed by the common exposition of the Fathers S. Irenaeus lib. 5. VVhen Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of Hierusalem then our Lord will come c. S. Hippolytus Mart. orat de mundi consummat He shall build the Temple at Hierusalem And S. Martin apud Sulpitium lib. 2. dial teacheth the same S. Cyril Hierosol cateches 15. VVhat manner of Temple meaneth the Apostle In the Temple of the Iewes which is remayning for God forbid that it should be done in this in which we are And S. Hilary can 25. in Matt. Antichrist being receaued of the Iewes shall stay in the place of Sanctification Where he plainly speaketh of the Temple of the Iewes for he calleth the place of Sanctification that which Christ Matth. 24. calleth the holy Place when he saith VVhen you see abhomination standing in the holy place S. Ambrose in c. 21. Luc. saith that Antichrist according to the history shall sit in the Temple into which the Romans cast the head of a swine in the time of the Emperour Titus and according to the mysticall sense that he shall sit in the inward Temple of the Iewes that is in their perfidious minds Sedulius vpon this place of the Apostle explicateth that in the Temple of God He will endeauour to repaire the temple of Hierusalem c. S. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 28. In the Temple sayth he not ours but the old Iewish S. Chrysostome Theodoret and Theophilact who say that Antichrist shall sit in the Churches of Christians affirme also that he shall sit in the Temple of Salomon for S. Chrysostome writeth thus vpon this place He shall command himselfe to be worshipped for God and to be placed in the Temple not only of Hierusalem but also in the Churches The same say Theophilact and Theodoret. S. Augustine also lib. 20. Ciuit. Dei cap. 19. S. Hierome quaest 11. ad Algasiam do not deny that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of Salomon Only Oecumenius denieth that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of the Iewes but he is the last of all and by no meanes to be preferred before all the Fathers perhaps also his text is corrupted there wanteth but one particle only for it is not credible that he would depart from S. Chrysostome Theodoret and Theophilact whome in all other things he alway followeth Now let vs answere to the arguments of our Aduersaries which we proposed before To the first I answere in three manners First it may be sayd with S. Augustine in Psal 26. Arethas Haymo Bede and Rupert in cap. 17. Apoc. that by the Harlot which sitteth vpon seauen hills and hath her Kingdome ouer the Kings of the earth Rome is not vnderstood but the whole Citty of the Diuel which in the Scripture is often called Babylen and is opposed to the Citty of God that is to the Church which is called Hierusalem and that by the seauen hils is vnderstood the vniuersality of the proud and chiefly of the Kings of the earth Secondly it may be sayd and in my iudgment better that by the harlot is vnderstood Rome as Tertull. l. cont Indaeos lib. 3. cont Martian and S. Hierome ep 17. ad Marcellam quast 11. ad Algasiam but â—thnick Rome raigning worshipping Idols and persecuting Christians and not Rome Christian for so those Authors expound And surely meruailous is the impudency of Heretikes who to proue that the Roman Church is the purple Harlot vse the testimony of Tertullian and S. Hierome for since at that time Heathen Rome was contrary to Christian Rome which of them I pray you do those Fathers call the purple Harlot If heathen Rome why then do the Heretikes abuse their testimonies If Christian Rome it followeth that the Roman Church had degenerated then and Antichrist did raigne then which they themselues do not graunt Furthermore if Christian Rome was Babylon then why doth Tertullian de praescript say Happy Church to which the Apostles powred out their whole doctrine with their bloud And why doth S. Hierome lib. 2. cont Iouinianum in the end
yet then they shall be Gentiles and Idolaters since they shall acknowledg no other God but Antichrist himselfe Besides this doubt whether S. Iohn speaketh in this place of Antichrist or no M. Downam saith that he hath proued two other points more certainely First that Henoch and Elias be not heere spoken of and that See c. â— the holy Ghost doth not meane Hierusalem But these proofs of his are all confuted in their due places to which I remit the Reader for now I will only examine that which he bringeth in this place where he is content to suppose that S. Iohn speaketh both of Antichrist and of Ierusalem and yet saith M. Downams iugling that it followeth not that whersoeuer the witnesses of Christ are put to death by him or by his authority that there should be his principall seate and then he putteth Bellarmines argument in forme for him making the proposition thus VVhere the two witnesses are put to death there is the seate of Antichrist to which he also answereth with this distinction that being generally vnderstood it is false if particulerly then Bellarmines argument is not a Syllogisme but a Paralogisme where you see how he tosseth and turneth Bellarmines argument to auoid the force of it and yet it will not be for first he would make vs belieue that Bellarmine spake of witnesses without determination of number then hauing added the number yet he saith that it may be vnderstood generally which I cannot conceaue how he meaneth except it be that Bellarmine should speake of any two witnesses whatsoeuer which notwithstanding is very ridiculous since it is manifest that he speaketh of those two only which S. Iohn speaketh of But saith M. Downam if it be vnderstood particulerly of two determinate and particuler witnesses then Bellarmines argument is a Paralogisme And why so I pray you Syr What deceipt is there here Yea were it not great deceipt to speake vniuersally since the Scripture speaketh determinately and particulerly of only two which Bellarmine hath also euidently conuinced to be Helias and Enoch and consequently M. Downam cannot deny but that it is a perfect Syllogisme and an euident See part â— c. 2. §. 17. demonstration except he can find some fault in the Assumption for which he remitteth vs to his former proofes by which he telleth vs that he hath made good that the Citty which is here spoken of is Ciuitas Romana the Citty and Empire of Rome which no doubt will proue a great Citty indeed comprehendeth Ierusalem many great Citties besides and consquently Antichrist may very well sit in Hierusalem M. Downam foolishly contradicteth himselfe and yet be sayd in this sense to sit in Ciuitate Romana in the Citty and Empire of Rome as we see that M. Downam auoucheth that our Lord was crucified in this great Citty and yet all men know that he was crucifyed at Hierusalem by which the Reader may take a scantling of M. Downams proofes till we examine them in particuler for it is manifest that they will only proue that Antichrists seate shall be some where within the Roman Empire which neuer any man doubted of yet but this is no proofe at all that it shall not be in Hierusalem since that also is within M. Downams great Citty and so I cannot see but that Bellarmine and M. Downam will agree well inough in this point since he granteth that it is as true that Antichrist shall sit at Hierusalem as that our Sauiour was crucified at Hierusalem which all men know to be most true 2. To the second place Apoc. 17. M. Downam remitteth himselfe to his answere in another place whither I will See part 2. cap. 2. §. 18. also refer the Reader for the confutation Likewise to Bellarmines proofe from his former argument in which he proued that Antichrist shall be a Iew c. he only saith that he hath disproued this position in his former Chapter Wherfore I must also desire the Reader to take a view of his disproofes and my confutatioÌ„ in the precedent argument Thirdly M. Downam obiecteth to himselfe the authority of 4. Fathers and presently M. Downam reiecteth the Fathers reiecteth them because their assertions cannot be proued out of Scriptures and will needs father this his impudency vpon Bellarmine himselfe but I would willingly know who shall be iudge whether the Fathers or M. Downam vnderstand the Scriptures aright Bellarmine sometimes when the Fathers are different among themselues may very well cleaue to those that seeme to him to bring better proofes for that they say and likewise when they affirme a thing as probable he needeth not auouch it for certaine Bu M. Downam hath none of them of his side and flatly denyâ—th that which they affirme without any doubt at all And his cauils against the authorities in particuler are impertinent and ridiculous for Lactantius plainly speaketh of the chiefest kingdome in Antichrists time which neither he nor any other doubteth but that it shall belong to Antichrist himselfe and consequently M. Downam is exceeding ridiculous if not worse to tell vs that Lanctantius speaketh not of Antichrist M. Downams folly since it is manifest that he speaketh of his Kingdome Now as for S. Hierome and Theodoret they affirme both the one and the other viz. that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple at Ierusalem and in the Churches of Christ as Bellarmine proueth and sheweth that there is no opposition at all betwixt those two assertions whatsoeuer M. Downam sayth to the contrary but bringeth no proofes at all for that he saith so that he should seeme to thinke his credit very good and that he shall be belieued vpon his bare word in which he is mightily deceaued Lastly in this place I must desire the Reader to note M. Downams subtilty for to discredit the Fathers M. Downams iugling which Bellarmine alleadgeth he telleth vs that they are foure and yet to make some shew of an answere to them he confoundeth the sitting of Antichrist as in his Kingdome and his sitting in the Temple of God wherof Bellarmin speaketh in his next proofe and for which he alleageth not only foure Fathers but almost foureteene for if you add Lactantius and S. Hierome whome he bringeth heere they are in all thirteene 3. In the third place 2. Thess 2. M. Downam first endeauoreth to apply the three former expositions to the Pope 2. Thess 2. whome he affirmeth only to sit as it were a God in the minds of men prescribing lawes to binde the Conscience and that with guilt of mortall sinne as we speake But in this he is at least deceaued for we Both spirituall temporal Superiours may prescribe lawes to binde the conscieÌ„ce vnder mortall sinne affirme that not only the Pope but all other both spirituall and temporall Superiours may prescribe lawes to bind the conscience and that with guilt of mortall sinne and this we may gather euidently out of the
at his reuealing but aboue all that is called God as S. Paul affirmeth His interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we admit but deny that those things which he recounteth are adored in the Church of Rome as God or that the Pope aduanceth himselfe aboue them neither of which he wil be euer able to proue as shall appeare when Downam belyeth the Pope church of Rome he goeth about it Lastly M. Downam affirmeth that the greatest height of pride that is incident to any creature whatsoeuer is not to seek to be aboue God for that cannot be imagined but to be as God And indeed sayth he the height of Antichrist his pride and aduancâ—â—g of himselfe is noted in the words following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insomuch that be shall fit in the Temple of God as God In which words M. Downam affirmeth the quite contrary to that which S. Paul sayth for his words are plaine that Antichrist shall oppose and extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God And this may very easily be imagined if we speake of one that either belieueth not that there is any true God or els iâ— he belieueth it and consequently in his hart cannot extoll himselâ—e aboue him yet he may desire to vsurpe the honour due to How Antichrist may extol himselfe aboue God him to himselfe and to this end professe himselfe to be the only true God and to this intent sit in the Temple as he to whome it ought to be erected and so shew that he is God which is indeed the height of Antichrists pride since he cannot desire any more then to be a compted and adored as if he were the only true God which cannot be vnlesse he be extolled aboue the true God and the false also Dan. 11. 13. To the second testimony out of Dan. 11. M. Downam answereth two things First that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist in proofe wherof he alledgeth Bellarmine himselfe who in this very booke cap. 21. affirmeth that in part of this very verse Daniel speaketh ad litteram litterally of Antiochus who was a figure of Antichrist To which I answere that he doth so indeed and yet these words which he alleadgeth heere cannot be vnderstood of Antiochus as S. Hierome affirmeth and proueth against wicked Porphyry with whome M. Downam will needs partake And if M. Downam will know the reason of both it is this Daniel in the same words prophesieth both of Antiochus and of Antichrist but with this distinction that where the words will beare it they are litterally first to be vnderstood of Antiochus and secondly of Antichrist who in many things is rather figured then expressly prophesied of but when we meet with words that can by no meanes be litterally applied to Antiochus then of forcâ— we must vnderstand theÌ„ litterally also of Antichrist of this sort there be many in this chapter of Daniel and the next amongst which in the Fathers iudgment these are to be numbred as also they most euidently proue and none but Porphyry and such Infidels or heretikes can deny Those other WheÌ„ the Scripture is litterally to be vnderstod of the figure and when of the thing figured words which Bellarmine speaketh of cap. 21. may be applyed to Antiochus and consequently are litterally to be vnderstood of him And this is no peculiar thing to this place of Scripture but ordinary in all prophesies of Christ which for the most part are still mingled with some other figure of him to which many sentences are to be applyed ad litteram but not all and the signe when they are when they are not to be applyed to the figure is when they containe somthing which can or cannot be verifyed but of Christ to giue M. Downam one example he may at his leasure peruse the 71. Psalme in which Salomon and our Sauiour are spoken of and all that can be applied to Salomon is litterally Psalm 71. to be vnderstood of him but somethings cannot as that his Kingdome or name shall remaine cum sole ante lunaâ— or that he should rule à flumine vsque ad termines orbiâ— terrarum that all Kings shall adore him and all Nations shall serue him that all the Tribes of the earth should be blessed in him and the like of which see S. Augustine lib. 17. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 8. sub med The second part of M. Downams answere consisteth in prouing that Antiochus was an Idolater But of this no man doubteth and because this is so certaine therfore it is also out of question among all truly wise and learned men that the words alleadged by Bellarmine cannot be vnderstood of Antiochus but only of Antichrist 14. Wherfore M. Downam commeth to the obiection which Bellarmine made out of the next verse against himselfe and insteed of replying vpon Bellarmines answere M. Downam will needs answere also Wherfore let vs see this answeâ—e of an answere I answere first sayth M. Downam 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 â—â— heere described is an Idolater for let the word Maozim signify what it may yet the words following plainely conuince the party heere described of Idolatry The God which his Fathers knew not he shall worship with gold But let M. Downam apply either of Bellarmins solutions to this place he shal see that it proueth nothing at all For if by this God which his Fathers knew not be meant Antichrist himselfe then he shal only honour not properly adore Antichrist shal honor or worship but one God himselfe as God If the Diuell be vnderstood which is the second solution then he shall only adore him secretly not publikely by which the second part of M. Downams obiection is also taken away for though the word Maozim did signity a false God yet in those which follow the idolatry is not increased but further explicated for then by the God Maozim and by the God which his Fathers knew not is meant only the same false God and the manner how he is to be worshipped is shewed viz. with gold c. By which also M. Downam may see how falsly he chargeth Bellarmine with omitting this secoÌ„d clause for Bellarmine before alleadgeth §. 13. the whose place with both clauses and now he alleadgeth not the words of Daniel verbatim but only taketh the sense which M. Downams brethren obiected against vs who were not so shamelesse or foolish as M. Downam is to affirme that Daniel speaketh of two Gods which Antichrist shall adore for they knew well inough that it is an ordinary thing in Scripture to repeat the same thing in diuers words especially with a little addition in the later and in this place they also knew that all interpreters agreed that only one God was spoken of and that the Scripture could not be vnderstood otherwise without too apparent a
then he hath bene since and shal be more againe hereafter in Antichrists tyme then euer he was before â—fter which he shall go into eternall destruction as S. Iohn affirmeth 7. And by this we may see that Bellarmines exposition conteyneth no absurdity at all nor can be impugned by any found ground so farre as concerneth the substance Apoc. â—3 therof for all that can be obiected against it is that it seâ—meth 〈◊〉 to explicate how Antichrist should be signifyed 〈…〉 himselfe and also by one of his heades 〈…〉 very probable that it is not Antichriâ—◠〈…〉 this deadly wound but one of the 7. Kings signified by those 7. heads who shall concurre with Antichrist in his wickednesse for that in this 13. Chapter S. Iohn speaketh of particuler Kings and not of seuerall States is manifest by that which hath bene said and shall heerafter be againe confirmed And thus we may conclude this Chapter for M. Downam replyeth not a word to Bellarmines answere to the obiection of the Magdeburgians THE SIXTENTH CHAPTER Of the Kingdome and Warres of Antichrist OF the Kingdome and Warres of Antichrist we read saith Bellarmine 4. things in the Scriptures First that Antichrist rising from a most base place shall obtayne the Kingdome of the Iewes by deceipt and craft Secondly he shall fight with 3. Kings riz of Egypt Lybia and Ethiopia and that he shall ouercome them and postesse their Kingdomes Thirdly that he shall subdue other 7. Kings and by that meanes become the Monarch of the whole world Fourthly that he shall persecute the Christians with an innumerable army through the whole world and that this is the battayle of of Gog and Magog of all which since nothing agreeth to the Pope it followeth manifestly that he can by no meanes be called Antichrist Of the first thus speaketh Dan. cap. 11. There shall stand in his place a contemptible one and Kingly honour shall not be giuen to him and he shall come secretly and shall obtayne a Kingdome in deceipt Vpon which place S. Hierome wryteth that although these words be in some sort vnderstood of Antiochus Epiphanes yet they are far more perfectly to be fulfilled in Antichrist as those things which are said of Salomon are indeed vnderstood Psal 71. of Salomon but are more perfectly fulfilled of Christ wherefore S Hierome in the same place after he had expounded this place of Antiochus following Pâ—rphery writeth thus But our men better and more rightly interprete that Antichrist shall do these things in the end of the world who is to rise of a meane nation that is of the people of the Iewes and shal be so base and obiect that the Kingly honour shall not be giuen him and he shall obtayne the Princedome by wiles and deceipts c. Where Saint Hierome signifieth that this is the common exposition of Christians for which cause also Daniel cap. 7. compareth Antichrist with a little horne viz. by reason of his base and obscure beginning And certainly this first doth in no sort agree to the Pope for we should say that the Pope was vntill the yeare 600. most obscure and of no name and that then suddainly and by deceipts he vsurped some high place But this is manifestly false For as S. Augustine epist 162. saith In the Roman Church alway flourished the Princedome of the Apostolike Chayre and S. Prosper lib. 2. de vocat gentium cap. 6. Rome by the Princedome of preisthood is made more ample by the sortresse of Religion then by the throne of power and the Councell of Calcedon epist ad Leonem affirmeth that at Rome do shine the Apostolike beames which from thence extend themselues to all and communicate their treasures with others Finally euen that Heathen writer Amianus Marcellus l. 27. writing of the schisme of Damasus and Vrsicinus saith that he doth not meruayle if men striue so earnestly for the Bishopricke of Rome since that the riches and amplitude of it are so great Of the second the same Dan. cap. 7. speaketh thus I considered the hornes and behould another little horne arose in the middest of them and three of the first hornes were pulled vp beâ—ore his face and after explicating Moreouer saith he the ten hornes are ten Kinges and another shall rise after them and he shal be more mighty then the former and shall humiliate 3. Kings And cap. 11. explicating who these three Kinges be He shall send his hand quoth he into lands and the land of Egypt shall not escape and he shall haue dominion of the treasures of gould and siluer and in all the precious things of Egypt and he shall passe also through Lybia and Ethiopia Vpon which places and especially vpon cap. 7. S. Hierome writing saith Let vs say that which all Ecclesiasticall VVriters haue deliuered In the consuÌ„mation of the world when the Kingdome of the Romans is to be destroyed there shal be ten Kinges who shall deuide the Roman world amongst them and there shall arise an eleuenth little King Antichrist who shall ouercome three of the ten Kinges that is of the Egyptians and of Africa and Ethiopia who being slaine the other 7. Kinges shall also submit themselues to the Conquerour The same doe teach of the three Kinges to be slaine by Antichrist S. Irenaeus lib. 5. Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 16. and Theodoretus in cap. 7. 11. Daniel And this most of all refuteth the madnes of heretikes who make the Pope Antichrist for let them say if they can when the Pope slew the Kinges of Egypt of Lybia and Ethiopia and vsurped their Kingdome Theodorus Bibliander in his Chronicle saith that the Pope as a little horne shaked the first horne of the ten when Gregory the second excommunicated Leo the Greeke Emperour the Image breaker and prohibited the tributes of Italy to be rendred vnto him and by little and little obteyned his Princedome that is the Exarchate of Rauenna He saith that he shaked off the secoÌ„d horne when Pope Zacharie deposed Childerichus King of the French and commaunded Pepin to be created in his steed Of the third he speaketh not plainely but he seemeth to insinuate that the third horne was then stroken of when Gregory the 7. excommunicated and deposed Henry the 4. Emperour There is also extant a certaine Epistle of Fredericus the second Emperour of that name written against the Pope in which he affirmeth that the three hornes pulled vp by Antichrist are the Kingdome of Italy Germany and Sicilie which the Pope had chiefly made to serue him But these are most vaine cauills for first Daniel speaketh not of the Kingdome of France or Germany but of the Kingdome of Egypt Lybia and Ethiopia Besides the Pope hath slaine none of those Kings but Antichrist shall kill those 3. Kings as S. Hierome saith Likewise Antichrist shall vsurpe those Kingdomes to himself and not giue them to others but the Pope kept not the Kingdome of France to himselfe but gaue it to Pepin
which M. Downam dissembleth and therefore interpreted Iudas Machabaeus to be that stone which Dan. speaketh of cap. 2. but most ridiculously as is manifest out of the text and therefore M. Downam durst not go so far with him though in this plate he affirmeth that in Antiochus his tyme the people of God were freed from the tyranny of the Seleucidae by Indas Machabaeus which is all the ouerthrow he can shew vs that the The Kingdomes of the Lagidae and Seleucidae cannot be signified by the 4. beast Dan. 7. stone gaue to the Statua or 4. beast Finally how can two of these Kingdomes into which Alexanders Kingdome was deuided be taken for the Kingdome signified by the 4. beast which cap. 7. is affirmed to be greater then all Kingdomes and to deuour the whole earth whereas all those 4. Kingdomes togeather are said cap. 8. to be inferiour to that of Alexander non in fortitudine eius as it is also manifest by experience that they were and much more to all Kingdomes or to that which was to be greater then they all and to deuour the whole earth Neither is it true that these 4. Kingdomes were by mutuall conflictes reduced to two vnder Seleucus Nicanor and Prolomy Laegides for to omit the controuersy about the 4. Kingdome whether it were of Asia minor or of Thracia and Pontus it is certaine that there were 14. Kinges of Macedonia which held that Kingdome about an hundred yeares and 1. Machab. 1. they are all foure said to haue reigned after Alexander and their Children after them many years But no part of M. Downams exposition is more absurd then his applications of the 10. Kinges of the Seloucidae and Lagidae to the 10. hornes of the beast mentioned cap. 7. for to omit that this was Porphyries deuise by which he made himselfe ridiculous to all other expositours M. Downams particuler application canteyneth so many absurdityes as I am persuaded his freindes will blush and all others will pitty the poore man for first whereas he putteth Seleucus Nicanor to be the 2. horne taking one King of Egypt and the next of Syria because Ptolomy Philadelphus who was the Downams exposition contrary to all others euen his owne fellowes second King of Egypt was a great fauourer of the Iewes he is constrayned to interprete the 5. verse of the 11. Chapter of this Seleucus Nicaner against all expositours euen his owne Tremellius and Iunius who by those wordes de Principibus cius c. or as they read it alter ex Principibus cius vnderstand Ptolomaus Philadelphus whom M. Downam will by no meanes acknowledg to be any of these 10. hornes and consequently the second horne is not to be found in this 11. Chapter as neither the 2. and another King which is none of these hornes is mentioned in their place by which M. Downams Downam contradicteth himselfe assertion that the 10. hornes which successiuely tyrannized ouer lury are mentioned in order in this 11. Chapter is wholy ouerthrown Likewise he omitteth Seleucus Ceraunus elder brother to Antiochus Maguus though he also be mentioned in this Chapter Fynally of all these 10. which he nameth hornes because they tyrannized ouer the people of the Iewes he cannot proue that aboue two of them persecured or in a manner molested the Iewes indeed they were so busied with their owne affayres that they were rather glad to procure the Iewes to be their friends then to exasperate them Ptolomy Lagides the first King of Egypt did inuade Ierusalem as other histories report but Daniel omitted it which is a signe that his intent in numbring these Kinges was not to declare the persecution with which they were to afflict the Iewes as M. Downam imagineth Besides him it is only certaine that Antiochus Epiphanes the last horne in M. Downams accompt did the like for that which he affirmeth of Ptolomy Philopater out of the 12. verse is a meere fable since it is manifest out of Polybius lib. 5. and other histories that the thousands which there he is foretould to ouerthrow were of the army of Antiochus Magnus for he slew and tooke prisoners aboue 10. thousand And as for Antiochus Magnus himselfe true it is that he came to Ierusalem not against the Iewes but against Antiochus magnus Seleucus Philopater his elder sonne were the Iewes benefactors Scopas one of Ptolomyes Captaines against whom the Iewes themselues assisted Antiochus with which he was so well pleased that he certified his Captaynes of the Iewes good vsage towards him how he had decreed to reward them for which cause he is by Iosephus accompted one of their benefactors And the like we may say of Seleucus Philopater his elder sonne in whose commendation the Scripture it selfe speaketh 2. Mach. 3. 4 testifying that in his tyme the Citty of Ierusalem was in all peace and the Temple honoured with many guifts aswell by him as it had byn before by his predecessors and that he in particuler allowed all things necessary to the Sacrifices and that which M. Downam obiecteth against him that he sent to exhaust and empty the treasury and Temple of Ierusalem the Scripture relateth the matter at large in the same place and sheweth how that action of his proceded from the false information and instigation of Symon who was appointed to keep defend the Temple and of Apollonius Gouernour of Calosyria and Phaenices whom Symon had moued to that effect and tould that the treasure was common and not apperteyning to the Sacrifices But that this proceeded not from the King is manifest by that action of Oâ—ias the High Priest who to defend himselfe from the vexations of Symon and Apollonius tooke it to be his bestcourse to go himselfe to the King and to put himselfe Only Antiochus Epiphanes is in the Scripture accounted a persecutor of the Iewes vnder his Kingly protection which seemeth to haue stood him in good steed since the Scripture maketh no mention of any further trouble in that Kings dayes but presently addeth these words Sed post Seleuâ—i vitae excessâ—m cùm suscepisset regnum Antiochus c. By which plainely appeareth the difference betwixt those two Kinges and how those wicked courses which Seleucus hindered were set forward by Antiochus And indeed this is the only King whom the Scripture accompteth a persecutor of the Iewes and therfore Dan. 8. there is no mention of any of the rest but only of the 4. among which Alexanders Monarchy was deuided and forthwith after them of this Antiochus and in the 11. Chapter as we haue seene though many of the others be specified yet there is no mention that any of them persecuted the Iewes but only of the warres which they had among themselues There remayneth yet the greatest absurdity contayning a flat corruption and contradiction of the Scripture in that M. Downam maketh the little horne which arose after the 10. to be one of the 10. and the 10. But
because I haue had occasion to handle this point heeretofore I will not weary the Reader with a needles repetion 8. After this M. Downam coÌ„meth againe to proue that the first place which Bellarmine citeth is to be vnderstood Downam speaketh foolishly and from the purpose of Antiochus which no man denieth and therfore all that labour is lost vnles he would infer out of that that it is not to be vnderstood of Antichrist but that also were foolish as we haue seen And it is litle better to infer that if Antichrist be spoken of in this place he was to be the immediate successor of Seleucus Philopater for who seeth not that this is a personall propriety of Antiochus which could not be fulfilled in any but himselfe so that M. Downam might aswell infer that Antichrist cannot be spoken of in this place except he had bin Antiochus himself which indeed is his wonted figure of petitio principij Wherfore we say that Antiochus who was Seleucus his brother and succeeded him in his kingdome was in the maÌ„ner of getting it â—et downe in the Scripture a figure of Antichrists coÌ„ming to his and this is that which S. Hierome all Christian writers affirme against Porphiry and his like But now M. DownaÌ„ denieth that Antiochus did arise from most base How Antiochus Epiphanes arose froÌ„ base estate estate because he was Sonne to Antiochus the great Brother to Seleucus Philopater As though a Kings Sonne and Brother may not be obscure and abiect in a kingdome out of which he hath liued and in which he had no right or title nor yet power to succeed for it were too much simplicity in M. Downam to imagine that Hierome and Bellarmine spake of basenes of birth since that it is evident they only speake of him in thâ—t sort in respect of the obtaining of the kingdome secretly Dan. 11. and by deceipt and not by force wheras otherwise he was by all thought vnworthy to be King And as for M. Downams exposition of the word vile or despised in Dan. no doubt somtime it may signifie wicked and now I will not contend whether Seleucus Philopater v. â—0 be called Vilissimus in the vulgar translation because of â—â— base poling of the people though Why Seleucus Philopater is called Vilissimus M. Downams friends translâ—â—e iâ— otherwise by which it appeareth that the Hebrew word is not all one in both places and besides many of Seleucus Philopaters predecessours were as wicked as he and therfore it is 〈◊〉 probable that he was called Vilissimus rather because he liued obscurely without doing any memorable act for which cause he is also said to raigne but a few daies though he were King twelue yeares But to omit all this M. Downam caÌ„not deny but that one may be called abiect vile base contemptible despised or what it pleaseth him by reason of his obscure life and vnfitnes want of meanes and vnworthines of the dignity which he pretendeth and when the word is to be taken in this sense we must gather out of the text and the circuÌ„stances which concurre in the History and Person out of which no man can deny but that S. Heromos sense is most cleare and if we speake of Antiochus before he was King it is more then M. Downam can proue that he was known to be so exceeding wicked that he deserued to be called vile in that respect and after he was King for all his wickednes he came to be called Noble and is so named in all Histories yea in the Scripture it self 9. Now wheras M. Downam sayth that though Antiochus be atype of Antichrist yet from hence we must infer not the selfe same particuler which is proper to the person of Antiochus but the like It is very true in this though sometime this rule doth not hould as is manifest in the example of Exodus where the Pascall Lambe is a figure of our Sauiour in that particuler of not hauing the bones broken but in this it is true and so nether S. Hierome and Bellarmine or any of the rest do infer that Antichrist shall vse the same deceipt that Antiochus did but the like nor that he shall obtayne the same Kingdome as M. Downam very ridiculously would beare his Reader in hand â—or who knoweth not that Antiochus was not only King of the Iewes but of Syria and Asia which S. Hierome inferreth Antichrist is not proued to be the King of the Iewes because Antiochus was so not of Antichrist only he nameth the Kingdome of the Iewes because it is manifest out of other places as hath byn shewed that Antichrist shall make himselfe their King and Messias But it was far from S. Hierome and Bellarmine to proue it out of this place And to this I might also â—d that by the Kingdome of the Iewes they meane not the country of Iewry but rather the dominion ouer that Nation and their persons wheresoeuer they be For it is vncertaine whether there shal be any Iewes in that Country at Antichrists comming or no and it seemeth more probable that they shall recouer it in his time and by his meanes Wherfore S. Hierome and Bellarmine only endeauour to proue out of this place that Antichrist shall haue an obscure beginning and come to be King by deceipt which M. Downam might haue perceaued by Bellarmins minor or Assumption in which he neuer goeth about to proue that the Pope is not Antichrist because he is not King of the Iewes which had bene his best and readyest way if he had inferred out of this place that Antichrist shal be so and wheras M Downam saith that to argue from an allegory iâ— but asleight argument in Diuinity I haue already shewed that when the allegoricall sense is certayne and knowne by the generall consent of Fathers as it is in this place the argument is not sleight but most Downam insolently reiecteth S. HieroÌ„e firme and strong and M. Downam is most ridiculous in affirming that S. Hierome â—â— ouerseene and that it is a wonder he being one of the most learned Fathers and the matter so easy for who seeth not the insolent vanity of this heriticall Doctor who perswadeth himselfe that his bare word is able to discredit S. Hieroms exposition whose learning and exactnes in the Scripture the whole world admireth and it is hard to find any place in the exposition whereof he is so earnest as in this impugning ex professo the exposition of Porphiry whoÌ„ M. DownaÌ„ â—aketh vpon hiâ— to defend and that not only agaynst S. Hierome but against all other Christian and Ecclesiasticall Downam abuseth S. Hierome expositours either before or after S. Hieromes time Finally M. Downam is too impudent and absurd to make a shew as if S. Hieroms meant to proue out of the 23. v. that Antichrist shal be of a small Nation since he himselfe acknowledgeth that S. Hierome expoundeth those words otherwise but this is
appertayning to this purpose But what impudency is this Do not those authorities plainly shew that the Popes of Rome were highly esteemed of both among Christians Gentiles long before the times that the ProtestaÌ„ts assigne for Antichrists comming and consequently that those Popes which they most foolishly and impiously assigne did not arise from base estate But saith he the estate of the first Bishops of Rome was meane Well suppose it were so what were this against those Popes which you make Antichrist whose estate was not meane as Bellarmine proueth as indeed the state of the first cannot be said to be by any that maketh accompt of spirituall prehemmence and authority and preferreth it before any temporall dignity whatsoeuer But in these worldly Ministers eyes our Sauiour himselfe would seeme meane if he were vpon earth againe in the manner that he was And his other obiection is as foolish of the base birth and obscure parentage of diuers Popes As though this were the bâ—fâ—nes that we speake of now or the Protestants impugued any particuler Pope and not the whole succession of them for these 1000. yeares But if he would haue said any thing to the purpose he should haue shewed as Bellarmine rightly saith that the Pope vntill the yeare 600. was most obscure of no name and that then suddainly and by deceipts he vsurped some high place This M. DownaÌ„ neuer toucheth but passeth it ouer as though he had byn blind as no doubt he was with malice which made him break out into such a fit of rayling without all modesty or measure which See part 2. cap. 5. therfore I omit in this place reserue all such stuffe to the 2. Part especially since M. Downam acknowledgeth that now it is not to the purpose only the Reader must not let passe his Downam chargeth Bellarmin vniustly charge against Bellarmine for cunningly passing ouer in silence the other part of fraud and deceipt which he may see by the wordes which now I alledged out of Bellarmine to be most false True it is that he bringeth no distinct proofs for this but only by shewing the Popes greatnes before the yeare 600. euidently conuinceth that he came not to it then by any Fraud or deceipt but succeeded into the lawfull Inheritance of his Predecessours for as I said before now the Downam omitteth Bellarmin his argument question is not of the election of any particuler Pope but whether the Popes in generall did at that tyme obtayne by fraud any great dignity being base before And thus M. Downam concludeth his discourse concerning this first argument omitting as the Reader may consider the greatest part of it which is taken from the littlenesse of the home cap. 7. by which he will haue Antiochus to be signified and yet contendeth that he was not little but rather alway great which two assertions how they hang togeather I leaue to the Readers iudgement 12. To Bellarmines second argument he hath nothing else to answere but to tell vs that the 4. beast is the Kingdome of the Seleucidae Lagidae and that the 10. horne he meaneth the 11. was Antiochus Epiphanes All which hath ben sufficieÌ„tly Antichrist shall ouerthrow 3. Kings confuted already wherefore we are now only to note how he contradicteth himselfe in explicating how Antiochus Epiphanes was little before his comming to the Crowne for now besides his vile and base conditions he can tell vs that he was called little because of his vnlâ—kenes to be King First because he was the 3. and yongest sonne of Antiochus Magnus his elder brother Seleucus also hauing a sonne called Demetrius Secondly because he was to be a perpetuall hostage aâ— Rome wherefore he must needs graunt that Antiochus may be called despectus cap. 11. v. 21. aswell for these reasons and the like as for his base conditions which a little before he denied so obstinatly Now the 3. hornes which the Scripture saith were to be pulled vp before the little horne M. Downam will by no meanes haue to be Dan. 7. Kings of other Kingdomes then Syria and much lesse of diuers as of Egypt Lyhia and Ethiopia but the 3. immediate predecessors of Antiochus and this he proueth because they were expressly called the 3. former hornes viz. of the ten But he knoweth well Dan. 11. inough that these 3. Kinges are named cap. 11. as we shall see forthwith And besides the absurd it yes which this exposition conteyneth as we haue already shewed why doth he not shew vs what these 3. immediate predecessors were whom Antiochus made away According to the succession of the Kinges of Syria which he himselfe alloweth they should be Seleucus Ceraunus his Vncle Antiochus Magnus his Father and Seleucus Philopater his brother and though Antiochus Epiphanes were so wicked that in that respect it might be though that he would be ready inough to contriue any mischiefe yet to affirme all this without either History or other witnes is a strange liberty if not of lying yet at least of saygning The death of his brother Seleucus Philopater is affirmed by M. Downam to haue ben contriued by Heliodorus whom he affirmeth to haue ben suborned by Antiochus Epiphanes and quoteth v. 20. as though all this were Scriptures but there is no such matter and Appianus in Cyriâ—co who affirmeth that Heliodorus slew him treacherously likewise affirmeth that he would haue made himselfe King and that they who put him back admitted Antiochus by which it appeareth that Heliodorus was not so much deuoted to Antiochus as M. Downam imagineth And it is easie to answere to that proofe that the 3. hornes are called the 3. former for it is plaine that Daniel calleth them so because they appeared vnto him before the little horne and were likewise to be in the world before it yea if we would stand strictly vpon that word and admit M. Downams interpretation that those 10. hornes were to reigne successiuely we should rather say that the 3. former or first were the 3. first predecessors Why the 3. Kinges which Antichrist shall slay are called the 3. first or former of Antiochus then the 3. last which were rather to be called the 3. latter But since the truth is that all the 10. were to be togeather there can no order of first or last be appointed vs among them and therfore we must of force say that they were called 3. of the first because the 10. appeared before the little one for indeed they are not called the 3. former hornes as M. Downam auoncheth but 3. of the former betwixt which there is a great difference euen as much as betwixt Gods truth and M. Downams lye And all this is made Downam corrupteth the Scripture more plaine in the exposition of this vision v. 24. where this little horne is expounded to be another King which shall arise after the 10. and be more mighty then the former and shall humiliate 3. Kinges where
the Kingdome of Gog shal be extolled But it is manifest that in the infancy of Christ no Kingdome was extolled but that of the Romans But without doubt the edition of the 70. is corrupted in this place for in Hebrew it is not Gog but Agag veâ—arom meagag malcho tolletur propter Agag vel prae Agag Rex etus And his King shal be taken away for Agag or in respect of Agag and the sense is according to S. Hierome in cap. 38. Ezech. and Saul the first King of Israel shall be taken away for Agag that is because he shall sinne not killing Agag or according to others Saul shal be extolled before Agag that is he shall preuayle and ouercome Agag Both are true And it is certaine that that place of Numer is vnderstood of the Kingdome of the Iewes and not of Christ or the Romans for it beginneth How faire are thy Tabernacles ó Iacob thy Tents ô Israel c. The fourth opinion is of others who by Gog and Magog vnderstand the battayles of the Diuell and his Angells long since past in Heauen with the good Angells which S. Hierome confuteth as destroying the letter in cap. 38. Ezechiel The 5. opinion of Theodorus Bibliander whom Chytraeus followeth in his Commentary vpon Apoc. 20. wherfore Bibliander Tab. 14. suae Chronologia where he treateth exactly of Gog and Magog and at length teacheth that the Prophesy of Ezechiel and S. Iohn pertayneth not to the same tyme but that the Prophesy of Ezechiel was fulfilled in the tyme of the Machabees and that Gog and Magog were Alexander the Great and his successors the Kinges of Egypt and Syria who fought many battayles with the Iewes and were at length ouercome by the Machabees and that the Prophesy of S. Iohn was fulfilled in the tyme of Gregory the 7. and of some ensuing Popes and that the Popes were Gog and Magog and the other Princes and armyes of Christians who fought a long tyme against the Saracens for the recouery of the holy Land and our Lords Sepulcher The first part of this opinion is also of Theodoretus in cap. 38. Ezech. but it cannot be defended First because without doubt the Prophesy of Ezechiel and S. Iohn is one and the same and therefore both are to be fulfilled after the comming of Christ for first S. Iohn saith that the army of Gog shall come from the foure corners of the earth and the same saith Ezechiel namely expressing that in the army of Gog there shal be Persians from the East Aethiopians from the South Tubal that is Spanyardes from the VVest and â—ogorma that is Phrygians from the coasts of the North. Secondly S. Iohn saith that this army shal be destroyed by fier sent from Heauen and the same affirmeth Ezechiel in the end of the 38. Chapter I will rayne saith he fier and brimstone vpon him and his Army Finally S. Iohn after this battaile presently addeth the renewing of Ierusalem that is the glorification of the Church and likewise Ezechiel from chap. 40. to the end of his booke treateth of nothing els but of the wonderfull renewing of Ierusalem Besides Secondly it is proued that the Prophesy of Ezechiel was not fulfilled in the tyme of the Machabees for Ezech. 38. it is said to Gog Thou shalt come in the last yeares but Alexander the Great with his came in the middle yeares Likewise Ezechiel expresly saith that in the army of Gog there shal be Aethiopians Lybians Spaniards Cappadocians c. which notwithstanding neuer fought against Ierusalem and chiefly in the tyme of the Machabees for only the Syrians and the Aegyptians fought against the Machabees Finally Ezechiel describeth such a victory against Gog and Magog that afterward no enemies were to be feared but all battayles should be ended but the victory of the Machabees was not such against the Kinges of Syria and Egypt for nether the Iewes did euer altogeather ouercome the Kinges of Syria and Egypt and a little after the Iewes were vexed and subdued againe by the Romans neither did they euer deliuer themselues out of their handes as S. Augustine deduceth and proueth lib. 18. de ciuitate Dei cap. 45. therefore the Prophesy of Ezechiel was not fulfilled before Christs tyme. The other part of Biblianders opinion which is his owne and peculiar to him is not only false but also impious for first S. Iohn saith that the battaile of Gog and Magog shal be against the Camp of the Saints and the beloued Citty that is against Gods true Church But the warre of the Christians for the recouery of the Holy Land was wholy against the Saracen Mahometans vnlesse perhaps Bibliander would haue the Mahometans to be the true Church and camp of the Saints Secondly S. Iohn saith that there shal be in the army of Gog men out of the 4. corners of the earth But in the Army of the Christians there were only out of the West and North that is French Germans Italians Besides S. Iohn saith that the warre of Gog and Magog being ended Hierusalem shall forthwith be renewed and glorified and that the Diuell Antichrist and the false Prophets shal be throwne into euerlasting fire But the warre of Christians for the Holy Land is long since ended and yet we see not any Hierusalem renewed nor the Diuell and the false Prophets cast into hell for now as our Aduersaries also confesse the Diuell and false Prophets most of all flourish Furthermore God himselfe by manifest signes and wonders aswell at Antioch of Syria as in other places manifestly shewed that that warre was acceptable vnto him of which see Gulielm Tyriâ—s lib. 6. de bello sacro and Paulus Aemilius lib. 4. de rebus Francorum Finally S. Bernard whom Bibliander calleth a Saint in Chronico where he treateth of the tymes of Eugenius the 3. besides other holy men was one of the chiefest Authors of this warre for he both by wordes and myracles perswaded an infinite multitude of French and Germans to go to that war as he himselfe sheweth initio lib. 2. de Consid and the author of his life lib. 2. cap. 4. writeth that S. Bernard after the battaile was ended restored a blind man to his sight in testimony that he had preached that warre in the name of God The 6. opinion is of the Magdeburgenses cent 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. column 435. where they teach that Gog Magog is the Kingdome of the Saracens or Turkes which opinion is wholy opposite to the opinion of Bibliander therfore it is better or rather lesse euill But yet absolutely it is falsâ— for Gog shall come in the last yeares and shall not endure long as it is plainly gathered out of S. Iohn Ezechiel But the Kingdome of the Saracens began long since and hath endured hitherto almost a thousand yeares which doubtlesse cannot be called a little tyme. The 7. is of S. Ambrose lib. 2. de fide cap. vlt. that Gog are the Gothes who destroyed
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