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
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
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
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
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
take vpon them to know that which Christ said was so hydden that without an euident reuelation as that of Daniel is after Antichrists death no man nor Angell can know it So that Bellarmine vseth that argument only to disprooue the tyme which Illyricus and others appoint of Antichrists comming and not absolutly to reproue that interpretation as M. Downam would haue his reader think Wherefore in all this Chapter in which he so largelie refuteth that interpretation he neuer vrgeth that illation But this is no iugling at all in M. DownaÌ„s conceipt Thirdly saith M. DownaÌ„ It is incredible if not impossible that so many and so great thinges as they assigne to Antichrist should be effected and brought to passe in so short a tyme as Hentenius a learned Papist doth confesse and as hath bene shewed heretofore If M. DownaÌ„ In praefat translat Areth. had set downe these many and great thinges wee might perhaps haue shewed him how many of them were not to be done in these 3. yeares and a halfe in which notwithstanding Antichrist may doe very many by himselfe and his Ministers hauing all the world at command and thus is Hentenius to be expounded who only thinketh it impossible for Antichrist to obtaine so many Kingdomes and Prouinces in so short a space which maketh nothing at all against vs who rather think that this short tyme is to begin after those victoryes be ended M. DownaÌ„s other proofes are to be examined in their due places Fourthlie saith M. DownaÌ„ VVhen wee proued that Antichrist is not any one man alone but a whole State and succession of man we proued this by consequence that his raigne was not to continue only three yeares and a halfe He saith well for when he can prooue the one he may proue the other but he will neuer be able to proue either as the Reader will easily see by conferring See chap. 2. his proofes and my answeres togeather which now it is no tyme nor place to do Fiftly saith M. Downam Antichrist according to the conceipt of the Papists is to raigne before the preaching of the two witnesses and as Enoch Elias shal-begin to preach in the beginning of Antichrists Raigne Bell saith is to coÌ„tinue one moneth after their death Seeing theÌ„ the two witnesses preach 1260. dayes which as Bellarmine also saith make three yeares a halfe precisely how can the terme of Antichrists raigne be three yeares a halfe precisely First M. DownaÌ„ might haue done well to haue named those Papists who coÌ„ceipt Antichrists raigne before the preaching of the two witnesses for we would haue byn so bould as to haue tould them that they were in a wrong conceipt vnles they meaÌ„t that he should be of great power before but yet not of so great as he shal be for the space of three yeares and a halfe in which these two glorious witnesses shall preach as neither in his last moneth after their death by which he shall receaue such a blow that his kingdome shal be so much diminished that the last moneth is not accompted to belong to the height of his raigne as before we also explicated out of Apoc. 11. and so there remayneth iust three yeares and a halfe for Antichrists reigne Supra nu 2. and these two holy witnesses preaching Lastly he remitteth himselfe to his proofes that Antichrist was come in the Apostles tyme and reuealed in the yeare 670. for answere of which bare assertion for heere he goeth not about to proue any thing I must likewise remit my Reader to the answers See Chap. 3. which I gaue to those his proofes in their due places and so leaue him to iudge how well M. Downam hath answered Bellarmines allegations and confuted his assertions 5. After Bellarmine had proposed his owne argument out of Scriptures he setteth downe three distinct answeres of the Protestants to those places which he refuteth first by the authority of the Fathers who with one accord expound Downam insolently reiecteth the Fathers those places in that sense to which M. Downam giueth no other answere but that they could not vnderstand those prophesies which is plaine dealing indeed and sufficiently manifesteth DownaÌ„s proud priuate spirit which dareth tell so many holy Fathers and pillars of Gods Church that he knoweth more then they all and that they sayd they knew not what when they interpreted those prophesies in that sort which I would thinke should be sufficieÌ„t for all soules to fly from such proud Luciferian spirites as this fellow and his Companions haue To Bellarmines secoÌ„d proofe M. Downam hath more to say for first he reprehendeth Bellarmine for saying that the Scriptures affirme the tyme of the diuels loosing Antichrists raigne to be breuissimum Bellarmin vniustly charged very short or most short they only saying that it is short or smal But his VVisdome should haue considered that Belarmine putteth that breuissimum for the sense and not for the wordes of the Scripture which afterward he alleadgeth as they ly so that if they import a very short or most short tyme Bellarm. is not to blame But M. DownaÌ„ denieth this also shewing at large that many tymes a thousaÌ„d yeares or more Apoc. 12. in Scripture are accoumpted but as a day or a very short tyme in respect of the Lord who speaketh in the Scripture which we willingly graunt but he should haue shewed vs that these places now in question are to be vnderstood in respect of the Lord and not rather in respect of the thousand yeares in which the Diuell was bound And cap. 17. it is yet more pâ—aine that Antichrist shall raigne a small tyme in respect of The tyme of Antichrists raigne verie short Apoc. 17. the 6. Kinges which went before him which howsoeuer M. Downam vnderstandeth them cannot be said to haue raigned much more then a thousand yeares a peece Neither is it true that Antichrist not only was but also persecuted those that refused his marke within the thousand yeares of Sathans imprisonment though S. Iohn Apoc. 20. saw the Martyrs in the tyme of Antichrist Apoc. 20. togeather with those which were before of which only he speaketh when he saith that they liued and raigned with Christ in the thousand yeares except some will say with S. Ambrose that the Martyrs in the tyme of Antichrist are said to raigne before they were in the former Martyrs because they were members of the same body or that the thousand yeares are diuersly taken And thus wee see plainly that the tyme of Antichristes raigne and the Diuells being loose is said to be a very short tyme. 6. To the third argument he answereth briefely that S. Augustine c. did mistake the place Matth. 24. 21. and that Matth. 24. Downam reiecteth S. Augustine S. Gregory it is to be vnderstood of the calamitie of the Iewâ—s as he hath manifestly prooued if you will belieue him but if you will
space in which God shall begin to confound Antichrist and destroy his kingdome which in all wil be 75. daies as Daniel foretelleth which space helpeth M. Downams The ēd of the world is not ōly the last instant cause very little who hath need of manie tymes so many yeares to make his position good that Antichrist came 1000. yeares since and yet the world indureth and that this was Bellarmines mind he himselfe hath now sufficiently explicated in recognit operum pag. 18. where he noteth that he said that Antichrist shall not appeare nor begin to raigne but 3. yeares and a halfe before the end of the world because the space betwixt the death of Antichrist the end of the world shal be so little that it may be accompted nothing for otherwise he had not forgotten that he had proued a little before that there should be 45. daies betwixt the death of Antichrist and the end of the world out of Dan. 12. And thus we will conclude these 6. demonstrations which make Bellarmines third argument and desire the Reader to consider attentiuely whether Bellarmines proofes or M. Downams solutions be more substantiall and vvhat is to be thought of such men as will open their mouthes in such blasphemous manner against all authority reason in a matter of this importance vpon vvhich al other questions in controuersy in great part depend THE TENTH CHAPTER Of Antichrists name THERE followeth saith Bellarmine the fourth disputation of the proper name characters of Antichrist All acknowledg that those wordes of S. Io. Apoc. 13. do certainly belong to Antichrist And he shal make all little with great rich and poore free men and slaues to haue a character in their right hand or vpon their foreheades and that none can buy or sell vnles he hath the character or name of the beast or the number of his name Heere is wisdome let him that hath vnderstanding reckon the number of the beast for it is the number of a man and his number 666. There are many opinions of this number The first is that by this number not the name but the tyme of the comming and death of Antichrist is designed so houldeth Bullēger who praefat Hom. in Apoc. thinketh that the tyme of Antichrists comming is signifyed In like manner the Magdeburgenses who cent 1. l. 2. c. 4. thinke that the tyme of Antichrists death is designed Likevvise others vvho as vvitnesseth Clictonem in l. 4. Damasceni c. 28. thinke that the death of Mahomet is degsined vvhom they say was Antichrist vvith vvhome agreeth Lyranus vpon this place though he thinketh not that Mahomet vvas Antichrist yet he imagineth that by this number is signifyed that the death of Mahomet vvas to bee in the yeare 666. from Christs comming This is a most absurde opinion First because S. Iohn saith that he speaketh of the number of the Beastes name Secondly because the beast whose nūber this is will commaund all Merchants to vse it for a signe in contracts as is manifest Apox 13. Wherfore it is not the number of the death of the Beast but belongeth to him aliue Thirdly because it is also false that Mahomet died the yeare of Christ 666. For some say he died in the yeare 637. as Matthew Palmer some the yeare 630. as Cedrenus in compend hist some the yeare 628. as Ioan. Vaseus in chronico Hispaniae The second opinion is of Dauid Chytraeus in cap. 13. Apoc. who saith the name of Antichrist is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in the Hebrew Romiith Romanus Therfore the Pope who is a latin Prynce since he ruseth in Latium and is the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist The same teacheth Theodorus Bibliander tab 10. and therfore he maketh the inscription of the 11. table of his Cronologie which beginneth at the yeare 600. Latinos Papa Their reasons are two the first because S. Irenaeus lib. 5. teacheth that it is very like that this shal be the name of Antichrist The other because indeed the letters of his name make that number as is manifest Resc 200. λ. 30. τ. 300. Vau. 6. α. 1. ε. 5. Mem. 40. τ. 300. ι. 10. Iod. 10. ε. 5. τ. 300. Iod. 10. ι. 10. α. 1. Tau 400. ν. 50. ν. 50.  ο. 70.  ς. 200.  666.  666.  666. This opinion is altogeather temerarious for first Irenaeus saith indeed that the name λατεῖνος may probablie be applyed to Antichrist but he addeth that it is much more probable that Antichrists name shall not be λατεῖνος but τειταν which also expresseth that number and is a far more noble name since it signifieth the Sunne Besides Irenaeus his coniecture which might haue some probabilitie then now hath none for he saith that it is probable that Antichrist shal be called Latinus not because he shall in Latiū but because in his tyme the Latines had greatest dominions and in a manner the whole world For because Antichrist shal be a most potēt King without doubt he shal possesse the most potent kingdomes which he shall find at his comming but the most potent kingdome is that of the Latines saith Irenaeus for they now most trulie raigne Surely this coniecture now is nothing worth for the Latines raigne no longer ouer all the world but the Turkes are those which most truly raigne and among vs the Spaniards and French not the Latines Moreouer the name of Latin as it signifieth a Roman is not written with ◠but with a simple Iota and then it maketh not that number In which manner the deuise of the name Romiith may likewise be confuted For Romanus cannot end in Tau since it is the masculine gender for that it is the termination of the Feminine gender among the hebrews but if wee remoue the letter Tau there want 400. to make the number of Antichrist Likewise the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be the name of Antichrist it shal be proper to him as Arethas teacheth and his most vsuall name for it must be shewed for a signe by all that buy and sell But the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is common for there was neuer any Pope that by his proper name was called Latinus Neither is this an vsuall name for the Popes neuer call themselues Latines but Bishops or Popes The name Romanus was proper to one only Pope who notwithstanding could not be Antichrist since he liued but 4. moneths and otherwise it is a common name Finally if only this name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Romanus made the number 666. our Aduersaries said something but there are innumerable names which make the same number Hippolytus Martyr in orat de consummatione mundi noted another name which maketh the same number viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is nego I deny Arethas named seauen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Illustris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Sol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Victor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est
S. Gregory Nazianzen who liued about the yeare 380. in Apologet. ad Patrem suum when he was made B. of Safimi There came vpon me againe quoth he the vnction and spirit and I haue new cause of mourning and sadnes In which place he maketh mention of a double vnction the one when he was made Priest and the other then at his consecrating Bishop Likewise orat 1. de pace speaking of S. Basil who being made Bishop refused the exercize of that authority Although he hath the spirit and talents and the care of a flock committed vnto him and is annoynted with the oyle of Priesthood and perfection yet his VVisdome delayeth to take vpon him the Prelacy Now for the Sacrifice for the dead it shal be sufficient in this place to bring S. Augustines testimony who lib. de hares cap. 53. saith That it was the peculiar fancy of Aerius the Arch-Heretike that we ought not to offer oblation for the dead Of the Adoration of Images only S. Hierome who liued about the yeare 400. shall suffice He in vita Paulae saith thus Prostrate before the Crosse she adored as though she had seene our Lord vpon it Finally of the adoration of the Eucharist S. Ambrose may deseruedly suffice who lib. 3. de Spiritu Sancto cap. 12. explicating that place Adore his footestoole Therefore saith he by the footestoole is meant the earth by the earth the flesh of Christ which at this day also we adore in the mysteryes and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Iesus as we haue said before which S. Augustine saith almost in the same wordes in explicat Psal 98. Since therefore all these thinges which our Aduersaries will haue to be the Characters of Antichrist were vsed by the Catholike Church many yeares before Antichrist was borne it must needes follow that either Antichrist learned them of that Church and to say this is to confound Antichrist with Christ or that none of these things belong to the Characters of Antichrist And this is that which we prooue Thus much shall suffice for this rash and most absurd opinion of our Aduersaries which they haue not proued by any witnesses or reasons The second opinion is of certaine Catholikes who thinke that Antichrists Character is the letters with which his name shal be written So thinke Primasius Beda and Rupertus who seeme to be deceaued because they read But he who hath the Character of the name of the beast or the number of his name But S. Iohn saith not so but thus But he who hath the Character or the name of the beast or the number of his name and the Greeke text agreeth with this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The third opinion is of S. Hippolytus Martyr orat de consummatione mundi some others that the Beastes Character shal be not to vse the signe of the Crosse but rather to execrate and abolish it In which the Caluinistes are egregious forerunners of Antichrist I rather thinke that Antichrist shall inuent a positiue Character also as Christ hath the signe of the Crosse knowne to all but it is not knowne what this Character is vntill Antichrist commeth as we said of the Name M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted 1. THOVGH Bellarmine frame no particuler argument from this discourse of Antichrists Character yet M. Downam will needes by resoluing the discourse it selfe and by conferring it with the former Chapter make him argue from the Character as he did from the number of the name About which we will not striue with him but rather supposing that this was Bellarmines mynd we will examine the solution he giueth to this argument so framed by himselfe 2. And first he would deny that Antichrists marke shal be knowne at his comming in the very same manner that he denyed before that the number of his name should be knowne Wherefore for this point I remit the Reader to that which hath bene said before 3. As also for the other that this Character is not yet knowne because there is so much controuersy about it for he only teacheth briefely that which he explicated more at large about the number of his name which we examined and confuted before Wherefore let vs see what he can say for the Protestāts or Heretikes of this tyme whose opinion Bellarmine impugneth by which we shall also discouer how much his explication helpeth them and what absurdity the opinion of Catholikes conteyneth Which two points M. Downam thought good to touch before he came to answere Bellarmines two proofes 4. And first to that out of the Scripture M. Downam granteth that the marke of Antichrist is but one meaning as he explicateth himselfe in substance although the same by diuers The mark or Character of Antichrist but one meanes may be diuersly expressed and testified that is subiection to the Pope as their head and the acknowledgment of the Sea of Rome and of the Popes Supremacy c. But what he meaneth by one in substance is not easy to conceaue except it be this that all the outward signes Characters and markes agree in this that they signify the same subiection to the Pope c. so that the markes shal be distinct and diuers in themselues and in their manner of signification though the thing by them signified be one But this is not sufficient to affirme that the Character of Antichrist is but one for in this sort the name and the number of the name and the Charcter are all one in substance since they signify the same thing and all signes which signify the same thing may be said to be one in substance as wryting speach gesture and the like and all the figures in the old Testament which signified Christ are but one figure in substance and all the Sacraments of the Church which signify grace shal be but one Sacrament which is too great an absurdity for M. Downam to defend consequently he must needes graunt that his fellow Ghospellers assigne more Characters then one contrary to the Scripture and therefore they are so farre from truly interpreting the Scripture that they wholy peruert it To Bellarmines second instance out of the Scripture M. Downam giueth no direct answere at all but would same put it off by telling vs that the Pope hath declared that it is necessary to saluation to be subiect to the Pope But this is only to shew that the body must be vnited with the head in which all Religions whatsoeuer yea all Societies must The mark of Antichrist shal be common to all in his King dome needes agree But Bellarmines instance impugneth two of the markes which some Protestants affirme to be the Characters of Antichrist by this euident proofe that the Character of Antichrist shal be common to all men in Antichrists Kingdome as the Scripture plainely affirmeth but the oath of Obedience and the Priestly vnction agree to few therefore these cānot be the Character wherof the Scripture speaketh
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
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
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
the fruite of Heresy first to make men impugne the truth and the Doctors of Gods Church who defend it and then to seeke by such seely shifts to make their party seeme good and to deceaue their Readers by which indeed to any indifferent and discreet Reader they discouer theyr owne shame as M. Downam doth in this place as well by this as also by his simple repetition of his exposition of the fourth beast and his 10. hornes which notwithstanding he will now go about to proue by impugning the exposition of all other but Infidels and Hereticks concerning that place 10. But first he will haue a saying to the Pope infer that according to their exposition who think that the 4. beast Cap. 7. signifieth the Roman Empire it is very likely that the Pope is Antichrist seing hitherto he is the last that hath ruled in Rome and shall according to the Papists owne conceipt continue to the end The Pope succeedeth not in the Roman Empyre but it is no meruaile though M. Downam insisteth not much vpon this proofe for first it is manifest that not the Pope but the Emperour is he that suceedeth in the Roman Empire and it is likewise false that the Papists hould that either the Pope or the Emperour shall continue to the end in Rome since they plainly affirme that the Empire shal be first deuided among 10. Kings wherof none of them shal be Emperour and after surprised by Antichrist himself who shall subdue The Seleucidae are not signified by the fourth beast Dan. 7. those 10. Kings and it is likewise more probable in their conceipt that Rome it self shal be vtterly ouerthrowne by the same 10. Kings and Antichrist as we haue seene before and yet besides these two false assertions M. Downam to make his argumeÌ„t good supposeth two other ifs as false as these First that the ten hornes should be the successiue rulers of the Roman state and 2. that the 10. or last horne should be Antichrist which are not only false but also foolish suppositions and the latter expresly against the Scripture which maketh Antichrist not the 10. but the 11. horne as hath byn proued Now let vs see how he can proue that by the 4. beast is signified not the Roman but the Seleucidae and first he inferreth it out of that false ground which we haue already ouerthrowne that the kingdome signified by the fourth beast was to haue an end before the comming of the Messias but he beingeth no proofes for this but only quoteth cap. 7. 11. 26. 27. which we haue already shewed to make against him Secondly he supposeth that cap. 7. v. 25. 26. 27. is to be vnderstood of Antiochus his warres against the Iewes which is his common fault of petitio principij and against the consent of all good expositours and the text it selfe Thirdly he obiecteth that of the Romans After they Apoc. 17. had obtayned the dominion of Iewry there were more then ten that ruled ouer the Holy Land But what is this to the purpose since that these ten horns signyfie 10. Kings which shall raign togeather as appeareth plainly by Apoc. 17. which M. Downam obiecteth to himselfe and only answereth that these of Dan. 7. are not the same but other 10. which tyrannized ouer the Kingdome of the Iewes successiuely as they are particulerly Dan. 11. cap. 5. nu 2. described cap. 11. but how false this is hath already appeared as likewise that which he addeth that he whom the Papists take to be Antichrist in Daniel is one of the 10. hornes it being manyfest that both Daniel S. Io. describe 10. besides him Fourthly he saith that all that Dan. saith of the 10. horne so he calleth the 11. do fuly and wholy agree to Antiochus Epiphanes but not to the 10. Prince of the Romans But we shall see a litle after how well M. Downam can apply the pulling vp of 3. hornes to Antiochus which that little horne cap. 7. is said to do and I belieue we shall find him as far to seeke as he that would goe about to shew the same of the 10. Prince of the Romans which no wise man will do and M. Downam knoweth well inough that Bellarmine neuer imagined any such matter Fifthly M. Downam argueth from his conference of that which is written of the little horne chapter 7. with those thinges which are more plainely recorded of Antiochus chap. 8. 23. c. and chap. 11. 21. c. But what meruaile is there if the 7. and 11. Chapters agree since they are both to be vnderstood of Antichrist as hath bene proued and likewise Antiochus was a figure of Antichrist and therfore no meruade though that which is laid of him cap. 8. be very like to those 〈◊〉 which are related of Antichrist in thee ther places and yet M. Downam much mistaketh in making the Goat buck cap. 8. to comprehend the 2. last beasts cap. 7. for of this he neyther bringeth proofe nor probability only he sheweth very well that the 4. heads of the third beast cap. 7. signify the same that the 4. hornes of the goat cap. 8. and consequently that the Seleucidae and Lagidae which were The Seleucidae Lagidae belong to the third beast two of these hornes belong to the third beast and in no sort to the fourth All the rest which he addeth is an idle repetition of his former fooleries already confuted 6. He affirmeth without all proofe that the people 〈◊〉 and oppressâ—â— by these hornes are the people of the Iewes wheras Antichrist in the Papist conceipt shal be the counterfait 〈◊〉 of the Iewes for he can only proue that Antiochus persecuted the Iewes which is no argument to proue that Antichrist shall persecute them also since it is manifest that the Iewes in those tymes were not a figure of the Iewes in Antichrists tyme out of the Christians whom I suppose M. Downam will not deny to be now Gods elected people 7. He argueth from the agreement of the tymes set downe in Dâ—n to that which happened in Antiochus But of this we haue treated sufficiently before shewing that he hath no ground for that he saith and besides it Cap. 8. is most true that the tyme mentioned cap. 8. agreeth most fitly to Antiochus the other not though if they did it were only an argument that in this Antiochus was a most exact figure of Antichrist And this is all he can say for his new exposition of the Seleucida or against that of S. Hierome and all other good Authors 11. Now at length M. Downam commeth to Bellarmines assumption or Minor where first he telleth vs that the The Popes whom the ProtestaÌ„ts accompt Antichrist arise not from base estate Pope ariseth from base estate whether we consider the meane estate of the first Bishop of Rome or the base birth and obscure parentage of diuers Popes and addeth that Bellarmines allegations are but a vayne florish nothing
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
many Prouinces of the people of Rome S. Hierome maketh mention of this opinion in quaest heb cap. 10. and saith VVhether it be true or no the end of the warre will shew And now doubtlesse the issue of the war hath taught vs that it was not true for neyther hath there followed any renewing of the Church after the warre of the Gothes neither haue all warres ceased The 8. is of S. Hierome himselfe in cap. 38. Ezech. who seeing the difficulty omitting the litterall sense did mystically expound it of the Heretikes for he will haue Gog which in Hebrew signifieth the House top to signify the Heresiarches who like to the toppe of an House are lifted vp and proud and Magog which is interpreted of the toppe of an House to signify them who belieue these Arch-heretikes and are subiect to them as the House to the roofe or toppe This opinion taken for the mysticall sense is most true but not in the litterall for Ezech. cap. 38. saith that Gog shall come in the last yeares and S. Iohn Apoc. 20. saith that the same Gog shal come after a thousand yeares and by the name of a thousand yeares all Catholickes vnderstand all the time which is from Christs cōming to Antichrist Since therfore Gog shall not come but about the end of the world and heresies began in the beginning of the Church while the Apostles liued it is manifest that properly and litterally Gog doth not signifie the Hereticks We must also know that S. Hierome when he saith that Gog is interpreted an house roofe and Magog of an house roofe meaneth not that Gog and Magog in Hebrew are altogeather the same that an house roofe or of an house roofe with vs but he meaneth that it is in a manner the same for properly an house roofe is not Gog but Gog and of an house roofe is not Magog but Miggag The 9. opinion is of S. Augustine lib. 20. de ciuitate Dei cap. 11. who by Gog vnderstandeth the Diuell who is like a great house roofe that is a great house roofe in which all the euill do dwell and by Magog he vnderstandeth the army of Antichrist gathered of the Nations of the whole world which opinion doutbles is most true and to be imbraced in that it referreth Gog and Magog to the tymes of Antichrist aswell because all Catholike Authors which write vpon the Apocalyps do follow it as Arethas Primasius Beda Haym◠Rupertus Richardus Anselmus and others as also because that all which is said by Ezechiel and S. Iohn of Gog and Magog do most rightly agree to Antichrist for then truly shal be the last and greatest persecution and after it shall Ierusalem be renewed that is the Church glorified neither shall there any battailes be heard of after But in that by Gog it vnderstandeth the Diuell it seemeth not true for S. Iohn saith that the Diuell being let loose shall call Gog and Magog to warres wherefore the Diuell is one thing and Gog another Wherefore our opinion which is the 10. conteyneth three thinges First we affirme that the battaile of Gog and Magog is the battaile of Antichrist against the Church as S. Augustine rightly taught Secondly we say that it is very probable that by Gog Antichrist himselfe is signified by Magog his army For Ezechiel alway calleth Gog a Prince and Magog a Land or Nation Thirdly we say that it is probable that Gog is so called of Magog and not contrarywise so that Antichrist is called Gog because he is Prince of that Nation which is called Magog and that the army of Antichrist is called Magog of the Scythian Nation not that it consisteth of those Scythians which the Iewes faygne to be beyond Cancasus and the Caspian Sea but either because a great part of Antichrists army shall consist of Barbarous people which came out of Scythta as Turkes Tartars and the rest or which I rather thinke because it shal be a very terrible and cruell army for we call them Scythians which we would call bloudy For that Magog signifieth the Scythian Nation it is manifest out of Genes 10. where we read that the second sonne of Iaphet was called Magog of whome the Country of Magog was denominated which his posterity inhabited which was Scythia as Iasephus teacheth lib. Amiq. cap. 11. and S. Hierome in quest hebr in Gen. cap. 10. For as from the three sonne of Cham that is Chus Myrami and Chanaham Aethiopia is called Chus Aegipt Myrami and Palestina Chanaham so doubtles Scythia is called Magog of Magog the sonne of Iaphet And that Ezechiel naming Magog had relation to the Nation denominated of Magog the sonne of Iaphet it is manifest because in the same place he addeth as companions to Gog other Nations denominated of other sonnes or nephews of Iaphet as Gomer Togorma Mosoch Tubal c. Wherefore let vs conclude that the battaile of Gog and Magog is the last persecution which Antichrist shall raise in the whole world against the Church Neither is it against vs that Ezech. cap. 38. saith that the weapons of Gog and Magog shal be burnt for the space of 7. yeares wheras notwithstanding it is manifest that after Antichrists death there shall not be past 45. daies to the end of the world as is gathered out of Daniel 12. for Ezechiel speaketh not properly but figuratiuely after the manner of Prophets neither meaneth he that indeed those weapons are to be burned for the space of 7. yeares but that it shal be so notable an ouerthrow that the Launces and Targets of the slaine might suffice a very long tyme to make fires if need were One doubt remaineth whether by reason of the most cruell persecution of Antichrist the Faith and Religion of Christ shal be altogeather extinguished For Dominicus Soto in lib. 4. sent dist 46. q. 1. art 1. thought surely that it would be so The departing saith he and defection from that Seae shal be a signe of the cōsummation of the world And after Faith being extinguished by the departure from that Sea Apostolike the whole world shal be vayne and should without cause continue any longer And after Let therefore men be astonished how pestilent self loue is for thence floweth pussing vp and pryde which vnder the conduct of Antichrist shall at length consume the Citty of God But this opinion in my iudgment cannot be defended for first it is repugnant to S. Augustine who lib. 20. de ciuit Dei cap 11. saith that the Church shall be euer inuincible against Antichrist Neyther shall she saith he forsake her warfare who is called by the name of Tents Secondly it seemeth to me also to be repugnant to the Ghospell for Matth. 16. we read Vpon this Book I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall nor preuayle against her But how shall they not preuaile if they shall wholy extinguish her Likewise Matth. 24. Our Lord saith of the Ministers of Antichrist They shall giue great