allegory in Antiochus I will therefore let it passe onely let me put you in minde that the prophecie of Peter in the former respects is performed in the Pope and cleargy of Rome who by fained words make merchandise of mens soules through couetousnesse And this was Bellarmine his first instance 12 His seconde argument is thus to be framed Antichrist shall warre with three Kings to wit of Egypt Libya and Aethiopia and hauing ouercome them shall possesse their kingdomes But the Pope of Rome hath not warred at any time he should say shall not warre and that is more then hee is able to proue with the Kings of Egypt Libya and Aethiopia neither hauing vanquished them hath possessed their kingdomes therefore the Pope of Rome is not Antichrist And in this argument Belarmine doth so greatly please himselfe that after an insulting manner hee breaketh foorth into these bragges Hoc autem maximè refellit insaniam haereticorum c. This especially refuteth the madnesse of heretikes who make the Pope Antichrist For let them say if they can when the Pope hath killed the Kings of Egypt Libya and Aethiopia c. What would this Thraso do thinke you if hee had any good argument against vs that thus insulteth vpon a meere dotage For where doth the scripture say that Antichrist shall sight with the Kings of Egypt Libya and Aethiopia and that hauing vanquished them he shall possesse their kingdomes Forsooth in the 7. and 11. of Daniel In the 7. chapter Daniel speaking of the tenne hornes of the fourth beast he saith verse 8. I considered the hornes and loe the last horne came vp a little one among them and three of the former hornes were pluckt vp before it And after verse 24. expounding the same words hee saith And the tenne hornes are tenne Kings of that kingdome after whom shall arise the last namely of the tenne diuerse from the rest and he shall abase three Kings But this allegation is impertinent For I haue shewed that this fourth beast is the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae that the tenne hornes are those tenne Kings of that kingdome which tyrannized or ruled ouer Iewry that the tenth or last of them that tyrannized ouer the Iewes was Antiochus Epiphanes who is therefore called little before his comming to the crowne because of his vnlikenesse to be King First because hee was the third and youngest sonne of Antiochus Magnus his elder brother Seleucus hauing also a sonne called Demetrius Secondly because he was to be a perpetuall hostage at Rome For when as other hostages which Antiochus the great gaue to the Romanes were to be changed euery third yeare he was to be a perpetuall hostage And thirdly because of his vile and base conditions Now whereas it is saide that three hornes were to be plucked vp before him wee are by those three hornes to vnderstand three kings not of others those also diuers kingdomes as of Egypt Libya and Aethiopia but three kings that successiuely had ruled before him in the same kingdome vsurped ouer the Iewes as being expresly called three former hornes viz. of the tenne verse 8. Yea but Antiochus was a type of Antichrist It cannot be proued that he was a type in this point or if he were a type in this we may not inferre the same particular as Bellarmine doth for then those three kings mentioned in Daniel must be reuiued againe that Antichrist may make them away but the like might be inferred viz. that as Antiochus Epiphanes to make himselfe a way to the kingdome did make away his brother and two others that went before him so it is not vnlike but that this should be an Antichristian practise It is well knowne that Gregory the seuenth who resembled Antiochus in many things to make himselfe a way to the Papacy made away sixe of his predecessors by poyson And it is an ordinary practise among the Cardinalles of Rome that aspire to the Papacy now and then to minister an Italian Figge to their Popes that you may not maruell that there haue bene nine Popes in the time of Queene Elizabeths raigne of whom the three next predecessors of the present Pope Clement 8. were so suddainly pluckt vp before him namely Urbanus 7. Gregory 14. and Innocent 9. that I suppose their names haue bene heard of fewe among vs. 13 But the 11. of Daniel perhaps will proue Bellarmines assertion That allegation will proue nothing but Bellarmines wilfull blindnesse Hee saith that in the 11. chapter vers 43. Daniel explaneth who those three Kings are Hee shall stretch out his hand ouer countries and the land of Egypt shall not escape and he shall passe through Libya and Aethiopia as Bellarmine readeth but according to the Hebrew the Lubim and Cushim that is the Libyans and Aethiopians shall be in his passages or voyages Whence Bellarmine inferreth that Antichrist shall kill three kings viz. of Egypt Libya and Aethiopia Answere 1. Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist but of Antiochus as I haue manifestly prooued 2. although Antiochus were graunted to haue bene a type of Antichrist herein yet the same particular which is proper to the person of Antiochus may not be applied to Antichrist For then we must dreame that the world and the kingdomes thereof must be brought againe iust to the same passe wherein they were when Antiochus raigned and the same kings to be reuiued but something like might be applied that as Antiochus in Bellarmines conceit suppressed three kings so Antichrist should be a suppressor of kings which is true of the Pope who besides diuers kings deposed by his meanes hath also depressed foure Emperours at the least as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth 3. Daniel in this place is so farre from mentioning three kings slaine by Antichrist according to Bellarmines conceit that he neither speaketh of Antichrist nor of three kings nor of the killing of any one king but onely of Antiochus his spoyling of Egypt hauing in his company the Libyans and Aethiopians Whether therefore this argument of Bellarmine doth reproue our madnesse or rather proue his folly let any indifferent arbiter be Iudge Now if Ierome or any other of the Fathers haue let fall any such thing we are to esteeme it as an excrement of theirs which we are to passe by rather then with the Cacouorae the Papists to gather it vp as Cacouora auis quaedam est apud Indos quae alterius auis asseâ—… cla est cuius vescatur excremeÌ„tis Scalig de subtil fit foode for their soules 14 And the like answere we frame vnto his third argument which is not grounded vpon the scriptures but vpon the bare coniectures of some of the Fathers For where is there in all the scriptures any word of this which Bellarmine saith he readeth in the scriptures that Antichrist shall subdue seuen other kings and by that meanes shall become the Monarch of the whole worlde Forsooth Lactantius and Ireneus say so But I neuer tooke their
Empire But Popish Rome of Bethel is become Bethauen and of a faithfull city an harlot exceeding all others in whorish entisements cousenages impudencies cruelties and all filthines insomuch that we may truely say with Mantuan Roma est iam tota lupanar Rome wholy is become a stewes and with Petrarch that shee is scelerum aetque dedecorum omnium sentina The sinke and sewre of all villantes and shamefull practises and hath not onely plaid the harlot her selfe but is become the mother of all fornications that is idolatry and superstitions and the fountaine of all other abhominations in the christian world With which the cup of her fornications inebriateth which more argueth the sottishnes of the Romish religion all kings and people that consent vnto her and with fire sword obtrudeth her superstitions and Idolatrous religion vnto all nations that they can make subiect to that See 9 Againe if Iohn had spoken of old Rome which then openly persecuted the saints then had he not spoken of a mysterie 3. as he doth neither would he so greatly haue wondred to Apoc. 17. 5. 7. see the whore of Babylons eitheir idolatry or cruelty against the Saints as he doth vers 6. if by the whore were meant old Rome whose Idolatrie and crueltie to Iohn was not strange And further that the holy ghost by Babylon meaneth Popish 4. Rome it may be proued out of the rest of the 17. chapter beginning at the 8. verse where the Angell declareth vnto Iohn the mysterie of the beast whereon the woman sitteth which hath the 7. heads and ten horns For although this beast as appeareth by conference with the thirteenth chapter may signifie in generall the Romane state as it is opposed to Christ Apoc. 13. 1. 2. c. which in respect of the regiment hath been subiect to seauen heads of gouernement in respect of the imperiall citie is seated on seauen hilles and in respect of the Empire was diuided in the Apostles time into ten prouinces or kingdoms as Strabo and others testifie yet here the Angell speaketh especiallie of the Romane state and Empire renewed and as it were reâ—…ed by the Pope To the which as also to the Papacy which is the second beast in the 13. of the Apocalypse though they be either of them but seuerall heads of the beast vers 10 11. yet the holy ghost giueth the name of the beast For this beast saith he on which the woman sitteth was is not and shall arise out of the depth and again that it is the beast which was and is not though it be And vers 11. hauing shewed that the 7. heads of this beast signifie both the imperiall seat standing on 7. hils also 7. kings that is 7. chiefe gouernments he saith that this beast which was and is not is the eight namely head of gouernment or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he speaketh in the masculine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is one of the seauen namely of Emperors All which cannot be vnderstoode of the Romane Empire as it was heathenish but as it is Popish For this head which had bene and after was not for it lay voide from the time of Augustulus vnto Charlemaigne the space of 325. yeers viz from the yeer 475 vnto the yeere 800 was after to arise for so hee saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being reuiued by the Pope who was to put Ap. 13. life into the image of the former beast For this Empire erected by the Pope although it hath the name of the beast ascribed vnto it yet it is but the image of the former beast therfore is not in truth imperiall authority dominion the Empire of Rome although in title it be And further it is said that this beast is the 8. head is one of the 7. which cannot be vnderstood of the heathenish Emperors but of the Popish If therfore this beast whereupon the whore of Babylon sitteth ruling guiding the same as the rider doth the beast on which he sitteth be not the old Empire but the new erected by the Pope then the whore of Babylon is not old Rome vnder the heathenish Emperors but Rome christened vnder the Pope But the first is true therefore the last 10 And siftly the ten homes saith the Angel which thou sawest are ten kings that is the chiefe gouernors of the ten prouinces 5. or kingdomes who before the dissolution of the Empire in Apoc. 17. 12. the west had not as yet receiued the kingdome because they stil remained as procoÌ„suls or propraetors that is deputies lief tenaÌ„ts vnder the Emperor But after the Empire was dissolued in the west they receiued power as kings about the same time with the beast i. Antichrist the Pope for so Antichist both in the 13. chap. in the 17. is coÌ„sidered 1. as a head of the beast 2. as a beast by it selfe For albeit neither hee could raigne in Rome nor they in the prouinces by soueraign authority while the Empire stood in the west and flourished yet when it was once decaied but especially when the Emperour also of the cast had by the Popes meanes lost his title in Italy and Rome and was by him bereaued as the authour of the booke called fasciculus temporum saith of the westerne Empire then he seizeth on Rome and a great part of Italie and they on the seuerall prouinces And that these ten hornes are the heads of ten kingdomes which together with the beast meaning Antichrist shall diuide among them the Romane Empire for that is signified when it is saide that they receiue power as kings that is soueraigne authoritie the same houre with the beast it is the receiued opinion of the best writers Yea Bellarmine himselfe saith Ioannes dicit decem reges qui sibi diuident Rom. imperium odio habituros purpuratam meretricem i. Romam Lib. 3. de Pont. R. cap. 13. et eam desolatam facturos Iohn doth say that the ten kings which shall diuide among them the Romane Empire shall hate the harlot arayed with purple that is saith he Rome and shall make her desolate And therefore the holy ghost in that place speaketh not of Rome as it was vnder the Heathenish Emperours nor of the Empire as it was Heathenish for then it was not dissolued and long before the dissolution had Rome ceassed to be Heathenish but of the Empire erected and renewed by the Pope which although it neither enioyeth Rome it selfe the imperiall seate nor yet the prouinces which in times past belonged to the Empire yet hath the name and title therof And consequently he speaketh of Rome as she should bee not onely after the dissolution of the old Empire in the west but also after the erection of the new that is to say of Rome Popish 11 Of these ten hornes it is further said that they haue all 6. one minde being all of the same Popish religion al
Bellarmine De pont Rom. lib. 3. c. 10. 15. one of the heads of the former beast By the description of this beast that we may now note that which serueth for the present purpose reseruing the residue vntil their due time place it is apparant that there is one the same principall seate of both the beasts that in that seat the second beast succeedeth the former practising al the power or authority of the former beast Verse 12. that before him that is to say euen at Rome and that his chiefe endeuors teÌ„de to magnifie the beast that is the Romane state as in making meÌ„ to worship it in causing meÌ„ to make an image of to the beast wherunto he giueth spirit speach enforcing men to worship the same finally in compelling men to take vpon theÌ„ the marke of the beast his name nuÌ„ber of his name All which as they argue Antichrist to be a Romane succeeding the Emperors in the gouernmeÌ„t of Rome so also they fitly properly agree to the Pope who succeedeth the Emperours in the gouernmeÌ„t of Rome where he vsurpeth all more then al the power of the Emperours chaleÌ„ging a more vniuersal soueraigne or rather diuine authority then belonged to theÌ„ whose maine endeuors are to aduaunce the Romane state which he calleth the See Apostolik which he maketh al meÌ„ to worship causing them also to make an image of the Empire which was the head that had receiued the deadly wouÌ„d to in behoofe of the Romane state an image I say partly in the Emperour of Almaine reseÌ„bling the title ornameÌ„ts shew of the former Emperours partly in his owne courts not onely in Rome but in all other couÌ„tries represeÌ„ting the former imperial authority tyraÌ„ny both in Rome it selfe and in the prouinces thereunto beloÌ„ging This image both in the Empire popish courts he animateth authorizeth For as there is no question to be made hereof in respect of his courts so is it as true in respect of the Empire if that be true which themselues professe Namely that what the Emperor hath he hath it wholy froÌ„ theÌ„ that the Empire in the West was renewed by the Pope who traÌ„slated the title of the Emperor of Rome froÌ„ the Emperor of the East first to the FreÌ„ch after to the GermaÌ„s that the Pope caused this new Emperor to be made that he crowned authorized him that he appointed 7. Electors in Germany reseruing the coÌ„firmation of the electioÌ„ coronatioÌ„ of the Emperour to himself of which points we shal hereafter speake more at large Further he causeth al meÌ„ to worship the image by him Chap. 7. erected coÌ„pelleth all men to receiue the marke of the beast as also the name of the beast which caÌ„ be no other but either Romane or Latine the nuÌ„ber of his name i. to liue insubiectioÌ„ to the See of Rome to professe theÌ„selues to be Romanes Latines in respect of their religioÌ„ as herafter shal be shewed Chap. 8. 9. The same is proued out of the 17. chap. of th'apocalyps 3. where be reckened 7. heads that is 7. kinds of principall rulers as it were heads of gouernment whereby Rome hath bene gouerned euery one succeeding another The sixt head being the Emperours the seueÌ„th Antichrist which is the Pope For Antichrist is one of the 7. heads of the beast which hath 7. heads 10. hornes And this beast signifieth the Romane state therfore Antichrist is a head of the Romane state All which Bellarmine after a sort coÌ„fesseth Now it is most certaine that Antichrist is Lib. 3. de pont R. c. 15. none of the first 5. heads for they were past in th'apostles time neither is he the sixt head which was of the Emperours that then was for that was to be done out of the way as the Papists theÌ„selues do teach before the reuelatioÌ„ of Antichrist It remaineth therfore that the seuenth head which is the Pope is Antichrist The eight head which also is one of the seuen is the Empire renewed by the Pope is said to be the beast which was is not though it be wheron the whore of BabyloÌ„ sitteth If it be obiected that the seuenth head wherby Antichrist is signified was to continue but a short time as it is said vers 10 and that this therfore cannot agree to the Pope who hath raigned already in Rome many 100. yeares I answere that this is spokeÌ„ of purpose to arme the faithfull with patience who otherwise would thinke the reigne of Antichrist very long our Sauiour Christ also to be slowe in coÌ„ming Whereas in truth neither is our Sauiour Christ slow in coÌ„ming as Peter sheweth neither is 2. Peter 3. the kingdome of Antichrist long But in respect of God with whom a 1000. yeares are as one day in coÌ„patison of the eternal kingdome of Christ with whoÌ„ the faithful are to raigne after they haue suffered vnder Antichrist it is to be accompted very short And surely if the whole time from the Ascension of of our Sauiour vntil his returne vnto iudgement is noted in the Scriptures to be very short and that to this end that we should not thinke it long then is the raigne of Antichrist which is but part of this time much more short The holy Ghost in the beginning of the Reuelation signifieth that the time of fulfilling Apoc 1. 3. the prophecies therein mâ—…tioned was at haÌ„d And our Sauiour Heb. 10. 37. Christ promiseth by the Apostle that after a very litle while he would come in the last chapt of the reuelatioÌ„ he saith yea I Apoc. 22. 20. come quickly And Iohn likewise in his Epistle noteth that the 〈◊〉 Iohn 2. 18. whole time of Antichrist was but a part of the last howre 10. And further whereas the Papists obiect in respect of the time that Antichrist is not yet come because the Romane Empire is not yet dissolued and consequently that the Pope is not Antichrist it may notwithstanding euidently be shewed out of the same chapter of the Apocalypse compared with the Apoc. 17. euent both that the Empire is dissolued and that Antichrist is already come For the Empire is then knowen to be dissolued when it is diuided among ten who shall haue receiued power as kings as Iohn noteth the fathers teach the Papists themselues confesse But it is most certaine that the old Empire of of Rome is diuided among ten kings at the least who before the dissolution had not soueraigne authority and that the Empire which now is being but a title and contayning no such kingdomes is not capable of such a partition And that Antichrist also is come it is as euident For those ten hornes which in the Apostles time had not receiuèd the kingdome nor soueraigne authority but were gouernours of the prouinces by deputation froÌ„ the Emperour were after the
10. ratified approued Likewise Boniface 8. caused the body of Hermannus of Ferrara who before had bene canonized for a Saint after 30. yeares to be pluckt out of his graue to be burnt Vrbanus the 6. cast seuen Cardinals into prison because they fauoured Clement the 7. and in spite of him put fiue of them into sackes and drowned thē And this is some part of their behauiour among themselues For of their cruelty toward the Saints and Martyrs of Iesus who is able sufficiently to intreat 3. To their cruelty I wil adde their perfidious treachery traiterous practises especially towards the Emperours Princes of Christendome For first the Emperors of Greece by the Popes rebellious opposition against their soueraigne Lords in the vngodly defence of images were bereaued of their dominions in the West By which meanes the Empire being rent asunder weakened way was made for the Turke And howsoeuer at the first they seemed to honour their newly erected Emperors in the West whom they created for their owne defence yet afterward they neuer ceassed vntill they had gotten superiority ouer them And euer since it hath bene their practise to strengthen and aduaunce thēselues and their owne See by weakening and deiecting the Emperour and all other Christiā princes And this they had effected by diuerse diuelish pollicies As first they haue vsed to picke quarels against them vpō any pretext or colour of a iust quarell to excōmunicate them to absolue their subiects from their obedience And if by these meanes they would not be brought into subiection then to depose thē if they could to set vp others against thē And if other means failed to raise vp warres against them to send forth Croisades into all Christendome with large indulgences promises of heauen to all that would fight their battels And besides this they haue also forbiddē al other chris◅iās to vse any trafficke with them their subiects and not onely that but they haue exposed the princes themselues sometimes their subiects also to the violēce of murderers their coūtries kingdoms as a prey to spoilers warrāting any to bereaue the prince or the subiect of their liues to take their kingdome as a prey Thus besides many others was Hēry the 4. Emperour vsed by Gregory 7. Paschalis the 2. who not onely excōmunicated the worthy Emperor absolued his subiects frō obedience but also both vnder hād suborned such as should murder him openly set vp against him in the Empire first Rodolphus the duke of Sueuia and then his owne sonne in the end the good Emperour being deposed imprisoned dead in prison his body might not for 5. yeares be vouchsafed christian burial Thus was Otho 4 vsed by Innocentius 3. Lewis the 4. by Iohn 22. Benedict 12. Clement the 6. by whose meanes also he was poisoned Thus diuerse kings of France besides him that now is haue ben intreated But especially Lewis 12 a good king by Iulius the 2. a notable Antichrist For he not only excōmunicated Lewis interdicted his land but also stirred vp al Christians against him promising great indulgence and pardon of all sinnes to euery one that should by any meanes whatsoeuer kil any French man In his owne person also hee went to warre against him as he being armed brought forth his army on the bridge ouer Tiber he cast his keies into the riuer and drew his sword vsing this speach in the hearing of many thousāds seing Peters keyes doe nought auaile vs I will therefore vse Paules sword And to conclude thus also haue our Kings beene dealt with as king Iohn Henry the 8. our gratious Q. Elizabeth whom to omit the other the Popes haue excōmunicated absolued her subiects frō obediēce as much as in thē lieth deposed her from her crowne exposed her to the violence of her secret opē enemies raised rebellions against her suborned cut-throats to murder her sent forces into Irelād to win that kingdome frō her stirred vp the Spaniard aided him against her lastly by an Antichristian deuotion giuen her realme of Ireland to the Spaniard But whō Antichrist cursed Christ blessed insomuch that hauing through the Lords goodnesse ouerliued 8. Popes since she came to the crowne in the end after a long and happy reigne she died in peace Another practise of Antichrist hath beene this to bereaue the right owners of their crownes kingdomes to set vp others which had no right that they being aduāced by his meanes should be obliged as vassals feed men vnto his See And to this end when cōtentions haue risen betwixt Christian princes he hath not only nourished the same but also taken part with the one against the other that the one being by his means vāquished ouercome the other may acknowledge the Pope for his good Lorde To this end was the title of the Romane Empire translated frō the Greeks to the French in Charlemaigne from the French to the Almaines in Otto whom the Pope caused to sweare homage fealty to him To this end was Pipin crowned king of Fraunce Childerick deposed shorne a Monke But I shall not need to insist in the enumeration of examples for scarcely is there any kingdome in Europe if any at all which the Pope Vide Fulm brutum pag. 74. hath not in former times by these and other meanes made subiect tributary to his See vsing the kings as his vassals making thē sweare homage vnto him A third stratageme which the Popes haue vsed to weaken the Emperours and princes of christendome strengthen themselues hath bene this to perswade them to goe with their forces chiefe of their strength into Palestine for the recouery of the Holy lād from the Turks and Saracens that in their absence he might worke his will in any part of Europe not fearing their strength if they should returne being weakened by those warres but rather hoping they should not returne to make resistaunce And to this purpose consider onely the dealing of Alexander the 3. and Gregory the ninth with the one and two Frederickes the Emperours For Alexander the third fearing the power of Fredericke Barbarossa by Hartmannus the Bishop of Brixia perswadeth him to goe with his armie into Palestine for the recouery of the holy Lande the Pope in the meane time sendeth a picture of the Emperour to the Soldan perswading him that by some secret ambushment hee would apprehend him which happened accordingly The Emperour being released by the Soldan after his returne commeth to Venice where the Pope as you heard before treadeth on his necke c. The other Frederick being first excōmunicated by Gregory 9. Bal. ex Mario Matth. Paris because he went not to Palaestine according to his appointmēt at the length to satisfie the Popes pleasure he tooke his voiage and hauing recouered Ierusalē other places from the Soldan and made
consider the acceptation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antichrist in the place alledged and elsewhere 1. Ioh. 2. 18 in the Epistles of Iohn in which onely it is vsed and not elsewhere in the scriptures In the place which Bellarmine citeth th'apostle seemeth to reason thus When the Antichrist is come it is the last houre Now Antichrists are come therefore now is the last houre 1. Ioh. 2. 28 Where either the Antichrist and Antichrists signifie the same or else there be foure termes in the Apostles argument which Bellarmine dareth not auouch And afterwards v. 22. he plainly sheweth that euery one that denieth Iesus to be the Christ as many Antichrists 1. Ioh. 4. 3. 4 or heretickes did of which he spake verse 18. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antichrist In the same Epistle Chapter 4. he biddeth them try the spirits that is their teachers because many false prophets were come into the world and giueth them this note whereby to try them Euery spirit saith he which confesseth Iesus Christ to be come in the flesh is of God and euery spirit which doth not confesse that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God And this is the spirit of the Antichrist which you heard was to come and euen now 2. Iohn 7. already is in the world Likewise in the second Epistle Many decâ—…iuers are come into the world which dâ—… not confesse that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh this is the deceiuer and the Antichrist By which testimonies it is euident that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not only signifie the head of the Antichristian body which is not one singuler man but is continued in a succession of many but also sometimes any hereticke that oppugneth the natures or offices of Christ and sometimes the whole body or company of heretickes opposed vnto Christ. For Iohn 1. Ioh. 2. 22. plainely affirmeth that those many heretickes and deceiuers of his time are the Antichrist And whereas Paul prophecieth of Antichrist that he should come into the world and should be destroyed at the second comming of Christ Iohn affirmeth that Antichrist of whom they had heard that he should come was then already come into the world From which places I argue thus If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antichrist in the Epistles of Iohn and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man of sinne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the outlaw in the Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians doe signifie one certaine and singuler man as the Papists affirme then it will follow necessarily that one and the same man who was come into the world in Saint Iohns time shall be in the world at the second comming of Christ for Iohn saith that the Antichrist was come in his time and Paul saith that the out-law shall be consumed with the spirit of Christs mouth and destroyed at his glorious appearing But the latter is incredible for since the time of Saint Iohn there are already 1500. yeeres expired and therefore the former which is the assertion of the Papists is absurde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore signifieth sometimes the whole body of Heretickes from the ascension of Christ vntill his second comming sometimes any heretickes which are lims of that body somtimes the graund antichrist who is the head of that body is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antichrist Wherfore in respect of those heretickes and lims of Antichrist in the Apostles times Antichrist is then said to haue entred and as it were to haue set his foote into the world And accordingly the Apostle Paul saith 2. Thes. 2. 7 that euen in his time the mystery of iniquity that is Antichristianisme was working namely by those which belonged to the body of Antichrist although couertly and vnderhand vntill the head of that body was reuealed as he was after the Empire in the West was dissolued and the Emperour which hindred was done out of the way according to the prophecie of the Apostle 2. Thessalonians 2. 7 8. And thus you see what a slender argument this is taken from the article although it be vsed as one of the principall demonstrations generally of all the Papists that write of this argument but more especially of Bellarmine who thinking it too good to goe for one argument hath deuided it into two 7 His fourth testimonie is taken out of Daniel chap. 7. 11. 12. Where Antichrist is called a King and not a Kingdome who of the ten Kings which he shall finde in the worlde shall take away three and shall make the other seauen subject to himselfe But I answer that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist at all but of Antiochus Epiphanes and therefore this allegation is impertinent For the learned of our times haue made it euident that the foure kingdomes whereof Daniel speaketh were ended before the incarnation of Christ and that the fourth kingdome which many haue taken to be the monarchie of the Romanes was the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae in Syria and Egypt so farre forth as the people of Iewrie was subject thereunto and is therefore described as the most terrible of all the foure because it was most trouble some to the Iewes And that the ten hornes were ten Kings of Syria and Egypt which successiuely tyrannized ouer the people of the Iewes Antiochus Epiphanes being the tenth and the last of those Kings which tyrannized ouer Iewrie But because in outragious cruelty and cursed hostility not onely against the people but also against the religion of the Iewes he surpassed all that went before him of him therefore Daniel speaketh so plainely and distinctly that he hath seemed to some rather to write an Historie of him then a Prophesie as shall hereafter more fully be shewed when as Chap. 16. we shall also manifestly declare that this which Bellarmine addeth concerning Antichrists killing of three Kings and subduing of the other seauen is but a dreame which is indeed so farre from all probability of truth as that it cannot be verified of that party whom Daniel describeth Daniel describeth him as the tenth Bellarmine maketh him the eleuenth as if it were a beast of eleuen hornes Daniel speaketh of ten Kings which successiuely ruled ouer the Iewes Bellarmine maketh him speake of ten who together with the eleuenth should be at one time in the world Of those ten Daniel saith that three were pluckt vp before the teÌ„th as it may seeme by his means but of the other sixe either all or the most were dead before he was borne Bellarmine maketh him to kill three and subdue the other seauen which indeed liued not in his time as shall be shewed hereafter out of the eleuenth of Daniel where the succession of these ten Kings and the affaires of the tenth who can be no other but Antiochus Epiphanes are particularly and fully described This argument drawne from the misconstruing of Daniel Bellarmine although he knew it to be nothing
worth yet he was content to make a flourish with it because he had some of the Fathers to father it vpon Afterwards he commeth nearer to the purpose and saith that Caluin as some of the Fathers before him to wit Cyprian and Ierome affirmeth and so doth Bellarmine himselfe else where that Daniel speaketh of Antiochus Epiphanes who was a type of Antichrist Therefore leauing his former hold he reasoneth thus Such as is the type or figure such is the thing figured Antiochus the type was but one singular person therfore Antichrist that is figured is but one The proposition is to be vnderstood of the proportion and likenesse onely in those things in respect whereof the type is a figure and not generally in all things As for example the High-priest was a type or figure of Christ but therefore it doth not follow that there was but one High-priest because Christ is one The Papists holde that Melchisedec who was but one was a type of their Masse Priests which are many Iosuah Dakid and Salomon were types of Christ but therefore not like vnto him in all things So Antiochur may not vnfitly be said to haue beene a type of Antichrist because as Pharaoh was a type of other tyrants which oppressed the Church of God so he in falshood deceit pride idolatry cruelty and persecuting of the Church of God resembled Antichrist the man of sinne which is an enemie and is listed vp about all that is called God or that is worshipped In which respects Antiochus was so fit a type of Antichrist that R. Leui Gerson alledged by Bellarmine in the end of the 12. chap. applieth whatsoeuer is spoken of him Dan. 7. 11. to the Pope of Rome If therefore you vnderstand the proposition generally it is false if particularly the whole argumentation is a fallacion 8. His fift testimonie is Apoc. 13. 17. For these places are to be vnderstood of Antichrist as Irenaeus teacheth and as it is plaine by the likenesse of the words in Daniel and Iohn c. His reason is thus framed If Daniel spake of one King then also Iohn but the former is true therefore the later The proposition wherin there is indeed no coherence he prooueth by the similitude of their words First because both make mention of ten Kings which shal be in the earth when Antichrist shall come It is true that both make mention of ten hornes but with such difference as that otherwise there is no likenesse Antiochus in Daniel by whom Bellarmine would haue vs to vnderstand Antichrist is the last of the ten not one besides the ten otherwise the fourth beast were a beast of eleuē hornes Antichrist is one besides the ten hornes in the Reuelation and of Bellarmine somtimes is called the eleuenth Bellarmines Antichrist in Daniel is the little horne signifying indeed but one man but the true Antichrist in the Reuelation is called not an horne but the beast whereby not one man but a state is signified The ten hornes in Daniel are so many kings which succeed one another in the kingdome vsurped ouer the Iewes before the cōming of the Messias the ten hornes in the Reuelation are so many rulers ouer diuers kingdomes which receiue their kingdome together not only after the incarnatiō of Christiō but also after the dissolutiō of the Roman Empire So that in truth nothing is here alike saue that in both there is mention of ten hornes Secondly saith Bellarmine both of them foretel that the kingdome of Antichrist shall continue three yeares and an halfe But I answer that neither of both assigne that time to Antichrist For first Daniel assigneth a time and times and parcell of time that is three yeers and ten daies to the persecution vnder Antiochus wherby the publick worship of God was for that time interrupted viz. from the 15. day of the month Casleu in the 145. yeare of the kingdome of the Seleucidae See Chap. 16. 1. Mac. 1. 57. vnto the 25. of the month Casleu in the yeare 148. 1. Mac. 4. 52. But of this more hereafter Neither doth Iohn any where assigne three yeers an halfe to the raigne of Antichrist but to the beast with seuē heads ten hornes which signifieth the Roman state either generally as it is opposed vnto Christ or particularly as it was gouerned by the sixt head that is the emperors he assigneth fortytwo Apoc. 11. 2. 7. and 13. 1 5. months which are not literally to be vnderstood Now Antichrist is not the beast with seuē heads but one head of the seuē is described vnder the second beast as our aduersaries also confesse which in plaine terms is called another beast For how can he be that beast if he be another Apoc. 13. 11. And of this also I shal haue better occasiō to speake more fully hereafter Lastly he flieth to the authority of the fathers as his last refuge but neither do these fathers expresly say that Antichrist shal be See Chap. 8. but one man neither if they did can any sound argument be drawne from their testimonies vnlesse Bellarmine be able to prooue that whatsoeuer these fathers haue written concerning Antichrist is true And againe diuers of the Fathers as Irenaeus Origen Chrysostome Ierome Ruffinus Primasius Augustine expounding that place Math 24. 24. which speaketh of more then one as spoken of Antichrist they could not vnderstand Antichrist to be but one Yea but the Fathers say that Antichrist shall be a most choise instrument of the Diuell that in him shall dwell all the fulnesse of diuellish malice bodily euen as in the man Christ dwelleth the fulnesse of the diuinitie corporally But although this allegation were true as I will not thereof dispute yet is it impertinent for the Pope meaning the whole succession of Antichristian Popes may be a notable instrument of the diuell c. and yet hereof it followeth not that there hath beene but one Pope As touching the other assertion of Antichrists raigne three yeares and a Chap. 8. halfe we are hereafter to intreate 9. Now that Antichrist is not one singuler man but a whole state and succession of men it may appeare by these arguments First by conference of 2. Thes. 2. with the Epistles of Iohn for Iohn plainely 1. Ioh. 4 3. 2. Iohn 7. 1. Ioh. 2. 18 saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antichrist of whom they had hard that he should come was in his time And of whom had they heard it but of Paul in the 2. Thes 2. where in like sort the Apostle saith that euen in his time the mysterie of iniquitie that is Antichristianisme was working noting that Antichrist in some of his members was already come although he were not reuealed vntill that which hindered was taken out of the way Now as Paul and Iohn doe both testifie that the Antichrist was in their time so Paul also sheweth that Antichrist shall remaine vnto the second comming of Christ
cap. 3. §. 3. 2. But let vs come to his arguments The first whereof is this If before Antichrists comming the Romane Empire is to be diuided into ten kings whereof none shal be called king of the Romanes then is not Antichrist yet come for yet there is a king of the Romanes but the first is true therefore the last The proposition he taketh for granted although it cannot be denyed but that vpon the desolation of the empire in the West it was deuided among ten kings at the least who although they had the prouinces of the Empire yet none of them was called the king of the Romanes The proposition therefore is false and the reason may be returned vpon our aduersary For seeing these ten kings had not receiued their kingly power in the Apostles time but were to receiue it either after the beast which is Antichrist as some reade or with the Apo. 17. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beast as others it is euident therefore that when the ten rulers of the prouinces had receiued authority as kings then Antichrist was come But many huÌ„dred yeers since the rulers of the prouinces ceased to be deputies vnder the Emperor obtained power as soueraigne kings diuiding among them the westerne Empire therfore many hundred yeres since was Antichrist come The assumption he prooueth out of Daniel chap. 2. Where saith he is described the successioÌ„ of the chiefe kingdomes vnto the end of the world by a certaine image the golden head wherof signifieth the kingdome of the Assyrians the Breast of siluer the kingdom of the Persians the Bellie of Brasse the kingdome of the Grecians the Legs of Iron the kingdom of the Romans diuided into two parts c. And in the 7. chap. the same kingdomes are signified the last which hath ten hornes being the kingdome of the Romanes Now saith he as the two Legs haue ten toes Subtiliss which are not legs as the ten hornes are not the beast so the Roman Empire shall be diuided into ten kings whereof none is the king of the Romanes 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 whereof the Romane is the last then the Romane Empire shall not vtterly be destroyed before the coÌ„ming of Antichtist which goeth before the end of the world But howsoeuer the coÌ„mon opinion hath bin that the fourth kingdom mentioned in those chapters is the Romane Empire yet by the learned especially of these latter times it hath beene most clearely prooued that by it is vnderstood that kingdome of the Seleucida Lagidae which tyrannized ouer the people of Iewry For the Seleucida who were Kings of Syria and the Lagidae who were Kings of Egypt were the two legs of the image were also the fourth beast the ten kings of these two kingdomes which successiuely Chap. 16. vsurped dominion ouer the Iewes were the ten hornes of the beast which being most true as hereafter also shal be shewed it appeareth euidently that this whole argumentation is impertinent But suppose that Daniel had spoken in those places of the Romane Empire yet would not that follow which Bellarmine would inferre thereof For by the beast is signified the kingdome it selfe and by the hornes the seuerall kings who although they be not the kingdome it selfe signified by the beast no more then the hornes are the beast yet are they so many kings of that kingdome which is signified by the beast As for example Seleucus Antiochus and the rest of the ten kings signified by the ten hornes and as Bellarmine speaketh by the ten toes though they were not the kingdome of Syria Egypt it selfe yet were they kings of that kingdome and therefore this argument of Bellarmine is very friuolous 3. His second proofe is out of Apocal. 17. Where Iohn describeth a beast with seauen heads and ten hornes vpon which beast a certaine woman sitteth which he expouÌ„deth to be the great citie sitting on seuen hils that is to say Rome The seauen heads as they signifie seuen hils so also seauen kings by which number saith he al the Romane Emperors are vnderstood the ten hornes are ten kings which shal raigne together And least we should thinke that these shal be Romane kings he addeth that these kings shall hate the harlot and make her desolate because they shall so deuide the Romane Empire among them that they shall vtterly destroy it Here Bellarmine as you see confesseth that Rome is the whore of Babylon and consequently the seate of Antichrist and not Rome vnder the olde Emperors but Rome after the dissolution of the Empire And that the ten hornes are so many kings among whom the Romane Empire should be deuided and that these ten Kings were to receiue their kingdome together and consequently that these are not the same ten hornes whereof Daniel speaketh which reigned successiuely Dan. 11. And wheras Bellarmine saith the 7. heads signifie all the Emperours it is vntrue For the holy Ghost nameth seauen because they were seauen indeed and therfore numbreth them Fiue are fallen the sixt is and the seauenth is not yet come But all this is besides the present purpose How then doth he prooue that before Antichrist commeth the Romane Empire shall be so vtterly destroyed as that not the name of a Romane Emperour or king of the Romanes should remaine because the Empire shall be deuided among ten kings which are not Romane kings But that proueth not that the name shall not remaine for he that is none of those ten kings may haue the name of the Emperour or king of the Romanes as namely the beast which was and is not though it be which is the eight head and is one of the seauen that is to say the Emperour erected by the Pope And why may none of these be called the king of the Romanes First forsooth because they shall hate Rome and make her desolateâ—… As though he that hath the title of the King of the Romanes may not hate Rome notwithstanding that title as indeed some of the Emperours haue done Secondly because they shall so diuide among them the Romane Empire as that they shall vtterly destroy it Where you see by a circular disputation the question brought to prooue his argument yet experience sheweth that although the Empire is dissolued and also diuided among the beast that is Antichrist ten kings there doth notwithstanding remaine the name and title of the Emperor or king of the RomaÌ„s And so much now shall suffice to haue spoken of that place froÌ„ whence I haue heretofore proued both that antichrist is already come that the Pope is antichrist 4. His third proofe is out of 2. Thes. 2. And now what hindereth you know that he may be reuealed in due time onely he which holdeth must holde vntill he be done out of the way and then that
Bellarmine would prooue by the authority of Irenaeus as if he should haue said This name was not certainely knowne in Irenaeus his time therefore not in our time I deny the consequence Irenaeus liued before the fulfilling of this prophecie as himselfe professeth as the truth is for he liued aboue 1400. Non ante mul'um temporis pene sub nostro saeculo Iren. Lib. 5. yeeres agoe and as himselfe saith the reuelation was giuen to Iohn but a little before his age For it was giuen in the end of the first Century and he liued in the second and therefore it is more safe saith he to waite for the fulfilling of this prophecie then before hand to determine any thing For if the Lord would haue had this name knowne in Irenaeus his time he would haue made it knowne by Iohn himselfe to whom the reuelation was giuen But as before the fulfilling of this prophecie he saith this name was very obscure so he signifieth that after the fulfilling it should be more plaine And therefore that which he could but ghesse at in his time we may now define time hauing reuealed that trueth which vntill the prophecie was cleared by the euent lay hidde otherwise it shall be lawfull for men to reason from the authority of Irenaeus as Bellarmine doth euen vnto the end of the world But may we then reason thus this name was not knowne in Irenaeus his time therefore it shall neuer be knowne to what end was this prophecie giuen if it shall neuer be vnderstood Whereas therefore he vseth the arguments whereby Irenaeus prooueth that this name could not be knowne in his time to prooue that it cannot be knowne in our time he is ridiculous There are many names saith Irenaeus that haue this number therefore it is heard before hand to tell which is this name Againe if in Irenaeus his time God would haue this knowne he would haue reuealed it by Iohn 3. It is dangerous to define before hand his name for missing of his name we shall not know him when he commeth and therefore shall be in the more danger to be decoiued by him All this we grant But will Bellarmine needs be so ridiculous as to conclude In Irenaeus his time men were not able to tell which of those names that containe the number 666 is the name of the beast therefore 1400. yeeres after none shall be able to tell God would not have it knowne in Irenaeus his time therefore he will not haue it knowne now It was dangerous then before the fulfilling of the prephecie to define what this name should be therefore it is dangerous now when the prophecie is expounded by the euent to apply the one to the other And what doth he inferre hereuppon Therefore no doubt the Protestants who thinke the Pope to be Antichrist shal be deceiued of the true Antichrist when he commeth But blessed be God that hath already reuealed vnto vs the true Antichrist that knowing him we might auoyde him whereas vpon the Papists he hath sent strong illusions that they may beleeue lyes because they loued not the truth that they might be saued 2. Thes. 2. 11. 6. Againe he prooueth this name not to be knowne because there is great controuersie about it what it should be But by the same reason he may conclude that few points of religion are yet knowne because there be few concerning which there is no controuersie Notwithstanding as in other controuersies the trueth is knowne of those which are Orthodoxall howsoeuer others will not acknowledge it so I doubt not but that the trueth in this matter is knowne although some cannot and others will not as yet see it For seeing the hardest matter in this mystery is knowne it is not to be thought that the easier is hid or vnknowne especially seeing the knowledge of the one maketh the other euident The chiefe thing here to be considered is what this beast is For if the beast be knowne it will not be hard to tell what his name is especially if the number of the name be 666. The beast as appeareth by the whole context is as I haue shewed the former beast which without doubt figureth the Romane or Latine state The name of this beast is Romane or Latine If therefore this name in the learned tongues containe the number 666. and be such a name as he to whom all other notes of Antichrist doe agree shall enforce men to take vpon them then without doubt this is the name where of the holy Ghost speaketh but these properties agree to the name Latine or Romane For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew signifying Romane 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke signifying Latine and Romanus in Hebrew Characters doe containe the iust number 666. and are besides such names as Antichrist compelleth all men to take vpon them as hath beene shewed heretofore See Lib. 1. Chap. 8. 7. But let vs see what Bellarmine obiecteth against this truth Of those many reasons which we doe vse Bellarmine maketh choise of two as being the easiest to answer as his maner is and against them he argueth namely the conjecture of Irenaeus and the agreement of the number But besides these we produce three other arguments as you haue heard which together with Lib. 1. c. 〈◊〉 these make the matter euident It is true indeede that Irenaeus besides Latinus produceth two other names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and seemeth to prefer the latter of these before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But we build not vpon Irenaeus his authority but vpon those reasons whereon his conjecture is groūded which are two the one because it is the name of that kingdome which is figured vnder the former beast Apoc. 13. 7. whose authority Antichrist was to vsurpe the other because it containeth 666 his words be these But the name Lateinos also comprehendeth the number 666. et valde verisimile est and it is very likely For it is the name of that which most truely is called the kingdome For they are the Latines that now raigne Which in effect is as much as if he had said this name is very likely because it is a name containing 666. and is the name of the former beast spoken of Apoc. 13. 1. which figureth verissimum regnum that kingdome which most truely is called a kingdome that is the Latine or Roman state Yea but this coniecture saith Bellarmine which in Irenaeus his time was of some force now it is nothing worth for then the Latines bare the sway now they doe not For Antichrist as he shall be Potentissimus Rex 〈◊〉 most mighty king so without doubt he shal seize vpon the most mighty kingdoms Whereas therfore the kingdome of the Latines was in those times most mighty but now otherwise there was some likelyhood then that he might by subduing them be called Latinus but now there is no such probability I answere the name whereof Iohn speaketh
seuen heads of the Romane state as vndoubtedly hee is and as our aduersary here confesseth then can it not be denied but that the Pope who is the seuenth head is Antichrist 5 The other interpretation that the beast with seuen heads doth signifie the whole multitude of the wicked is senselesse and absurd For if the beast be the vniuersall company of the wicked what is the world which verse 3. is said to wonder after the beast what are all the kinreds tongues nations which are made subiect to the beast verse 7. who are all those inhabitants of the earth that do worship him doth not the holy Ghost plainely say verse 8. that they are those whose names are not written in the booke of the Lambe that is to say the company of the wicked and reprobates When as Bellarmine therefore saith that this beast signifieth either the Romane Empire or the whole company of the wicked wee may adde but it signifieth not the whole company of the wicked It remaineth therefore that it signifieth the Romane state whereof Antichrist is a head But although Antichrist bee one head of the seuen yet it followeth not that the head which was as it were wounded to death is Antichrist but rather the estate of Emperours which then was For albeit the bâ—…ast with seuen heads doth signifie the Romane state in generall yet in that place it seemeth to bee described as it was subiect to the sixt head In the 17. chapter as it is renewed and subiected to the Antichristian state For the beast which he there speaketh of which was and is not though it be was after to arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and being the eight in order was in name one of the seuen on which beast as also vpon those waters that is nations wherof the old Empire did arise the whore of Babylon whereby is meant the Antichristian state sitteth that is ruleth and raigneth as a Queene 6 And that it may appeare that there is no necessitie that we should vnderstand this wound of Antichrist let vs consider what wounds the Romane state had receiued and was cured thereof First therefore by the death of Iulius Caesar and the ciuill warres therevpon ensuing the Romane Empire receiued as it were a deadly wound yet recouered it so againe as that in Augustus and some of his successors it flourished more then euer before And this some thinke to be the wound of the beast which was cured whereof the holy Ghost here speaketh describing the beast by that which was knowne to haue bene done in the Romane state The second wound which the Romane Empire receiued was at the death of Nero in whom the stocke of the Caesars ended which being cut off the succession of the Imperiall Crowne was vncertaine and by the vncertaintie of succession the like desolation threatned to that Empire which happened to the Graecian Monarchy after the death of Alexander the great the Empire being left as a prey for the mightiest Neither was this wound cured vntill Uespasian obtained the Empire For after Nero Sergius Galba seized vpon the Empire and enioyed the same but seuen monethes and seuen dayes And albeit to establish the succession hee had adopted Piso yet was hee murdered by Syluius Otho who succeeded him and Otho after three moneths and fiue dayes was slaine by Uitellius who also after eight moneths was deposed and put to an ignominious death by Uespasian In whom the Empire which since the death of Nero had bene incertum vagum as Suetonius saith was established and as it were cured of the former wound which diuers learned men thinke to be vnderstood in this place Others rather expound this deadly wound of the dissolution of the Empire in the West Augustulu being ouercome by the Gothes and the Empire in the West lying voyd vntill Charles the great in whom this wound was after a sort cured Therefore although Antichrist be one of the heads of this beast yet seeing he is but one of the seuen and the holy Ghost speaketh of this Empire especially as it was ruled by the sixt head that is to say the Emperours there is no necessitie nay no probabilitie that by the head which was wounded wee should vnderstand Antichrist especially seeing Antichrist is afterwards described at large and that by these notes among others that he causeth men to worship the former beast whose mortall wound was healed verse 13. and caused an Image to be made to the beast which had the deadly wound verse 14. which as appeareth also by the Image was the Romane state vnder the Emperors for thereof the Empire renewed is an Image 7 But now suppose that Antichrist were this head which was wounded and cured as he is not yet how doth it follow that therefore Antichrist shall faigne himselfe to die and rise againe seeing he speaketh not of a particular mans death and resurrection as the Papists imagine but of the wounding and curing of a state signified by the head Neither speaketh he of death and resurrection but of wounding and curing neither is the wound and the cure counterfeit and faigned but the wound is truly inflicted and truly cured such as was both the wound of the Romane Empire either at the murther of Iulius Caesar or death of Nero or vanquishing of Augustulus and also the cure in Augustus in Vespasian and as Bellarminee else-where De translat imperiâ—… lib. 1. cap. 4. saith in Carolus Magnus If therfore neither Antichrist be spoken of in this place nor yet he who is spoken of doth faigne himselfe to die and rise againe how is it proued from these words that Antichrist shall faigne himselfe to die and rise againe Chap. 16. Of the kingdome and battailes of Antichrist COncerning the kingdome and battailes of Antichrist we reade foure thinges in the scriptures 1 saith Bellarmine 1. that Antichrist arising from a most base estate shall by fraude and deceit obtaine the kingdome of the Iewes 2. that he shall fight with three kings to wit of Egypt Libya and Aethiopia and hauing ouercome them shall possesse their kingdomes 3. that he shall subdue seuen other kings and by that meanes shall become the Monarch of the whole world 4. that with an innumerable army he shall persecute the Christians in the whole world and that this is the battaile of Gog and Magog Of all which seeing none agreeth to the Pope it followeth manifestly that he can by no meanes be called Antichrist To these foure points I will answere first ioyntly to them all and then seuerally to euery one For whereas Bellarmine saith that these foure thinges are read in the scriptures concerning the kingdome and battailes of Antichrist I answere that not any one of these foure is to be found in the scriptures and therefore that this argument as it is the last so of least force and that his disputation standing now as it were on the tilt he seemeth to drawe of the lees Notwithstanding the
Epiphanes was that he shall make three expeditions into Egypt and in his returne homeward euery time shall hee afflict the land of Iury especially in the second expedition when being hindred by the shippes of Chittim Ioseph antiq lib. 12. cap. 6. that is the Romans he wreaked his malice vpō the Iewes chap. 11. 30. and all the rest of the particulars which properly belong to the person of Antiochus all which Daniel doth so fully and particularly describe that hee hath seemed to some which knew not with what spirit he did write to haue written a story rather then a prophecie of him Chap. 7. 8. 11. 12. 4 But now let vs examine seuerally the particular instances from whence Bellarmine wold proue that the Pope is not Antichrist From the first he argueth thus Antichrist arising from most base estate ex humilimo loco shall by fraud deceit obtaine the kingdome of the Iewes The Pope of Rome ariseth not from base estate neither obtaineth the kingdome by fraude and deceit therfore the Pope is not Antichrist The proposition is after his manner proued out of Dan. 11. 21. And in his place shall stand a vile person and they shall not giue vnto him the honor of a king but he shall come secretly and obtaine the kingdome by fraude I answere first that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist and secondly that this proposition is not true of him of whom Daniel speaketh and therfore that this allegatiō is both impertinent vntrue That Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist it shall appeare out of Daniel himselfe For Daniel speaketh of him that immediately in the kingdome of Syria succeeded Seleucus Philopater For so he saith in his place who was described vers 20 shall stand vp a vile person meaning thereby Antiochus who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but properly as Polybius calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto whom that which is cited out of the 21. verse and all the rest of the chapter vnto the end doth wholy and properly agree 5 For the better vnderstanding of this place the rest of Daniel we are to know that excepting one propheticall comfort of the resurrection cha 12. his whole prophecie is of those things which happened within lesse then 700. yeares that is to say from the taking of Ierusalem by the Chaldeans vnto the finall destructiō thereof by the Romanes and his prophecie concerneth those kingdomes which should in the meane time be in the worlde And those are either such terrestriall kingdomes vnto whose tyrannie the Iewes were subiect before the comming of the Messias or else the spirituall kingdome of Christ the Messias king of the Iewes before which all the former kingdoms were to haue an end Da. 2. 4. 〈◊〉 7. 11. 26 27. The time wherof as also of the desolatiō of Ierusalē is foretold cap. 9. 25. 26. 27. according to which time this Messias and king is by the wise men acknowledged to be born Mat. 2 and his kingdom by Iohn Baptist the forerunner of Christ was said to be at hand Mat. 3. 2. and in like sort preached our Sauiour Christ Mat. 1. 15. his apostles Ma. 10. 7. Christ also a litle before his death confessed that he was a king and in his death his title was the king of the Iewes After his death resurrection he professeth that all power was giuen him in heauen and in earth and therevpon ascendeth into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of God which is noted in Daniel chap. 7. 13. that after Christ the son of man was come into the worlde he went vnto the auncient of dayes and to him was giuen power glory and kingdome that all people nations and tongues should serue him Of both these sorts of kingdomes Daniel intreateth chap. 2. and 7. And as touching the terrestriall kingdomes which tyrannized ouer the Iewes before the comming of Christ in the flesh they are noted to be foure the first of the Babylonians the second of the Medes and Persians the third of the Macedonians the fourth of the Seleucidae and Lagidae And of these foure Daniel prophecieth either ioyntly of all together or seuerally of some of them In the second seuenth chapters of them all together resembling them in the second chapter by an Image the golden head whereof figureth the Babylonians the breast and armes of siluer the Medes and Persians the belly and sides of brasse represent the Macedonians his legges of yron and his feete part of yron and part of clay resemble the Seleucidae Lagidae and in the seuenth chapter the same foure kingdomes are figured by 4. beastes the Babylonians by a Lyon the Medes and Persians by a Beare the Macedonians by a Leoparde the Seleucidae and Lagidae by the beast with tenne hornes 6 Seuerally he prophecieth either of the Babylonian Monarchy or of the rest His prophecies concerning the Babylonian Monarchy which also were fulfilled in his time are set downe chap. 4. and 5. Of the three other and especially of the last because that especially was to afflict the people of the Iewes he prophecieth againe in the 8. and 11. chapters In the 11. chapter to omit the rest the Angell promiseth vers 2. Dan. 11. 2. to declare the truth that is the true and proper sense meaning of the aforesaid visions concerning the three kingdomes which yet remained recorded chap. 2. 7. 8. And first as touching the kingdome of the Medes Persians he mentioneth but foure Kings because the rest did nothing memorable against Iuda verse 2. In the third verse he prophecieth of Alexander Verse 3. the great the mightie Monarch of the Graecians and of the diuision of that Empire into soure principall parts vers 4. Verse 4. which before was foretold chap. 8. 22. Of which diuision Ierome writeth thus Quo sc. Alexandro tricesimo secundo aetatis In Dan. 8. suae anno mortuo in Babylone surrexerunt pro eo quatuor duces eius qui sibi imperium diuiserunt Aegyptum enim Ptolemeus Lagi filius tenuit c. Alexander being dead in Babylon in the 32. yeare of his age there arose in his stead foure of his captaines who diuided the Empire among them For Ptolemy Lagides held Egypt Philip who also is called Arideus the brother of Alexander held Macedonia Seleucus Nicanor held Syria and Babylon and all the kingdomes of the East Antigonus ruled ouer Asia minor These foure kingdomes were by mutuall conflicts reduced to two vnder Seleucus Nicanor Ptolemy Lagides from whom did spring the kingdom of the Lagidae kings of Egypt on the South and of the Seleucidae or kings of Syria Babylon in the North. These two vsed to contend for Iudaea which lying in the midst betwixt them became a prey to the conquerers and was greeuously afflicted by them These two are the two legges and feete of the Image chap. 2. and also the fourth beast with tenne hornes chap. 7.
for of these two kingdomes there are tenne kings reckened which tyrannized ouer the people of the Iewes especially the tenth horne that is Antiochus Epiphanes who arose in the ende of the kingdome of this beast namely ouer the Iewes chap. 8. 23. For in his time the people of God were freed from the tyrannie of the Seleucidae by Iudas Macchabaeus 7 These tenne hornes which successiuely tyrannized ouer Iewry are mentioned in order in this 11. chapter First Ptolemy Lagides the first horne who is called verse 5. the king of Verse 5. Ioseph antiq lib. 12. cap. 1. the South that is of Egypt who shortly after he had gotten Egypt inuaded Iudea and surprized the citie of Ierusalem on a Sabboth Secondly Seleucus Nicanor the second horne the mightiest of the Princes of Alexander as he is described in the same fift verse For although Ptolemy for a time helde Iudaea yet after it was agreed vpon that Seleucus should haue Syria and therein Iudaea Him succeeded Antiochus Soter the third horne so called because he expelled the French-men out of Asia whose sonne Antiochus Theos the fourth horne to confirme a league betwixt him and Ptolemy Philadelphus King of Egypt tooke in marriage Bernice the daughter of Ptolemy Vers 6. Philadelphus according to that prophecie of the two legges consisting of yron and claie mingled together that they should mingle themselues together in the seede of man but they should not cleaue together euen as yron cannot be mixed with claie chap. 2. 43. for euen so it followeth vers 6. For howsoeuer they had combined themselues together by mariage yet this coniunction helde not and they which had any hande in it shortly after died For Antiochus Theos had a former wife yet liuing named Laodice by whom he had Seleucus Callinicus and Antiochus Hierax This Laodice to reuenge this despite poisoned her husband Antiochus Theos her sonne Seleucus Callinicus the fift horne slewe Bernice her childe and her traine and Ptolemy Philadelphus shortly after this mariage ended his life But in his place verse 7. did arise his sonne Ptolemy Euergetes the sixt Vers. 7. horne proceeding from the same rootes with Bernice that is her brother who to auenge the death of his sister made warre with Seleucus Callinicus and ouercame him and hauing caused himselfe to be crowned king of Syria returned with much spoile and many captiues into Egypt and Ver. 8. 9 Polyb. li. 5. Appian in Syria Ioseph l. contr Appian Vers. 10. being stronger then Seleucus Callinicus hee held the dominion of Syria for many yeares But the sonnes of Seleucus Callinicus to wit Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus Magnus raised warre verse 5. 10. First Seleucus Ceraunus against Ptolemy Euergetes and they both beeing dead about the same time Antiochus Magnus against Ptolemy Philopater the sonne of Euergetes Of him I meane Antiochus Magnus the Angell prophecieth vnto the 20. verse to wit of his battailes first with Ptolemy Philopator and those sometimes prosperous whereby hee recouered Syria verse 10. sometime aduerse wherby he lost the same again vers 11. 12. Wherevpon Ptolemy being list vp becommeth the 7. horne and killeth many of the Iewes for which hee shall not prosper verse 12. After of his battailes and victories against Ptolemy Epiphanes sonne of Philopater verse 13. 14. 15. Of Vers. 13. 14. 15. Vers. 16. his afflicting the lande thereby that is Iewry verse 16. as being the eight houre of his giuing his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy Epiphanes to mingle the yron and the clay according to the prophecie chapter 2. therein pretending peace and friendship but intending by her his destruction although in vaine she ioyning with her husband against her father verse Vers. 17. 17. Of his expeditions into the Ilandes of Greece and conquering them Of his warres with the Romaines which brought shame vpon him they making him to sit downe with dishonourable conditions verse 18. Of his ignominious Vers. 18. Vers. 19. ende namely in a Barbarian tumult for sacriledge verse 19. In his place succeedeth his sonne Seleucus Philopater the ninth horne one who did pill and poll his subiects by great tributes and exactions and sent to emptie and exhaust the treasury and temple of Ierusalem and hauing set free his brother Antiochus Epiphanes who was an hostage at Rome and in stead of him sent his owne sonne Demetrius is shortly after poysoned by Heliodorus suborned by Antiochus Epiphanes vers 20. Vers. 20. Ver. 21. 8 Now in his place saith the Angel vers 21. shall stand a vile person c. that is in the kingdome of Syria a vile person shall succeed Seleucus Philopator as the tenth horn which cannot be vnderstood properly of any other but of Antiochus Epiphanes who in the rest of the chapt to the end is most fully plainly described For first he intreateth of his cōming vnto the kingdome secōdly of his affaires afterwards and lastly of his end Of his comming vnto the kingdome he saith that hauing no right of succession for Demetrius was the heire nor lawfull election by flattery fraude attained to the kingdome pretending himselfe as Richard the third did to be the tutor protector of the young Prince Demetrius and Administrator of the kingdome during the minoritie and absence of Demetrius who had bene sent in his stead as an hostage to Rome Wherefore Daniel in this place speaketh not of Antichrist vnlesse we may say that Antichrist was to be the immediate successor of Seleucus Philopater which is ridiculous yea and Bellarmine himselfe confesseth else-where that in this latter part of the chapter Daniel speaketh of Antiochus literally who was a figure of Antichrist This place therefore doth not proue Lib. 3. cap. 21. Bellarmines proposition namely that Antichrist arising from most base estate should by fraud obtaine the kingdome of the Iewes Neither doth this proposition sit Antiochus who is here described neither is it agreeable to the description itselfe For neither did Antiochus arise from most base estate for hee was sonne to Antiochus the great and brother to Seleucus Philopater Neither doth Daniel say so but onely that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a vile or despised person should succeede Seleucus Philopator which is to be vnderstood not in respect of his base estate and condition but of his base maners and vile conditions in regard whereof the holy Ghost calleth him although a great Kings sonne vile and contemptible And so is euery wicked man though mightie in the world a vile and despised person in the eyes of the godly Psal. 15. 4. The wicked man is vile in his eyes And as Salomon saith The wicked man is an abhomination vnto the righteous Such an one was Haman in the eyes of Mardoche and Iehoram Pro. 21. 27. Hest. 3. 2. King 3. 13. 14. the wicked king of Israel in the eyes of Elizeus So that it was not the base condition but the vices and base conditions of Antiochus that made
him vile in respect where of Polybius calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So is Seleucus Philopater verse 20. in the vulgar translation called Uilissimus because of his base polling of his people and not because hee did arise from base estate Wherefore it is euident that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist in this place and that he of whom he speaketh did not arise from moste base estate as Bellarmine woulde beare vs in hand vnlesse it be a most base estate to bee the sonne of a mightie King who for his greatnesse was called Antiochus the great 9 But will you see with one view the absurditie of this Popish argument Hee proueth from this place that Antichrist shall arise from most base estate and shall by deceit obtaine the kingdome of the Iewes But say I Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist but of Antiochus Epiphanes Yea but Antiochus was a type of Antichrist Be it that hee was a type not onely in some other things but also in this particular yet from hence we must inferre not the selfe same particular which is proper to the person of Antiochus but the like and that by way of allegory onely which were but a sleight argument to proue so weightie a controuersie in diuinitie Whereas therefore he inferreth from hence not the like viz. as Antiochus obtained his kingdome by fraude so shall Antichrist obtaine his but the verie same particular viz. as Antiochus obtained the kingdome of the Iewes so shall Antichrist obtaine the same kingdome of the Iewes his argument is ridiculous and yet this is not all the absurditie of this argument for when as from the likenesse of Antichrist to his type he would proue that Antichrist shall arise from base estate this assertion is not true of the type it selfe Yea but Ierome saith that this place may better be vnderstood of Antichrist Qui consurgere habet de moâ—…ica gente id est de populo Iudaeorum c. Who is to arise of a small nation that is the people of the Iewes c. and Daniel compareth Antichrist because of his base beginning to the little horne chap. 7. I doe not denie but that Antichristes beginning might be base but yet neither can the testimony of Ierome neither doth that allegation out of Daniel proue it For Ieromes testimony in this case if it ought to be of weight with vs it must be taken either as a prophecie or else as a sit exposition of Daniels prophecie as I haue said heretofore But Ierome was no Prophet neither doth hee sitly expound Daniel who speaketh plainly not of Antichrist but of the successour of Seleucus Philopator And it is a wonder that Ierome one of the most learned of the Fathers should in so easie a matter be ouerseene For seeing hee confesseth that the former part of the chapter is to be expounded of the Seleucidae and that in the 20. verse is described Seleucus Philopator for so hee saith on those wordes Et stabit in loco eius vilissimus Seleucum dicit cognomento Philopatorem filium magni Antiochi he speaketh of Seleucus surnamed Philopator the sonne of Antiochus the great It is therefore most plaine that when Daniel saith and in his place shall stand a vile person he speaketh of the next successour of Seleucus Philopator meaning Antiochus euen as in the 20. verse after he had spoken of Antiochus Magnus he saith and in his place shall stand vp a sender forth of an extortioner meaning Seleucus Neither doth Daniel say any where that Anchrist or he of whom he speaketh shall arise of a small nation meaning thereby the Iewes that which he speaketh de modico populo vers 23. is to be vnderstood properly as Ierome himselfe expoundeth it according to the literal that is the proper sense of the small company wherwith Antiochus surprised Egypt neither can there be any such allegorical sense as he seemeth to frame Neither doth Daniel by the litle horne meane any other but Antiochus Epiphanes who may not vnfitly in diuers things be said to haue bene a type of Antichrist For the terrible beast with ten hornes doth not signifie the Romane state as the Papists would haue it but the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae and by the ten hornes not the ten Kings whereof Iohn speaketh Apoc. 17. among whom the Romane Empire was to be diuided but ten of these Kings viz. three Lagidae and seuen Seleucidae which tyrannized or ruled ouer the people of God The tenth that is to say the last of them that had dominion ouer Iudaea was not Antichrist but Antiochus Epiphanes who in crueltie towards the people of God surpassed all that went before him 10 Which I speake not as though this expositioÌ„ did much hinder our assertioÌ„ for others which haue held the same haue applied those things which are spoken of the litle horne vnto the Pope And surely if this fourth beast were the Romane state and the hornes the rulers thereof and the tenth or last horne Antichrist then is it hereby very likely that the Pope is Antichrist seeing hitherto hee is the last that hath ruled in Rome and shall according to the Papists owne conceit continue to the end But the truth is that the descriptioÌ„ of the fourth beast doth not agree to the Romanes but to the kingdome of the Seleucidae For this fourth beast was a kingdome which was to haue an end before the coÌ„ming of the Messias his kingdome chap. 7. vers 11. 26. 27. So had the kingdome of the Seleucidae so had not the Romanes 2. This fourth beast warred with the Iewes tyrannized ouer them and hindred their religioÌ„ worship of God at Ierusalem not only before the comming of Christ but also before the purging of the temple and restitution of religioÌ„ by Iudas Macchabaeus cha 7. ver 25. 26. 27. So did the Seleucidae so did not the Romanes 3 Of the fourth beast there were but ten hornes that is Princes that ruled ouer Iudaea which is most true of the Seleucidae Lagidae but of the Romanes after they had once obtained the dominion of Iury there were many more then ten that ruled ouer the holy land If any say the Romane Empire is figured Apoc. 17. by a beast with ten horns I answer that the ten hornes wherof Iohn speaketh Apo. 17. 12. are ten kings amoÌ„g whom the Romane Empire was to be diuided who succeeded not one another in the same kingdome but were rulers of so many seueral prouinces or kingdoms at the same time but these ten horns tyrannized ouer the same kingdome of the Iewes successiuely as they are particularly described chap. 11. And further he that in Daniel is supposed by the Papists to be Antichrist is one of the tenne hornes but in Iohn not 4. that which is spoken in Daniel of the tenth horne doth fitly wholy agree to Antiochus Epiphanes who was the tenth and last king of that kingdome that ruled ouer Iudaea but the same things cannot in like
meant not any one city or company but the vniuersall company of the reprobate it is vnworthy the answering And the argument which our Rhemists bring to proue their assertion is without sence to wit in their annotation vpon Apoc. 18. 21. where the Angell throwing a great stone into the Sea saith with such violence shall that great city Babylon be throwne and bee found no more By this say they it seemeth cleere that the Apostle meaneth not any one city but the vniuersall company of the reprobate which shall perish in the day of iudgement But I answere that the destruction of the vniuersall company of the reprobate in the day of Iudgement is described afterward chap. 20. 11. And this destruction as appeareth plainely by the circumstances of the text especially in the ninth verse and those which follow vnto the eighteenth shall be before the day of Iudgement and therefore is not the destruction of the vniuersall company of the wicked For if the vniuersall destruction of the wicked were here signified then none of the wicked should â—…uruiue after this destruction to lament the same as there shall vers 9. 10. 17. And that the vniuersall societie of the wicked is not meant by Babylon euidently appeareth by the whole discourse chapters 17. and 18 where the holy ghost speaketh of a city ruling ouer the princes of the earth situated vpon seauen hilles sitting vpon many waters that is ruling ouer many people nations and languages with whome all princes and inhabitants of the earth haue committed fonication whose destruction is bewailed of all sorts of the wicked none of which people or princes or wicked ones that mourne for her should be of the vniuersall company of the reprobate as vndoubtedly they are if Babylon signified the whole number of the wicked And whereas they alleadge Ierem. 52 where onely the history of the Babylonian captiuity is recorded to prooue that Babylon signifieth the whole number of Gods enemies it argueth that they haue not so much as any shewe of reason to obiect against the truth of this proposition namely that mysticall Babylon is the seat or as they speake the See of Antichrist Seeâ—… 18. and therefore from henceforth vntill something further be obiected I will take it for graunted 3. But let vs come to the assumption viz that Rome is mysticall Babylon which I will proue by three arguments First because the description of Babylon and of the whore of Babylon set downe by the holy Ghost Apoc. 17. agreeth in all points to Rome and the Romane state But most plainely in these two First that the whore of Babylon is that great citie which in the Apostles time had the kingdome ouer the Apoc. 17. 8. Kings of the earth And secondly that this citie is situated on 7. hilles which two notes most properly describe Rome Apoc. 17. 9. And so Propertius describeth it Septem vrbs alta iugis toti quae praesidet orbi That is the citie Eleg. 10. lib. 3. mounted on 7. hilles ouer-ruling the whole world That Rome was the Imperiall citie of the world and the Metropolis of the Romane Monarchy it is out of Question neither is there any of our aduersaries either so ignoraÌ„t oâ—…so shameles as to deny it ProÌ„ heÌ„ce therfore I reason thus That citie which in th'apostles time had dominion ouer the Kings of the earth is the whore of Babylon Rome is that citie which in th'apostles time and since also vnder the Pope had the dominioÌ„ ouer the kings of the earth therefore Rome is the whore of Babylon And that Rome also Georgic 2. in fine was situated on 7. hils it is most manifest Of her Virgiâ—… saith Scilicet rerum facta est pulcherrima Roma Septem quae vna sibi muro circumdedit arces Varro speaking of a festiuall day which amoÌ„g the Romanes Lib 5. de ling. laâ—… was called Septimontium he saith it was so called ab his 7. moÌ„tibus in quibus vrbs sit a est that is of the 7. hilles whereon the citie was situated And Plutarch vpon the same occasion calleth Problem Rom. Romae instâ—… lib. 1 num 65. Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Septicollem that is Seuen hilled Blondus saith Montes in vrbe septem numerantur The hilles within the citie are seuen in number and the names of these 7. hilles are commonly knowne vsually named in Romane authors viz Palatinus Capitolinus Qutrinalis Coelius Esquilinus Viminalis Auentinus 4. Yea but say our English Rhemists The Angel himselfe In Apo. 17. 9. here 〈◊〉 â—…eth these 7. hilles to be allone with the 7. heads and the 7. kings And yet the hereticks take them literally for 7. hilles whereas the number of 7. is mysticall signifying vniuersally all of that sort And they might marke that the Propets visions here are most by seuen whether he talke of heads hornes which notwithstanding are not 7. but 10. candelsticks churches kings hilles For answere whereunto we must know that the beast wheron the whore of Babylon sitteth is generally the Empire of Rome but more specially vrbs Romae the citie of Rome which was the imperiall and is the papall seate This beast is said to haue 7. heads which the holy Ghost expoundeth two waies 7. capita vrbis the 7. heads of the citie are 7. hilles the 7. heads of the Empire or people subiect to Rome which also are compared to waters whereon the whore sitteth are 7. kings Apo. 17. 1. 15. that is seuen seuerall regiments or heads of gouerment for so the holy Ghost elsewhere calleth them wherby the Empire or Dan. 8. 21. people of Rome hath at diuers times beene gouerned to wit Kings which also were seuen Consuls Decemuirs Tribunes not tribuni plebis but tribunt militum consulari potestate Dictators Emperours and Popes Now the Apostle doth not say the seuen heads are seuen hilles and the seuen hilles are seuen Kings but the 7. heads are seuen hilles and they namly seuen heads are also seuen kings as Bellarmine also acknowledgeth For this interpretation which they giue to Lib. 3. de pont Rom. cap. 5. the Angel First is inconuenient For heads doe more fitly resemble kings which are the heads of the body politicke then hilles doe And secondly false for if the hilles be kings then the citie which is the woman vers 18. sitteth vpon the seuen kings for she sitteth on the hilles vers 9. Neither is this interpretation of seuen heads that they be seuen hils any interpretatioÌ„ Apoc. 17. 9. 18. at all except we vnderstand hilles properly Moreouer both the hilles and kings are said to be seuen not because 7. is a mysticall number signifying all the kingdomes of persecutours but because they are 7. indeed Which also may be said of the 7. candlesticks 7. Churches Apoc. 1. 2. 3. which they bring for an instance Of the hilles there is no questioÌ„ and it is as true of the Kings
of them Apoc. 17. 13. with one consent wholie deuoted to the Pope and sworne vnto him To whome for a time they giue ouer themselues and their whole power to helpe and support the beast thinking themselues bound as hee hath perswaded them to exercise their temporall sword that is their ciuill power for the De maiorit c. unam sanctam church meaning himselfe and at his beck and commandement And being ioyned to him vnited one with another by holy leagues as they call them make holy warres forsooth against Apoc. 17. 13. 14. Christ the lambe in his true members But when as Christ shall begin to consume Antichrist with the preaching of his worde as he is sure to ouercome because he is the Lord of Lords then these ten hornes which before had ioyned with Antichrist and had committed spirituall fornication with the whore shall begin to hate the whore and to leaue her desolate and naked Which cannot be vnderstood of old Rome but of Apoc. 17. 2. that which now is wherof this Prophecy already is in part fulfilled For since the reuelatiō of Antichrist in these latter times the Pope hath lost as Bellarmine cōplaineth magnā Germaniae partem Suetiam Gothiam Noruegiam Daniā vniuersam bonā Lib. 3. de pont R. cap. 21. Angliae Galliae Heluetiae Poloniae Boemiae ac Pānoniae partem that is a great part of Germany al Sueuia Gothland Norway Denmarke a good part of England but he might as well haue said all England and thereunto added Scotland and Ireland a good part of Fraunce Heluetia Polonia Boemia Pannonie So that diuerse of these 10. Kings haue already forsaken the whore of Babylon and haue bereaued her of a great part of her maintenance and left her as much as in them lieth naked the rest in Gods good time will accomplish his will 12. Seuenthly It is apparāt that Iohn his treatise of Rome 7. extendeth vntill the destruction thereof If therfore by Babylon Apo. 17. 18. is meant only heathenish Rome vnder the persecuting Emperours then the destruction which the holy Ghost denounceth against the whore of Babylon did befall Rome whiles it was heathenish But it is absurde to say that this destruction befell heathenish Rome For first this destruction is an vtter finall destruction Apocal. 18. 21. 22. 23. And before this destruction the Empire was to be diuided into ten kingdomes which first should ioyne with Antichrist and afterward oppugne him Which is vtterly false of Rome heathenish but yet is begunne to bee fulfilled of Rome Popishe and will in due time be accomplished And againe it is most plaine that Iohn 8. intreateth of the state and conditiō of Rome as it shal be in the time of Antichrist But Antichrist as the Papists themselues confesse was not to come whiles Rome was heathenish but after the dissolution of the Romane Empire And lastly Hierome and other of the fathers in whose times Rome was not Heathenish doe notwithstanding call it Babylon Not that 9. then it was or had beene before but because it should be according to the Prophecies of the holy Ghost the seat of Antichrist whose comming he and other of the fathers supposed not to be farre of and therefore Hierome in his Epistle to Marcella vseth this argument as the principall to perswade her to come from Rome which then was not Heathenish because it is Babylon 13. These arguments might suffice to proue that not Rome Heathenish vnder the Emperours but Rome Christened vnder the Popes is mysticall Babylon the chiefe citie and See of Antichrist But yet for better euidence of this trueth and for the clearer manifestation of Antichrist I will further proue vnto you that Rome Christened and professing her selfe to be the Church of Christ is the seate of Antichrist For if Antichrist shall sitte at all in Rome then shall hee sitte in Rome Christened professing her selfe to bee the Church of Christ. But he shall sitte in Rome as hath beene proued in parte and shall further bee cleared therefore in Rome christned and professing her selfe to be the Church of God The proposition is built vpon this foundation that Antichrist shall sitte in the Churche of God and therefore if Antichrist shall sitte at Rome he shall sitte in Rome professing her selfe the Church of God Now then that Antichrist shall sitte in the Church of God I proue by the testimonie of Saint Paule affirming 2. Thessal 2. 4. that Antichrist shall sitte in the temple 2. Thess. 2. 4. of God But because the Papistes labour by might and maine to extort this place from vs as seruing rather to proue their conceipt that Antichrist shall sitte in the temple of God at Ierusalem I will therefore deliuer the place from their corruptions and also make good our interpretation For first the temple at Ierusalem and citie it selfe as it was a type of the church of Christ so when the church of Christ was once planted by the preaching of the gospell throughout the worlde it was vtterly and finally to be abolished according to the Prophecie of our Sauiour Christ Mat. 24. 14. And then shal be the end namely of the temple and citie of Ierusalem For after the tēple was once vtterly destroied by Titus Vespasian as Christ Mat. 24. 2. had foreshewed it is neuer to be reedified For as Daniel saith according to the vulgar translation which with the Papists is the onely authentike Text of Scripture Chap. 9. 27. Et erit Dan. 9. 27. in templo abominatio desolationis vsque ad consummationem finem perseuerabit desolatio And there shal be in the temple the abomination of desolation and vnto the consummation and end the desolation shall continue or as Hierome speaketh In Dan. 9. more plainely Vsque ad consummationem finem mundi perseuerabit desolatio The desolatiō shall cōtinue vnto the cōsummation and end of the world Our Sauiour Christ also Luo. 21. 22. 24. foretold that Ierusalem being destroied by the Luc. 21. 22. 24. Romanes should be troden vnder foote by the Gentiles vntill the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled that is vntill the second comming of Christ which in the next wordes is described Wherefore when as Iulian the Apostata endeuoured by the Iewes to reedifie the temple that hee might conuince the preaching of Christ of falshood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 3. cap. 20. Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 20. Sozom. lib. 5. cap. vlt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Theodoret speaketh which hee could not doe vnlesse Christ had taught that it should not be reedified Our Sauiour Christ by fire first from heauen and after out of the earth and by a feareful earthquake hindered this enterprise thereby approuing his godhead and shewing that he was not pleased as Sozomen saith with the renewing of the temple It seemeth also to haue bene the iudgement of Cyrill with many others in the primitiue church
city that is the church vnder the heathen namelie the persecuting Emperours for 42. moneths which is mentioned Apocalypse 13. 5. But supposing it to be vnderstood of Antichrist his persecution let vs consider the force of their argument Where the two witnesses of God are slayne by Antichrist there is say they the seat of Antichrist At Ierusalem the two witnesses of God shall bee slaine therefore at Ierusalem shall be the seat of Antichrist The proposition they take for graunted the which notwithstanding is not generallie true For the two witnesses of God may bee slaine in that place by the authoritie and commaundement of Antichrist where his proper seat is not For as our Sauiour Christ was put to death by the authority of the Romane Empire at Ierusalem where notwithstanding was not the imperiall seat of the Emperour So the witnesses of our Sauiour Christ might be slaine by the authority and commaundement of the Antichrist of Rome either at Ierusalem or else where where notwithstanding is not the proper seat of Antichrist This alone is sufficient to ouerthrow their whole argument For if their proposition be not generally true then their whole argumentation from a particular proposition is mere sophistry 17 Notwithstanding their assumption is also to be denyed because the holy ghost speaketh not of Ierusalem as Hierome proueth but of Rome or rather of the Empire of Rome Yea but say they Christ also was crucified where the two witnesses should bee slayne at Ierusalem Christ was crucified and not at Rome therefore at Ierusalem the two witnesses should bee slayne I answere to the assumption Christ was crucified at Ierusalem and in the great city also that is to say within the Romane Empire wherein and by authoritie where of our Sauiour Christ was put to death In which sence the Rhemists seeme to apply this prophecy to Rome If by the great city say they is meant any one city it is most like to be old Rome For by in Apoc. 17. 18. the authoritie of the old Romane Empire Christ was put to death first Whereunto I might adde that euen in Rome it selfe Christ hath bene crucified in his members and that within Ierusalem Christ was not crucified Heb. 13. 12. Now that Ierusalem is not here meant but Rome or rather the Romane Empire I proue first because it is called the great citie By which title throughout the Apocalypse is meant Babylon or Rome as appeareth by conference of these places Apoc. 14 8. and 16. 19. 18. 10. 16. 18. 19. 21. but especially Apoc. 17. 18. where the woman that is the whore of Babylon is said to be the great city which reigneth ouer the kings of the earth And of this great city i. Empire of Rome which as it is called Sodome which is the name of a city so also Egypt which is the name of a kingdom the streets may fitly signifie the cities or townes of the seuerall prouinces Once only is this title giuen to Ierusalē then not to the earthly Ierusalem but to the heauenly Ap. 21. 10. And so Augustine expoūdeth this place In pla Homil. 8. ◅n Apoc. te is ciuit at is magnae i. in medio ecclesiae in the streets of the great city that is in the middest of the church Sauing that by the name church he must needs vnderstand an adulterous apostaticall church which elsewhere is called the whore of Babylon because as it foloweth in the text it is called spiritualy Sodō or E For euen as in the middest of the church euen at Ierusalē christ was crucified so also the two witnesses of Christ were to bee slaine in the middest of the church euen in that city which professeth her selfe to be as it were the Ierusalem of Christendome Secondly the great city whereof he speaketh is called spirituallie Sodom or Egypt Sodom for her pride and vncleannes Egypt for her idolatrie and crueltie towards the Israell of God Which titles most fitly agree to Rome which is not inferiour either to Sodome in pride and vncleannesse or to Egypt in grosse idolatry and sauage cruelty towards the Mat 4. 5. Mat. 27. 53. church of God But they are not in this place ascribed to Ierusa lem which in the Apocalypse and elsewhere in the new testament is called the holy city euen then when it had crucifyed our Sauiour Christ. And not to seeke further euen in that eleuenth chapter of the Apocalypse vers 2. neither is the citie of Ierusalem in the Apocalypse any where spoken of in the ill Hicrome ad Marcell part This is also Hieroms argument in his Epistle to Marcella None of the holy scripture saith he can be contrary to it selfe and much lesse the same place of scripture For about ten verses before Ierusalem is called the holy city Now if it be called the holy city euen after the passion of our Lord how is it againe call◅d Cap. 13. spirituallie Sodom and Egypt But Bellarmine answereth that Hierome did not write this in good sooth by which aunswere it were easie to elude any testimony as though Hierome made no conscience to write vntruthes especially in so waightie a Irenaus matter although in the name of others Thirdly before the time of this reuelation which was in the latter end of Domitians raigne the temple and city of Ierusalem were vtterly destroyed and neuer so to be reedified as to become the seat of Antichrist therefore this place cannot be vnderstood of Ierusalem Wherefore these obiections notwithstanding our assertion remaineth fi◅e and stedfast that Antichrist was to sit in Rome christened and professing her selfe the church of God Euen as the Bishops of Germanie in Auentinus applying both this prophecie of Paul and that of Iohn Apocalypse 17 to the Lib. 5. hist. Boe. Antichrist of Rome In Babylonia say they in temple Dei sedet he sitteth in Babylon in the temple of God 18. Now let vs further consider what other euasions they vse to auoide this trueth First they say that Babylon did not signifie any one citie but the whole societie of the wicked Secondly if it signified any one citie that then it was olde Rome Now thirdly if the whore of Babylon doe signifie Rome christened that yet notwithstanding it is not as Bellarmine De Pont. Rom. lib. 3. c. 13. is not ashamed to say the seat of Antichrist But if Rome christened or Church of Rome be the whore of Babylon as wee haue proued though our aduersaries should not confesse it then is it so called because shee is an adulterous and apostaticall church which hath fallen from Christ to Antichrist whom in steed of Christ she acknowledgeth to be her husband and head then is she the mother both of all fornications Apoc. 17. 5. that is of all superstitious and idolatrous worshippe and also of al abominations as Atheisme Machiauellisme Sodomy and Antichristian heresies with whom the Kings and inhabitants Apoc. 17. 2. 4. of
Act. 17. 53. 23. 10. hinder and was to be taken away and in what sence it hindered not and was to remaine For the better vnderstanding whereof we are to distinguish betwixt the old Empire and 1. Cor. 5. 2. 2 Coâ—… 6. 17. the new The old Empire as it hindered the dominion of Antichrist was to be taken out of the way that it might bee no more an hinderance thereunto The new Empire in the west erected by the Pope hindreth not the dominion of Antichrist but rather supporteth him and therefore together with Antichrist was to remaine Neither doth the Apostle speake of the new Empire but of the old as shall appeare by these reasons 3 First the Apostle speaketh of the Empire which hindered 1. or held then of that only for so he saith only he which now letteth wil let vntill he be taken out of the way And Hierome expoundeth those words and now what hindreth you know after Ad Algas quaest 11. this maner quae causa sit vt Antichrist us in praesentiaruÌ„ non veniat optimè nostis You know very well what the cause is that Antichrist cometh not now But the old Empire hindered them and not the new And therefore the Apostle speaketh of the taking away of the old Empire not of the new Again when he saith 2. the Empire hindred he meaneth the imperial authority dominioÌ„ that at Rome not the title or name therof in Germany For it is not the name or title of an Emperour in Germany that can hinder the dominion of Antichrist at Rome much lesse at IerusaleÌ„ where the Papists say his seat shall be Thirdly 3. Antichrist appeared shewed himselfe and in that sence was reuealed before the erection of the new Empire For the new Empire is the image of the former beast which Antichrist the 2. beast Ap. 13. causeth to be made And wheras Antichrist is as the Papists also coÌ„sesse the 7. head of the beast which hath heads the Empire renewed which is the beast that was and is not though it be is the 8. in order though in name it is one of the 7. and in that sence is to bee referred to the sixt head namely the Emperours Fourthly the whore of Babylon that 4. is the Antichristian state was to sitte vpon the beast which afterwards was to ascend that is the Empire renewed Therfore with Antichrist there was to remaine an imperial state though much abased vnder him Fiftly the Empire renewed is the 5. beast whereon the whore of Babylon sitteth And therefore is Ioan de turrecrem lib. 2. c. 114. so farre from hindring Antichrist that it supporteth him as the beast doth the rider And to that end in deed was this Empire erected in the west that it might support the church of Rome For when as the church of Rome was oppressed by the king Adrian 4. in epistol ad archiep German apud Auenlin lib. 4. of the Lombards it sought aide of the Emperours of Constantinople and when they would not defend the church the Pope translated the Empire to the French king and from him vpon the same occasion to the Germaines and that to this end vt Dist. 96. c. si imperator in glossa Rex Teutonicorum foret imperator patronus sedis Apostolicae that the king of the Almaines might be Emperour and patrone of the See Apostolicke And for the same cause the Emperour 6. is called of them procurator siue defensor Romanae Ecclesiae the proctor or defender of the church of Rome Sixtly the Papists themselues doe hould that the Empire which now is shall continue vnto the end of the world For they say that in the second of Daniel as many others also haue said is described a succession of the chiefe kingdomes or Monarchies of the earth which should continue vntill the end of the world the last whereof is the Romane Empire Seauenthly the destruction of the Romane Empire which the fathers say shall go before the reuelation of Antichrist is the dissolution and diuision thereof among ten kings which in deede long since happened to the old Empire but cannot happen to the new vnlesse we can imagine that ten mightie kings shall arise out of the bare name and title of an Emperour diuided among them When as the Papists therefore teach vs not to expect Antichrist vntill the Empire that now is either be diuided into ten kingdomes they are ridiculous or vtterly abolished which they say shall continue to the end they are absurd and in both impious making as it may seeme a scorne of the prophecyes concerning Antichrist which they make to imply impossibilities and contradictions 4. By this which hath bene said it plainely appeareth that howsoeuer the old Empire in the west which hindered the dominion of Antichrist was to be takeÌ„ out of the way before Antichrist should be reuealed yet notwithstanding euen with vnder Antichrist there was to be an imperiall state in name title which is the beast whereon the whore of Babylon sitteth therfore is so far froÌ„ hindering Antichrist as that it supporteth him Let vs then coÌ„sider how the Empire which hindred the reuelatioÌ„ of Antichrist was takeÌ„ out of the way how afterwards Antichrist was reuealed Of the taking away of the Emperour as also of the reuelation of Antichrist there are two degrees The Romane Emperour was first takeÌ„ out of the way when the imperiaâ—… seat was by Constantine the great translated from Rome to Bizantium or Constantinople and that to this end as they haue set downe in the forged donation of Constantine that he might leaue rowme to the Pope Because forsooth where the princehood of priests and head of Christian religion Dist. 69. c. Constantinus de electione c. fundament in sexto was by the heauenly Emperour placed there it is not iuste that the earthly Emperour should haue power Secondly after the death of Constantine the great and of Flauius Valerius ConstaÌ„tinus his son the Romane Empire being diuided into 2. partes the Easterne the Westerne and by diuisioÌ„ being weakened the Westerne was ouerthrowne in the yeare of our Lord 475. Rome it selfe taken by the Gothes So that neither in Rome any Romane afterwards had his seate of authority vntill the Pope tooke vpon him the souerainty neither in the West was there any Romane Emperour vntill Charles the great that is to say from the yeare 475. vnto the end of the yeare 800. In the meane time Italy was gouerned first by the Gothes and afterwards a great part thereof by the Lombards And howsoeuer the Emperours of the East had recouered Rome and some part of Italy which because they gouerned by exarches hauing their seat in Rauenna was called the exarchat of Rauenna the Lombards enioying the rest yet before the renewing of the Empire in the West the Emperour of the East had lost all Italy and Rome and
that by the Popes means For when as Leo the third called Isaurus Emperour of Greece had held a coūcel at Constantinople of 330. Bishops wherein was decreed that all images within the Empire should be destroied burnt and afterwards put the same decree in executiō the Popes of Rome first Gregory the 2. and after Gregory the 3. excōmunicate him forbidtributes to be paid him out of Italy and Rome absolue his subiects from their allegiance vnto him and hauing stirred vp not onely the Italians but Lombards also against him the exarch of Rauenna is slaine and the Emperour depriued of all his dominion reuenewes in Italy and Rome So that howsoeuer the Empire in the East stood all this while yet according to the prophecie of th'apostle he which hindred the reuelation of Antichrist that is to say the Emperour of Rome was taken out of the way First by remouing to Cōstantinople frō Rome where Antichrist could not vsurpe that dominion and soueraintie whiles the Emperour had his seate there which afterwards he did Secondly because the Empire of the west which properly was the Empire of Rome was dissolued the Emperour of the East lost his title interest in Italy and Rome 5. Of the reuelation of Antichrist there be also two degrees The first of his raigning and shewing himselfe in his colours the secōd of his acknowledgemēt Of his raigning there be 2. degrees also The first whē he challēged supreame authority ouer the vniuersal church of Christ. Which he did when he vsurped the title of vniuersal or oecumenicall Bishop or head of the vniuersall Church which was done as we said about the yeare 607. About which time besides other prodigious sights Anno. 607. there appeared a terrible comet thē we hold that Antichrist to wit the head of the Antichristiā body was borne True it is that the seeds of Antichristianisme were sowē before his time euen frō th'apostles time the mystery of iniquity that is Antichristianisme was working although more couertly preparation was made towards the birth of the great Antichrist partly by heresies some declinatiōs in the church of Rome in religion from the purity of the primitiue church partly by the ambition of diuers of the Bishops of Rome who aduauncing themselues as Socrates saith beyond the limit of priesthood into forraine dominion contended to haue the primacy aboue Lib. 7. c. 11. all other churches and that is the chiefe scope of many of their Epistles decretall and to the same end forged a Canon of the councel of Nice when their ambition was curbed by other generall councels And lastly by the indulgence of deuout Emperours and Princes who haue by great deuotions and priuiledges aduaunced that church Notwithstanding wee hold that Antichrist was not reuealed vntill he shewed himselfe by vsurping an vniuersall dominion ouer the church of God 6. But notwithstanding this great title authority Antichrist was yet but in his nonage and vnder the gouernmēt not only of the Emperor but also for a time of the Emperors Lieftenant in Italy the Eparch of Rauenna by whom the election of the Pope made by the Clergie and people of Rome was of necessitie to bee ratified and confimed vntill Benedict Anno. 684. the 2 obtained this priuiledge frō the Emperour Constantine 4. called Pogonatus that the electiō of the Pope by the clergy and people of Rome should be good without the confirmatiō of the Emperour Vpō which priuiledge obteined the Pope began to care litle for the Emperour holding himselfe hencefoorth to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather as th'apostle speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Thess. 2. 8. without law subiect to the iudgemēt of no mā as they professe in diuers of their canons Not lōg after they began to aduāce thēselues both against aboue the Emperour Constātine the 1. suffereth the Emperour Iustmian to kisse his feet about the yeare of our Lord 710. Within three yeares after the same Anno. 710. Constantine setteth himselfe against the Emperour Philippicus Bardanes in defense of images as did his two successours Gregory the 2. and third against Leo Isaurus in the same quarel In whose three times that wee may know Rome to be the mother of spirituall fornications were helde three Councels at Rome wherein worshipping of images is approued and the oppugners there of excōmunicated And we must note that about this time saith the Author of the booke called Fasciculus temporum the Popes began aboue their woont to oppose themselues euen in temporall matters against the Emperours because of their vnsoundnesse in the faith for so he calleth their oppugning of images and to translate the Empire from nation to nation as time required As for Gregory the 2. he was the first which anouched himself supcriour to the Emperour who Anno. 723. also excommunicated Leo the 3. because he sought to abolish the idolatry of his time which they call worshipping of images But his successour Gregory the 3. not onely excommunicated the said Emperour for the same cause but also forbad any tributes or duties to be paide vnto him out of Italy Rome absolued his subiects frō their allegiance vnto him Wherupō Rome being then a Duchy with diuers other cities in Italy reuolting from the Emperour sware obediēce to the Pope Who Anno. 727. by the defection of the Italians and helpe of the Lombards dispossesseth the Emperour of all his reuenues in Italy consequently as the popish author of the booke called Fasciculus temporum saith totum regnum occidentis ab eo abstulit Hee tooke from him the whole kingdome of the West But when as the Lombards held the exarchat of Rauonna which the Pope intended to himself sought to rule ouer all Italy as the Gothes had done not exempting Rome or those other cities which had reuolted to the Pope first Gregory the 3. when Rome was besieged by Luitprendus vsed the friendship of Carolus Martellus Anno. 732. to free him from the siege Whereupon the Pope remoueth the tuition of the Church of Rome from the Emperour of Greece vnto Carolus Martellus the great Master of Fraunce to his sonne Pipinus after him Whom that the Pope might bind vnto him and finde a sufficient defence against his enimies hee namely Zacharias hauing as themselues testifie Caus. 15 quaest 6. c. alius deposed Childerick the King of Fraunce from his kingdome and absolued his subiectes from their allegiaunce because Anno. 750. forsooth he was too simple to rule maketh him namely Pipin King of Fraunce Who afterwards when his helpe was intreated by the Pope Steuen the third against Aistulphus the king of Lombards enforced the said King to yeeld vp the Anno. 754. exarchat of Rauenna and Pentapolis which hee gaue to the Pope This donation his sonne Charles the great confirmed and enlarged with a plentifull addition reseruing notwithstanding to himself the royalties of those
Anno. 1260. of that vniuersitie called the monks and priests the subiects of Antichrist One Lawrence also an Englishman master of Paris proued the Pope to be Antichrist the synagogue of Rome the great Anno. 1290. I. Fox BabyloÌ„ About the same time Maenardus Tyrolius in a publick edict calleth the Popes effeminate Antichrists And againe if they be not Antichrists I pray you what are they Auentin annal boior li. 7. Michael Cesenas principall of the gray fryers wrote against the pride tyranny and primacy of the Pope accusing him to be Anno. 1322. 1. Fox Antichrist and the church of Rome the whore of Babylon drunken with the bloud of Saints Hayabalus a fryer in the time of Clement the sixt preached and that as he saide by Anno. 1345. Henrie de Herford in Chronic. Catalog test 1. Fox commaundement from God that the church of Rome is the whore of Babylon and that the Pope with his Cardinalles is the very Antichrist Wilhâ—…lmus Occomensis as Auentine calleth him wrote a booke against Charles and Clement the sixte wherein he calleth the Pope Antichrist Auentin annal Boior li. 7. Briget whom the Papists worship as a canonized Saint calleth the Pope a murtherer of soules more cruell then Iudas Anno. 1370. more vniust then Pilate worse then Lucifer himselfe She prophecieth 1. Fox that the See of Rome shall bee throwne downe into the deepe like a milstone according to the prophecie of Saint Iohn Apocalypse 18. 21 About the same yeere Matthias Parifiensis a Bohemian writing a booke of Antichrist proueth that he is already come and noateth him to be the Pope Franciscus Petrarch in many places of his writings calleth Anno. 1374. the court of Rome the whore of Babylon the mother of the fornications and abominations of the earth Vrhanus the sixt and Clement the seauenth two Popes at once call one the other Antichrist As Bernard before had called Baldus de vit pontif Anacletus against whom Innocentius the second was chosen as Antipope That beast saith hee in the Apocalypse to Anno 1378. Anno. 1130. Epist. 125. whom is giuen a mouth speaking blasphemies to war with the Saints meaning Antichrist occupieth the chaire of Peter as a Lyon ready for the pray But most effectually doth our godly and learned countryman Iohn Wicleffe discouer the enormities and heresyes of the Anno. 1383. Bellar. de pont Rom. lib. 3. c. 1. Pope whom he pronounced to be Antichrist Artic. 30. His iudgement as in other things so also in this that worthy Martyr of Christ Iohn Husse followed Who affirmeth in his Anno. 1405. booke de ecclesia that hee was troubled because he preached Christ and discouered Antichrist That the Censures of the Romish church were Antichristian and proceeding froÌ„ Antichrist as Gerson the Parisians obiect against him Art 16 that in those times many ages before there had bin no true Pope nor true Romane church but the Popes were Antichrists the church of Rome the synagogue of Satan Whose iudgement many in Bohemia followed Sir Iohn Oldâ—…astell the Lord Anno 1413. 1. Foxe Cobham that famous noble martyr of Christ prosessed to K. Henry the 5. that by the Scriptures he knew the Pope to be the great Antichrist the son of perdition c. Hieronimus Sauanarola taught that the Pope is Antichrist because he did attribute Anno. 1500. 1. Foxe more to his owne indulgeÌ„ces pardoÌ„s then to Christs merits About the yeare of our Lord 1517. Luther began to preach against the Popes indulgences and afterwards against other Anno. 1517. errours and abominations of the Pope and church of Rome discouering more plainely then any had done before him that Rome is Babylon and the Pope Antichrist Since whose times this truth hath beene almost generally acknowledged by the true and reformed Churches of Christ. Seing therefore we haue proued that Antichrist was to sitte in Rome professing her selfe the church of God and that after the taking away of the Romane Emperour whom hee was to succeed in the gouernment of Rome and there to be reuealed both by his owne shewing himself in his colours also by the acknowledgement of others it cannot be auoided but that the Pope is Antichrist For he and none but he sitteth that is reigneth in Rome professing her selfe the church of God and that after the taking away of the Romane Emperour not onely by the remouing of the imperiall seat but also by the dissolutioÌ„ of the Empire in the West whom hee succeedeth in the gouernment of Rome where he hath bene reuealed not onely by his owne shewing himselfe in his colours but also by the acknowledgement of others 8. Vnto the former place of the Epistle to the Thessal we will adde two other places out of th'apocalyps from whence both the place and time of Antichrist may be iointly gathered The former place is in the 13. of th'apocalips where two beasts are described signifying two estates of the Romane gouernment 2. as they are opposed vnto Christ the former representeth the persecuting Emperours the latter Antichrist Of the former he saith thus I saw a beast arising out of 〈◊〉 sea that is of many diuers peoples which it had vanquished Now the description of this beast containeth in it the resemblances of those 4. kingdoms which are described in Daniel the Romane Empire farre surpassing theÌ„ al. The first of the beasts in Daniel signifying the kingdome of the Babylonians is coÌ„pared to a Lion The 2. resembling the kingdome of the Medes and Persians to a Beare The 3. representing the monarchy of the MacedoniaÌ„s to a Leopard The 4. figuring the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae to a beast with 10. hornes resembling so many of their kings who should tyrannize ouer Iewry The Empire of Rome therfore as if it were compounded of them all is resembled to a beast hauing ten hornes with so many diademes vpon them both in respect of the ten persecuting Emperors answering the 10. Seleucedae Lagidae as also in regard of the 10. kingdoms or prouinces wherinto the Romane Empire in those times was diuided being also like a Leopard hauing the feet or pawes as it were of a Beare the rauening mouth of a LioÌ„ And besides all this is said to haue seueÌ„ heads which afterwards chapt 17. are expounded to be 7. hilles also 7. heads of gouernmeÌ„t c. to this beast was giuen authority or power ouer euery tribe Verse 7. language and nation c. al which are proper to the Empire of Rome The former beast therefore signifieth the Romane state especially as it was vnder the persecuting Emperours as Bellarmine Lib. 3. de pont R. cap. 15. confesseth The second beast described vers 11. and so forward to the end of the chapter is as Bellarmine saith all men do confesse Antichrist who also is by the coÌ„fession of the said
dissolution of the Empire to receiue powèr as kings with the beast or as the Papists reade after the beast that is Antichrist If therefore the gouernours Ap. 17. 12. of the kingdomes whereinto the Romane Empire was diuided haue receiued power as kings then it is certaine that Antichrist is already come For oither after him or at least with him they were to receiue their soueraignty It is as certaine therefore that Antichrist is come as it is sure that the gouernours of the prouinces which once belonged to the Empire are soueraigne princes and not liefetenants vnder the Emperour And that this Antichrist which is already come is the Pope it is plaine enough by the same chapter For whosoeuer succeedeth the Emperours who were the sixt head in the gouernment of Rome as the seauenth head of the Romane state he is Antichrist But the Pope as the seauenth head of the Romane state succeedeth the Emperors who were the sixt head in the gouernement of Rome therefore he is Antichrist If you say the seauenth head was not come in the Apostles time verse 10. and yet there were Bishops of Rome then I answere that the Bishops of Rome in the first three hundred yeares were meane men in respect of their owtward estate nothing lesse then heads of the Romane state And that howsoeuer afterwards they obtained great authority more more aspired vnto the soueraignty notwithstanding vntill the sixt head was taken out of the way the 7. was not reuealed But after the sixt head was gone the 7. succeeded in the gouernment of Rome Cupers de eccl p. 37. n. 9. vrbem Romanam ad papam pleno iure spectare constat pag. 258. n. 7. Romana vrbsita Papae dominio cessit vt Caesari nil iuris in â—…areseruelur Insomuch that now for a long time the city of Rome hath so wholy belonged to the Pope as that the Emperour hath no manner of right therein To conclude therefore If Antichrist was to sitte in Rome professing her selfe the church of God that after the taking away of the Romane Emperor whom he was to succeed in the gouernmeÌ„t of Rome as hath bin proued it followeth necessarily seeing these notes agree to the Popes of Rome and to none but them that therfore the Pope is Antichrist Chap. 4. Of the conditions of Antichrist and his opposition vnto Christ. 1. NOw if to those former notes of place and time we shal ad the rest find them al properly to fit the Popes of Rome then may it not be doubted but that the Pope is Antichrist In the next place therfore let vs coÌ„sider his coÌ„ditioÌ„ qualities in respect wherof he is called the man of sin For first Antichrist in respect of his oppositioÌ„ to Christ he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an aduersary in respect of his pride ambitioÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lifted vp aboue al that is called god c. FroÌ„ these 2. notes therefore we may argue thus He that is such an aduersary as the scriptures desoribe opposed vnto Christ in aemulation of like honour he is Antichrist The Pope is such an aduersaie as the scriptures describe opposed vnto Christ in 2. Thess. 2. 4. aemulation of like honour Therefore the Pope is Antichrist The truth of the proposition is testified by the Apostle implyed in the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth hostem aemulum Christi and confessed by the aduersaries The assumption Bellarmine would disproue by this slender argument because the Pope forsooth professeth himselfe the seruant of Christ. For euen as he professeth himselfe to be Christs seruaÌ„t so he termeth himselfe Of this see more in the 2. book 1. chap. Gen. 9. 25. the seruant of seruants which is Chams title when as in truth he would be esteemed Lord of Lords But this is so farre from disprouing the assumption as that the Pope could not be such an aduersary as is described in the scriptures and consequently not Antichrist vnlesse he professed himselfe to be the seruant of Christ. Let vs therefore consider what maner of enemy Antichrist is according to the scriptures First he is an Apostate or reuolter 2. a disguised enemy or hypocrite that is one that is fallen indeed froÌ„ god his truth as it werea star froÌ„ heauen yet retaineth the name profession of Christ vnder which name professioÌ„ he oppugneth christ his truth EueÌ„ as a rebellious subiect when he presumeth without commission to leuy a power of men against his Soueraigne that he may deceiue the rest of the subiects abuseth the name and authority of his prince to colour his rebellious practises And that this is the property of Antichrist Hilary hath well obserued It is Ad AuxentiuÌ„ the property of Antichrists name to be contrary to Christ. This is now practised vnder the opinion of counterfeit piety this vnder a shewe of preaching the Gospell is preached that our Lord Iesus Christ may be denied whiles whiles he is thought to be preached Tract 3. in Iâ—…an Epistol Augustine saith we haue found many Antichrists which confesse Christ with their mouth 2. First I say he is an apostate yea the head of that Apostasy 2. Thess. 2. 3. or falling away froÌ„ the truth mentioned 2. Tâ—…hess 2. insomuch as some of the learned as Chrysostome Augustine Theodoret Theophylact Oecumenius by that Apostasy vnderstand Antichrist Lib. 3. de pont R. chap. 2. himself Yea Bellar. himselfe affirmeth that by Apostasy in that place Antichrist himself may be most fitly vnderstood But the Papists which falsly hold that the visible church of Christ cannot er much lesse fall away expouÌ„d this Apostasy or defection to be a reuolt or falling away froÌ„ the Roman Empire Neither do we deny but that also there hath bin a defectioÌ„ froÌ„ the Romane Empire but yet we deny that it is vnderstood in this place Ambrose saith then shall desolution draw neere because In 2. Thess. 2. De ciuit Dei lib. 20. c. 19. many falling by error shall reuolt from the true religioÌ„ He calleth him a reuolter saith Augustine namly froÌ„ the Lord God Cyrill Now is the Apostasie for men are reuolted from the true Catech. 11. faith Chrysostome and Oecumenius the Apostasie hee calleth Antichrist himselfe because hee shall cause many to reuolt from In 2. Thess. 2. Christ. Or else he calleth apostasie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the departure from God and the thing it selfe The same hath Theophylact in effect And likewise Theodoret on this place The defection saith he he calleth Antichrist himselfe giuing In 2. Thess. 2. him a name from the thing it selfe For his endeauour is to withdraw men from the truth and to cause them to reuolt Primasius by Apostasy vnderstandeth the forsaking of the truth and Lyra the departure from the Catholicke faith But to omit In 2. Thess 2. humane testimonies the holy ghost who is the best expounder
principle among them that it is lawfull for him to depose Emperours and Kings and to absolue their sworne subiects from fidelity and allegiance towards them And thus you see how the Pope opposeth himselfe to the prophecy priesthood and kingdome of Christ. Whereunto I might adde how he is opposed to these offices of Christ not onely in these respects allreadie mentioned but as an aemulus as an antiprophet an antipriest and a counter king seeking in his Antichristian pride to match our Sauiour Christ in all those offices but hereof I shall haue occasion to speake in the next chapter Now to the benefites of Christ he is opposite as he is an enemy to the grace of god as hee taketh away Christian liberty and taketh vpon him to make new lawes to binde the conscience as he abridgeth the merites of Christ and ascribeth the merite of saluation not onelie to our owne works prescribed of God but also to such as haue beene in superstition will worship and idolatrie deuised by themselues as he teacheth men to seek saluation elsewhere then in Christ. All which oppositions of the Pope to Christ whosoeuer shall duely consider hee will not seeke further for Antichrist Chap. 5. Of the pride and ambition of Antichrist aduancing himselfe aboue all that is called God c. 1. BVt Antichrist is not onely hostis an enemy to Christ but also as our aduersaries confesse aemulus Christi that is such an aduersarie as is opposed vnto Christ in aemulation of like honour as the word Antichrist doth also signifie It remaineth therefore that wee should speake of the pride and ambition of Antichristâ—… whereby hee seeking to match Christ our Sauiour aduaunceth himselfe as the Apostle speaketh Aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped insomuch that hee sitteth in the temple 2. Thess. 2. 4. of God as God shewing himselfe that hee is God or as the Papists themselues reade as though hee were God Where for auoiding of errour we are to vnderstand the pride of Antichrist Vulgat edit â—…em to be described such as is incident to a wretched man a man of sin a sonne of perdition And the greatest pride that is incident not onely to any man but to any creature be it the diuell himselfe whose Satanicall pride Antichrist was to imitate and not to exceed is this to seeke to be as God When as Es. 14. therefore it is said that Antichrist aduanceth himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped it is not meant that hee shall seeke to aduaunce himselfe aboue God or the deitie it selfe For God being infinite in goodnesse excellencie and power there cannot bee conceiued a better a superiour a greater And therefore wee cannot imagine how Antichrist should aduance himselfe aboue God And it is euident that the height of Antichrists pride heere spoken of is noted in these words Insomuch as he shall sitte in the temple of God as God By all therfore that is called God we are to vnderstand all those to whom the name of God is coÌ„municated not essence for that cannot be communicated to any that is not god Now the name of God is communicated to Angells in heauen Psal. 8. 5. cum Heb. 2. 7. Psal. 97. 7. cum Heb. 1. 6. and to princes and magistrates on earth Exod. 22. 28. Psal. 82. 1. 6. And wheras it is said that hee shall aduance himselfe aboue all that is worshipped wee are to vnderstand by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not God himselfe but any thing that is worshipped as God or wherein God is worshipped So Wisd. 15. 17. images and Act. 17. 23 altars among the heathen are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such in the church of Rome are Saints images the crosse and reliques of Saints the eucharist c. The meaning then of the Apostle is this that Antichrist being a wicked and wretched man shall aduance himselfe aboue all that is called God as Angells and Kings or that which is worshipped as Saints and images and altars the crosse and eucharist it selfe insomuch that he shall sit in the temple of God as God that is hee shall rule raigne in the church of God challenging a soueraigne vniuersall and diuine authority ouer al those that professe the name of Christ as if he were a God vpon earth shewing himselfe whether by words or by deeds that he is god or which is all one behauing himselfe tanquam sit Deus As though he were God The like things were foretold of Antiochus Epiphanes who is thought to haue bene a type of Antichrist Dan. 11. 36. But to come to the application of this prophecie if Antiochus were comparable to the Pope in aduauncing himself aboue all that is called God or if I shal not proue out of their owne I meane popish writings that he hath lifted vp himselfe in such maner as is scarcely credible to be incident vnto a mortall maÌ„ then let not the Pope be deemed Antichrist but rather looke for some other who shall goe beyond him in Antichristian insolency and Satanicall pride 2. From this place therfore of th'apostle I argue thus Whosoeuer aduaunceth himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped insomuch that he sitteth in the temple of God as God taking vpon him as though he were a God he according to the testimony of th'apostle is antichrist that is Aemulus Christi such an enimy as in a kinde of emulation seeketh to match Christ and to be equall to him But the Pope of Rome as shal be proued aduaunceth himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped insomuch that hee sitteth in the temple of God as God taking vpon him as though he were a God vpon earth therefore according to this testimony of th'apostle the Pope is Antichrist And first that the Pope aduaunceth himselfe aboue all that is called God it is plaine because he lifteth vp himself not onely ouer Kings and Emperours on earth but also aboue the Angels in heauen Of his lifting vp himselfe aboue Kings Emperours is the testimony before alledged 2. Thess. 2. 4. Papa superioritatem habet in imperium Clemeatin Pastoralis de re Iudic. especially to bee vnderstood For he speaketh of such an aduancement whereby Antichrist should be reuealed as was to be hindered for a time by the Romane Empire Let vs then consider how he aduaunceth himselfe aboue Kings and Emperours who are called Gods The Pope if you will beleeue him his followers is the 1 Paulus 4. ad ducem Floret in bulla Rod. Cupers meritò rex reguÌ„ dominus dominantium censetur Papa reque ipsa existit pag. 43. num 39. c. solitas extr de maior obed c. per venerabileÌ„ opt qui filij sunt legitimi Antonius de Rosellis King of Kings and Lord of Lordes by 2 Lib. Carem whom Princes raigne and from 3 Clem. 5. in coÌ„cil vienn whom the
right of Kings dependeth For you must know that as they full solemnely dispute the 4 R. Cupers pag. 251. nuÌ„ 62. Empire or temporall rule as well as the priesthood or ecclesiasticall dominioÌ„ is translated vnto the successours of Peter that the 5 Idem pag. 52. num 28. p. 1. 251. n. 63. 64. right of rule direct dominioÌ„ of the Empire and kingdoms belongeth to the Pope howbeit he coÌ„mitteth the exercise therof to Emperours Kings that 6 Idem pag. 28 num 7. Emperours Kings all Princes receiue their right of gouerning their kingdoms from the Pope that by him they are confirmed by him deposed that to him Emperors Kings as being but his vassals are bound to sweare 7 c. tibi domino dist 63. c. 1. de iuretur allegiaunce and sidelity that hee so farre surpasseth the 8 c. solitae de maior obed Emperour as the Sunne excelleth the Moone that is according to their Astronomy 9 Gâ—…oss ibid. Staâ—…st Orichovius quantum Deus praestat sacerdoti tantuÌ„ sacerdos praestat regi qui regé anteponit sacerdoti is anteponit creaturaÌ„ creatori Apud Iuellum seuen and fiftie times or rather as the creatour is superiour to the creature Therefore Kings and Emperours 10 Li. â—…erem 1. sect 5. cap. 3. lib. 3. sect 1. cap. 3. when they come into the presence of his holinesse must after obeysance done in three seuerall distances fall downe before him and kisse his foote euen as Mantuan saith of him Ense potens gemino cuius vestigia adorant Caesar aurato vestitimurice reges And if they be in preseÌ„ce when he taketh 11 Lib. 1. câ—…ereÌ„ sect 2. c. 3. horse the Emperor or chiefest Prince that is present must hold his right stirrop when he is mouÌ„ted must hold the bridle play the lackey for a certaine space likewise wheÌ„ he lighteth off must hold the right stirrop which if he happen to mistake as being not vsed to seruice he must looke for a check as we read 12 Helmoldus Chron. Slauor l. 1. c. 81. Bal de vit pont of Hadrian the 4. who bitterly checked Frederick the Emperor for holding the stirrop on the wrong side Or if it be his pleasure to be caried alost on mens shoulders 13 lib. caerem. 1. sect 2. 5. de processione pontifiâ—…s Caesaris per vrbem Lib. 1. c. 8. caerem the Emperour kings princes that are present must put vnder their shoulder helpe to cary his holinesse for a space and whiles he is on foote the Emperour or chiefest Prince must beare vp his traine If the Emperour be at the Popes 14 Lâ—…b caerem. 1. sect 3. Antonin sinn part 3. â—…it 22. cap. 5. §. 13. E. venerabilem de elect feast his duetie is before dinner to hold the Pope water to washe his hands and to bring in the first messe For in deed Imperator est minister Papae The Emperour is the Popes minister 3. These are but matters of ceremony But as he vaunteth that all the right of kings dependeth on him so he challengeth authority and power to translate kingdoms to create depose Kings to translate the Empire from nation to nation and to giue the same to whom it pleaseth him The Emperour saith 1 Hadrian apud Auentâ—…n lib. 6. he is Emperour by vs. Whence hath hee the Empire but from vs Behold the Empire is in our power to giue it to whom wee well And accordingly he hath 2 Bellarm. de pont Rom. lib. 3. cap. 16. deposed diuerse Kings and Emperours and created others as I shall not need to prooue for both they and their followers boast thereof And if you desire some other examples of their insolent and Antichristian behauiour towardes Emperours and Kinges did not Gregory the seuenth make Henry the Emperour who came in all humilitie to submitte himselfe vnto him with his wife and childe daunce attendaunce at his gate bare-foote and bare-head by the space of three daies before he would graunt them any accesse vnto him When as the Emperour Fredericke Naucler generat 40. Barbarossa was excommunicated by the Pope and his sonne taken prysoner in Venice hee came to the Pope Alexander the third into the Churche of Saint Marke there to the ende that hee might bee absolued and his sonne restored Where before all the people the Pope hauing commaunded the Emperour to prostrate himselfe vpon the grounde and so to aske pardon he setteth his foote in the necke of the Emperour saying it is written Super aspidem basiliscum ambulabis conculcabis Leonem Draconem Thou shalt walke vpon the Aspe and Cockatrice and shalt tread vpon the Lion and the Dragon Which indignity when the Emperour being not well able to brooke made answere Not to thee but to Peter the holy father treading on the Emperours necke replied Et mihi Petro Both to mee and to Peter And when as Henry the sixt came to bee crowned Emperour and to that ende kneeled before Celestin the third sitting in his pontisicall chaire did not hee after hee had sette the imperiall Diademe on his head and as some say with his feete kicke it of with his foote againe What should I tell you of Innocent the second how hee caused his owne with the Emperours picture to bee set vp in the Palace of Laterane himselfe sitting in his pontificall throne and the Emperour kneeling before him and holding vp his hands as vnto God with these verses subscribed Rexvenit ante sores iurans prids vrbis honores Pòst homo sit Papae sumit quo dante coronam That is The King of the Romanes commeth before the gates swearing first to the honours priuileges of the citie afterward he becommeth the Popes man of whose gift he receiueth the imperiallcrowne 4. And thus hath the Pope lifted vp himself aboue al that is called God vpoÌ„ earth that is to say Kings Emperours let vs now coÌ„sider whether he exalteth himself aboue those which are called Gods in heauen that is to say the Angels First in generall it is auouched by himselfe his approued writers that the power of the Pope is greater then all other created power a Antonin sâ—…m pact 3. lit 22. c. 5. Potestas Papaemaior est omni alia potestate creata b Concil LateraneÌ„s sub Leo. 10. sess 10. That vnto him is giuen all power aboue all powers as wel of heauen as of the earth Qui totum dicit nihil excludit Hee that saith all excludeth nothing c Innocent Papa extr de constit R. Cupers pag. 28. num 5. that to the vicar of the creatour that is the Pope euery creature is subiect and more particularly that he hath d Felinus apud IuelluÌ„ viâ—…riatum Christi Christes vicarship not onley about things in heaueÌ„ in earth in hel but also aboue the Angels both good
of the church is aboue the gospell 13. To his propheticall office let vs adde his priesthood Amicij epistol dedi ad Gregor 13. For the Pope forsooth is Pontifex Optimus Maximus an epithet which the Heathen giue to their chiefe God Iupiter hee is that great priest according to the order of Melchisedec whose foote must be reuerently kissed of his Cardinals when Lib. carem sect 12. c. 5. hee rideth into any citie in his Pontificalibus and the Bishop of the citie beginning this Antheme Ecce sacerdos Magnus c. fundmenta de elect in 6. Behold the great Priest He is the Prince of Priests and head of the Christian religion He is that Priest of Priestes who remitteth both fault and punishment both to quicke and dead whereas Christ remitteth onely to the liuing and as they say forgiueth the fault but not the punishment neither doth this indulgent father graunt pardon alone for sinnes past but also for offences to come 14. But I hasten to his kingly office For hee forsooth is the 1 Paul 4 ad ducem Florentin in bulla King of Kings and Lorde of Lords the 2 Stenchus Sim. Begnius in orat in concil Lateran sess 6. Lion of the tribe of Iuda to 3 Lib. 1. carem sect 7. Pius 5. in bull ad regem reginaÌ„ matreÌ„ Galliae Antonin in sum part 3. tit 22. ca. 5. §. 1. 5. 6. Psalm 8. Heb. 2. 8. whom all power is giuen in heauen and in earth yea and vnder the earth For as hee hath a triple crowne so hee hath a triple Empire in heauen and in earth and where Christ hath none in purgatory His power is greater then all other created power extending it selfe in some sorte vnto things Coelestiall terrestriall and infernall So that of his power that may be verified which is said in the Psalme of Christ that aptly because he is Christs vicar Thou hast put al things vnder his feete The beastes of the field that is men liuing on the earth the fishes of the sea that is to say the soules in purgatory the foules of heauen that is to say the Angels and the soules of the blessed Another wrote and taught that the Pope Nicol. Egmundanus apud Balâ—…m is the Lorde of things in heauen on the earth and vnder the earth In heauen for as you haue heard he hath power ouer the Angels and Saints and soules departed Papa angelis praecipit Camotensis potestatem habet in mortuos The Pope coÌ„maundeth the Angels and hath power ouer the dead In earth for he is a Epist. ded Amicij ad Gregor 15. praefix Capistr Totius orbis Dominus the Lord of the whole earth hauing b De Maior c. vnam sanctam caelestis terrestris potestatis Monarchiam The Monarchy of the heaueÌ„ly and earthly power c Extra de statu regular pericuâ—… in gloss obtaining the kingdome of the whole world vnto whom forsooth belongeth that prophecie d Lib 1. caerem. sect 7. capistran fol. 57. Dominabitur à mari ad mare à flumine vsque adterminos orbis He shall rule from sea to sea and from the riuer vnto the endes of the world his e Capistran 〈◊〉 2. fol. 24. Antonin part 3. tit 22. §. 8. Alexander disâ—…buted the newe founde world betwixt the kings of Spaine and Portugal Lib. 1. caerem. sect 1. c. 4. Cardin. Episcopus Hostienâ—… power reacheth ouer all the faithfull principally secondarily also ouer the infidels for vnder his feete that is vnder his iurisdiction are put the beasts of the field that is the Paganes oxen that is Iewes and Heretickes and sheepe that is Christians and it extendeth it selfe vnto all the partes of the world not onely knowne but also vnknowne insomuch that the parts of the new found world are at his disposition to distribute and bestow And that the Paganes are subiect to the Pope it appeareth because the Pope ruleth the world in steede of Christ. But Christ hath ful iurisdictioÌ„ ouer euery creature Seing therfore the Pope is Christes vicar no maÌ„ may lawfully withdraw himselfe from his obedience euen as none may lawfully withdraw himselfe from the obedience of God Anton. part 3. tit 22. § 8. The Deacon which inuested the Pope was wont to vse these words I inuest thee into the Papacy Vt praesis vrbi orbi That thou mayst rule both the citie and the world And likewise the Cardinall Bishop that anointeth him vseth this forme of words Egotâ—…inungo in pontificem vrbis orbis Now this Cupers de ecâ—…les pag. 337. Empire or Monarchy which the Pope hath ouer the whole world is twofold for hee hath the two swordes as it is stoutly proued out of the gospell where one of Christs disciples saith Boniface 8. de maior c. â—…am sanctam Ecce duo gladij behold two swordes ciuill and Ecclesiasticall For as Pope Nicolas saith Christ us beato aeternae vitae clauigero terreni simul coelestis imperij iuraâ—…commisit Christ hath Dist. 22. c. 1. omnes giuen to blessed Peter the key bearer of eternall life and so to Ioâ—… de Parisijs de potestat Pap. cap. 20. Ioan. Maior 4. sent q. 2. dist 20. the Pope the right both of the carthly and heauenly Empire Ciuill as hath bene shewed ouer al Kings and rulers in respect whereof hee writeth himselfe King of Kings for all secular power is immediatly giueÌ„ to the Pope and he is aboue kings euen in temporall matters yea hee alone is the true Lorde of temporall things Wherefore Pope Boniface the eight sent vnto Philip the French king and tolde him That he was Lord Martinus Polonus in epist ad eundeÌ„ sâ—…ire te volumus quòd in spiritualibus temporalibus nobis subes Nicol Gillius annaâ—…ium gallic scriptor both in spirituall and also in temporall matters throughout the worlde And therefore that the King should holde his kingdome at his hande and honour and worshippe him Vt dominum regni sui as the Lorde of his Realme Stenchus for otherwise to thinke and holde hee said it was Heresie And as touching the Romane Empire the gouernment thereof belongeth to the Pope being Gods vicar on earth as vnto him by whom kings doe raigne And surely whosoeuer denieth the temporall sworde to be in the power of Peter doth full ill attende to the Caeremon lib. 1. cap. 2. worde of the Lorde saying vnto him Put vp thy sworde into the sheath And did not the Lorde I beseech you as some of the De maior obed cap. vâ—… sanctam Popes fauourits full soleÌ„nely dispute coÌ„mand Peter Luk. 5. 4. to launch into the deepe that he might signifie the height of power Ioan. Capistr de Pap. eccl author 1. 2. sol 21. 122. duc in alâ—… designaret altitudinem potestatis c. s. 15. in Peter And againe
he haue the marke or the name of the beast or the number of his name that speeche doth so fitte the Popes of Rome as that it might seeme rather to bee a narration of that which they haue done thâ—…n 〈◊〉 prophecy of that which they were to doe For Martin 5. in his bull annexed to the councill of Constance giueth straight châ—…rge to all gouernours that they should not suffer any Christians such as Iohn Wickleffe Iohn Husse and Ierome of Prage who in that bull are condemned for hereticks who acknowledge not the See of Rome nor embrace the doctrines and traditions of holy mother church not beleeuing as the church of Rome beleeueth nor liuing in the coÌ„munion of that church that is to say which haue not the marke nor the name of the beast nor number of his name they should not suffer them I say domicilia tenere larem fouere contractus inire negotiationes mercaturas quaslibet exercere aut humanit at is solatia cum Christi fidelibus habere To keepe house nor harth to make contracts to exercise any trafficke or merchandise or to haue any comforts of humane societie with other Christians In like sort Paulus 3. when Henry 8. of famous memory had shaken of his yoke and renounced his marke he forbadde al men to vse any trafficke or merchaundise or to make any contractes or couenants with him and his subiects he deposed as much as in him lay by his bull of excommunication the king disabled his posteritie absolued his subiectes from obedience exposed his subiectes and their goods to violence and spoile according to the inscription in his coyne Gens regnum quod non seruiâ—…rit mihi exterminabitur The nation or kingdome which serueth not mee shall bee rooted out The like thunderbolt Pius 5. sent out against our Soueraigne Ladie of blessed memorie Queene Elizabeth and Sixtus 5. against Henrie the king of Nauarre now king of Fraunce and Henrie prince of Condee And heereunto serue their blodie inquisitours at this day who are to suffer none to liue or to haue the benefite of humane societie who are but suspected of schisme or heresie And who is an hereticke That doth not beleeue as the Pope and church of Rome beleeueth though hee beleeue according to the scriptures And who is a schismaticke That doth not acknowledge the Antonin part 3. tit 22. c. 5. §. 11. Pope to bee the head of the church Seeing therefore the Pope of Rome causeth all sortes of men to take vpon them the marke of the beast and suffereth none to buy or sell that haue not the marke or name of the beaste or number of his name it cannot bee auoided but that hee is Antichrist 8 And these were the principall effects of Antichrist noted in the scriptures whereunto some others may bee added out of Apoc. 13. which haue in part beene touched heretofore as first that he exerciseth al the power of the former beast secondly that he causeth men to worshippe the former beast thirdly that he forceth men vpon paine of death to worshippe the image of the beast All which as well as the former agree to the Pope For as touching the first who knoweth not that the Pope hath swayed the Romane state for many hundred yeares exercising a more soueraigne and absolute authoritie ouer men of all sorts then euer the heathenishe Emperours did For hee forsooth hath the authoritie of the king Bald. in c. ecclesia vt lit pendent Bloud Rom. insâ—…aur lib. 3. of kings ouer his subiectes hee is perpâ—…uus dictator whome the princes of the worlde adore and worshippe hee is as Boniface the eightth in the greate Iubile Anno. 1300. hauing shewed himselfe the one daye in his pontificall vestimentes and the second in the imperiall robes proclaimed of himselfe I am Pope and Emperour I haue both the heauenlie and the earthly Empire and as they speake in their lawe the Monarchie of both powers hee hath the princehood of the whole world as wee haue hearde before And where doth he exercise this authority in the sight of the beast that is at Rome which is his Papall seate and in the gouernemente whereof hee succeedeth the Emperours 9 And that the Pope maketh the inhabitants of the earth to worship the former beast it is as euident seeing his main policyes and chief indeauours serue to magnifie the Romane state To this end besides many other policyes in part obserued before do his Iubileyes tend wherin he vseth to promise plenaâ—…y remission of al sinnes to all that either come on pilgrimage to Rome or miscarie in their iourney as also the incredible indulgences and pardons which hee graunteth to those which shall come as Pilgrims to Rome to visite the holie places there especially the 7. churches which are priuiledged aboue the rest To which purpose there is reported in an old English book and the reporte no doubt was currant in times Arnaldus Londinens of popery the whole pardon of Rome graunted by diuerse Popes a part whereof I will breefly recite for their behoofe to whome the absurdities of Poperie are not knowne The seauen priuiledged churches whereof not onely that Author speaketh but 〈◊〉 also of late hath wrieten a whole booke are 1. the church of Saint Peter in the Vatican 〈◊〉 the De 7. vrbis ecclesâ—… church of Saint Paul without the walles 3. the church of Saint Laurence without the walles 4. the church of holy crosse in Ierusalem 5. the church of Saint Mary Maior 6. the church of Sa it Sebastian without the city 7. the church of Saint Iohn Laterane To all them that dayly goe to the church of Saint Peter Sylâ—… graunted the third part of all then sinnes released 1. and 2800. years pardon And the 〈◊〉 of as many Lentons or Quarins Now a Quarin saith my author is to goe woolward and barefoot seuen yeare and to fast bread and water on the frydayes 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 one night where he sleepeth another 〈◊〉 coâ—… vnder no coâ—…ed place vnlesse 〈◊〉 be to heare masse in the church dore or porche 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or drinke out of no other vessell but in the same that he mede his auowe in Hee that doth all these points seuen yeares together death and â—…inneth a quarin that is to say a Lenton Besides there is an image of our Lord about the church dore hauing between his feete one of the pence that God was sold for as oâ—… as you looke vpon that pâ—…ny you haue 1400 yeares of pardon In that church be eleuen altars of which 7. are specially priuiledged with grace and pardon At the first altar is the visage of out Lorâ—… who looketh on that hath 700. yeares of pardon c. Before the quire dore stand 2. 〈◊〉 â—…rosses who kisseth the crosses hath 500 yeares pardon From the 〈◊〉 to the assumption of our Lady hangeth a cloth of our Ladies owne making before the quire and as many times 〈◊〉 a man beholdeth it
or full growth in Gregorie the seauenth in whose time and in all ages since the Pope hath been by some acknowledged to be that Antichrist 3. Now as touching his comming or birth which is the chiefe matter in question all agree Illyricus and the other writers 2. of the Centuries as Bellarmine coÌ„fesseth hold that about the yeare 606. Antichrist was borne when Phocas granted to the Bishop of Rome that he should be called the head of the whole Church Of the same judgement is Chytraeus For although he 3. confesse that the smoake of false doctrine ascending out of the In Apoc. 9 bottomlesse pitte began sooner to obscure and darken the truth yet he saith that in the yeare 607 Boniface the third was by Phocas ordained the Angell of the bottomlesse pit meaning thereby Antichrist when he receiued from him the title of oecumenicall Bishop Luther perceiuing that the Papacie consisteth of 4. the two swords teacheth that there is a two-fold comming of De supput annorum Mundi Antichrist the first with the spirituall sworde after the yeare 600. when Phocas gaue him the Antichristian title the latter with the temporall sworde after the yeare 1000. Bullinger doth not say as Bellarmine falsely chargeth him that Antichrist first 5. appeared Anno 763. for he aboue all others most plainely and In Apoc. 13. distinctlie hath deliuered that truth which we doe hold Pontisex Romanus saith he initium quidem dominij jecit sub Phocá sub regibus Francorum fundauit regnum ampliauit autem sub Henricis et Fridericis confirmauit demum sub sequentibus aliquot regibus regnat nostro seculo ac praecedentibus aliquot The Pope of Rome laide the beginning of his dominion vnder Phocas vnder the French Kings he founded his kingdome vnder the Henries and Fredericks he enlarged it vnder some other Kings which followed he confirmed it bereigneth in our and some former ages Musculus whom he nameth in the sixt place dooth not say that Antichrist 6. came about the yeare 1200 but by the tyrannie of the Popes and vsurped dominion ouer the Church by their shamelesse symony by their excessiue riote and diuellish pride by their abominable lusts and vncleannesse he concludeth that the Church of Rome is Babylon and the seat of Antichtist and addeth that Bernard was of the same minde Who seemeth to haue signified that Antichrist was then come and that onely it remained that the man of sinne should be reuealed that is acknowledged and detected as Musculus vnderstandeth him which discouerie of Antichrist saith he hath followed in our age And thus you see a notable consent of all our writers whom he alledgeth in the maine point concerning the time of the comming of Antichrist 4. Now let vs see what he objecteth against this receiued truth Concerning the time of his comming with the spirituall sword he objecteth that Phocas did not giue the title of vniuersall to the Pope but called him the head of the Churches as Iustinian before him had done and also the councell of Chalcedon And therefore no reason why the comming of Antichrist should be placed in the time of Phocas As touching the title good authours affirme that he receiued from Phocas both the title of the head of the Church and also of vniuersall or oecumenicall Bishop And no doubt he sought for and by suite obtained that which Iohn of Constantinople had before claimed Neither is there any great difference betwixt these two titles as they are now giuen to the Pope saue that to be the head of the vniuersall Church is the more Antichristian stile And although titles of honour and preheminence were sometimes giuen to the Church of Rome as the chiefe or head of the Churches the mystery of iniquitie working before the reuelation thereof in the Papacie yet before this graunt of Phocas which was obtained with much adoe and contention the Church of Rome had the preheminence and superioritie ouer all other Churches excepting that of Constantinople not in respect of authoritie and jurisdiction which after this graunt it more and more practised but in respect of order and dignitie And that for this cause especially because Rome whereof he was Bishop was the chiefe citie as it is specified in the councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the councell of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And for the same cause was the Patriarch of Constantinople sometimes * Concil Chalced. matched with him sometimes ‖ Tempore Maâ—…itii preferred aboue him because Constantinople which they called new Rome was become the imperiall seate Yea and the Bishops of Rauenna because their city was the chiefe in the exarchate of Rauenna whereunto Rome was for a time subject stroue with the Bishop of Rome in the time of the exarches for superioritie Seeing therefore that now the Pope of Rome had with great contention and ambition obtained the supremacie and soueraigntie ouer the vniuersall church and now intituled himselfe the head of the vniuersall Church a title peculiar vnto Christ the head I say not onely in respect of excellencie and dignitie as a chiefe member of the Church as he had beene in former times by some acknowledged because he was the Bishop of the chiefe citie but also in respect of authoritie and Iurisdiction as beeing the prince and supreme gouernour of the Church vniuersall we doe therefore worthily call this soueraigne dominion challenged ouer the vniuersall Church the first reuelation or open comming of Antichrist 5. Concerning the comming of Antichrist with the temporall sworde after the yeare 1000. he obiecteth that from the 700. yeare the Pope had receiued teÌ„porall dominion that about the yeare 715. he excommunicated the Greeke Emperour c. But Bellarmine knoweth well enough that we speake not so much of the Popes temporall dominion ouer those parts which they call the patrimonie of Saint Peter but of that which they call and challenge to themselues Utriusque potestatis temporalis spiritualis Monarchiam The Monarchie of both powers temporall and spirituall I answer therefore that the Pope indeed had a temporall dominion before but not generall and that he had long endeuoured to get the superioritie ouer the Emperours but neuer so fully attained vnto it as in the times of Gregorie the seauenth and afterwards For Gregorie the seauenth as Auentinus saith Primus imperium pontificium condidit c. First founded the Papall Annal. Bâ—…cm lib. 5. Empire which his successours saith he reckoning vnto his owne times for these 450. yeares in spight of the world and maugre the Emperours haue so held that they haue brought all in heauen and hell into subjection From this time forwarde the Emperour is nothing but a bare title without substance c. And thus haue I answered whatsoeuer is in his third Chapter pertinent to the matter in hand omitting as my maner is his other wranglings as being either altogether impertinent or meerely
is not the name of Antichrist properly the second beast but the name of the former beast which name of the former beast Antichrist the second beast causeth men to take vpon them And so Latinus is not the name of Antichrist properly but of the beast that is the Latine or Romane state Neither was it Irenaeus his meaning that the name of the beast is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because Antichrist was to subdue the Latines but because the Latines then had Verissimum regnum the most true and soueraigne kingdome and therefore most truely were the beast described Apoc. 13. 7. If therefore the Latines then had the greatest kingdome and were the beast whose authority the second beast that is Antichrist was to take vpon him Apoc. 13. 12. this coniecture that the name of the beaâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was probable before the prophecie was fulfilled Apo. 13. 12 is now more then probable the prophecie being verified in the euent And the decay or rather dissolution of the Latine or Romane Empire before which Antichrist was not to be reuealed is so farre from making this coniecture lesse probable that it rather confirmeth it Neither doe we read in the Scriptures that Antichrist should be a most mighty King or should sease vpon the most mighty kingdomes only this we read that he should exercise the power of the former beast which most fitly agreeth to the Pope 2 As touching the agreement of the number 666. Bellarmine obiecteth first that the number agreeth not with the names propounded and secondly although it did yet it followeth not that any of these is the name of the beast That the number agreeth not he sheweth because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be written with a simple Iota as it ought to be it wanteth fiue of that number I answere that the ancient Latines vsed to write and pronounce i long by ei diphthong and the Graecians vsually expresse i long by ei And it is to be obserued that Irenaeus setting downe these two names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as containing the number 666 taketh it for granted that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may so be writteÌ„ wheras of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith that it maketh that number if it be written writh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diphthong Against the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Romane he objecteth that it is not masculine vnlesse the last letter signifiyng 400. be taken away I answere that collectiue names in Hebrew are indifferently expressed in either gender And suppose the name were feminine yet that hindereth not but that it may be the name here spoken of For the Holy-ghost speaketh of the name of the beast that is the Romane state which else-where is called the whore of Babylon and foemina a woman And therefore well may the name be feminine But although the number agreed saith Bellarmine yet iâ—… followeth not that either Romane or Latine should be the name First because neither of them is his proper name but commune Neither ought it seeing it is the name of the beast which signifieth a whole state Secondly because many other â—…es make this number And therefore it followeth not that any of these is the name here spoken of because they containe the number 666. For diuers Authours haue noted diuers other names as Hippolytus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which indeed maketh not that number but rather prooueth the authour alledging 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be counterfeit neither is it a Nowne and much lesse a name Aretas seauen others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which maketh not that number but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 barbarous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rupertus and Haymo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Picâ—…x Vnto these he addeth out of lying Lindanus Martin Lauer for Luther in Latin letters taken as they neuer were for numbers after the maner of the Greeke out of Gâ—…ebrard Lithers name in Hebrew viz Lultor to which Bellarmine in his wisdome addeth Dabid Chitreiu for Dauid Chytreus and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Saxon to signifie Luther Which latter names shew the Papists to be fraught with malice and voide of judgement forcing these mens names as they might their owne to this purpose But we answer that although there are many names which containe 666. yet notwithstanding none can be the name here spoken of vnlesse also it be the name of the beast that is the Latine or Romane state and vnlesse it be such a name as he to whom all other notes of Antichrist doe agree causeth men to take vpon them Consider therefore with what conscience Bellarmine would perswade vs that any of these may bee the name here spoken of as well as Latine or Romane Seeing first either of these is the name of the beast whereas none of those is or can be Secondly seeing those are such names as Antichrist will not cause men to take vpon them whereas the Pope whom we haue prooued to be Antichrist inforceth either of these names vpon men suffering none to buy or sell or to liue among them vnlesse he professe himselfe to be a Romane or Latine in respect of his religion And thirdly whereas these names agree fitly to him to whom all other markes of Antichrist agree many of those doe not and those which doe as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an euill guide which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agreeth to the Pope 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. yet cannot be this name for the reasons before alledged And thus I hope this Gordian knot is vntied and this vnanswerable argument answered by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The name of the beast is not yet knowne therefore saith he Antichrist is not yet come I answer although the name were vnknowne yet might Antichrist become But now the name of the beast is knowne how farre then is Billarmine from proouing by this argument that Antichrist is not yet come The 11. Chapter Concerning the marke which Antichrist shall impose vpon men 1. COncerning the marke of Antichrist Bellarmnine reciteth three opinions vnto which he addeth a fourth of his owne coyning The first of the Protestants who teach that the marke of Antichrist is some â—…ne of obedience and conjunction with the Pope The second opinion is of some Catholicke Papists who thinke this marke to be the letters of Antichrists name The third of Hippolytus and some others who imagine that this marke of the beast is not to vse the signe of the crosse but rather to detest and 〈◊〉 it The first opinion viz of the Protestants he detesteth as râ—…sh and â—…irde The second of the Catholicks he rejecteth as false which he signifieth when he saith they were deceiued The third he would willingly embrace because it seemeth to make against vs but the authour is counterfeit and his testimonie falsified by Bellarmine And although indeed he do reject it
if he said I am Christ. To the assumption I answere that although the Pope doth not plainly directly say I am Christ but forbeareth the name of Christ as Caesar did the name of a King yet notwithstanding in that he challengeth the office authoritie of Christ it is as much in deed and in truth although indirectly and by consequent as if he made himself Christ Christ being a name of office For certainly whosoeuer professeth himselfe to be y e foundatiō the head the husband Lord c. of y e vniuersal church he maketh himself Christ althogh he do abstain frō the name For who is the head and Lord c. of the vniuersall church but Christ who hath authoritie to ordain sacramēts to prescribe lawes to the conscience to deliuer doctrines and articles of faith as necessary to saluation to forgiue the sinnes of the quicke and the dead who is the Prince of Priests the great Priest after the order of Melchizedec the Pastor of Pastors the King of Kings and Lord of Lords by whom Kings and Emperours do raigne who hath authoritie to commaund the Angels to bestow the kingdome of heauen on whom he pleaseth Finally vnto whom is all power giuen in heauen and in earth but onely to Christ But the Pope doth challenge al this to himselfe and much more as hath bene shewed He forsooth is the foundation the head husband and Lord of the vniuersall Lib. 1. cap. 5. Church c. And to conclude if you respect his nature Atquè ac Christus Deus est ens secundae intentionis compositum ex Deo homine As well as Christ he is God an essence of the second intention compounded of God and man if his office vnctione Christus est he is by annointment Christ hauing the very same office which Christ had when he was vpon the earth And therfore Bellarm. de pontif Rom. lib. 5. cap. 4. if this be a propertie of Antichrist to leaue vnto our Sauiour the name and title of Christ to take to himselfe the dignitie office and authoritie of Christ it cannot be auoyded but that the Pope is Antichrist 9 The third doctrine of Antichrist saith Bellarmine is this He shall affirme himselfe to be God and will require that hee may be worshipped as God From whence he reasoneth thus Antichrist will affirme that he is God and will be worshipped for God The Pope of Rome doth not affirme himselfe to be God neither would be worshipped as God therefore the Pope is not Antichrist The proposition is proued out of 2. Thess. 2. 4. So that he sitteth in the temple of God shewing himself as though he were God Answ. The meaning of the Apostles words is thus much that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God as God that is he shall rule and raigne in the church of God as if he were a God vpon earth shewing himselfe not so much by words as by deedes that hee is a God Or as the vulgar Latine edition and English translation of the Rhemists doe reade tanquam sit Deus as though he were God And thus Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius expounde this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith shewing himself he said not saying but endeuouring to shewe for he shall worke great workes and shall shewe forth wonderfull signes and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shewing as Beza obserueth is answerable to the Hebrew Moreh faciens se apparere prae se ferens or as we say taking vpon him as if he were a God It is not therefore necessary that Antichrist should in worde plainly openly professe himselfe to be God it is sufficient if in deed and behauiour hee taketh vpon him as if hee were 〈◊〉 God As for example if he shal be content to be acknowledged saluted and called God If he shall cause nay if he shal but willingly suffer himselfe to be worshipped as God if he shall challenge vnto himselfe those titles attributes and workes which are proper peculiar to the Lord. But Bellarmine perceiuing that this place in this sense may fitly be applied to the pope therefore he contendeth that it is not sufficient that Antichrist should indeed shew himselfe to be God as the Pope doth but that he shall openly name himselfe God and that he shall vsurpe not only some authoritie of God as the Pope doth but also the very name of God And that he saith is prooued out of these words of the Apostle 2. Thess. 2. in so much that he sitteth in the temple of God shewing himselfe tanquā sit Deus as though he were God Where saith he Paul doth not onely affirme that Antichrist shall sit in the temple for we also sit in temples and yet are no Antichrists but also expoundeth his maner of sitting namely that he shall sit as God to whō alone a tēple is properly erected And this hesaith is more cleerly set down in the Greek text for it is not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that hee is God But in this cauill are contained diuers errours 1. by temple which as we haue proued signifieth the church of God he vnderstandeth a materiall temple which should be built at Ierusalem 2. by sitting in the temple which signifieth his raigning in the church he vnderstandeth the corporall gesture of sitting in that materiall temple 3. by his sitting in the temple of God as God which signifieth his ruling ouer the church as if he were God hee vnderstandeth thus much that the materiall temple should be erected and consecrated to his honor as if he were God As though that temple which should be erected to his honour as if he and no other were the true God were called of the Apostle the temple of God or as though he pretending himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes sent from God would not also pretend the building of that temple to the honour of God 4. Whereas he saith that the Greek text hath not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is plaine that the text hath both In so much that he sitteth in the temple of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God shewing himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he is God Now Antichrist may sit in the temple of God as God and by his deedes and demeanour beare the world in hand that he is a God vpon earth and yet not professe himselfe openly and plainely to be God 10 And in this sense to come to his assumption doth this place properly agree to the Pope of Rome who sitteth in the temple of God as God that is ruleth in the church of God as if he were a God vpon earth and in his behauiour and course of life taketh vpon him as if he were a God and so would be reputed of others For first in their owne lawe the Pope is not Dist. 96. c.
three first hee would faine father vpon Daniel as though hee in the 7. and 11. Chapters had prophesied such things concerning Antichrist But I answere that these prophesies had and according to Daniel were to haue their complement before the comming of the Messias and therfore that the Papists may as wel with the Iewes expect the comming of their Messias as still to expect the fulfilling of these thinges in their imaginary Antichrist the counterfeit Messias of the Iewes Seeing as I said these prophesies were to be fulfilled before the comming of Christ and seeing the Iewes do stil waite for their Messias because with the Papists they will not acknowledge these prophesies which were to haue their complement before the comming of the Messias to haue bene fulfilled before the incarnation of Christ. The occasion of which errour of the Papists whereat the Iewes also do stumble hath bene an erronious interpretation of some of the Fathers who vnderstand whatsoeuer is spoken of the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagedae that is the kingdome of Syria and Egypt so farre forth as it tyrannized ouer the people of God the Iewes figured by the two legges of the Image chap. 2. and the fourth beast with tenne hornes chap. 7. they vnderstand I say as spoken of the Romane Monarchy And consequently whatsoeuer is spoken of the little horne chap. 7. 8. 11. whereby Antiochus Epiphanes is most plainely described they expound it of Antichrist 2 But the learned of our times haue made it cleare although the Papists shut their eyes against the truth that by the two legges of the Image and by the fourth beast is not to be vnderstood the Romane Empire and by the little horne not Antichrist properly but Antiochus Epiphanes For these thinges which are recorded of the two legges chap. 2. and of the fourth beast chap. 7. do not onely sitly but also properly and onely agree to the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagedae And those things which are written of the little horne do wholy properly belong to Antiochus Epiphanes as the Papists themselues cannot deny Porphyry that learned though malicious enemie of Christianitie perceiued Daniels prophesies in the 7. 8. 11. 12. chapters which the Papists vnderstand of Antichrist so fully and perfectly to agree to Antiochus Epiphanes that he cauelled against the prophesies of Daniel affirming that they were written not before hand of Daniel but after the fulfilling of them by some one that liued in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes For so Ierome writeth of him Contre prophetam Danielem doudetimum librum scribit Porphyrius notans eum ab ipso cuius Praefatione in Daniel inscriptus est nomine esse compositum sed à quodam qui temporibus Antiochi qui appellatus est Epiphanes fuerit in Iudaea non tam Danielem ventura dixisse quam illum narrasse praeterita And after tanta enim dictorum fides fuit vt propheta incredulis hominibus non videatur futura dixisse sed narrasse praterita So fully and plainly is Antiochus deciphred in the prophecie of Daniel that the authour of that booke seemed to Porphyrie to haue written a story of Antiochus Epiphanes rather then a prophecie 3 As for Antichrist he is not once mentioned or meant in all the prophecie of Daniel the which I deliuer not as though I thought that those things which the papists expound concerning Antichrist could not for the most part be fitly applied to the Pope for not onely diuers protestants arguing from the papists owne groundes haue out of Daniel prooued the Pope to be Antichrist but also the Iewes and namely R. Leui Gerson whom Bellarmine citeth chap. 12. expoundeth all those things in Daniel chap. 7. and 11. which the papists vnderstand of Antichrist as spoken of the Pope of Rome whom he calleth another Pharao And most true it is that excepting Antiochus Epiphanes these prophecies doe best fit the Pope of Rome And therefore I willingly graunt that which both olde and new writers haue aâ—…med that Antiochus Epiphanes may be saide to haue bene a type of Antichrist A type I say not in all and euery particular as though whatsoeuer can be said of Antiochus the like may be said of Antichrist but in some principall matters in respect whereof he is a type Salomon the King of peace Dauid the kingly Prophet the high priests which by offering sacrifices made attonement for their bretheren Iosuae the deliuerer of the people were types of Christ. And yet it were a ridiculous if not a blasphemous course to apply to Christ whatsoeuer is recorded of Salomon Dauid the high Priests or Iosuah Neither is this without cause set downe by the Schoolemen as a rule of Diuinitie that theologia symbolica non est argumentutina For those things which properly are spoken of Antiochus cannot properly be vnderstood of Antichrist if at all but onely allegorically and allegories proue not and that force which they seeme to haue in prouing is not to proue the same particular but the like for allegories are similitudes without notes of likenes If therefore it were scarce a good argument in diuinitie from a type or allegory to proue the like because similia claudicant then must it needs be a sencelesse argumentation from a similitude to conclude not the like but the same particular seeing nullum fimile est idem no like is the selfe-same The principall matters which are recorded of Antiochus are these that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an enemy to God and a persecuter of his church an aduancer of himselfe aboue or against euery God or as the Apostle speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ruled by no lawe but his owne wil hauing a mouth speaking Dan. 7. 8. presumptuous things and such like which as they are recorded of Antiochus so are they by the Apostles applied to Antichrist 2. Thess. 2. and do most fitly and properly agree to the Pope But if we shall apply to Antichrist those things which were proper to the person of Antiochus and in respect whereof he was not a type of Antichrist and from thence shall inferre not the like which were too much for like things are not like in all things but the same particular which was proper to his persoÌ„ we shall be ridiculously absurd As for example if we shall say that Antichrist shall by craft attaine not to his kingdome but to the same kingdome of Syria because Antiochus did so that Antichrist shal fight with the kings of Egypt Libya Aethiopia because in Bellarmines conceit Antiochus did so and such like particulars then may we by as good right affirme that Antichrist shall immediatly succeed in the kingdome of Syria his brother Seleucus Philopater for that is expresly noted Dan 11. 21. and in his place c. and consequently that he shall be the sonne of Antiochus Magnus that he shall be an hostage at Rome before he be king as
sort be applied to the tenth Prince of the Romanes 5. By conference of that which is written of the little horne chap. 7. with those thinges which are more plainly recorded of Antiochus chap. 8. 23. c. and chap. 11. 21. c. to the end of the chapter it appeareth euidently that he no other is that litle horne For wheras Daniel in the 7. chap had described 3. kingdomes besides the Babylonian which should tyrannize ouer the Iewes by three beasts in the 8. chap. he figureth the same 3. kingdomes by 2. beasts For the kingdome of the Medes Persians which before was resembled by a Beare is here signified by the Ramme with 2. hornes the kingdome of the Macedonians Seleucidae which before were represented by two seuerall beasts are heere figured by the Goate Bucke containing them both for both the Macedonians and Seleucid◅ were Iauan that is the Greekes Daniel 8. 21. And as in the 7. chapter the kingdome of the Macedonians was signified by a Leopard which had foure heads so here it is saide that after the great horne signifying Alexander the great was broken off there grewe foure hornes in stead thereof meaning the foure Princes among whom the Macedonian Monarchy was diuided The fourth kingdom figured chap. 7. by the beast with 10. hornes is here signified to be that kingdome which was chiefly erected by one of those foure hornes namely Seleucus that is the kingdome of the Seleucidae and from him namely in the end of their kingdome ouer the Iewes came forth a little horne that is the king with the impudent face chap. 8. verse 9. 23. which is Antiochus Epiphanes who was the tenth horne of the fourth beast And in the eleuenth chapter without figures of beastes the same three kingdomes are described the same tenne hornes reckned vp the same tenth horne more particularly deciphred 6. The people pusht at and oppressed by these hornes is Daniels people the people of the Iewes yet remaining and inhabiting in Tzeby that is in Iury and Ierusalem not onely before the desolation of Ierusalem but also before the reformation vnder Iudas Macchabaeus But Antichrist if we will beleeue the Papists shall be the counterfeit Messias of the Iewes neither shall hee afflict the Iewes but by them the Christians and that in the ende of the worlde c. 7. The times of afflicting the people of God assigned to the little horne doe precisely agree to the persecution vnder Antiochus But these times are diuersly to be reckened in respect either of the beginning or the end of the account For as touching the beginning we recken either from the defection and reuolt of the people wrought by Menelaus the priest in the yeare 142. the sixt moneth and sixt day vnto the restitution of Religion in the yeare 148. and 25. day of the ninth moneth and this space is 2300. dayes that is 6. moneths 3. yeares 18. dayes foretold Dan. 8. 14. or else we recken from the pollutiō of the temple and erection of the new altar abolishing of the daily sacrifice to wit in the 145. yeare of the Seleucidae on the 15. of Casleu diuersly in respect of the ende viz. either to the restitution begunne by Iudas Machabaeus Ioseph antiq lib. 12. cap 6. in the 25. of the same moneth Casleu in the year 148. which space is called a time and times and parcell of time that is three yeares and tenne daies or if we reade a time and times 1. Mac. 1. 57. and halfe a time we may recken vnto the time of that victorie which Macchabaeus and the Iewes had against the Armies 1. Mac. 14 52. of Antiochus whereby his instauration of Religion was secured and confirmed and Antiochus his Armies were expelled Dan 7. 25. Dan. 127. De bello Iud. lib. 1. cap. 1. out of Iury which as Iosephus noteth was done after three yeares and sixe moneths or if we recken to the time that Antiochus hauing heard of these and some other ouerthrowes of his Armies after his owne discomsiture and slight from Persepolis was striken by the hand of God and promised all good things to the Iewes it is 1290. dayes if Dan. 12. 11. 12. to his death 1335. By all which considerations it appeareth that Daniel by the fourth beast vnderstandeth not the Romane Monarchy but the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae nor by the tenth horne Antichrist properly but Antiochus Epiphanes 11 Thus much therefore may suffice to haue spoken of his proposition now let vs briefly consider of the assumption The Pope saith he ariseth not from base estate neither by deceit obtaineth his kingdome As touching the former I answere that although it were false of Antiochus yet is it true of the Pope whether you consider the meane estate of the first Bishops of Rome or the base birth and obscure parentage of diuers Popes For that which Bellarmine alledgeth in commendation of the Primitiue religion and auncient church of Rome is but a vaine flourish nothing appertaining to this purpose 2. That the Pope hath not attained to his kingdome by fraude and deceit Bellarmine had rather it should be taken for graunted then once called in question and therefore cunningly passeth it ouer with silence But if this were set downe in the scriptures as a badge of Antichrist to attain to his greatnes by fraude deceit I would make it manifest that neuer in any estate more deep policy and diuellish deceit hath bene vsed then in the See of Rome wherby they haue obtained their supremacy and maintained their soueraigntie ouer the Christian world Yea their whole religion of Popery and mystery of iniquitie seemeth to be nought else but a packe of policy deuised by worldly men to deisie the Pope and to enrich the popish cleargy For wherevnto else I beseech you tended their Indulgences and Pardons their Iubelies their doctrines of merits supererogation their purgatory their trentalls of Masses and praier for the dead their pilgrimages and adoration of Saints Images and reliques their licences and dispensations their thunderboults of excommunication their oathe of allegeance and fealtie imposed on Princes and potentates subiection to the Pope enforced vpon all sorts as absolutely necessary to saluation their wilfull deprauations of scriptures forgeries of Canons counterfeit donations of Constantine and others to proue the double supremacy of the Pope Whervnto tended his often maintaining of quarelles among Christian Princes his warres inioyned them for the recouery of the holy lande but that they being by these meanes weakened might be the more easily subdued vnto himselfe his Croisades and promises of heauen to all those that sight such battailes as like him Haue not their cleargy come to their riches and the Pope to his greatnes by these and such like meanes But because the comming to his greatnes by fraude and deceit is not set downe in the scriptures as a note of Antichrist vnlesse it be by way of type and
writings before to be the scriptures Why then Ierome saith so vpon Daniel 11. 24. where Daniel speaketh of Antiochus his dealings in Egypt that he did that which his forefathers neuer did Nullus Iudaeorum absque Antichristo in tot◅ vnquam or be regnauit These be Bellarmines scriptures But where do the scriptures indeede say that Antichrist shall subdue seuen of the tenne Kings Nay the contrary may rather bee gathered out of the scriptures The tenne hornes whereof Daniel speaketh were tenne Kings which successiuely raigned ouer Iudaea as hath bene shewed And although Antiochus Epiphanes might helpe away three of his next predecessors yet hee could not hurt the other sixe for there were but nine besides himselfe which were all dead and gone before he came to yeares Yea but this opinion of the Fathers is plainely enough deduced out of Apoc. 17. 12. where we reade and the tenne hornes which thou sawest are tenne Kings these haue one minde and they shall giue their power and authoritie to the beast No maruell though some of the Papists call the scripture a nose of waxe seeing they can frame and fashion it at their pleasure and giue vnto it what sense they list Doth Iohn speake of Antichrist his either killing three or subduing seuen Or doth Iohn speake of the same tenne hornes wherof Daniel doth Daniel speaketh of tenne Kings which were to bee dead and gone before the comming of the Messias Iohn speaketh of such as in his time had not yet attained to their kingdome verse 12. Daniel speaketh of tenne Kings of the Seleucidae and Lagidae which succeeded one an other Iohn of tenne Kings among whom the Romane Empire was to be diuided who also were to haue their kingdome together with the beast Daniel telleth vs what the little horne which was one of the tenne should doo to three of the other nine without mention of the rest Iohn sheweth what all the tenne hornes should doo to Antichrist which is none of the tenne hornes but one of the heades of the beast If therefore Bellarmine can proue from hence that these are the same tenne hornes spoken of in Daniel and that Antichrist shall kill three of them subdue the other seuen he may hope to proue any thing But what other scriptures hath hee forsooth Chrysostome and Cyrill For Chrysostome on 2. Thess. 2. saith that Antichrist shall bee a Monarch and shall succeede the Romanes in the Monarchy as the Romanes succeeded the Greekes the Greekes succeeded the Persians and they the Assyrians And Cyrill saith that Antichrist shall obtaine the Monarchy Catech. 15 which was the Romanes I answere that for substance these Fathers held the truth For what Monarch hath there bene in the West these fiue or sixe hundred yeares besides the Pope who calleth himselfe King of Kings and Lorde of Lords to whom all power is giuen in heauen and in earth who hath as they say the double Monarchy both of spirituall and temporal power who forsooth is Lord of the whole earth in so much that he taketh vpon him authoritie to dispose of the new found world And that he succedeth the Emperors in the Alexand. 6. gouernment of Rome as it becommeth Antichrist who is the second beast Apoc. 13. and the 7. head of the beast Apoc. 17. whereof the Emperour was the sixt I shall not neede to proue 15 There remaineth the fourth argument Antichrist shall persecute with an innumerable army the Christians throughout the world and this is the battell of God and Magog but this agreeth not to the Pope therefore the Pope is not Antichrist I answere to the proposition that no such thing can be proued out of the scripture Hee alledgeth Ezech. 38. 39. Apoc. 20. 7. 8. 9. 10. But Ezechiel speaketh not of Antichrist nor of the persecution of the Christian Church by him But hauing foretold chapter 37. the restitution of the Iewes from the Babylonian captiuitie and also prophesied of the comming of Christ in those chapters hee foretelleth of the afflictions and troubles which the people of the Iewes should sustaine in the meane time to wit after their returne out of captiuitie before the comming of the Messias and withall denounceth the iudgemēts of God against the Seleucidae who were the kings of Syria and Asia minor and their adherents who should be the chiefe enemies of the church and people of the Iewes after their returne For Gog signifieth Asia minor hauing that name from Gyges the King thereof Magog is Hierapolis the chiefe seate of Idolatry in Syria built by the Scythians and frō them hath that name So that by the land of Magog wee are to vnderstand Syria and by Gog Asia minor And the rest of the peoples that Plin. lib. 5. cap. 23. are named in Ezechiel were such as assisted the Seleucidae who were the kings of Syria and Asia minor in their warres either as their subiects or as their friends or as their mercenary souldiers And for as much as the princes and people of Syria and Asia minor were the most grieuous enemies of the Iewes by Ad Tremell Iun. in Ezech 38. 39. whom they sustained the chiefest calamities after their returne before the comming of Christ therefore by an vsuall speech in the Iewish language the mortall and deadly enemies of the church are called Gog and Magog And in this sense Iohn the Diuine vseth these names Gog and Magog to signifie the enemies of the church meaning not the same enemies whereof Ezechiel speaketh but the like enemies of the Church which should afflict the true Christians as Gog and Magog afflicted the Iewes Neither doth Iohn in this place speake of the persecution of Antichrist properly but of Sathan after he was loosed his inciting the enemies of the Church to battell and of Gods iudgements against them signified by fire And so much shall suffice to haue answered to this argument For after so long a Treatise I will not trouble the Reader with the tenne seuerall opinions which Bellarmine reciteth cōcerning Gog and Magog neither yet with any further answere to his cauillations and exceptions against some of the arguments of diuers Protestants which he thought were more easie to answere seeing in the former booke I haue sufficiently cleared those arguments whereby the Pope is more euidently proued to be Antichrist neither is the controuersie betwixt vs whether euery argument that hath bene produced by euery one doth necessarily conclude the Pope to be Antichrist That discourse therefore being rather personall then reall I let it passe Chap. 17. Being the conclusion of the whole Treatise HAuing therefore both by sufficient arguments manifestly proued that the Pope is 1. Antichrist and by euidence of truth maintained the same assertion against the arguments of the Papists let vs now consider in the last place what conclusions may vpon this doctrine be necessarily inferred for our further vse For first if this be true that the Pope is Antichrist as
2. Thes. 2. 8. for although he should be wasted and consumed before by the spirit of Christs mouth that is the ministery of the word yet he should not be vtterly destroyed vntill the second comming of Christ. From hence therefore we reason thus If Antichrist were in the Apostles time and was to remaine vntill the second comming of Christ then Antichrist is not one singuler man but a succession of men vnlesse they will say that one and the same man may liue vpon the earth from the Apostles time vntill the comming of Christ of which time there be already aboue 1500. yeares expired But Antichrist was in the Apostles times and is to continue vntill the second comming of Christ as the two Apostles Paul and Iohn do plainely testifie therefore Antichrist is not one singuler man 10. Of this syllogisme Bellarmine cannot deny either the proposition or the assumption Onely he distinguisheth of the former part of the assumption viz. That Antichrist in the Apostles time was come indeede but not in his owne person but onely in his forerunners And this he would prooue first by a similitude which he might haue knowne from Plato to be a most slippery argument As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ came in the beginning of the world not in his owne person but in his forerunners the Patriarches and Prophets so Antichrist came in the Apostles time not in his owne person but in his forerunners the heretickes persecutors of the church In which similitude there is no proportiō vnlesse that which is in question betaken for granted namely that Antichrist is but one particular person as Christ is For if Antichrist be a succession of heretiques then might he be said to come in the first of the ranke although the chiefe of that order which principally is called Antichrist was not yet come And secondly the protasis or propositiō of this similitude is vntrue For although Christ might be said to be come from the beginning in respect both of the truth of the promise and also of the efficacy of his merits which is extended to all the faithfull from the beginning yet we neuer reade neither can it truely be said that he came in the Patriarches and Prophets especially seeing the holy Ghost maketh a kinde of opposition betwixt Heb. 1. 1. Mat. 21. 37 Gal. 4. 4. Gods sending of them and the comming of Christ who was not sent before the fulnesse of time came Neither are the Prophets or Patriarches any where called the forerunners of Christ For forerunners goe a little before as Iohn Baptist did who therefore is worthily called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the forerunner If any man obiect that as Christ 1. Pet. 3. 19 spake in the Prophets so Antichrist in the heretiques I answer that this latter is true not of Antichrist but of the diuell who is a lying spirit in the mouthes of all false Prophets Thirdly the reddition is contradictory to that which the Apostle Iohn deliuereth For he saith plainely that the Antichrist with the article prefiexed and that Antichrist whom they heard was to come was already entred into the world 1. Iohn 4. 3. 2. Iohn 7. and thence prooueth that therefore it is the last houre because Antichrist was to come in the last houre 1. Iohn 2. 18. So that in this similitude nothing is sound no proportion in the whole no truth in the parts 11. Wherefore by a new supply of arguments he laboureth to make good this exposition And as touching the place in Paul he argueth first from the authority of the fathers interpreters wherof some vnderstand by the mystery of iniquitie the persecution vnder Nero others the heretiques of those times which secretly seduced many The former had no reason to call the open persecution of Nero a mysterie who also although he were an enimy yet belonged not to the body of Antichrist who is a disguised enimy and a pretended Christian. The latter exposition we doe embrace For we holde Antichrist to be the whole body of heretiques in the last age of the world who vnder the name and profession of Christ aduance themselues against Christ first secretly as in the Apostles times afterwardes more openly when that which hindred was taken out of the way Of this body as euery member seuerally and all ioyntly is Antichrist and therefore Iohn calleth the heretiques of his time Antichrists and of them all saith that they are the Antichrist so especially the head of this body which we haue prooued to be the Papacy is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called Antichrist Wherefore although Antichrist was after a sort come and the mysterie of iniquity wrought in the Apostles time yet Antichrist was not reuealed vntill the head of this body appeared that is vntill the Pope became Antichrist who since the yeare of the Lord 606. hath shewed himselfe in his colours first by vsurping supreame authority ouer the vniuersall Church afterwards by claiming soueraignty ouer kings and Emperors as we haue heretofore shewed Seeing therfore the heretiques of whom the fathers speake did belong to the body of Antichrist it cannot be denied but that Antichrist when they were in the world was come in some of his members and had as it were set his foote into the Church 12. Secondly from our owne confession he would seeme to driue vs to great absurdity For saith he if Antichrist were come in the Apostles times and if Antichrist hath his seat in Rome then it will follow that Peter Paul were the true Antichrists Nero or Simon Magus the true Christ. For there were no other Bishops of Rome then but Peter and Paul with whom Nero and Simon Magus contended I answere that it cannot be prooued out of the Scripture or by any sound argument that Peter and Paul were Bishops of Rome and although they were it would not follow vpon our assertion that therefore they were Antichrists and much lesse that Nero or Simon Magus was Christ. For when we say that Antichrist was come in the Apostles time we speake of the body of Antichrist with S. Iohn Whō we say that Antichrist hath his seate in Rome we speake of the head of this body who especially is called Antichrist whom we do with Paul acknowledge not to haue beene reuealed vntill that which hindered was taken out of the way that is vntill the Romane Empire in the West was dissolued but afterwards by degrees he was aduanced in the Papacie aboue all that is called God sitting in the temple of God as if he were God that is ruling and raigning in the Church as if he were a God vpon earth And surely if the head of the Antichristian body was to be reuealed not long after the dissolution of the Romane Empire in the West and was about the same time with the rulers of the Prouinces to attaine vnto his kingdome as hath bin shewed and lastly if he shall continue in the world after he is reuealed vntill
the second comming of Christ then it followeth necessarily that euen this head of the Antichristian body cannot be any one singular man but is continued by a succession of many from the time of his reuelation vntill the end of the world of which time there is almost a thousand yeares expired But both in this argument and in the former Bellarmine sophistically beggeth the question For in his arguments there is no consequence vnlesse this be taken for granted that Antichrist is but one man Antichrist came in the Heretiques in the Apostles time therfore he came not in his owne person A good argument if Antichrist were but one man which is the question If Antichrist were in the Apostles time and if Antichrist must sit at Rome then he that was then Bishop of Rome was Antichrist a good argument if Antichrist were but one man which is the question 13. Now whereas S. Iohn saith that Antichrist in his time was come Bellarmine faineth him to speake of Antichrist as he saith Our Sauiour spake of Elias Mat. 17. 11. Elias indeed shall come namely in his own person but I say vnto you Elias is already come in suo simili in his like that is Iohn Baptist. So S. Iohn speaketh of Antichrist that he was indeed to come in his owne person but now he was come in his type You see to what silly shifts this worthy chaÌ„pion of the Pope is driuen For first he fathereth vpon Christ that Iewish fable which with the Iewes the Papists holde against Christ himselfe For whereas Malachie had prophecied of the comming of Elias before the day of the Malac. 4. 5 Lord meaning the first comming of Christ our Sauiour Christ plainlie anoucheth Mat. 11. 14. that Iohn Baptist was that Elias who according to the Prophecie of Malachie was to come Now Iohn Baptist was called Elias because he came in the spirit and power of Elias to turne the hearts of the fathers c. as the Angell also applyeth that prophesie Luk. 1. 17. But suppose that Christ had spoken of Elias Malac. 4. 6. according to Bellarmines conceit yet how dooth it follow that Luke 1. 17. therefore Iohn speaketh of Antichrist after the same manner No more then it followeth that Dauid should long after his death be sent againe to gouerne the people of God because it was prophesied by Ezechiel that the Lord would raise vp a Pastor for his people euen Dauid his seruant c. But as by the name of Dauid in Ezechiel Eze. 34. 23 24. 37. 35. is meant not Dauid himselfe but Christ of whom Dauid was a type so by the name of Elias in Malachie is not meant Elias himselfe Iere. 30. 9. but Iohn Baptist who resembled Elias in spirit and power in reforming the Church of God 14. Our second argument is this That which in the Prophecies of the Scriptures especially in the 7. and 11. of Daniel and in Apoc. the 13. and 17. is described vnder the name and figure of a beast is not one singuler thing or person but a whole state or succession Antichrist is described in the Apocatypse 13. vnder the name and figure of a Beast therfore Antichrist is not one singuler person but a whole state and succession The proposition is prooued by induction of particular examples As in the 7. of Daniel by the Lion is figured the Kingdome of the Assyrians and Babylonians by the Beare the Medes and Persians by the Leopard the Greekes and Macedonians by the beast with ten hornes the Seleucidae and Lagidae and so Chapt. 8. In the 13. of the Apocalypse there are two Beasts described the former signifying the state of the Romane Emperours the second signifying the state of Antichrist Bellarmine answereth that Daniel as sometimes by the beasts he signifieth whole kingdomes so sometimes also particular persons As in the eight Chapter by the Ramme â—…he vnderstandeth Darius the last King of the Persians by the Goate Alexander the great In which answer the vpright dealing of Bellarmine with the Scriptures appeareth For in the 20. verse of the 8. Chapter where that vision is expounded Dan. 8. 20. the Angels words are these The Ramme which thou sawest hauing two hornes are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Kings of the Medes and Persians And the Goate is the King of Iauan or Grecia meaning as before the Kings or Kingly estate as appeareth plainly by the words that follow and not as Bellarmine saith Alexander and the great horne betweene his eyes is the first King namely Alexander which being broken foure other stand vp in the steed thereof As Daniel therefore by seuerall beasts Dan. 8. 22. meaneth not so many particular men but whole states and orders of men and as Iohn in the 13. of the Apocalyps by the former beasts meaneth not any one Emperour but the whole state and succession of Emperours at the least so the holy Ghost in the same Chapter by the second beast describing Antichrist meaneth not any one particular Apo. 13. 11 person but the whole state and succession of Antichristian Popes to whom as heretofore hath beene shewed that description wholy agreeth And whereas Bellarmine addeth that Paul when he entreateth of Antichrist speaketh not of any one of the foure beasts in Daniel but of the little horne mentioned in the 7. of Daniel vers 8 I answer that the Apostle speaketh neither of the one nor of the other and therefore the former part of Bellarmines speech is vaine for no man saith so and the latter is false For the little horne is not Antichrist but Antiochus Epiphanes who liued aboue 200. yeares before the incarnation of Christ who although he were but one man might not vnsitly be called a type of Antichrist who is a state or succession of men 15. Our third argument is taken from that Apostasie which the Apostle foretelleth 2. Thes. 2. For where he speaketh of a defection whereof Antichrist is the head without addition we vnderstand a 2. Thes. 2. 3. generall defection of the visible Church which as it began to worke in the Apostles time so was it to increase vntill the reuelation of Antichrist and to continue more or lesse vntill his destruction This Apostasie because it cannot be the worke of one man or of a fewe 2. Thes. 2. 7. yeares euidently prooueth that Antichrist is not one singuler man but rather a state and succession of men To this Bellarmine for want of one good answer maketh many First saith he by that Apostasie wee may very well nay he saith rectissimè vnderstand Antichrist himselfe as diuers of the fathers teach and what will he inferre thereupon that therefore Antichrist is but one man Nay rather the contrary is to be inferred For if Apostasie be put by a metonymy of the adiunct for the subiect or rather of the effect for the cause that is for the parties which doe reuolt then it followeth that Antichrist who according to