not plainely inough signify that he was greater then Apollo and his other coadiutours Moreouer Io. 20. it is said indeed to all the Apostles Behould I send you and whose sinnes you remit c. notwithstanding cap. 21. all the Apostles and the rest of the faithfull are subiected to S. Peter as sheep to their Pastour when it is said by our Lord to S. Peter alone in the presence of other Apostles feed my sheep Finally although Matth. 18. it be said to all the Apostles VVhatsoeuer you shall bind c. notwithstanding Matth. 16. it is said to Peter alone To thee I will giue the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen c. and without doubt our Lord would not promise him any thing singulerly vnlesse also he would giue him some singuler thing but of these we haue said many thinges before lib. 1. cap. 12. 13. 14. To that which thou obiectest of both the Swordes against the Extrauagant of Bonifacius 8. where thou also laughest at the Popes arguments I will only answere in this place that they are all taken out of S. Bernard whome Caluin Melancthon and other of your crew are wont to call an holy man and to alleadge him oftener then once See lib. 2. 4. de Consider or if thou pleasest see what we haue treated of this very matter in our last Booke de Pontifice And this shall suffice of thy Antithesis or opposition in this place Now it remayneth that we shew that this very vision of S. Iohn doth best agree to Luther and Lutherans for first it is plaine that Luther may be signifyed by that starre which fell from heauen to earth seeing that he became of a religious man a secular of a continent a marryed and of poore rich and changed his sober and slender fare with plentifull and dainty cheere For what else is this then to haue fallen from heauenly to earthly conuersation Now he that feeleth not the smoke of the bottomlesse pitte which hath ensued vpon his fall is altogeather blind and stupide for before Luther fell from the Catholike Church almost all the West was of the same faith and religion and whithersoeuer a man went he presently acknowledged his brethren for they were all in light But aâ—ter Luthers fall there arose such a smoke of Errours Sects and Schismes that now one cannot know another in the same Prouince yeâ— not in the same Citty or house This smoke hath also darkened the Sunne and the Ayre as it is said in the Apocalyps for both we and our Aduersaries do vnderstand by the Sunne Christ and by the Ayre the Scriptures by which we after a certaine sort breath in this life And truly how vehemently this smoke hath obscured Christ Transiluania and the Countreys therabout do testify where Christs Diuinity is openly denyed Germany also witnesseth where the Anabaptists plainly and the Vbiquists more obscurely deny Christs Humanity And though there were in tymes past many heretikes which did likewise impugne Christ yet none more impudently then the heretikes of our time for many of them doe not only deny Christ to be God but they adde that he cannot be inuocated nor knoweth what we do It is an horrour to heare or read with what temerity the mysteries of Christ are disputed of at this tyme. Likewise it is incredible how vehemently this smoke hath obscured the Scriptures for now there are so many Translations and Commentaryes contrary one to another that those thinges which in times past were most cleere seeme now most obscure What can be said more plainly then that which S. Paul saith 1. Corinth 7. Of Virgius I haue not the precept of our Lord but I giue counsaile And yet all the heretikes of this tyme do constantly deny that there is any counsaile of Virginity and that S. Paul meant not to giue any counsaile to imbrace Virginity in that place but rather to terrify men from it What can be more plainely spoken then that word of our Lord This is my Body and yet there is nothing more obscure at this time What should I say of those of Transiluania who haue so peruerted with their Commentaries the Ghospell of S. Iohn which is well knowne to haue bene chiefly written against Cerinthus and Ebion who denyed Christs Diuinity that they most of all proue out of it that Christ is not God Let vs come to the Locusts which went out of the smoke of the pyt Chytraeus by the Locusts vnderstandeth the Bishops Clerkes and Monkes in the Church before S. Gregoryes tyme and yet these wonderfull Locusts were not yet risen But all which S. Iohn saith of the Locusts do most aptly agree to the Lutherans and the other heretikes of this tyme. For first the Locusts are wont alway to come in great multitude and to go in flocks Prou. 30. the Locust hath no King and they all go out by their swarmes so the Lutherans properly haue not one Head because they deny that there ought to be one Head of the whole Church Notwithstanding in a very short tyme they haue increased to a huge multitude neither is it any meruaile for they haue opened the gate to all vicious men the gluttons run to them because the Lutherans haue no certaine fasts the incontinent because among them all vowes of continency are disliked and Monks Priests NuÌ„nes are permitted to marry Likewise all Apostataes because among them all Cloysters are opened and conuerted into Pallaces couetous and ambitious Princes because both Ecclesiasticall goods and persons are subiected to their power the idle and the enemies of good workes because among them only Faith is sufficient good workes are not necessary Finally all sinfull and wicked people because all necessity of confessing their sinnes and giuing account to their owne Pastour which is wont to be a very great bridle to sinners is taken away among them Hence therfore are the Locusts so multiplyed Now these Locusts are strangely described by S. Iohn for they are said to haue a mans face yea a womans the taile of scorpions the body of Locusts Likewise they weare vpon their heads a crowne as it were of gould they haue the teeth of Lions and their brest armed with an iron plate Finally they seemed to be as horses prepared to the warre and the sound of their winges was heard as the noyse of chariots running to warre and they had for King ouer them an Angell or the bottomelesse pytte who is called an Exterminatour Their smoth face signifieth the beginning of their preaching which alway beginneth from the Ghospell for they promise to say nothing but the most pure word of God so they most easily allure the simple The scorpions taile signifieth the poysoned and deadly euent for after they haue proposed the word of God they depraue it with their peruerse interpretation and in that sort as it were writhing their taile they strike in their sting and infuse their deadly poyson The Locusts body which is in a manner nothing but
it hath bene euer since and so he should haue translated is in taking out of the way and then we shall easily answere to the argument See cap. 5. nu 4. that a thing in doing is not done and consequently that Antichrist is but comming and not come For the remouing of the Imperiall seate from Rome the taking of Rome by the Goths the decay of the Empire are not sufficient for M. Downam to make it good that the Empire was taken away but only that it was in taking away that is in decay not subuerted or perished And besides if M. Downam bethink himselfe well it wil be a litle with the soonest for him and his friends whome Bellarmine calleth Heretikes to affirme that Antichrist was come in S. Hieromes tyme. As for the Scriptures which M. Downam noteth it is not necessary to explicate them now since we haue had and shall haue often occasion to handle thē at large only I will aske M. Downam what he meant to say that Bellarmine thought to discredit the arguments of the Fathers by reckoning them among erroneous conceiptes since Bellarmine expresly saith that the opinions of these Fathers were suspitions and not errors because they durst not set downe any certaine tyme 2. Now then let vs come as M. Downam likewise inuiteth vs to Bellarmines heretikes where he taketh vpon him to defend all those opinions but the first of the Samosatenes whome he is content with Bellarmine to call heretikes but taketh it very ill at his handes that he would number them among Protestants which notwithstanding he hath no reason to do since Bellarmine telleth but the truth and giueth his reason why he doth so because they all agree in this that Antichrist is come and that he is the Pope which will How much the protestants agree with the Samosatenes all other heretikes be thought a greater agreement then Christ hath with the wicked which comparison it pleaseth M. Downam to vse though if others had done farre lesse he would haue bene ready to haue called it blasphemy if he be not more temperate then many of his fellow Ministers and besides he might haue considered that all the arguments which Bellarmine vseth against the Samosatenes make as much against the Protestants so that his boasting of his men which haue soundly confuted their heresies will seeme ridiculous except they had cōfuted this opinion likewise which they could not doe except they would confute themselues And the nippe which he giueth the Papists for houlding their peace will make some thinke that either he hath not read so much as the titles of Bellarmines whole bookes or els that he is very forgetfull if not malicious since it is euident that he hath not omitted those heretikes no more then the rest neither in other heresies nor in this in which he is as exact as M. Downam can desire since he telleth vs in what they differ from him his crew which is but in a nice point God knoweth to wit in the circumstances of tyme if we consider the other two mayne points in which they agree besids here M. Downā sayth that euen in the Apostles tymes Antichrist had as it were set his foote in the Church which is something before that which the Samosatenes affirme who only thinke that he appeared a little after the Apostles tyme so that all the fault will light vpon M. Downam and his fellowes who will needes make themselues so like to those and all other heretikes that none but themselues can see any other difference among them but materiall to wit that euery one choseth this or that matter in which they differ from the Catholike Church but all agree in this that they chose their Religion out of their owne priuate iudgments and spirits by which they take vpon them to explycate the Scripture euery one after his owne fashion but none of them will subiect their spirits to the spirit of truth which is according to Christs promise only in the Catholike Church and consequētly they wil be still accompted formall Heretikes till they amend this generall fault of theirs 3. Concerning the other 5. opinions which Bellarmine From X. to XVII rehearseth M. Downam would faine make an agreement by affirming that the constant opinion of the learned is that of the reuealing or manifest appearing of Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the rest is impertinent there were two principal degrees the first about the yeare 607. the second after the yeare 1000. Where first we may note how Downam nothing Scrupulous in his accompt cunningly he bringeth it in with an about and an after both which may comprehend one or more yeares And it must be no little nor nice difference which will breake any square in this mans conceipt but you must beare with him for he was inforced to inlarge his conscience and to be nothing scrupulous because otherwise he could hardly haue made any one to agree with himselfe or any other for they which come neerest differ in a yeare since Illyricus Chytraeus and Luther put that title which was giuen by Phocas The Protestants disagreement about Antichrists comming to Pope Boniface the third in the yeare 606. and not 607. as M. Downā doth who leauing his Rabbines is contēt to ioine with Bellarm. in this accompt But there is a greater difference betwixt Luther Bibliander on the one syde the Centuriators and Chytraeus on the other syde about S. Gregory whether he did belong to Christ or to Antichrist which M. Downam wisely passed ouer in silence with being content to go about And yet he must fetch a fargreater compasse to comprehend Bullenger who putteth Antichrists comming more then a 100. yeeares later then any of these so that by that word about we must vnderstand a 100. yeares sooner or later And yet the word after hath a larger scope since Musculus will haue Antichrists comming to haue byn about the yeare 1200. But M. Downam stoutly denieth that Bullenger putteth Antichrists comming the yeare 763. yet mentioneth not the place which Bellarmine citeth which is as plaine as plaine may be but thinketh it sufficient to alledge another place out of Bullenger where yet he nameth not once Antichrist but explicateth how in his opinion the Popes dominion increased was confirmed which only sheweth that Bullenger either did not thinke that Antichrists appearing the Popes dominion was all one or els that he is contrary to himselfe of which two I will giue M. Downam good leaue to choose which he listeth He would also faine excuse Musculus but that the matter is too plaine since he would found his opinion vpon S. Bernard who plainly affirmeth that he expected Antichrists appearing or reuealing and consequētly thought that he was not reuealed at that tyme so that Musculus following S. Bernard must needes thinke so too howsoeuer of his owne head he addeth that Antichrist was come which as it is foolish in
cauill for the Church of Rome if we vnderstand that particuler diocesse is still accompted but a part of the Catholike Church and in this sense a man may still be a good Christian although he be not of the Church of Rome And in ancient tymes the Church of Rome alone that is the Church of which the Bishop of Rome is the chiefe Pastor was accompted the Catholike Church And consequently that he that was not a member of that Church was not taken for a Catholike or true Christian as appeareth sufficiently by the places which Bellarmine citeth to which I will only adde one more out of S. Hierome in his Epistle to Pope Damasus I am vnited in Communion saith he to thy Blessednes that is to the Chayre of Peter I know that the Church was built vpon that rock whosoeuer eateth the Lambe out of this house is prophane if any man be not in the Arke of Noe he will perish in the deluge I know not Vitalis I refuse Those which belong not to the Church of Rome belong not to Christ but to Antichrist Meletius I esteeme not Paulinus whosoeuer gathereth not what thee scattereth that is whosoeuer belongeth not to Christ belongeth to Antichrist Now let M. Downam compare the writing of any Catholike at this tyme and see if they attribute more to the Pope or Church of Rome at this tyme then S. Hierome did at that and with all consider if in S. Hieromes iudgement it be not a playne marke of an Antichristian to be against the Roman Church and of a good Christian to be vnited to it 8. To the third obiection M. Downam answereth that the Oath which Bellarmine alleadgeth is not an Oath of obedience and allegiance to the Pope but of faith and Religion towards God conformable to the faith and Religion then professed by the Bishop and The oath of obedience made to the B. of Rome before the yeare 606. Church of Rome But by M. Downams leaue the wordes of the Bishop are these Sub meiordinis casu spondeo atque promitto tibi perte Sancto Petro Apostolorum principi atque eius Vicario Beatissimo Gregorio vel successoribus ipsius me numquā c. ad schismata reuersurū sed semper me in vnitate Sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum Vnder perill of loosing my place I profer promise to thee and by thee to S. Peter Prince of the Apostles and to most blessed Gregory his Vicar or to the successors of him that I will neuer returne to schisme but will alwayes in all pointes remayne in the vnity of the holy Catholike Church and in the communion of the B. of Rome By which we see that the promise to remayme in the communion of the Pope was as absolute as that other to remayne in the vnity of the Catholike Church which I suppose M. Downam will admit to be perpetuall without limitation of any tyme. And this promise he presently cōfirmeth with an Oath by Almighty God by the 4. Ghospells which he held in his hands and by the health of Nations and of the rulers of his Common wealth Now it is a friuolous cauill to say that this Oath was taken vpon the occasion of his lapse for this Bellarmine denieth not but only affirmeth that it was taken before the comming of Antichrist according to the Protestāts accompt Neither is it to the purpose that now such Oathes are more generall and common for this Bellarmine denieth not and who seeth not that the exaction of Oaths may proceed vpon diuers occasions And if the Oath be lawfull the often exacting of it is not culpable but rather If the Oath be lawfull the often exacting of it is not culpable commendable arguing greater vigilancy in them which gouerne And the like may be said of some other clauses more expresly set downe in some other formes of oathes according to the necessity of tymes and the qualities of them who are to sweare M. Downam should shew vs that there is any oath exacted of any now that is not fit to be performed by them which thinke it necessary to liue in the communion of the Pope as this Bishop did as appeareth by his Oath wherein he promiseth as much in generall as any other can expresse in particuler for he protesteth that he will neuer be drawne from this cōmunion by any perswasions or any other meanes and consequently that he will alway remaine in the obedience of the Pope for he renounceth not any heresy as M. Downam supposeth but only schisme which he performed by returning ad vnitatem Sedis Apostolicae to the vnity of the Apostolike Sea which I hartily wish that M. Downam and his fellow Protestants may also doe for otherwise it would not be sufficient to renounce their heresies though this were a good step to that To the fourth after a fit of rayling M. Downam answereth Priestly vnction vsed before the yeare 606. Desacra vnctione c. Cum venisset at length that both the places of S. Gregory Nazianzen are to be vnderstood figuratiuely of consecration to the Ministry this he endeauoureth to proue by the testimony of Innoc. 3. by which it appeareth that this cerimony of annoynting was not vsed in the Greek Church whereof Naziāzen was but reiected as Iewish vntill he imposed the same vpon them about the yeare 1200. But M. Downam goeth beyond Innocentius for he only affirmeth that they to whom he wrote that is at the most the Grecians of his tyme were not wont to vse this cerimony of annoynting but that the Greeke Church had not vsed it before Innocentius affirmeth not and much lesse that they had reiected it as Iewish Wherefore these are M. Downams additions which we may bouldly reiect since he hath no proofe for them and consequently his figuratiue interpretation falleth to the ground and we are to take the words of S. Gregory Nazianzen as they sound especially since others as ancient as he both of the Greeke and Latin Church make expresse mention of this Cerimony as M. Downam may see in Bellarmine lib. 1. de Sacramento Ordinis cap. 12. where he also handleth this obiection out of Innocentius 3. and vrgeth it further then M. Downam Bellarmin vrgeth Downams obiection further then he doth himselfe doth whome I must intreat not to be angry though I passe ouer his rayling in silence since he saith nothing to the purpose which is not already answered for now all our question is how ancient this Cerimony is and for the lawfulnesse therof I remit him to the place of Bellarmine already alleaged where he solueth that obiection taken from the Iewes and whatsoeuer els M. Downam can inuent 10. To the fifth obiection M. Downams answere is that S. Augustine is to be vnderstood of Sacrifice of prayer and not of any propitiatory Sacrifice but by M. Downams leaue he cannot carry it so for we will appeale to S.
Church but only their owne fancies because so it seemed necessary for their reputation and credit or some other human and priuate respect how much soeuer they pretend to be only moued by Scripture for of this they admit no more The Protestants haue no probable rule of faith nor any true faith at al. then they please and for the interpretation they haue no other rule then their owne pruate spirit or fancy which is far of from being any probable rule of truth much lesse so certaine as is necessary for the certainty of diuine and supernatural faith to be built vpon And this is the true reason why the Church of God is but one because there is but one rule of fayth from which whosoeuer falleth cannot haue any true faith at all nor belong to the true Church of God The other comparison which M. Downam vseth is much les to the purpose for it is not the Church but the Bishop of Sardis as he himselfe saith that it is agreed by In his Sermō at Lābeth pag. 2. Apoc. ◠1. Interpreters both new and old who had a name that he liued but indeed was dead neither was this death for want of faith but of charity and good workes as is manifest and though it were otherwise yet M. Downam could proue nothing by this comparison except we would belieue his bare word that the Church of Rome were in this case which is our chiefe question and M. Downams wonted figure to take it as granted Wherfore since he can argue no better let vs see how he can answere 7. To Bellarmines first reply vpon Caluins deuise that the Roman Church is not the true Church but that there VIII remaine in it only the ruines and reliques of a true Church M. Downam granteth that all visible Churches may faile and fall away but not the inuisible Church of Christ which he calleth the Catholike Church nor any one sound Christian that is of this inuisible Church In which answere he graunteth Bellarmine as much as he went about to proue that the gates of hell in his opinion haue preuailed against Christs visible Church so that in a whole thousand yeares Christ had not so much as one constant professor of his truth and though I might easily proue that Christ spake of his visible Church and that it The visible Church is to endure to the end of the world was to endure vntill the worlds end yet now I will not trouble my Reader with so needles a digression since the matter is so plaine and euident in it selfe that me thinks any man which maketh accompt of Christ his passion and glory or of his desire to saue soules and to prouide for their conuersion and faith should stop his eares not to heare so great a blasphemy vttered as M. Downam is not ashamed to affirme yet if any man haue any doubt or desire to be more fully satisfied in this point let him read Bellarmine him selfe lib. 3. de Ecclesia militant cap. 12. 13. To Bellarmines second reply M. Downam answereth that it proueth nothing except he suppose that the Church of Rome is the only true Church But he should haue answered it in forme admitted only that which Caluin auoucheth that the Papists hold the ruines of the Church and the foundations yea the buildings themselues halfe throwne downe for out of this only Bellarmine argueth and sheweth that the Protestants can neither haue the whole intire church since in their opinion it is fallen nor the part which remaineth of it since they grant The Protestants cannot haue the Church of Christ but only some new building of their own it to be amōg the Papists to which delēma M. Downā answereth not a word but only braggeth that the Church of Rome may fall yet the Catholicke Church of God may stand yea shall stand c. But he forgetteth himselfe marketh not what his Maister Caluin hath graunted that not only the Church of Rome but euen the very Church of Christ is fallen and that the Papists haue as much as is left of it cōsequētly the Protestāts can only haue some new hereticall building of their owne though M. Downam be neuer so loth to acknowledge it Neither will the example of the Church of Iuda vnder Iosias serue his turne for that was only a reformation of manners and a destruction of Idolatry without any departing from the ancient Church of God in which remained the true succession of Priests and Gods true religion after a visible manner no otherwise then if it should please his Maiesty to put downe heresie and aduance Catholike Religion in his Kingdome which were only to imbrace the true Church of Christ and not to erect any new building as the Protestants haue done as Bellarmine conuinceth 8. M. Downam hauing thus impugned Bellarmines arguments commeth to refute his solutions to their obiections and wheras Bellarmine gaue three solutions to the first See part 2. cap. 2. M. Downam passeth two of them ouer in silence telling vs that he hath taken thē away in another place which how true it is the Reader shall be iudge when we come to that encounter Now let vs see how he refuteth the second solution which Bellarmine giueth that the harlot of which S. Iohn speaketh is Rome Ethnick raigning worshiping Idols and persecuting Christians and not Rome Christian the Apoc. 17. contrary of which M. Downam neuer goeth about to proue with any new argument as he should haue done it being his turne now to argue but only contenteth himselfe to answere Bellarmines proofe which he doth also by halfes for Bellarmine proueth his exposition euidently by the authority of Tertullian S. Hierome and sheweth the impudency of heretikes that are not ashmed to alleadg those authours altogeather against their meaning to proue that S. Iohn speaketh of Rome Christian To all which M. Downam giueth him not a word but is very well content to be thus beaten so that it may not be spoken of but to the other proofe he thinketh himselfe able to say something therfore answereth two wayes 1. that though Popish Rome had not dominion ouer the Kings of the earth and were not drunke with the blould of the Saints and martyrs of Iesus yet we might vnderstand the Apostle thus that that Citty which then had dominion ouer the Kings of the earth and then persecuted the Saints is called Babylon because it was to be the seate or sea of Antichrist So that as you see M. Downam will haue Rome to be called Babylon because it was to be the seate or sea of Antichrist which he supposeth as manifest though Bellarmine in this third solution and before also in one of his arguments both which M. Downam passeth ouer in silence sheweth manifestly that Antichrist shall hate this Babylon and not make it the seat of his kingdome So that this first solution is nothing but M. Downams wonted
tyme and were so addicted to this world that they would by no meanes vnderstand that their Messias was to come in that humility in which our Sauiour came which notwithstanding was plainly foretould in the Scriptures which we haue no reason to thinke but that Ecclesiasticus and those of his tyme did vnderstand aright and consequently knew well inough that Elias was not to come at our Sauiours first comming but at his second since it is manifest in this place that they expected his comming litterally and in person Now as for the authority of Iansenius who M. Downam prayseth as he did before Arias Montanus because he Iansenius maketh for him to be one of the best writers among the Papists there had byn no great cause of his commending him if M. Downam had bene disposed to haue dealt sincerely since Bellarmine shewed how he changed his opinion in Matth. 17. where he writeth that the Prophet Malachie cannot be vnderstood but of the true Elias and consequently must needes Downam dealeth not sincerely taking the obiection omitting the answere thinke that Ecclesiasticus was not deceaued in vnderstanding him so But this is another of M. Downams tricks to steale an obiection from Bellarmine and omit his answere where we might meruayle at his impudent folly but that it is no new nor strange thing in him as it was in Iansenius or any Catholike Writer to attribute an errour to Canonicall Scripture which was the cause of Bellarmines meruayling at Iansenius and of his changing so absurd an opinion or rather errour in his later writings in which he doth not only auouch and prooue this truth but also affirmeth that it is the doctrine of the Catholike Church which none but an Heretike will deny Concerning the other place which speaketh of Henoch M. Downam triumpheth saying that it is Ecclesiast 44. a wonder that Bellarmine would alleage it for this purpose But that hauing nothing to say to the purpose he is desirous to say something to bleare the eyes of the simple The originall text hath Henoch pleased the Lord God and was translated for an example of repentance to the generations that is that the generations present and to come might be moued by his example to turne vnto the Lord and to walke before him knowing by his example that there is a reward layd vp for those that turne vnto the Lord and walke before him as Henoch did But will Bellarmine hence conclude that therfore Henoch is to come agayne in the flesh to oppose himselfe to Antichrist Hitherto M. Downam And this is all he hath to say Where first we see that he cannot deny but that the latin text which Bellarmine cited made much for this purpose and there is no reason but that we should attribute as much at least to the latin interpretation as to M. Downams interpretation since it cannot be denyed but that there is The latin interpreter not to be reiected lesse suspition of partiality in him being so ancient who made no doubt of the sense and therfore translated it in that sorte as it were to exclude M. Downams deuise and since the latin Church hath all this tyme receaued this translation for Scripture we must not deny it now because it is contrary to some Protestant opinions especially since we see far greater difference in other partes of Scripture betwixt the originall text some interpretations allowed by the Church neither of which the Fathers durst reiect but rather imbraced and expounded them both as the word of God and indeed who knoweth not that the chiefest certainty that we haue of either dependeth vpon the approbation and authority of the Church which cannot erre in matters of this moment And I belieue M. Downam will hardly giue vs any other sufficient reason why he belieueth these bookes to be Scripture rather then others or this interpretation to be good and others bad But besides the authority of the latin text we thinke the Greeke to be for vs also at leastwise no man can deny but that our exposition is conformable to the Fathers doctrine who affirme our assertion of Henochs comming and consequently we are sure that we may safely expound it so without danger of errour and that M. Downam hath no reason to deny our sense so peremptorily M. Downams opinion of Henochs trāslation maketh as much for any other vertue as for repentance cōtrary to the Scripture though he thinke his owne better which we meruayle not at But further we cannot well see why Henochs translation should rather serue for an example of Repentance then of Hope Religion Iustice Innocency Faith Charity or any other vertue if we admitt M. Downams exposition and yet he is said particulerly to be an example of pennance which commeth very fitly for the latin interpreter and our explication and agreeth passing well with that which S. Iohn writeth Apoc. 11. that these two diuine witnesses shall preach amicti saceis in sack-cloth which wil be a good example of pennance indeed 5. About the third place Matth. 17. 11. his first answere is that by the Euangelist Marke who speaketh in the present tense Elias I. VIII indeed comming first restoreth all thinges the meaning of our Sauiour Christ appeareth to haue byn this Elias quidem venturus fuit primum restituturus omnia Elias indeed was to come first and was to restore Matth. 17. Mar. 9. M. Downam egregiously corrupteth S. Marke S. Matthews Text. all thinges And you must note that he putteth S. Markes wordes as he citeth them as also his owne interpretation in latin in a distinct character to bleare the eyes of the simple and make them belieue that they are both very Scripture And surely howsoeuer he may excuse the later the first is somewhat hard since that S. Markes words are Elias cùm venerit primò restituet omnia which the Protestant English Bible translateth Elias verily when he commeth first restoreth all thinges where we see a when which sufficiently sheweth that Elias was not yet come and besides both venerit restituet are the future and not the present tense and in the wordes following S. Marke hath an which cleareth this matter greatly Sed dico vobis quia Elias venit But I say vnto you that Elias is also come which sheweth plainely that in the former clause our Sauiour spake of a future comming as if he had said Elias shall come in person and also is come in spirit in S. Iohn Baptist which only was required at the first comming of our Sauiour But nothing will serue head-strong Heretikes therfore M. Downam corrupteth S. Matth. Matth. 11. 11. also making him say Iohn Baptist is that Elias who was to come putting it downe in a distinct letter as before whereas the wordes are Ipse est Elias qui venturus est where he could see the first est and translate it truly but not the second because it was against
little vpoÌ„ the ChristiaÌ„ Princes in whose dominioÌ„s at this daie there is The difference betwixt the Catholike the ProtestaÌ„t Princes diuersity of Religions he shall find that all the Catholike Princes tolerate in some sort their Hereticall subiects as the Emperour the King of France the King of Poland now the Arch-duke in Flanders whereas heere in England the Catholikes canfind no such fauour who that they suffer for Religion and not for treason none but impudent Ministers and their mates can deny Neither is this craft of ProtestaÌ„ts any great glory for theÌ„ who by reasoÌ„ of the distrust which they haue in their owne cause vse to put Catholiks to death vnder the name of Treason Catholikes are put to death for Religion by Protestants though they can prooue nothing against them but the exercise of their Religion For in this they imitate the Iewes who dealt so with our Sauiour and some other Tyrants but chiefly Iulian the Apostata which were alway accompted the greatest and worst persecutors Whereas Catholikes haue alway punished heretikes directely for their heresie esteeming it as it deserued a far greater crime then treason as being coÌ„mitted against the King of HeaueÌ„ whoÌ„ all earthly Princes are bouÌ„d to respect more then theÌ„selues so wee see in Queene Maries tyme Bishop Craâ—mer had his Treasons pardoned but not his heresies for which hee was burned And so it appeareth by the proceeding of our aduersaries that wee are free froÌ„ heresie how false their imputations of treasons are is proued by many and lastely by W. R. in his CoÌ„futatioÌ„ of O. E. aliâs Sutcliffes vaunting challeng in the last chapter to which I remit my reader And this shall suffice for the greatnes of the persecution vnder Antichrist 6. Touching the manifestnes of it M. Downam is not of Bellarmines mynd yea he thinketh his doctrine contrary to our Sauiours who hath said that the good and bad shall grow togeather like wheat and tares vntill the day of the great haruest But M. Downam Antichrists persecutioÌ„ most manifest Matth. 13. may vnderstand that Bellarmine houldeth with S. Augustine quaest 11. super Matth. that this is to be vnderstood of the whole world in which Bellarmine denieth not but there wil be store of tares in this tyme of Antichrist and besides our Sauiour only willeth his seruants not to roote out all the tares when there is danger that the corne may also he destroyed by that meanes But now we speak of his enemies who partly by persecuting partly for feare of persecution will separate themselues of their owne accord from among Gods wheate to wit his elect and yet are to bee separated also in the day of Iudgment against their wills which is all that the place alleadged doth proue To the authority of S. Augustine alleadged by Bellarmine he giueth two answeres First if he had said so we might haue Downam reiecteth S. Augustine esteemed his speach to haue bene but a human coniecture rather then a prophesy diuine so that it is no matter what S. Augustine or any other can say For if it please not M. Downams vaine fancy it shall be accompted but an humane coniecture though he gather it out of Scripture as S. Augustine doth this But secondly saith M. Downam Bellarmine without all shame falfifieth his wordes who speaketh of the Diuell alone and not of all the wicked saying Now it is said that he shall goe forth viz. into open persecution he shall breake forth of the couerts of hatred for which we must note that S. Augustine interpreteth the depth into which the Diuell was put to be their hartes which hate the Christians in quorum saith he quotidie velut in abysso Bellarmin vniustly charged by M Downam cacis prosundis cordibus includitur cap. 8. In whose blind and profound hartes he is daily inclosed as in a depth Which exposition he mentioneth againe cap. 11. which Bellarmine cited where he expoundeth how he is said to come forth out of this depth to wit out of the couerts of hatred within which he was inclosed into open persecution because he shall seduce those whose harts he possessed to make warre against Christians which before he hated but was not permitted to hurt all which that he meaneth of all the wicked the wordes following immediately declare Haec enim erit nouissima persecutio noâ—issimo imminente iudicio cùm saÌ„cta Ecclesia toto terrarum orbe patietur vniuersa scilicet ciuitas Christi ab vniuersa Diaboli ciuitate quantacumque erit vtraque super terram For this shal be the last persecution the last iudgment being at hand which the holy Church shall suffer ouer all the world to wit the whole citty of Christ by the whole citty of the Diuell how great soeuer either of them shall be vpon the earth Can any thing be more plaine then this And after againe he saith that the holy Church shal be enuironed ab omnibus inimicâ—â— suis by all her enemies yea he repeateth the very like wordes to those which he had spoken in the singular number againe in the plurall speaking of the Nations quae sunt in quatuor angulis terrae in the foure corners or quarters of the earth in apertum odium de operto erupturae sunt they shal breake forth into open hatred of their hidden malice Wherfore let any man iudge whether Bellarmine changed S. Augustines sense though for brenity and perspicuities sake he cited his wordes in the plurall number as they were to be vnderstood are repeated also by S. Augustine himselfe All the Churches enemies shal ioyne to impugne her in Antichrists tyme. 7. Now that al that hate Christians or the Church haue not hitherto ioyned against them is so manifest that M. Downam cannot deny and therfore granting it he only turneth to aske whether they shall do so when Antichrist commeth or no To whome we returne answere that they shall as hath bene sufficiently proued and therfore it is manifest that Antichrist is not yet come To the second part of Bellarmines proofe he answereth that the vncertainty of the beginning of Antichrists persecution if it were true doth not disproue the greatnes but argueth the length As though now we treated of the greatnes and not of the manifestnes of this persecution Downam forgetteth what he impugneth which surely is plainly disproued if it were so secret that no man can tell when it began Secondly he saith the persecutions vnder Nero the rest were wel knowne when they began and when they ended because there was some intermission of them but these now haue no end nor yet intermission except it be when they haue none to persecute And is not this a wise answere thinke you to tell vs that the beginning of a persecution cannot be shewed because it hath no intermission nor end Except he would haue vs to vnderstand him that he meaneth that it hath had no beginning