soules of which sort is that which Eusebius writeth of the apparition of S. Potamiena lib. 6. hist Eccles cap. 5. and that which S. Augustine relateth of the apparition of S. Felix Nolanus lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 16. But for the confirmation of other doctrines I know not what Catholike euer alleaged the visions of soules but this is not your first lye That which thou bringest in the last place of the forbidding of meates and marriages is euidently inough confuted by S. Aug. lib. 30. cont Faust cap. 6. where he saith thus If you were exhorted to Virginity in such sort as the Apostles doctrine exhorteth He that giueth to marriage doth well and he that giueth not to marriage doth well so that you did say Marriage is good but Virginity better as the Church doth which truly is the Church of Christ the holy Ghost would not foretell you thus saying forbidding to marry for he forbiddeth who saith that this is euill not he who preferreth another thing better before this which is good And after You see therefore that there is a great difference betwixt those which exhort to virginity preferring a greater good before a lesse and those which forbidde to marry vehemently accusing the act of propagation which only properly belongeth to marriage And that there is a great difference betwixt those who absteyne from meates for the sacred signification or for the chastising of the flesh and those which absteyne from meates which God hath created saying that God hath not created them VVherefore that is the Prophets and Apostles doctrine this is the doctrine of lying Diuells Thus S. Augustine for himselfe and vs. Neither is it necessary to adde any thing Illyricus concludeth VVherefore it is manifest out of these signes that the Pope is that very true Antichrist himselfe of whome the Scriptures haue prophesied But perhaps he might haue concluded more fitly in this manner Wherefore it is manifest by these lyes that Illyricus is one of his forerunners whome holy Daniel long before foretould that he should haue an impudent face THE XXII CHAPTER The foolâ—ries of Tilemanus are refuted TILEMANVS Heshusius in the Booke which he intituled de sexcentis erroribus Pontificiorum whereas he should haue intituled it de sexcentis mendacijs Luther anorum made a peculiar title of Antichrist that is titul 33. and it comprehendeth foure errors Thus then he saith Tilemanus First the Papists say that Antichrist shall come out of Babylon of the Tribe of Dan. Compendium Theologia lib. 7. cap. 8. Bellarmine We thanke Tilemanus who teacheth that so ancient and so holy Fathers are Papists for if they be Papists who say that Antichrist shall come of the Tribe of Dan surely S. Irgnaeus S. Hippolrtur S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Prosper Theodorctus S. Gregory Beda Arethas Rupertus Anselmus and Richardus are Papists For all these as we shewed before cap. 12. with common consent do teach that Antichrist shal be borne of the Tribe of Dan. But go on Tilemanus Secondly the Papists deny that the Bishop of Rome with his Company is the true Antichrist whereas it is proued and demonstrated with most forcible and most plaine testimonies of Gods word Bellarmine But we haue not yet seene these testimonies neither are they in any place of our Hebrew Greeke or Latin Bibles for the testimonies which are alleadged by your brethren do not so much as name the Bishop of Rome Tilemanus Thirdly they teach that Antichrist shall raigne only 3. yeares and a halfe Compend Theologiae Bellarmine Heere we giue thee immortall thankes that thou confessest that not only all the ancient Fathers but also the Prophet Daniel and S. Iohn Euangelist are Papists and surely I haue compassion of thee and thine to whome thou only reseruest the dregges of writers hauing giuen all the learned approued Fathers to the Papists See if thou wilt what we taught before cap. 8. and thou shalt find that S. Irenaus S. Hippolytus S. Cyril S. Hierome S. Aug. Theodoretus Primasius drethas Bedâ— Anselmus Richardus Rupertus and also Daniel and S. Iohn did expresly teach that which thou affirmest the Papists to teach Tilemanus Fourthly they teach that Antichrist shal be slaine in the Mount Oliuet Compend Theol. lib. 7. cap. 4. Bellarmine But heere also thou makest great men Papists for that Antichrist was to be slaine in the Mount of Oliuet S. Hierome in comment cap. 11. Dan. gathereth out of Daniel himselfe and Isayas Theodoretus also writing vpon the same place although he nameth not the mount Oliuet yet he affirmeth that Antichrist is to be killed not far from Hierusalem But let vs see now with what arguments thou confutest the foresaid errours for thou addest a preseruatiue immediatly in these words Tilemanus The Papists trifles of Antichrist because they are grounded vpon no testimony of the holy Scripture are to be reiected and detested for as S. Hierome rightly speaketh that which hath no authority in the Scripture is contemned with the same facility with which it is affirmed And Paul admonisheth that we should take heed of the traditions of men Coloss 2. And this I say least any man deceaue you with false reasons c. Likewise see that no man prey vpon you by Philosophy we must seeke out of the word of God what is to be thought of Antichrist as 1. Ioan. 2. VVho is a lyer but he that denieth Iesus to be Christ This is Antichrist Likewise 2. Thess 2. the man of sinne and the sonne of perdition extolleth himselfe aboue euery God c. Likewise Matth. 24. There shall arise false Christs and false Prophets and they shall giue signes c. Likewise Dan. 11. and he shall make the munition of the God Maozim c Likewise Apoc. 17. And I saw a woman drinken with the bould of Saints and with the bloud of the Martyrs of Iesus Out of these testimonyes of the sacred Scripture it appeareth manifestly what the Christian saith is of Antichrist whome Christ and the Apostles foretould was to come And since it is cleerer then noone-day that euery one do most exactly agree to the Bishop of Rome it ought not to be doubted but that that most naughty Roman Tyrant is Antichrist Thus he Bellarmine It will not be offen fiue I trust if we reduce these thy arguments to the forme of syllogismes for the more ignorant sort and conclude thence most euidently the confutation of the aboue written errours Wherfore the first errour is refuted thus The Papists trifles because they are grounded vpon no Testimony of Scripture are to be reiected and detested But the word of God proclaimeth who denieth Iesus to be Christ this is Antichrist 1. Io. 2. Wherfore it is an errour to say that Antichrist shall come of the Tribe of Dan. The second errour is thus confuted as Hierome rightly saith that which hath not authority in the Scripture is contemned with the same facility with which it is affirmed but Paul
yet Downamâ— vayne bragging it maketh nothing against vs. And heere M. Downam braggeth of the goodnes of his argumeÌ„t yet straight way after he calleth it oÌ„ly an aÌ„swere But the poore maÌ„ is deceaued in thinking that when one saith transeat because the argument is impertinent that he doth it because the argument is very good wheras indeed it is only because it is nothing worth as M. Downam might easily haue seene in this of his by the 4. precedent answeres And there can no argument be more fully answered then by shewing that it may be answered many wayes and in all opinions And lastly that though it were admitted yet the cheife question remayneth as doubtfull as before But M. Downam saith that none of their side make this argument Antichrist is not one man Therefore the Pope is Antichrist which because he saith it we will beleeue him but then I must aske him whether any of them make this argument or noe The head of the generall Apostasie which endureth many yeares is Antichrist but the Pope is the head of this Apostasie Ergo the Pope is Antichrist for this M. Downam himselfe setteth downe in the end of his discourse and this is the argument which Bellarmine answereth by letting passe the proposition with a transeat though it be false denying the AssumptioÌ„ 20. And so at last M. Downam is content to proue it which he doth very worshipfully by an argument that is called petitio principij alleadging certaine points in controuersy Downams petitio principij and supposing that we teach false in them all as about Marriages Fastings though he know well inough that we allow the Sacrâ—ment of matrimony forbid none to marry but such as of their owne accord haue bound themselues to the essate of continency nor commaund any Fastinges for that we thinke any creature of God vncleane or defiled nor adore Images as Idols or Gods nor refuse any part of Scripture or admit any thing against Scripture as he falsely affirmeth but onlie deny Hereticall interpretations and admit certaine and vndoubted Traditions and Definitions which agree with Scripture and are both commended and many tymes insinuated in Scripture though not so plainely explicated as other pointes of doctrine which are held aswell by Tradition as by manyfest Scripture expounded by the vniforme consent of holy Fathers But it is strange how M. Downam slippeth ouer that which Bellarmine vrgeth Downam dissembleth the difficultie against him which is that they haue plainely apostated from our Church euen by their owne confession and that they cannot shew that euer weapostated from any Church at al and consequently that there is farre more likelyhood that they belong to the generall Apostasie of which Antichrist is head since it is plaine that in some sort they are Apostataes then we who in no sort can be proued to haue apostated at all 21. Hitherto you haue seene how M. Downam hath replyed against Bellarmine Now you shall here one obiection of his owne in these wordes To the 3. former arguments a fourth may be added the 7. heads of that beast which signifieth the Roman estate Apoc. 17. are not so many persons but so many heades or States of gouerment wherby the commonwealth of the Romans hath ben at diuers tymes gouerned the sixt head was the state of Emperors the 7. Antichrist as the Papists confesse for which he citeth Rhem. in Apoc. 17. and Bellarmine the eight which also is one of the 7. the state of the Emperours renewed Wherby it euidently appeareth not only that Antichrist is not one man but also that the Pope who is the 7. head is Antichrist To which I answere that all or the most part of this exposition is false and especiallie that which appertayneth to the present purpose For first he bringeth neither author nor reason to proue that those 7. heades did signifie 7. states of gouernement in Rome and others as good authors as M. DownaÌ„ doe expound it farre otherwise Secondly though we admit this exposition as probable and that the head is Antichrist yet it followeth not that he shal be any more then one man for he may haue a different gouernement which is to endure but only in his owne tyme especially since in the same place he is said to staie a short tyme and els where it is plainly explicated that it shal be only three yeares and a halfe and so it appeareth not soe euidentlie as M. Downam weeneth that Antichrist or the 7. head shall not be one man euen in his owne exposition and much less that the Pope is Antichrist For neither is he the 7. head since the 6. still remayneth neither hath he endured a short tyme as the 7 head shall And as for the 8. which M. Downam would make an head also for Downam addeth an head of his owne to the 7. of the beast which he must be faine to lend him his owne head for otherwise there wil be only 7. found in the Scripture it is manifest that M. Downams interpretation is most foolish for that he maketh the beast with 7. heades to haue 8. and himselfe to be one of them and so to be also only one head he being indeed no head at all but a beast which hath 7. heads and is said to be the 8. in number not of heads but of distinct rulers or gouernours for that he is distinct from all the other 7. which are called his heads and yet is of them as he whose instruments they haue bene and whome he hath moued incited to all manner of euill which plainely discouereth M. Downams follie in applying it to the Emperours which now are And so all his obiection is shewed to be friuolous of which I shall haue occasion to speake heerafter whither I remit the Reader for further proofes THE THIRD CHAPTER Wherein it is shewed that Antichrist is not yet come ABOVT the third saith Bellarmine concerning the tyme of Antichrists coÌ„ming there haue bene many false suspicions many errors aswell of Catholikes as of Heretikes but with this difference that the Catholikes knowing that Antichrist shall not come but in the end of the world which is the truth they erred notwithstanding in that they thought that the end of the world had ben neerer then indeed it was But the Heretikes do erre in that they think that Antichrist shall come long before the end of the world and that in verie deed he is alreadie come Let vs therefore speake of both errors First all auncient Writers considering the malice of their tymes suspected that the tymes of Antichrist were at hand So the Thessalonians in the Apostles tyme did thinke that the daie of our Lord drew neere whome the Apostle doth correct 2. Thess 2. In like manner S. Cyprian lib. 3. ep 1. Antichrist saith he drawing neere prepareth soldiars for the battaile And lib. 4. ep 6. You must know saith he and belieue and hould for
for their Messias but he doth well not The Herodians to stand vpon this for the solution is euident for these Herodians were a few flattering Courtiers now we speake of the whole Nation of the Iewes and chiefly of those great Rabbynes who professe so great knowledge in Scripture which teacheth most euidently that the Messias is to be of the Iewish nation and the Tribe of Iuda though for this second they cannot now much striue because their Genealogies are so confounded and so it will be no hard matter for Antichrist to be taken for one of the Tribe of Iuda though indeed he be of the Tribe of Dan. To the authority of the Fathers he answereth according Downam reiecteth the Fathers to his custome that they are not to be belieued in this point which hath no ground in the word of God and still he insisteth vpon Bellarmines reiecting the twelue Fathers which affirmed that Antichrist should be of the Tribe of Dan for the same reasons But he abuseth both Bellarmine and the Fathers as the Reader may easily see Bellarmine for he reiecteth not the Fathers authority but imbraceth it as very probable which was as much as the most of them affirmed The Fathers because he reiecteth them all in a thing wherin they agree as certaine which they would neuer do without some certaine ground either of Apostolicall tradition or Scripture and reason which Bellarmine hath sufficiently explicated in his former assertion Finally M. Downam briefly passeth ouer the opposition which Bellarmine sheweth that the Iewes haue against the Pope because he was ashamed to see what Iewes the Protestants are in this behalfe but yet he is content to take hold of their application of the Prophesies of Daniel against the Pope because they are no parties and therfore their authority The Iews opposite to the Pope may be some inducement to thinke indeed that the Pope is Antichrist where I could wish the Reader to marke attentiuely the great connexion betwixt Iewes and Protestants in this point of impugning the Pope though vpon different grounds For if you examine a Iew why he is so eager against the Pope he will tell you that it is because he hateth Christ himselfe and for his sake all Christians but chiefly the Pope who is the chiefe of them Againe if you How the Iewes and the Protestāts agree and differ in impugning the Pope pose M. Downam with the same question why he cannot abide the Pope He will tell you another tale that it is because he loueth Christ and all true Christians to whome he thinketh the Pope and his adherents to be most opposite And is it not strange that these men should ioyne in the expositions of Scripture Yea that M. Downam should take the Iew to be no party against the Pope but an indifferent man and therfore thinketh his exposition fit to be some inducement to make men belieue his doctrine Is it not too plaine that M. Downam is in the high way to deny Christ howsoeuer he protesteth the contrary since he hateth the Pope whome the Iewes only detest out of their malice to Christ himselfe True it is that the consequence is not so necessary from the hatred of the Pope to the hatred of Christ as contrariwise but yet he that is come so farre as to hate Christs most principal seruant in the highest degree and with vnplacable hatred may easily be carried a step further except God giue him grace to turne back in time which I most hartily wish for M. Downam himselfe and all others that are in that most miserable and dangerous estate THE THIRTENTH CHAPTER Of Antichrists Seate TOVCHING the sixt saith Bellarmine our Aduersaries bouldly affirme that the chiefe Seat of Antichrist is Rome or the Apostolike Chaire founded there for they say that Antichrist shall inuade the Sea of Peter and raise it vp to a certaine soueraigne height from the which it shall rule and tyranniclly gouerne the whole Church And that Rome is the Kingly Citty of Antichrist they proue out of Apoc. 17. where S. Iohn speaking of the Seate of Antichrist saith that it is the great Citty which is scituated vpon seauen hills and which hath the Kingdome ouer the Kings of the earth And that at Romè not in the pallace of Nero but in the very Church of Christ Antichrist shall haue his Seate they proue out of S. Paul who 2. Thess 2. saith that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God for since he saith absolutly in the Temple of God he meaneth the true Temple of the true God and there is none such but the Church of God For the Temples of the Gentiles are true Temples but of the Diuels not of God And the Temple of the Iewes was indeed of God but it ceased to be a Temple when the Iewish sacrifice and Priesthood ceased for these three are so ioyned that one cannot be without the other Besides the Temple of the Iewes within a while after was to be desolated and neuer to be bult againe as Dan. cap. 9. saith and the desolation shall perseuere till the consummation and the end Wherfore the Apostle cannot speake of it And this argument is confirmed out of the Fathers S. Hierome quaest 11. ad Algasiam He shall sit saith he in the Temple of God either at Hierusalem as some thinke or in the Church as we thinke more truly and Oecumenius He saith not saith he the Temple of Ierusalem but the Churches of Christ Theodorus Bibliander addeth the testmony of S. Greg. who l. 4. ep 38. ad Ioan. Constantinopolitanū saith The king of pride is nigh and which is impious to be spoken an army of Priests is prepared for him Out of which words a double argument is drawne one thus Iohn of Constantinople is sayd to forerun Antichrist because he will be called the vniuersall Bishop therfore he shall be Antichrist who in very deed shall make himselfe the Vniuersall Bishop and shall sit in the Church as the head of all The other thus The army of Antichrist shall be Priests therfore Antichrist shall be the head of Priests By which arguments the heretikes thinke that they euidently shew that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist since he ruleth at Rome sitteh in the Temple of God and is called the vniuersall Bishop and is the Prince of Priests Notwithstanding the true opinion is that Hierusalem and not Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist and the Temple of Salomon and Throne of Dauid not the Temple of S. Peter or the Sea Apostolike which we can proue in two sorts First with an argument ad hominem Secondly out of the Scripture and Fathers First then I make this argument Antichrist shall sit in the Church of Christ and shall be accompted the Prince head of his Church and shall haue Magistracy and offices in it as Philippus Melanctonin apologia art 6. confess Augustanae Caluinus lib. 4. Iustit cap. 2. § 12. cap. 7.
were not necessary that he himselfe should bealiue at that tyme and consequently he might well inough be shine at the end of the world yet be no very old mā neither for that it is vncertaine when he was to be borne For certaine it is that he needed not to be in S. Pauls and S. Iohns tyme if they speake not of him in person but onlie of some of his members which for ought S. Paul and S. Iohn say or M. Downam can proue might be in the world before he himselfe came in person not only manie an hundreth yeare which M. Downam graunteth of 600. but also many thousands 13. Lastly M. Downam commeth to Bellarmines answere to the confirmation where first he censureth that tradition which the Fathers gather commonly out of the Scripture that Elias shall come in person before the second comming Downam censureth the Fathers of Christ for a Iewish fable and yet doth he not so much as goe about to proue with any argument that it shall not be soe but only confirmeth that S. Iohn Baptist was called Elias and giueth the reason why he was so called in which there is no controuersy And at least wise he might haue vouchsafed to haue tould vs out of his high learning what our Sauiour meant in that place which Bellarmine citeth by saying that Elias indeed shall come for this cannot be vnderstood of S. Iohn Baptist who as our Sauiour affirmeth in the same place See Chap. 6. was alreadie come wherfore till M. Downam bringeth some better proofes I take it any wise man will not only suppose as he giueth him leaue to do but also hold for certaine that Elias shall come in person though he be said to haue come Elias shall come in person in S. Iohn Baptist for that he had a spirit like vnto his consequently that it is not necessary that there shall come no other Antichrist in person at the end of the world because S. Iohn saith that he was come in his tyme in some of his members whose spirit was like his for Bellarmine disputeth not now but answereth by producing another place of Scripture like vnto that which is obiected which cannot be denied to be a good manner of answering But M. Downam bringeth forth a place of Scripture where Dauid is promised to come after he was dead and yet it is not vnderstood Ezech. 34. of King Dauid but of Christ and therfore neither is Elias to come againe But M. Downam will easily see if it pleaseth him to put this argument in forme in which he seemeth to take particuler delight that one may well answere him nego consequentiam and withall he may note how that name Dauid is somtime taken properly and sometime for a distinct person which is figured by the former which is somewhat harder then that the type should take the name of the chiefe and principall in that kind which it figureth and as it were noe good argument to say Dauid shall come therfore he is not come for there be two to whome the name of Dauid agreeth so likewise the argument which we haue bene discussing all this while concludeth not since it is only thus Antichrist is already come therefore he shall not come in the end of the world for that there be more then one Antichrist and the chiefest is not come any otherwise yet then in his members 14. Concerning Bezas second reason M. Downam addeth to the 7. of Damel also the 11. and besides the 13. and 17. Apoc. and saith that in all these places vnder the name figure of a beast is not described one singular thing or person but a whole state or succession and in the assumption insteed of 2. Thess 2. he putteth down Apoc. 13. where he saith Antichrist is described vnder the name figure of a beast then he proueth the proposition by induction out of the 7. 8 of Daniel and Apoc. 13. so that he hath made a Downam cannot defend Beza new argument of his owne for that belike he could not saue his M. Beza from absurdities if he should haue followed his Argument against Bellarmines answere and yet he putteth downe Bellarmines answere as though it had bene giuen to this new Argument which he hath coyned himselfe In Downam applieth Bellarmines answere to a wrong argument Dan. 8. which he sheweth lesse vpright dealing then Bellarmine doth with the Scriptures by saying that in the 8. Chap. of Daniel the Ram and the Goat signify but two seuerall Kinges which M. Downam thinketh to be against the Scripture for that in the 20. v. where the vision is expounded there is in Hebrew the word Kinges in the plurall number and for that afterward Daniel addeth of the Goat that the great horne which was betwixt his eyes is the first King namely Alexander and consequently the Goat whose horne this was could not be the same Alexander For the first part of which obiection M. Downam must be content that we attribute asmuch to S. Hierome both in skill in the Hebrew tongue and in Scripture as to himselfe and S. Hierome translateth the Hebrew word in the singular number Rex Medorum est atque Persarum so that either he thought that the plurall number was put for the singular as it is vsuall in Scripture or els in the Hebrew text in his tyme it was also in the singular number and the first reason hath the more probability in this place for that Darius was in effect two Kings since he had two Kingdoms which is also signified by the two hornes which the Ramme had And this is so much the more plaine for that it is manifest that he who was ouerthrowne by Alexander was no other then Darius one King as we read in 1. Machab 1. and Iustine lib. 11. and Plin. lib. 10. cap. 7. doe also testify Now for the second part M. Downam might easily see that both the Goat and the horne being called a King in the same 21. v. either doe both signify Alexander or else if the one doe signify the King and the other the Kingdome he must giue vs some reason why rather the former should be taken for the kingdome then the latter especially since we see in the same Chapter that by the two hornes of the Ram are signified his two Kingdomes and besides it is well knowne that he who did conquer and ouercome the King of the Medes and Persians was no other then Alexander who is also called Hircus caprarum after the Hebrew phrase which signifieth a yong Goat as I might proue by many examples but that I suppose M. Downam to be so cunning both in Scripture and Hebrew that he will not contradict it for that he was not past 20. yeares ould when he began his Monarchie by his admirable victories for which in the 5 verse he is said to haue gone so swiftly as though he had slowen in the ayre and not touched the