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
Emperour is spoken of in those verses in which See Florimond Reymond of Antichrist cap. 22. among other things his little God Antinâ—â—â— is described Neither is he called a Prince with many heads as M. Downam supposeth but is only sayd to haue one white or gray head as Spartianus testifieth in his life that Adrian had and that either by these verses of the Sybil or by those of Virgil â—n which he describeth Numa Pompilius by his gray head also Nosco crines incanaque menta Adrian prognosticated that he Aeneid 6. should come to be Emperour Bullenger and Castalio differ from M. Downam and the truth also for they will not haue it to be a white head but a white hat or helmet deriuing it rather from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary to the common vse of such compounds But euen by Castalio his consent he that in this 8. booke is by the Sybil called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the fifth booke is also named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which place he is expressely sayd to succeed Traian as Adrian did And in both places he is sayd to haue a name neare to the sea which in greeke is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of the Adriatike sea which was denominated of a Citty called Adria neere Venice in which this Emperour was also borne and from thence had his name Adrianus That other conceypt of M. Downam who thinketh that this name neere to Ponti is Pontifex is very farre fetched for what connexion is there betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke and Pons in latin especially since that Pontifex is no greeke word and the Sybil wrote in that language and consequently the name which she spake of must not be only among Latins Finally if we should admit this fond conceipt yet all might be applyed to this Emperour who as Platina writeth in vita Alexandri repayred one bridge at Athens and built another at Rome of his owne name and besides was consecrated Bishop of Ceres but this refuge is needlesse since we haue the former most manifest explication I haue stood longer vpon this then was necessary since that M. Downam confesseth that it is from the purpose to which now he promiseth to returne 3. And he goeth about to answere Bellarmines other proofe which is that Prophesies are obscure till they be fulfilled and cleere when they are fulfilled and his answere is that although they become more cleere after then before yet many tymes they remayne darke and obscure to very many And he exemplifieth in the Prophesies of Christ which are cleere to good Christians but not to the Iewes and confesseth that many Prophesies concerning Antichrist are plainely vnderstood of the true Professors yet they seeme darke and obscure to the followers of Antichrist Where me thinkes he granteth all that which he denyed before viz. that the name of Antichrist being once come shall be aswell knowne as that of Christ and besides he openly gainsayeth Marloratus who affirmeth that euen among M. Downams true Professors there are as many expositions as expositors of M. Downam contradicteth himselfe Marloratus this place And besides Bellarmine sheweth that euen the Iewes Turkes and Pagans graunt that the name of our Christ is Iesus which manifestly conteyneth the number 888. But all Catholikes and others are far from thinking that the Pope is to be called Romanus and Latinus except something els be added and besides these names conteyne not iustly the number 666. as Bellarmine proueth Hauing thus put off the Argument M. Downam maketh another digression taking hould of the former part of Bellarmines proposition that prophesies till they be fulfilled are for the most part darke and ambiguous and heereupon he inferreth that therefore the writinges of the Fathers who lyued before Antichrist were most vncertayne ghesses in their expositions of the Prophesies concerning him which illation we deny and rather inferre the quyte contrary that since the Prophesies are The necessity of the Fathers expositions obscure and ambiguous we had the more need to take some light and certainty from the Fathers writings who receaued their expositions from the light of Gods spirit and the certainty of the Apostles Traditions But M. Downam proueth his inferrence by Bellarmines confession euen in this Chapter and cyteth his wordes in the margent Sed necisti Patres voluerunt sententias illas suas alio loco haberi quà m suspicionum coÌ„iecturarum Neither would these Fathers haue those their opinions otherwise accompted of then as suspicions and coniectures which assertion of Bellarmine commeth far short of M. Downams position for he speaketh only of two Fathers Rupertus and Beda M. Downam speaketh in generall of all the Fathers Bellarmine calleth only those two particuler opinions of theirs suspicions and coniectures M. Downam would proue that all the opinions of all the Fathers concerning Downam proueth an vniuersall by a particuler prophesies not fulfilled are but ghesses which is to proue an vniuersall by a particuler a fit argument for M. Downams Diuinity if not for his Logick which perhappes the badnes of his Diuinity maketh him either to forget or forsake The like fault he committeth againe in alleaging S. Irenaeus who only speaketh of this one prophesy of Antichrists name and Andraeas maketh as little to his purpose only affirming with Bellarmine that experience will make manyfest to them that are vigilant both the exact computation of this number and all other thinges which are written of Antichrist which M. Downam seemed before to deny and now is as far The auctority of the Fathers from prouing that the Fathers expositions when they all agree make not a Prophesy certainely to be vnderstood though when they are deuyded their expositions be but probable and therefore because they were so in this place we see that Bellarmine grounded not his argument vpon any of them but vpon another certayne rule which they all agree in and M. Downam himselfe cannot choose but confesse in great part 4. Thus much for this digression Now M. Downam commeth againe to the purpose goeth about to answere Bellarmines Assumption which is that Antichrists name is Antichrists name yet vnknowne yet vnknowne where M. Downam distinguisheth confessing that in the Church of Rome it is not knowne of the ignorant nor acknowledged of the obstinate but in the true Church of God Antichrist is knowne and his name acknowledged But Marloratus affirmeth the contrary and M. Downam insinuateth as much saying that to the opinions which Bellarmine alleadgeth many more Downam contradicteth him selfe and Marloratus might be added which he will hardly make good except he haue recourse to his new Ghospellers who though they be vnited in malyee against the Pope yet their proud heads cannot agree in the exposition of this or almost any other place of Scripture And besides the agreement of Protestants in this or in any thing els must needs