application which he saith is contradictory to 1. Io. 4. 3. 2. Io. 7. who saith that Antichrist with the article prefixed and whome they heard was to come was already come which you heard Bellarmine graunt with a distinction not in his owne person but in his forerunners and now M. Downam proueth it very substantially by repeating the former argument for want of another and so he standeth at a non plus only he confirmeth it by the argument which S. Iohn maketh 1. Io. 2. 18. which I haue put Nu. 6. downe coÌ„futed in the answere to the third place of Scripture whither I remit the Reader not to weary him with so many idle repetitions of the same thing as M. Downam maketh which also I meane God willing to obserue hereafter 11. To the first proofe of Bellarmines answere he reiecteth the former interpretation of those 3. Fathers S. Ambrose Downam reiecteth the Fathers S. Chrysostome and S. Hierome by his owne absolute authority For when he began to thinke how he might deceaue some of the simple sort by making a shew that the Pope is Antichrist he did put this downe for a chiefe Principle that Antichrist should be no open but a disguised enemy and a pretended Christian and this he wil defend against all the Fathers yea against the Apostles Christ himselfe though with this difference that against the Fathers who without all doubt were the members of Christ he opposeth himselfe manifestlie but against Christ and his Apostles onlie couertlie by false expositions of his owne head with which he conuinceth that he is only a member of that great Antichrist and not the great Antichrist himselfe But I hope well that both M. Downam himselfe and all that follow him or ioyne with him against those ancient Fathers the true members of Christ will at length ioyne with them against those disguised enemies and pretended Christians of which number they themselues are for the present And in the meane tyme till they amend themselues they must giue vs leaue to thinke with the holy Fathers that both Antichrists members as also himselfe haue bene and shal be not only disguised but also open enemies of Christ as you see those holy Fathers affirme of Nero and the other of the Heretikes who deceaue secretly which both M. Downam and we also Antichrists members sometimes open enemyes to Christ admit And yet we may note that this secrecy of the Heretikes is not so great but that many times it contayneth manifest opposition against Christ as we see in Simon Magus who named himselfe Christ and in Montanus who would needes be the Holy Ghost And if M. Downam had rather haue new examples he may remember George Dauid and M. Hackeâ— with his two Prophets But now I would aske M. Downam what it maketh against Bellarmine whether the members and forerunners of Antichrist be disguised or open enemies so that it be graunted that then there were some such and yet the great Antichrist was not yet come as M Downam himselfe confesseth that the Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not reueled vntill 606. yeares after so that till then Antichrist was come only after a sort that is as after he explicateth in some of his members which is all that Belarmine pretended But perhappes M Downam will say that he knew well inough what he said when he only affirmed that Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not then reuealed though be were come But then I would aske him how he was otherwise come then in the Heretikes his members which is that which Bellarmine answereth And if he caÌ„ shew vs no other manner then we may see how easie a matter it is to vnderstand that Antichrist might be so said to be come in S. Pauls and S. Iohns tyme and yet that the chiefe proper Antichrist or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not yet come in person but shal be one man in the end of the world 12. To the second proofe First M. Downam answereth that it cannot be proued out of Scripture or by any sound argument that Downam reiecteth all ancient writers Peteâ— and Paul were Bishops of Rome For you must vnerstaÌ„d that the authority of S. Irenam or of all ancient writers is of no force at all with M. Downam and besidâ—s he knoweth well inough that S. Paul is said to haue byn in Rome in the Scripture and S. Peter also if he will stand to his owne exposition of the wold Babylon and supposing they were there I hope he will as soone graunt them the Bishoprick as any other But to let this passe M. Downam will be twyce aduised before he graunt that the Bishop of Rome at that tyme whosoeuer he was was Antichrist which is as much as Bellarmine would haue denied at this present and M. Downam doth him that courtesy yea and to agre with him in the exposition of S. Paul and S. Iohn For thus he writeth VVhen we say that Antichrist was come in the Apostles tyme we speake of the bodie of Antichrist with S. Iohn when we say that Antichrist hath his seate in Rome we speake of the head of this body soe that now you see heer be distinct persons part of which were come and part not come in S. Iohns tyme. But M. Downam goeth about to deceaue the Reader by telling him a loÌ„g tale of the Pope without Downam speaketh from the purpose any proofe and from the purpose But he must be put in mind to answer Cathegoricè whether Antichrist that S. Paul and S. Ihon saith was come in their tyme were the same that was to haue his seat in Rome or noe If he saith yes then he must also graunt that S. Peter and S. Paul or whosoeuer had the seate at that tyme was Antichrist If he will stick to his noe then it is playne that there is no consequence in Bezaâ— argument Some manner of Antichrist was come in the Apostles tyme Ergo no other that shal be only one man can come after vnlesse he were aliue at that tyme. Yet for all this M. Downam maketh the best shift he can saying that in Bellarmines argument there is no consequence vulesthis be taken for graÌ„ted that Antichrist is but one man which is the question after he frameth arguments as it pleaseth him But M. Downam should haue considered that Bellarmine supposed not that Antichrist was but one man neither was it much materiall in this place if we speake only of the chiefe and proper Antichrist whome Bellarmine only affirmeth to be one but he supposeth that which M. Downam and his Maister Beza put in their probation if they will conclude any thing that Antichrist of whom S. Iohn speaketh is the same that is to haue his seat at Rome for then it followeth very well that he in person had his seate in Rome in the Apostles tyme not only in the heretikes his members For if this second were inough it
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.
yet expressing it in the conclusion which is a meere cauill for Bellarmine would not add any word in the premisses which he found not in Melancthon Caluin and Illyricus whose opinion he alleadged In the conclusion which was his owne he might very well expresse that which was necessarily to be vnderstood as Bellarmin explicateth out of Caluin himselfe for M. Downams deuise that the Church of Christ The Church comprehendeth not al that professe the name of Christ may be taken for the company of Christians that is of those that professe the name of Christ is too ridiculous since by this meanes he includeth all heretikes whatsouer who are indeed the Synagogue of the Diuell so confoundeth the Church of God and the Sinagogue of the Deuill wheras S. Paul saith that Antichrist shall sit in the TeÌ„ple of God he meaneth according to M. Downams interpretation the temple of the Diuell All which is so obsurd that the authors with whom Bellarmine disputeth would haue byn ashamed of so ridiculous an assertion and therfore they sought other cuasions as we shal see forthwith but now let vs go on with the other illation that the Protestants are out of the true Church for how the Temple of Hierusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of God we shall see afterward in the discussion of Bellarmines answeres to the arguments of the Protestants 5. Wherfore M. Downam to saue himselfe and his brethren from being out of the true Church of Christ is driuen to this exigent to deny that there is any one visible Catholike Church but only one invisible Catholike Church and many particuler visible Churches which is a most extrauagant and absurd paradox contrary both to Scriptures Fathers and Councells as Bellarmine sufficiently proueth lib. 4. de There is one visible Catholicke Church Ecclesia militant cap. 10. But now I will only oppose to this insolent madnes the authority of the Creed generally receaued of all where the Church is called One Holy Catholike and Apostolike and who seeth not that all which belong truly to Christ must agree in one faith and not to be deuided by schismes and heresies which in M. Downams conceipt can only happen in particuler Churches or at least in them only be acknowledged and rooted out So that if any particuler Church will wholy fall to either or rather if the chiefe head and pastour of any such Church shal become either schismaticall or hereticall there is not meanes left for his reduction since that he is not bound to be at vnity with other particuler Churches nor to subiect himselfe to any visible Catholike Church or to any visible head therof which is as much in effect as to say that Christ hath left no meanes vpon earth to decide controuersies concerning Faith or to take away schismes diuisions but that euery particuler Church or Pastor yea indeed euery particuler man may freely follow his owne fancies without contradiction or controlement of any so long as he can pretend any text of Scripture though neuer so much wrested and falsly vnderstood for that which he is resolued to hould And is it meruarle that heresies and schismes be so rife in our daies since these absurd paradoxes are so currant But what should heretikes and schismatikes do but defend schismes and diuisions and imâ—ugne vnity and concord which if they would admit they must of force returne to the Catholike Church whereit is only to be found Since therfore the visible Church of Christ is one and by the aduersaries confession it is the RomaÌ„ it followeth manifestly that they themselues are out of Christs Church since that they The ProtestaÌ„ts are out of the Church of Christ are out of the Roman For the other cauill which M. Downam maketh that the RomaÌ„ Church is a particuler Church is not worth the answering for euery child can tell him that the Roman Church is taken for all those which agree in faith and are vnited with the Bishop of Rome who is not only Bishop of that particuler Citty but also the head and Pastor of the whole Church which of him her Head is called the Roman Church which coÌ„tinueth the true Church of Christ as Bellarmine proueth and Melancthon Caluin and Illyricus dare not deny howsoeuer M. Downam is so impudent in his rayling consorting himselfe with a vaine Poet whose meaning notwithstanding was far better then M. Petrarcha Downams is 6. M. Downam hauing thus shufled vp the matter hitherto at length commeth to explicate himselfe more plainly and agreeth with Caluin that the Church of Rome vnder the Pope may be called the Church of God in respect both of some notes and signes of a visible Church as the administration of the Sacrament of Baptisme and the profession of the Name of Christ as also of some reliques and remainder as it were the gleanings of the inuisible Church for he doubteth not but that in the corruptest times of Popery the Lord hath reserued some who haue not receaued the marke of the beast And for explication he compareth the Church of Rome to the state of Israel vnder Ieroboam and Achab because they then retained the Sacrament of Circumcision and professed Iehoua to be their God although they worshipped him Idolatrously And euen vnder Achab the Lord had reserued 7000. who neuer bowed their knee to Baal In which comparison M. Downam insisteth wholy Downam his petitio principij vpon his wonted figure of Petitio principij and consequently all that he saith is but meere railing If he would haue said any thing to the purpose he should haue shewed two points in that example the first that the visible Church among the Iewes was altogeather ceased by that Idolatry of Israel The second that Israel departed not from the Religion which was generally houlden before but that the ancient Religion was by little and little changed to Idolatry and that those which came after separated themselues from the former and yet were the true Church With these two points M. Downam might haue made some comparison betwixt the people of Israel and the Church of Rome But since The Protestants like to Israel the Catholikes to Iuda neither of these are so but the quite contrary it will fall to M. Downam and his fellowes share to be like the people of Israel since they haue left the visible Church of which they once were as the other did and consequently the Church of Rome is like to the people of Iuda and the rest which ioyned with them since it continueth in the ancient faith generally holden throughout Christendome before there were any Protestants in the World Neither do we graunt that the Protestants haue any part of Christs Church no more then the Israelites had since they haue not any iote of true faith howsoeuer they make profession of some articles for the reason why they hould them is not the authority of God proposed by the Scriptures or the
we see that this little horne is said to be after the 10. and the 10. before it but the 3. are set downe without any particuler order because they were to be of the 10. among which there is no order described Now that which he addeth of Antiochus being Downam belieth Pope Gregory the 7. and the Cardinalls a Type c. is a meere fabling and already confuted besides that Antiochus can be no type in this place where he is not spoken of at all as hath ben shewed Likewise that loud lye which he telleth of Gregory the 7. affirming that it is well knowne that he made away 6. of his predecessors by poyson argueth so shameles an impudency as nothing more Like vnto which is that câ—lumniation of the Cardinalls among whome he affirmeth that it is an ordinary practice to minister â—â— Italian â—â—ggâ— to their Popes In proofe wherof he alleageth Vrbanus 7. Innocent â— that there haue bene 9. Popes in the tyme of Queene Elizabeths raigne and that Vrbanus 7. Gregory 14. and Innocentius the 9. were so suddainly plucked vp that he supposeth their names haue bene heard of to few in England And is not this a great wonder that 9. old men should dy in more then 40. yeares Or that a yong Woman liuing in all pleasure should outline them all These are M. Downams myracles and as for the 3. Popes whome he nameth they were all most vertuous and holy men but extreme old and therfore no meruaile though their being so close in the conclaue caused the one if not two of them to dy so soone Gregory lay sicke or the stone aboue 3. weeks and Gregory 14. the other two had bene Popes so little a tyme and giuen so little offence to any that there could be no suspicion of any poyson but this is the Ministers charity 13. To the place which Bellarmine alleageth out of Dan. 11. 19 this purpose M. Downam answereth 1. that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist to which I need not reply any more 2. that though Antiochus were a type in this yet the same 〈◊〉 were not to be applied to Antichrist But M. Downam mistaketh them 〈◊〉 much for this is one of the places which canot be applyed to Antiochus and therfore is litterally to be vnderstood of Antichrist 3. M. Downam boldly affirmeâ—h that this place is only to be expounded of Antiochus his spoyling of Egipt hauing in his company the Lybians and the Aethyopians And to this purpose he proposeth his new reading according to the Hebrew the Lubine and Cuâ—him that is the Lybians and Ethiopiam shal be in his passages or voyages and least we should with Bellarmine obiect the authority of S. Hierome and the other Fathers against him he preuenteth vs by writing â—hâ—s Now if Hierome or any of the Fathers haue let fall any such thing as Bellarmine faith we are to esteeme it at an extremeur of theirs which we are to passe by rather then with the Cacanorae the Papists to gather it vp as fit food for their soules Downam opprobriously reiecteth the Fathers and then he hath this note in the margent Cacanorae auis quaedam est apud Indor quae alterius auis assecla est â—uiâ—s vescatur excrementis Sâ—â—lig de subtil What should a man say to this filthy Companion that dareth open his foule mouth to such opprobrious words against the Fathers Are not those fooles in a 〈◊〉 taking that follow such a foâ—le But his blasphemous 〈◊〉 against God and his Saiâ—â—â—â— in which he imitatâ—â— in his Maister Antichrist must 〈…〉 from cleauing to the Fathers giuen vnto the Church by Christ for her Pastors Guides and Doctours and therfore we nothing doubt but that S. Hieromes interpretation and exposition S. Hierso translatioÌ„ defended of this place approued and imbraced by all Ecclesiasticall Wryters both before and after him is to be preferred before M. Downams new deuise and the Hebrew text which hath ad gressus eius if we belieue Tremelius and Iunius iâ— as capable of S. Hieromes translation â—â— of M. Dowmans and the words immediately going before plainly shew that S. Hieromes interpretation is the right which are Et meâ—tiâ— manum suam in terras and after nameth only these three two of which M. Downam would cut off by his new translation and consequently must also change that terras into terram and yet euen then also the coherence would shew that the Prophet spake rather of inuasion then assisting of enemyes then friends But besides this we must put M. Downam to a little more trouble vrgâ—â—g him to tell vs in what History he â—uer read that Antiochus inuaded the land of Egypt any oftener Antiochê° Epiphanes inuaded not Egypt oftener theÌ„ twice then twice or both which Daniel speaketh from the 22. to the â—â— v. declaring how he was put back the second tyme by the Romans after which he neuer returned into Egypt and consequently this inuasion of that CouÌ„trey which Daniel speaketh oâ— in this place caÌ„not in any sort be vnderstood of Antiochus but must be wholy referred to Antichrist Finally it M. Downam will stand to his owne rule of conferring one place of Scripture with another what can be more pâ—aineâ—â—â—n this that Daniel speaketh now of the same 3. Kinges which cap. 7. he said should be plucked vp and humiliated by the little borne Wherfore whether M. Downams excrements for so he calleth farre better mens expositions then his owne be worth the taking vp or no I leaue to the Readers iudgment but in my conceipt they sauour very strongly of heresy and folly 14. To Bellarmines Minor M. Downam is dumbe as likewise to his consutation of the obiections which some other make against it And to his third argument he only answereth that Lactantius S. Irenaus and S. Hierome are â—â— Antichrist shall subdue the 7. Kings which remaine after the â— and so he shal be Monarch of the whole world Scriptures aâ— though Bellarmine had affirmed that they were because in the beginning he saith that these 4. things are read of Antichrist in the Scriptures But M. Downam might easily haue conceyned that Bellarmine could not proue better that this doctrine is conteyned in the Scripture then by alleadging the authority of the Fathers who gather it out of the Scripture and yet to satisfy M. Downam in all points he alleadgeth also a place of Scripture whereall the 10. Kinges Apoc. 17. are said to giue their power to the Beast that is the Diuell which the 7. cannot do without yielding themselues to Antichrist after that the other three be slaine To which M. Downam hath nothing to reply but only asketh whether S. Iohn speaketh of Antichrist his either kiâ—â—ing 3. â—â— Apoc. 17. subduing 7 To which I answere that S. Iohn plainely foretelleth that all the 10. shall giue their power to the beast and consequently that the 7. which remaine after the death of the other 3. will concurre
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
to thinke how it hath byn and is still possible that either they themselues or others by them should be so bewitched Neither can there any probable cause be giuen of so great blindnes and so enormous a cryme but only the want of Gods grace which their sinnes haue with drawne and deserued that they should be in this sort as it were giuen ouer to a reprobate sense What can be said in defence of this detestable excesse Deny it they cannot the thing being so euident and so often reiterated And dare they excuse it by telling vs That the Fathers are only forsaken when they forsake the Scripture Is not this plainely to make Infidells and Heretikes better Interpreters of Scripture then the Church of Christ and all Christians in generall and the most learned Pastours thereof in particuler If they answer that it is not the authority of these Infidells which they follow but the inspiration of the Holy Ghost which they experience in themselues is this any thing els in effect then to acknowledge that Porphiry and the Iewes had the true spirit of Christ and that the ancient Fathers and the Church of Christ in their tyme had it not For if the Protestants haue the spirit of Christ now it is manifest that those others had it then since their expositions be all one But who is so foolish and sacrilegious as to depriue Gods Church and Saintes of his spirit and it tribute it to his professed enemyes and consequently how shall we belieue the Protestants when they tell vs that they are full of Gods Spirit since we see their spirit to agree with that of the Diuells instruments and to be quite opposite to that of Gods elect Heere is no starting hole to be found neither haue they any thing to reply but only to stand vpon their bare affirmation which M. Downam doth so often in his disputation still desiring to haue that graunted which is chiefly in question But I will omit this and the rest of his absurdities remitting the Reader to his owne experience after that he hath with diligence perused the whole Heere I would make an end of this Preface hauing said asmuch as I thinke necessary concerning the disputation which followeth But because I haue lately seene two Sermons not long since preached by this our Doctour by which it seemeth that he hath resolued to relinquish Puritanisme and turne Protestant I thought it good to admonish my Reader of this point also because I rather inclined before to thinke that he was a Puritan and insinuated so much in a place or two And withall Chap. 10. 13. by this occasion I must intreat my Reader to marke the great difference betwixt M. Downam in these his Sermons and the same man in his booke of Antichrist for in this he euery where reiecteth all antiquity as I haue said but in his Sermons he singeth vs a new song and can tell vs. that it neuer yet happened that the newest thinges did proue the truest and argueth chiefely from authority obiecting still to his Puritan Aduersaries That they go against the whole streame of all Antiquity yea he can alleadge S. Augustine lib. 4. de Bapt. con Donat. cap. 24. ep 118. to proue that the consent of the whole Church argueth either the definition of a Councell or an Apostolicali Tradition though he corruptely translateth Traditum Ordayned and likewise in the second place where S. Aug. affirmeth that Insolentissimae insaniae est it is a most insolent madnes to dispute against that which vniuersa Ecclesia the whole Church obserueth he addeth of his owne the word Primitiue that so he may haue some stareing hole against vs when he is vrged with the same Authority of S. Augustine which if he would follow himselfe as he would now haue the Puritans do he must of force retyre himselfe from the Protestants also and betake himselfe to the Catholike Church which all Antiquity most manifestly defendeth And surely whosoeuer considereth the arguments which Protestants make against Puritans cannot but euidently perceaue that the very same principles do ouerthrow the Protestants themselues And I meruaile much how they can defend themselues from that terrible sentence of S. Paul Inexcusabilises o homo omnis qui iudicas quo enim iudicas alterum teipsum condemnas eadem enim agis quae iudicas And the very same iudgment falleth vpon the Puritans themselues when they go about to impugne the Brownists Familists Anabaptists Arians or any other sect whatsoeuer For this they cannot do but by Antiquity which notwithstanding they are forced to reiect in all those pointes in which they differ and dissent from the Cathelike Roman Church I will not descend to any particulers though I easily might for what can be more euident then that the autherity of S. Cyprian other Fathers who vrge the necesâ—ity of a Bishop for the conseruation of vnity is much more to be vnderstood of one chiefe Bishop in the whole Church then of particuler Bishops in particuler Diocesses since there can be no question that vnity is as necessary in the whole world as in one Diocesse and much more easily mayntained in this then in that Likewise M. Downam can tell vs not only of Bishops but also of Metropolitans and Patriarches and alleadgeth for his purpose the Councell of Nice but he will not acknowledge that in the same Councell Rome hath the first place and is preferred before all others as likewise Alexandria and Antiochia are before Ierusalem which M. Downam would willingly haue the chiefe of which there can be no other true reason giuen but the excellency of S. Peter aboue the other Apostles who founded three Churches and placed or fixed his Sea in Rome where he ended his life with a most happy Martyrdome Now if we aâ—ke M. Downam a reason why he seeth not this aswell as that which fauoureth the Protestants against the Puritans I cannot imagine what he can answere vs but only that by this meanes he should incurre the disgrace and ouerthrow of his Ministry which he esteemeth so highly But I intreat both him and all other euen as they tender their owne saluation to looke about them in tyme and not to suffer themselues to be carried away with the sway of the tyme and the desire of worldly pleasures and preferments which M. Downam and all others may easily conceaue not to be very great if his complayntes of pouerty and contempt which he maketh in his former Sermon be true as no doubt they are in great part and these miseryes will daylie increase as their credit doth decrease so that if now that pittifull yâ—t ridiculouâ— complaint of M. Downam be true That not only euery meane man almost Ser. 1. pag. 67. preferreth himselfe before the Minister but also disdayneth to bestow either his Sonne on the Ministry or his Daughter on a Minister the tyme no doubt will come and that shortly also that they â—halbe inforced to marry
some of their owne brethren do much condemne their insolencie and rash bouldnes in this assertion 2. Now wheras he affirmeth that the conceipts of the elder Papists who liued in the dares of our forefathers concerning Antichrist were meere dotages he only sayth it and therby discouereth his spitefull spirit which prouoketh him to rayle without reason and to slander against all truth For the Catholikes of former dayes held the very same that we do now though Bellarmin agreeth with the elder Catholikes they explicated not themselues so fully as Bellarmine and others do now In which respect only these may in some sort be truly called the refiners of Popery that is the explicators and confirmers of Catholike doctrine against heretikes But the reason of this difference betwixt the elder and later writers is euident for in their dayes Heretikes were not so impudēt as to vrge so palpable and grosse errors as they are in our time for otherwise Bellarmine sufficiently declareth the antiquity of his doctrine by prouing whatsoeuer he sayth by the authority of the ancient Fathers Now whether many haue contributed to Bellarmins bookes or no it is little to the purpose though the truth is as those know that are best acquainted with his studies that they are all his owne labours And that this may not seeme strange M. Downam may easily informe himselfe that diuers other of his order that liued in the same time and some in the same place haue in diuers kindes written as large volumes as Bellarmine hath in this Wherof Salmeron Tolet Valentia Molina Suarez Vasquez and others may serue for example Well to come to the matter M. Downam seemeth to allow of Bellarmines method and diuision since that he obiecteth nothing against it but commeth presently to his first argument 3. In which to make a good beginning he corrupteth Bellarmines argument by altering both words and sense for thus he setteth it down Antichrist is hostis aemulus Christi Downam corrupteth Bellarmines argumēt that is such an enemy as is opposed vnto Christ in emulation of like honour The Pope is not an enemy nor opposed vnto Christ in emulatiō of like honour therfore the Pope is not Antichrist Wheras Bellarmine endeauoureth to prooue nothing els in this Chapter but that the name of Antichrist signifieth not the Vicar of Christ but only some that is contrary to Christ and contrary not howsoeuer but in such sort that he striueth with him for the seate and dignity of Christ so that he would be accompted Christ hauing cast him downe who is truly Christ which is not to be opposed vnto Christ in emulation of like honour but of the same and equall honour which are far different matters For who seeth not that many things are like which are not the same or rather speaking in rigour that nothing is like that is the same And so likewise of equalitie there be manie things like which are not equall As for example the vnitie of Christs seruants among themselues is like to the vnion of Christ with his Father but not the same nor Ioan. 17. equall vnto it And in this our question who doubteth that the Vicar of Christ as of any other is like vnto him in honour but yet he hath not in any sort the same or equall honour to that which Christ hath as not to explicate other differences it is euident that whosoeuer is Vicar to another acknowledgeth dependancie of another which the principall doth not Now then the whole controuersy being about this sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it may signify not only an enemy or emulous of Christ but also his Vicar or Vicegerent no meruaile though Bellarmin wholy insisteth vpon the proofe thereof and in this he sheweth not himselfe to be a sophister but M. Downam proueth himselfe to be a calumniatour and a falsifier as is manifest But yet in some sort he seemeth to acknowledg and amend this fault by affirming that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition commonlie signifieth three things opposition equalitie substitution by which as afterward he explicates himselfe he vnderstandeth subordination which indeed is that which Bellarmine denieth and M. Downam proueth onlie by repeating the example of Musculus adding two others to it which he interpreteth after that manner and saith in general that Greeke writers and Lexicographers doe teach see as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proconsul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proprator or legatus praetoris or qui est vice praetoris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the putting of one case for another And in this sense saith he the sacraments of the new Testament substituted and ordayned insteed of the old are called the Downam repeateth his fellowes argument omitting Bellarmines answere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them But it is meruaile he saw not that which Bellarmine had writtē against Musculus who aleadged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as M. Downam doth and Bellarmine answered to them both that it signifieth not the Vicegerent of a Captaine but ordinarilie a contrarie captaine as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make warre against and sometymes him that is in the Captaines place not as subiect to him but as equall as among the Latins Propraetor or Proconsul doth not signifie the Vicegerent of the Pretor or Consul but him who is in some Prouince that which the Pretor or the Consul is in the Citty And in this was Musculus deceyued for reading in Budaeus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth Propraetor he thought that it did signifie the Vicegerent of the Pretor which is false Thus far Bellarmine By which M. Downam might haue vnderstood the cause of Musculus his error whose authoritie as it should seeme by that he citeth no other he only followeth and in the other examples which he bringeth there is the same reason because one case is equiualent with the other and the Sacraments of the new law are not onlie equall but also of greater value and withall opposite to those of the old law with which they could not stand or be in vse at the same tyme. 4. To Bellarmins second proofe out of Scripture M. Downam granteth the Conclusion though he would faine wrāgle How Antichrist is taken in the Scripture about 2. Thess 2. and Matth. 24. for that Antichrist is not named there though he and all other graunt that they are to be vnderstood of Antichrist and consequentlie he shal be such as is there described Likewise he would cauill about the place in S. Iohns Epistle in which he saith the name 1. Iohn 2. of Antichrist is ascribed to such as being enemies notwithstanding professed the name of Christ as the heretikes of those tymes Where he semeth to haue forgotten what he and Bellarmine haue agreed Bellar. cap. 2. Dow. lib. 1. cap. 1. 3. vpon that the name of Antichrist is taken either properlie or commonly as also the name of Christ and consequently as the members
vs see therfore how he answereth to Bellarmines reasons First to the Fathers he saith that none of them hath that word vno as though it were not sufficient that they haue others equiualent and yet S. Augustine lib. 2. contra Aduersar legis cap. 12. expresly distinguisheth the chiefe Antichrist froÌ„ others in that he is vnâ—â— maior ceteris and they multi And S. Hierom in Dan. 7. calleth him vnum de hominibus Secondly he sayth that the Fathers vnderstand that place also of S. Matth. 24. v. 24. Matth. 24. where our Sauiour speaketh in the plurall nuÌ„ber of Antichrist as though the chiefe proper Antichrist may not be one man because there will be others like vnto him though farre inferiour in malice Wherfore when our Sauiour speaketh generally of all false Prophets no doubt he excludeth not the chiefest of them but includeth him in the first place so that whatsoeuer is common to all doth most fitlie agree to him and therfore it is noe meruaile though the Fathers take it as spoken principally of him But on the other side when our Sauiour maketh mention only of one he is not to be vnderstood of all And this is the difference betweene the Fathers exposition and M. Downams that they obserue the first and he the second and therefore it is no meruaile though they do not agree Neither is it against the Fathers that the Iewes haue receaued more then one but it is against M. Downam that they haue not receaued all that came besides that it is hard to shew that so many of the Iewes receaued any one false Prophet as those were that receaued the true Christ whereas our Sauiour plainly affirmeth that they shall generally receaue him of whoÌ„ he speaketh Wherfore thirdly he telleth the Fathers roundly that they had no reason to restraine those words Downam reiecteth the Fathers vnto Antichrist alone against them all opposeth Nonius a Poet in his paraphrase who expoundeth it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but if any other come As though this Poets authority were equall to all the Fathers or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might not signify aliquu or quidaÌ„ aswell as â—llâ—â— or quis some or acertayne aswell as any especially in a Poet who is sometime constrained to straine the sense to make vp his verse Lastly he addeth if these answeres of his will not suffice theÌ„ yet he will not yield except he see first proued that whatsoeuer those Fathers wrote concerning Antichrist is true But I hope he will be better aduised and thinke it sufficient that whatsoeuer our Sauiour saith of Antichrist is true and that in vnderstanding his meaning we must rather belieue such learned men as haue the authority of the Fathers on their side theÌ„ those that trust only to their owne wits hauing neither more learning nor iudgment then the other For I perswade my selfe that M. Downam wil not preferre himselfe before Bellarmine in either 2. To the first confirmation he answereth that when alius is taken definitely as Io. 18. 16. 20. 2. 3. 4. then it is true but where it is vsed indefinitely as Iob 31. 8. 1. Cor. 3. 10. and in this place then it is not And by his citing of the Greeke word in the first sense with an article and in the second without it Downam mistaketh Bellarmine should seeme he would haue that to be the signe in whether sense it is to be taken But all this discourse proceedeth from want of vnderstanding Bellarmines confirmation for he goeth not about to proue that our Saniour speaketh of the cheife and proper Antichrist but this supposed gathereth that he shall be one particuler man for that he opposeth him as one person to himselfe who was one particuler person also To which M. Downam answereth not but onlie denieth the supposition as though Bellarmine had gone about to proue that with this confirmation neither doth that rule of the greeke article hould alway especially in M. Downams sense and opinion as we shall see a little after To the second confirmation he denieth that Christ foretel leth that Antichrist shal be receaued of the Iewes for their Messias First because his speach is conditionall and onlie sheweth them what in respect of their present disposition they were ready to doe As though this were not inough for Bellarmines confirmation for it is certayne they would not haue receaued him as their Messias if he were not a particuler man which is all that Bellarmine intendeth to proue Now besides in the Scripture the word if somtime signifieth when which the Fathers iudge also If for when Esay 4. 4. Ioan 14. 3. to be in this place Secondly M. Downam saith that the word alius is indefinite But that is onlie his owne interpretation against the Fathers Thirdly he saith that our Sauiour did not say that they would receaue him for their Messias but so he is to be vnderstood For that they were to receaue him as they were bound and refused to receaue our Sauiour for of this he speaketh Fourthly he saith that the Iewes to whome of whome our Sauiour speaketh shall not be aline at the comming of the great Antichrist according to the opinion of the Papists themselues But M. Downam should haue remembred that not a whole leafe before he himselfe said that Bellarmine and the rest of the Papists vnderstand Christ to speake of those Iewes which shal be in the end of the world To the third Confirmation first M. Downam saith that it would proue Antichrist to be us false Prophet which is true if he speake of the infeour sort of false Prophets After he giueth another exposition that he shall come vnsent of God or as Lyra sayth that he shall not haue testimonies from God as Christ had neither of which are contrary to Bellarmines exposition but rather both included in it But besides the negatiue he shall also haue the affirmatine as both our Sauiour S. Paul saith against whome M. Downams argument concludeth not which is thus The Iewes expect their Messias from God and consequently he shall professe himselfe to be sent from God for what knoweth M. Downam whether he will say that he is their God himselfe not sent by any other person for that he will deny the Trinity or though at the first he should deale otherwise it is certaine that at length he will extoll himself aboue all Gods as S. Paul saith and consequently then he will professe himselfe to come in his owne name for that he acknowledgeth no Superiour or equall in whose name he should come To the fourth CoÌ„firmation he answereth that because our Sauiour speaketh conditionally and indefinitelie there is not so much as any shew of reason in it But Bellarmine proued that our Sauiour spake definitely of the chiefe and proper Antichrist and though he speaketh conditionally his confirmation is in force for that hindereth not the particularity of him whom he speaketh
Sonne for S. Iohn speaketh not generallie of euery one that denieth Iesus to 1. Iohn 4. 5. be Christ as M. Downam affirmeth Likewise Cap. 4. 5. S. Iohn only affirmeth that it is the spirit of Antichrist to denie Christ and that he was to come in himselfe and was then in the world in his members and the like he repeateth Epist 2. v. 7. that all those which denied Christ to be come were 2. Iohn 7. members of the chiefe Seducer and Antichrist which was to come after and teach that doctrine more then any of the former The rest which M. Downam hath in this place be the obiections which Bellarmine maketh solueth as we shall see not long after 7. To the fourth place M. Downam answereth that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist at all which he proueth by the authoritie of the learned of our times but nameth not any perhaps because Dan. 7. 11. 12. he was ashamed to oppose them to those which Cardinall Bellarmine cited especially to his good Maisters Calwin the Magdclurgenses and Beza Afterward he proueth the same Downam peruerteth Daniel egregiously with reason for that Daniel describeth him whome M. Downam will haue to be Antiochus only as the tenth and Cardinall Bellarmine maketh him the cleauenth as if it were a beast of cleauen hornes which trulie is a straÌ„ge bouldnes in M. Downam the words of Daniel being so cleere for hauing said Cap. 7. v. 7. that the fourth beast had ten hornes he forth with added â— 8. Consideraham cornua ceâ—â— corâ—u aliud parâ—â—ulum orium est de medio eorum c. I did consider the hornes no doubt the ten which he had said that the beast had and behould another little horne rose vp in the mydst of theÌ„ so that he distinguisheth it froÌ„ the other ten by three notes 1. calling it another 2. a little one no doubt in respect of the other ten and 3. that it rose vp in the midst of them signifying that they appeared before this and that it was not the tenth may also be gathered by that it arose in the midst and not in the same place as it should haue done if it had signified one of the ten Kings of the Seleucida and Lagidae in Syria and Egipt as M. Downam would haue it Where we may also note that these 10. Kings were all of distinct Prouinces and at one time for otherwise this last horne could not haue risen in the midst of them And againe v. 20. he that expounded the visioÌ„ to Daniel saith thus Et de cornibus decem quae habebat in capite de alio quod ortuÌ„ fuerat c. And of the ten hornes which he had on his head and of the other which arose c. caÌ„ any thing be more plaine theÌ„ that the other which arose was none of the ten But v. 24. more plainly porrò cornua decem ipsius regni decem Reges eruÌ„t alius consurget post eos ipse potentior erit prioribâ—â— c. Moreouer the ten hornes of his kingdome shal be ten Kings and another shall arise after them he shal be more potent theÌ„ the former c. Now what a strange man is M. Downam to say that he is the tenth And by this it is easy to gather how true his exposition is in the rest as that those 10. Kings ruled succeffiuelie euer the Iewes and that 6. for the most part were dead before the 10. was borne of which we shall haue Chap. 16. occasion to speake hereafter Now it is sufficient to note that Bellarmine addeth that of the subuing seauen out of the 12. 23. and 17. of the Apocalyps togeather with the 7. of Daniel for in all those places there is mention made of the 10. hornes but with this difference that in the 12. chap. of Apoc. 3. v. there be togeather with the 10. hornes 7. heads with 7. diadems in the 13. there be also 7. heades vpon the hornes 10. diadems of which difference in the diadems that in the former place they be but 7. and in the latter ten the reasoÌ„ is for that Antichrist shall kill three Kinges and so there shall only 7. remayne But of this wee shall likewise haue occasion to speake more heereafter Now therefore let vs goe forward with M. Downam who saith that if Antiochus be Chap. 16. spoken of and Antichrist be by him figured it followeth not that Antichrist shal be a particuler man as Antiochus was for that the likenes doth not hould in all thinges but only in those in respect whereof the type is a figure as the high Priest of the Iewes was a figure of Christ and yet they were many Melchrsedeth was as Papistes say a figure of theyr Priestes and yet was but one Iosuah Dauid Salomon types of Christ and yet not like him in all As though Bellarmine said that Antichrist shal be like Antiochus in all thinges or in any other thing then that which is set downe in the Scripture and confirmed againe in the new Testament so vnderstood by the Fathers as in his victories and such other circumstances that cannot agree to many but only to one particuler man as Antiochus was and Antichrist shal be 8. To the 5. place M. Downam answereth that S. Iohn Daniel speake of diuers matters For confirmation wherof he denieth againe the 11. horne in Daniel adding this proofe Apoc. 13. 17. that otherwise the 4. beast were abeast of 11. hornes To which it is easie to answere that before that little horne arose that beast is described with 10. hornes and after he had but 7. left for three of them were pulled vp by this little horne and by See cap. 1â— this all the difference he putteth betwixt the 10. Kinges in Daniel and S. Iohn is ouerthrowne After he commeth to the tyme of the persecution of Antiochus Antichrist for the former he graunteth that it endured only from the 15. day of the moneth Casleu in the 145. yeare of the Kingdome of the Seleucidae 1. Macah. 1. 57. vnto the 25. of the moneth Casleu in the yeare 148. 1. Macab 4. 52. which make 3. yeares and ten daies which is all that Daniel assigned by a time and times and parcell of a tyme. Where he maketh bould with Daniel changing halfe a tyme vnto a parcell of a tyme for the Prophet saith plainly Downam corrupteth the text of Daniel Dan 7. 12. both cap. 7. v. 25. vsque ad tempus tempora diâ—â—diunt temporis and againe cap. 12. v. 7. he saith that the Angell swore by him that lyueth for euer quia in tempus tempora dimidium temporis and after he counteth it also by dayes dies mille duceuts â—â—naginta and yet all this will not keep M. Downam from taking away so much as he thinketh necessary for to make his interpretation good But when he commeth to the Apocalyps
earth By which meanes the litle horne which he had betwixt his eyes that is the Kingdome which he gouerned came to be very great strong in a short space at his death was deuided into foure little ones in respect of his great Monarchie which contayned all those 4. After this M. Downam commeth to Bellarmines second answere to which he graunteth that S. Paul speaketh not of any of the 4. beastes spoken of by Daniel which in effect is to graunt that Bezas consequence was nothing worth and poore M. Downam had no other shift but to say that noe man said so because he meant not to say so himselfe And yet to set the better face on it he denieth also that Antichrist is the little horne as Bellarmine affirmeth But he should haue considered that the other was that which was necessary that the argumēt might stand in force and that now Bellarmine is the defendant and therfore it is not inough for M. Downam to deny what he saith but he must also proue the contrary Thus much for Bezas argumēt which as you see Bellarmine hath solued euen by M. Downams owne confession and therfore he hath added otherplaces of Scripture to hould it vp from falling or rather he hath let Bezas argument fall for that it was past recouery and hath patched vp another of his owne To which I āswere that in all the places which he citeth only in the 7. of Daniel by the beastes be signified Kingdomes for in the 11. of Daniel there is not once any Beast named and Apoc. 13. there be two Beastes but the former signifyeth only one man Antichrist the latter his chiefe false Prophet and Apoc. 17. the Beast signifieth the Diuel All which M. Downam must not put me to proue now till it be my turne and then he shall see I shal be better stored both with arugments authority thē he is who bringeth neither And as for the assumption that in the 13. of Apoc. Antichrist is the secōd Beast I haue already denied it for M. Downam was in some need of Scripture so he was inforced to vse one place both in his propositiō assūptiō and to thrust in other which made nothing to his purpose 15. About the third obiection M. Downam had little to adde only he explaneth what a substantiall ground they haue for the exposition of that word Apostasy which is no other but because it pleaseth them to vnderstand it so And to Bellarmines first answere he saith that it doth rather make against himselfe then otherwise for that he cannot inferr thence that Antichrist is but one Man As though he that answereth were to inferre any thing and not only to shew how his aduersary inferreth nothing VVherfore M. Downam addeth that rather the contrary is to be inferred for if Apostasy be put by a Metonymie of the adiunct for the subiect or rather of the effect for the cause that is for the parties which doe reuolt then it followeth that Antichrist signifieth the whole body and Kingdome of Antichrist In which Downam mistaketh Bellarmine reply of his I can see no other reason but want of consideration of that which Bellarmine hath said for the interpretation which is giuen by him in his first answere of the word Apostasie is onely this that Antichrist is called the Apostasie for that he shal be the cause that many forsake God so that not those which forsake God but he that is the cause therof is called the Apostasie And so though those that forsake God be many yet he that is the cause may be only one If M. Downam hath any thing to reply against this eyther he must shew that the cause of the Apostasie may not be called the Apostasie or else that one man may not be the cause that many forsake God and not speake so confusedly and darkly as he doth least he make Downam speaketh from the purpose men thinke that he vseth that art to seeme to say somthing when he hath nothing to say indeed which may be also suspected by that which he addeth out of S. Augustine of an opinion which he misliketh not and which Bellarmine alleadgeth in his third answere as also of Antichrists sitting in the Church all which he knoweth well inough to make nothing to the force of this argument nor to be against this first answere of Bellarmine and therfore is but an idle addition for want of matter to the purpose About the second reason that Bellarmine giueth why Antichrist may be called the Apostasy M. Downam hath nothing to say against it but Antichrist shal be an Apostata only noteth that seeing none can be an Apostata which hath not bene a Christian Antichrist shal not be a Iew but a back sliding and reuolted Christian which if we take the name properly as it signifieth one that falleth from Christ is a probable argument that Antichrist shal be baptized but yet he may be a Iew both by birth as also by profession as Iulian was a Gentile in profession and yet a notable Apostata But this name may also be vnderstood of those which fall from God though they were no Christians And in this sēse it is more ample and therfore more fit for Antichrist who shall not only oppose himselfe to Christ but also extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God And this is all that M. Downam replyeth to Bellarmines first answere for he hath not soe much as gone about to proue that Antichrist may not be vnderstood by the Apostasy because he shal be the cause that many forsake God or because he shal be a most notable Apostata nor that one man may not be called soe for these two reasons which be only the points that could make against Bellarmines answere 16. To the second answere M. Downam replieth first that the dissention of the Fathers proueth that their exposition can be noe good rule of interpreting the Scriptures Which note I would he would applie to himselfe and his fellow-Ministers for no doubt The Protestants expositiō of Scripture not much worth he would find that their expositions are not much worth since they agree so little and if when the Fathers doe diuersly expound the same place it is a signe that it is not certaine which interpretation is to be followed but that either may be admitted so far as they swarue not from any point of Faith how much lesse certainty can we haue of M. Downam and his fellowes who many tymes doe not only differ from all others but also among themselues and that in matters which belong to Faith in which one houldeth against the other and both against all the world besides After this M. Downam goeth about to prooue that the Apostasie cannot signifie the reuolt from the Roman Empire because in other places of Scripture it signifieth a falling away from God and for that afterward it is called the mystery of iniquitie which was working in
it selfe since he could haue no certaine ground to thinke soe vnles he had appeared in some sort soe is it also impertinent to the matter we haue in hand since our question is about his appearing and they which put it latest which are Luther and Bibliander make him to come euen with the temporall sword which cannot choose but appeare after the yeare of our Lord 1000. And this is the notable consent which M. Downam hath found among all his writers whom Bellarmine alleageth in this mayne poynt concerning the time of the comming of Antichrist 4. After hauing laboured to make an agreemēt betwixt his Doctours with the euent which you haue seene he maketh a shew as though he would answere all Bellarmines arguments against them beginning thus Now let vs see what he obiecteth against this receyued truth but comming to the point he only chooseth out Bellarmines answere to Chytraeus his secōd proofe for the first degree of Antichrists comming to wit with the spirituall sword which as you see is no argument at all but a peece of an answere to an argument so that to doe well M. Downam should replie and not answere But let Downam answereth when hee should reply vs not vrge the poore man too farre for it is pure want that driueth him to these miserable shiftes Wherefore let vs see how he can auoid Bellarmines answere Chytraeus proofe was this In the yeare 606. Bonifacius the third did obteyne of Phocas the title of vniuersall Bishop ergo Amichrist appeared about the yeare 600. To which Bellarmine answereth in these words Phocas gaue not the title of Vniuersall to the Pope but called him the head of the Churches But long before Iustiniā ep ad Ioā 2. had done the same before that also the Councell of Chalcedon in ep ad Leonem VVithout cause therefore is the comming of Antichrist put in the tyme of Phocas To which first as I haue noted M. Downam saith that Bellarmine obiected this whereas it is most manifest that he answereth an obiection Secondlie he addeth that good authors Phocas gaue not the title of Vniuersall to the Pope that which hee gaue the Pope had before affirme that he receyued from Phocas both the title of the Head of the Church and also of Vniuersall or Oecumenicall bishop but they are too good to be named or els M. Downam was ashamed of thē and therefore he must pardon vs if we belieue neither him nor them till we know what they are Thirdlie he auoucheth that there is no doubt but that Bonifacius sought for and by suite obteyned that which Iohn of Constantinople had before claymed But if he had remembred what himselfe wrote in his 1. chap. of his former booke of S. Gregorie the great his dislike of that title in Iohn of Constantinople he would haue seene that there had bene great doubt whether Bonifacius were not more likelie to approue his holy predecessors iudgment in refusing that title for due respectes though otherwise neuer soe due to him rather then his proud aduersaries opinion in desiring or vsing it at that tyme when at leastwise in that Iohn of Constantinoples sense it was not only scandalous See part 2. Chap. 1. but perfidiouslie false also Wherfore keeping the dignitie it selfe they vsed such wordes as might modestlie expresse what they had and no way signifie that which they had not themselues and much lesse Iohn of Constantinople who most arrogantlie vsurped that false and also foolish title being taken in the sense in which he vsurped it Fourthly M. Downam would shift of the matter with saying that there is no great difference betwixt these two titles as they are now giuen to the Pope saue that to be the head of the Vniuersall Church is the more Antichristian stile But this will not serue his turne neither for howsoeuer these titles be all one in substance yet since Chytraus and others will giue vs a reason why they assigne the first degree of Antichrists comming in the tyme of Phocas to wit because he first gaue the Pope the title of Vniuersall Bishop it is not inough when this is denied to tell vs that at least if he gaue him not that he gaue him another as great for all the force of the argument consisteth in this that this title of Phocas is a new one which the Pope neuer had giuen him before for otherwise there is no reason why Antichrist should be thought more to come in Phocas his tyme then before And this was that which Bellarmine answered and M. Downam hitherto hath not said any thing to the purpose against him Wherefore lastly he goeth about to make vs belieue that though he cannot deny but that the Pope had the same title which Phocas gaue him long before yet there was a great difference in the sense and meaning For he affirmeth that before this graunt of Phocas the Church of Rome had the preheminence and superioritie ouer all other Churches excepting that of Constantinople not in respect of Authoritie and Iurisdiction but in respect of order and dignitie and for this cause especiallie because Rome wherof he was Bishop was the chiefe Cittie for which he citeth the Councells of Chalcedon Constantinople And for the same cause saith he was the Patriarch of Constantinople sometymes matched with him for which he citeth Concil Chalcedon sometime preferred aboue him for which he noteth in the margent tempore Maurity because Constantinople which they called new Rome was become the Imperiall seate yea he addeth that the Bishops of Rauenna because their Cittie was the chiefe in the Exarchy of Rauenna wherevnto Rome was for a Downams answere or replie confuted by Bellarmine in other places tyme subiect stroue with the Bishop of Rome in the tyme of the Exarchies for superiority But all this discourse of his is refuted at large by Bellarmine in his second Booke of the Pope and if M. Downam will loose so much labour about the answering of that as he hath done about this other which is the third he shal be confuted I hope fully satisfied in this point also But now it were to great a labour to put downe all Bellarmines proofes Wherefore both I and M. Downam must of reason be content with briefly answering his obiections though that also in truth were not to be expected in this place but that I desire that M. Downam should haue no reason to complayne And first that the reason why Rome had the preheminence The reason of Romes preheminence is not because it is the chiefe Citty ouer all other Churches was not because it was the chiefe Cittie as M. Downam would proue out of the Councels of Chalcedon and Constantinople Bellarmine proueth by the authoritie of S. Leo. ep 54. ad Martianū where inueighing against the ambition of Anatolius then Bishop of Constantinople which he had discouered in that very Councell of Chalcedon which M. Downam mentioneth he hath these wordes Let
vpon denials as his doth but rather vpon the affirmative Catholike doctrine standeth not so much vpoÌ„ denialls as that of ProtestaÌ„ts and so though we affirme and proue that the Ghospell is to be preached in the whole world before the end of the world yet we deny not but that it was in some sort so preached before the destruction of Ierusalem thinke that our Sauiour with his diuine wisdome comprehended both in the same wordes for the one being a figure of the other the same wordes may very well be vnderstood of both as we see they were by the Fathers though chiefly for the most WheÌ„ the proper expositioÌ„ is to bee preferred part of the proper distinct preaching in the whole world as the wordes properly taken doe import And wee thinke S. Augustins rule very true that when the wordes may be so taken without manifest absurditie that is the true sense most certaine for otherwise we should haue no certainty lib. 3. de doct christia cap 7. in vnderstanding Scripture at all and in this case admitting both senses may fitly be vsed that vulgar saying of the Mathematicians Quod fit in circulo fit in caelo that which agreeeth in a circle may due proportion obserued be applied to the Heauens which are like to a circle in being round as likewise the end of the world is to the destruction of Hierusalem in many thinges And thus much for the first difference about the word Consummation 13. But now there remaineth another about the great Tribulation which M. Downam likewise denieth to be any other then that of the Iewes and would faine father this exposition vpon S. Chrysostome also which as in the other wee may graunt to be probable but onlie M. Downam will deny that of S. Augustine and other Fathers for none of theÌ„ By the great Tribulation Matth. 24. is meant the persecution of Antichrist a little before the end of the world are so forward as he in denying because they had not his spirit of contradiction and indeed the matter is so plaine that he had need to haue an hard forhead that should deny it S. Marke cap. 13. saith In illis diebus post tribulationem illam sol contenebrabitur c. In those dayes after that Tribulation the sunne shal be darkened c. which happened not after the destruction of Hierusalem except M. Downam will run to that shift to say that it happened after though it were long first which though it were very ridiculous and absurd in it self yet S. Matth. also wholy excludeth it with adding statim forthwith Statim autem post tribulationem dierum illorum sol obscurabitur c. And straight after the tribulation of those daies the sun shal be darkened c. And heere I leaue M. Downam in this strait hoping he will learne to attribute more to the Fathers expositioÌ„s hereafter seeing them so conformable to Gods word 14. And to conclude this Chapter let vs see what M. Downam hath replyed against Bellarmines answere to the obiection where we must note that he endeauoreth onlie to impugne the first answere and to the other two hath not so much as a word to saie for that indeed whatsoeuer he had said against them had byn also against himselfe as likewise against all experience and the proofes with which Bellarmine proued his Minor to wit that at none of those tymes which the heretikes assigne for Antichrists coÌ„ming and much lesse in the Apostles tymes the Ghospell had bene preached properlie in the whole world and therefore wheÌ„ the Apostle saith that it had bene preached in the whole world he were either to be vnderstood figuratiuelie or by fame which are Bellarmines two latter solutions not misliked by M. Downam though if his distinction of preaching but not receauing the Ghospell in the whole world were to the purpose he should graunt the preaching to haue bene properlie in the whole world and so contradict himselfe and fall into the absurdities before mentioned or els be inforced to yield to Bellarmines first solution also which he so eagerlie impugneth that S. Paul Rom. 10. tooke the tyme past for the tyme to come which he calleth a cauillation Rom. 10. thinking that he may be bould with Bellarmine but yet he might haue borne a little more respect to S. Augustine whose Downams immodesty solution it is especiallie hauing so little to say against it You shall heare his owne wordes But say I the Apostle proueth that the Iewes had heard the Ghospell because the sound of the preachers thereof was gone through all the earth and therefore they from whome the Ghospell proceeded to other Nations caâ—â—not be ignorant therof And now let any man iudge if it had not bene more wisdome modestie for M. Downam to haue alleadged S. Chrysostome whose exposition this is as Bellarmine did S. Augustine then to come out with an I say only affirming but prouing nothing neither by authoritie or reason as likewise to haue admitted both these expositions for probable as Bellarmine doth and not set one Father against another who agree well inough and are not so addicted to their owne priuate iudgment that they condemne any other probable opinion though they thinke their owne more probable Now whether of these two opinions is more probable I leaue to others to examine since it were from my purpose to discusse that question But if M. Downam will needes contend I remit him to Cardinall Tolets exposition vpon this place where he explicateth and defendeth S. Augustines opinion against whome if he hath any thing to say in this point he shall not goe vnanswered But I would wish him rather to prooue then to scoffe especiallie at S. Augustine other Fathers otherwise to any discret Reader he will seeme too ridiculous though he vseth all his Sophistrie as he doth heere by telling vs that the Ghospell could not bring How the Ghospell was in the whole world in the Apostles tyme. forth fruite vnlesse it were actuallie and to shew his great learning noteth the same sense in the margent both in latin and greeke But he must know that as it is necessary that the Ghospell should be actuallie in some place of the world before it bringeth forth fruit so is it sufficient that it be vertuallie in the whole world the verie increasing extending it selfe is one manner of â—ringing forth fruite of which the Apostle speaketh which could not be if already the Ghospell had bene actuallie in the whole world and therefore it is to be vnderstood only vertuallie in respect of the whole world as is well declared by the example of a Citty set on fire in some places which may trulie be said to be all on fire vertuallie though actuallie onlie some parts of it be soe And thus wee haue seene what M. Downam hath ben able to saie for himselfe not hauing omitted anie shift of his except he would haue vs
hath no Prouinces For as for Rome he graunteth that it is not necessary that he should haue it Is a great part of Germany nothing with M. Downam It should seeme that he is become a great despiser of the world since that which all Christian Infidell Princes and people esteeme so much he accoumpteth nothing 5. To conclude this Chapter M. Downam goeth about to reply vpon Bellarmines answere to the obiection of Luther the rest and telleth vs that it is euident that the former Beast Apoc 13. figureth not Antichrist but the Roman state and that vnder the Roman Emperours especially but it had bene wel that he would haue shewed vs this euidence for neither we nor the Fathers which Bellarmine citeth to whom we may adde S. Irenaeus l. 5. cap. 28. Arethas S. Methodius and S. Hippolytus in orat de The former beast Apoc. 13. signifyeth Antichrist Apoc. 13. See cap. 15. §. 3. 4. part 2. c. 3. n. 8. consummatione mundi can see any such euidence but rather the contrary to wit that the former beast signifyeth Antichrist at least in one of his heads which might be playnly gathered out of the Text if it were our turne to proue as it is M. Downams But since we must answere only his authority auouching a new exposition without reason moueth vs very little Secondly M. Downam telleth vs that it is not said that one of the heads did saigne it selfe dead and by the help of the Diuell did rise againe which needeth not saith he if the death were counterfait but that one of the heads had receaued a deadly wound and was cured againe But wee knew thus much before he tould vs so neither doth Bellarmine affirme that the Scripture hath that exposition in it selfe for then what need we seeke for any other The words of the Scripture are Vidi vnum de capitibus suis quasi occisum in mortem I saw one of his heades as it were slaine to death Where we se a quasi which M. Downam omitted but the Fathers made so great accoumpt of it that they chiefely grounded their exposition vpon it especially because they knew very wel that if it had byn no faigned but a true and reall death it had passed the diuels cunning to haue recouered him except M. Downam will thinke that the Diuell can doe true miracles as he seemeth to insinuate by saying that the Diuels help neded not if the death were countersait but yet wee will thinke better of him then that he will fall to open blasphemy and will only tell him that the Diuels cunning was very needfull to make this wound seeme so desperate and mortall and to faygne death so cunningly that al should remayne so fullie satisfied and verily perswaded that the head had byn dead indeed and was risen againe by the power which the beast had by the Diuell But here wee must not passe ouer in silence M. Downams iuggling trickes for in his opinion the second Beast with two hornes is Antichrist for so he obiecteth to Bellarmine that he might haue read that the second beast which is Antichrist causeth the Image of the beast that is the new Empire to be made and putteth life into it Now this second beast had not yet appeared to S. Iohn when the head of the former beast was healed by the power which the Dragon had giuen to the former beast yet is M. Downam content to apply this to the Pope also not caring as it seemeth what he saith so that he may seeme to say somthing against the Pope But by the former beast as wee haue seene Luther Illyricus Chytraeus in their obiections suppose Antichrist is signified by the latter his chiefe Precursor and false Prophet who shall cause his followers to errect Statua's Images of Antichrist out of By the later beast which by his procuring the Diuells shall speake giue āswers other signes of life as sometimes happened amōg the Apoc. 11. is signified Anticrists false Prophet Pagās Idolators And this is the exposition of the anciēt Fathers by which all M. Downams deuise of the new Empire erected by the Pope becommeth too too foolish and ridiculous And if I were to dispute and not to answere I would aske how the Roman Empire came to haue 7. heads togeather Perhappes he might haue found two hornes as the second beast had by reason of the East and West Empire But now I will not vrge him any further since his folly is more then notorious already 6. Finallie M. Downam would make vs belieue that Bellarmine fighteth with his owne shaddow when he inuincibly proueth that the head which was healed is not Charles the Great for saith he by the head is not meant any one Man but the state and succession of Emperours And hath he not amended the matter well thinke you that wheras Bellarmine proueth that it could not be Charles because he raigned longer then 42. monethes M. Downam answereth it is true it could not be Charles but yet it might be the State and succession of Emperours as though this endured lesse tyme then Charles conteyning both him and all the other Emperours Can there be anie Downams ridiculous absurditie thing more ridiculous then this And is M. Downam anie better then a shaddow for Bellarmine to fight withall But yet he will haue one saying more and so he telleth vs that which is added concerning the Vniuersality either of worship or rule is not spokē of the head which was reuiued but of the beast which was to haue one of his seauen heads wounded to death and cured againe Well then let M. Downam shew vs where or by whom the Roman Empire had either worship or rule after the head was healed that is in his opinion after the Empire was restored by the Pope but onlie in Charles the Great and his Successors If he cannot shew vs any such matter anie where els let him confesse that this Vniuersalitie of rule and worship cannot befound in the Roman Empire but onlie in Antichrist as neither he can shew vs that anie of the Roman Emperours after Charles the Great blasphemed God and his Saintes so as this head or beast is said to doe But yet to doe him a courtesie wee will not stick much to graunt him as probable that Whether the woūded head Apoc. 13. be Antichrist or noe the head is not Antichrist himselfe but one of the 7. Kinges which shall continue with Antichrist and follow assist him in all his wickednesse as he may see learnedly expounded in Ribera one of Bellarmines religion and order And thus wee will cōclude leauing the iudicious Reader to iudge whether the Protestantes are deceaued thinking that the declination of the Empire was sufficient for Antichrists comming as Bellarmine modestelie affirmeth after euident proofes or the Catholikes be in an errour who thinke that Antichrist commeth not before the vtter desolation of the Roman
vsuallie it signifieth terrour particulerlie in this place by the cōsent of all ancient interpreters Fathers we see no reason why we should imbrace this new particuler opinion but rather take the same sense in this place which is manifest that the same words haue Ioel 2. except M. Doumā can shew vs that the Sun was turned into darkenes and the Moone into bloud before the first comming of our Sauiour Finally there is no doubt but that the second comming is as full of reuerence and filiall feare as the first and consequently euen in this sense also were to be called horible and terrible Thus much for the 1. proofe that Malac. spake of the secōd cōming Cardinall Bellarmine his second proofe is because it is added least perhapps I come and strike the earth with a curse which M. Downam applyeth to the first comming because our Sauiour at his second comming shall without peraduēture strike the earth But he might easily haue bethought himselfe that at his first comming without peraduenture our Sauiour was resolued not to strike the earth with curses but to replenish it with blessings this resolution arose not from any merits or good disposition of any that liued eyther then or before or after but from his owne infinite mercy and goodnes by which he vouchsafed to make vs his friends being of our selues his enemies so vniuersally that there was not one that could appease his wrath and I meruayle much that M. Downam should vpon the suddaine only to auoide an argument attribute more to merits then euer any Downam attributeth more to merits thē euer any Catholike did Catholike did wherfore we may well hope that he wil admit free will also without which there is no merit and which indeed that peraduenture signifyeth in this place for in respect of Gods decre and knowledg there could be no doubt what he was to do at either comming but only how we would dispose our selues which by al probability those which shal liue at our Sauiours second comming and aboue others the Iewes would not do in any good sort especially hauing then more hinderances by reason of Antichrists persecution then euer before had they not the assistāce of these two holy Prophets Henoch and Helias Finally the authority of Arias Montanus will stand M. Downam in very little stead though he accounteth him the most learned writer among the Papists for how learned soeuer he was his priuate exposition plainely both against Arias Montanus the exposition of the Fathers and the text it selfe as Bellarmine hath proued can haue no great force and indeed this was the fault of that man that he trusted more to his owne iudgment then to the authority of others which must needes please M. Downam well and we are content to let it passe so long as he was content to submit all his priuate opinions to the Churches censure which M. Downam will not doe and therfore where the other was sometime rash he is still headlong that is an heretike and so we admit that Arias in a rashnes fauoured to much some of M. Downās heresies And this shall suffice for the first place of the Prophet Malachy 4. Bellarmines second Scripture is the booke of Ecclesiasticus out of which he alleadgeth two places the one for Helias and the other for Henoch to which M. Downam answereth Ecclesiasticus Canonicall Scripture First that although this booke be very commendable yet it is not of Canonicall authority being but an humane writing as appeareth not only by the former place alleadged but also by that erroneous conceipt concerning Samuel Chap. 46. 23. But that this booke is canonicall he may see manifestly proued in Bellarmine l. 1. de yerbo Dei cap. 10. 14. by the authority of Councells and Fathers Neither could Caluin D. Downams good Maister find any obiection against this booke in particuler though he censured it more hardely then M. Downam doth By which we imagine that it will be an easy matter to answere to these two obiections which M. Downam maketh in this place and indeed they are plaine fooleries and therfore no meruaile though Caluin had wit inough to omit them for what can be more foolish then to deny the authority of Scripture only Downās petitio principij because it fauoureth his aduersary in some questiōs in cōtrouersy Did euer any Heretike deny any part of Scripture with lesse reason then this And for the present question I hope the Reader will remayne satisfied with that which shal be said in this Chapter and for the other of Samuel cap. 46. 13. I remit him to that which Bellarmine writeth lib. 2. de Purgatorio cap. 6. Only I will oppose to M. Downam the authority of S. Augustine who as Bellarmine well noteth hauing bene doubtfull lib. 2. ad Simplicianū q. 3. whether Samuel himselfe appeared to Saul or no affirmed without doubt that it was Samuel lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 15. citing the place of Ecclesiasticus which before he had omitted M. Downams second answere is that in neither place it is said that either of them should come to oppose himselfe against Antichrist But what then at least wise it is said that they shall come to appease Gods wrath and to reconcile the hart of the father to the sonne and to restore the Tribes of Israel and of Henoch to giue pennance to Nations all which we learne out of the other places of Scripture by the exposition of the Fathers that it shal be in the tyme of Antichrist not long before our Sauiours second comming and consequently that they shall oppose themselues to Antichrist since he shall striue to drawe both Iewes and Gentills from Christ and they will labour to conuert them to Christ And heere I would haue my Reader note one of M. Downams ordinary shiftes to tell vs what the argument Downās ordinary shifte doth not proue omitting directly to answere to that which it proueth for which it is brought Thirdly he answereth seuerally that Ecclesiasticus in the first place wrote according to the receaued opinion of his tyme which in M. Downams opinion was Eccles 48. false But surely we haue no reason to belieue him better then Ecclesiasticus and the Iewes of his tyme who were no doubt the true people of God which whatsoeuer M. Downam may perswade himselfe by his speciall Faith others will greatly doubt of him and as for our Sauiours and the Prophet Malachies wordes we haue and shall sufficiently proue that they were not against Ecclesiasticus nor the receaued opinion of his tyme as neither against vs who all agree that Elias in person and litterally is to come before Downam condemneth Ecclesiasticus the Iewes of his tyme. the second comming of our Sauiour And surely M. Downam is to bould with Ecclesiasticus and those of his tyme to attribute vnto them the errours of those Iewes which liued in our Sauiours
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
about the other Antichrist shall raigne three yeares a halfe Dan. 7. 12. 500. yeares because I would not be like him in speaking from the purpose Wherefore let vs see what he can say to the proposition concerning which he affirmeth the whole controuersie to be And so hee flatly denieth it affirming that the places of Daniel are to be vnderstood of Antiochus and not of Antichrist and repeateth his Chymericall distinctions inuented by himselfe of the 4. degrees in the deliuerance of the Iewes from the Tyranny of Antiochus for which hoe hath neither Scripture nor other author but Iosephus corrupted only Iosephâ—â— corrupted by some fauourite of Porphyrie of his owne exposition of Daniel for S. Hierome found no difference betwixt Ioseph and the Machabees but both affirmed that the desolation of the Temple lasted only three yeares and by their authoritie he manifestlie conuinceth that Daniel cannot be vnderstood of the tyme of Antiochus but of Antichrist because he putteth halfe a yeare more then the sacrifice ceased among the Iewes in the tyme of Antiochus Wherefore it is manifest that S. Hierome found but 3. yeares in Ioseph and that the 6. monethes were added since and if See the precedent Chapter Ioseph had written otherwise he were to be euidently conuinced of falshood out of the Machabees which M. Downam would gladlie conceale and therefore he maketh Ioseph to speake of another degree and putteth his words only in Greeke but all these deuises will not serue his turne since he expresly affirmed that the dailie sacrifice ceased 3. yeares and six moneths Ipse Antiochus Templum spoliauit quotidianae religionis assiâ—â—itateÌ„ per annos tressexque menses inhibuit which is flatlie against the Machabees and M. Downam himself also who will haue it to haue byn only 3. yeares and ten daies so maketh Daniel to agree with him by changing halfe a yeare into a parcell and would no doubt willingly haue done as much for Ioseph but that hee could not conuey it cleanly because he expresly reckoneth 6. monethes as now Hierom. in cap. 12. Dan. wee haue him but indeed only accompted three yeares as S. Hierome citeth him and so he agreeth passing well with the Machabees and it is euident that Daniel spake not of Antiochus but Antichrists tyme as hath bene sufficiently proued aswell by this number of three yeares and a halfe as by other circumstances which agree not to Antiochus in the former Chapter And this is all he hath to say about the places of Daniel only he repeateth an obiection which Bellarmine made to himselfe that Daniel reckoneth 1290. daies and S. Iohn but 1260. 30. lesse To which he answered that Anticrists last moneth is not accoÌ„pted in his raigne S. Iohn speaketh of the preaching of Henoch and Helias and Daniel of the death of Antichrist which shal be 30. daies after in which he shall notraigne so absolutly as before and therfore this last moneth is not commonly accompted in his raigne as neither the yeares before in which hee obteyned to the height of his greatnes For after the death resurrection and assumption of Enoch and Helias the third part of the Citty shall fall and 7000. shal be slaine with an earthquake and the rest shal be terrified and giue glory to the God of Heauen as S. Iohn writeth Apoc. 11. by which Antichrists kingdome shal be much diminished though hee shall liue one moneth Ionger Dan. cap. 12. and persecute so much as he may as the Angel tould Daniel being desirous to know what was to follow after the 3. yeares and a halfe 3. The places of the Apoc. trouble M. Downam shrewdly and therfore he giueth six solutions such as they are poore ones God wot First then he denieth that the tymes Apoc. 11. 12. 13. mentioned in the 11. 12. and 13. chapters are the same and putteth Bellarmine to proue it because he himself hath neither reason nor authority to impugne it withal both which Bellarmine hath alleadged for his exposition in which there is no difficultie where wee are to begin the accompt Neither will M. Downams bare word be taken affirming that all these tymes are not to be taken litterally and that none of them defineth Antichrists raigne For Bellarmine expresly prooueth the contrary But saith M. Downam the 42. moneths in the 11. and 13. Chapters signifie the tyme of the persecution vnder the Roman Emperours either only or specially For cap. 11. v. 2. it is said that the Gentills shall tread vpon the holy Citty 42. moneths But Antichrist as the Antichrist shal be the Prince of all the wicked in generall Papists hold shal be the Prince of the Iewes and counterfaite Christians and of all the wicked in generall also as M. Downam cannot choose but know if he would deale sincerely and not seeke for shiftes and starting-holes For in the last Chapter that was plainly not only affirmed but also proued as afterward it shall againe as likewise in due place that the great Citty where the two witnesses shal be slaine is Hierusalem See cap. 13. not Rome though if it were Rome it were no proofe but that they might be slain by Antichrist there in whose tyme they shall preach as hath bene largly conuinced By which it is likewise manifest that these places are to be vnderstood of Antichrist But nothing conuinceth this more euidently The foolish dreame of the foole Fox then the foolish dreame of the foole Fox whome the diuell which seemeth to haue perswaded him rightly so called because he was so blockish as to beleiue so absurd a deuise which notwithstanding M. Downam is content to make his cheifest ground because he hath no better to wit that by 42. moneths should be vnderstood so many sabbaths or weekes of yeares Was there euer a more absurd or ridiculous deuise inuented or maintayned Is this the sincere exposition of Scripture which they so greatly brag and boast of what connexion hath 30. dayes with 7. yeares Surely a moneth contayneth 4. weekes VVherfore if they will haue these 42. monthes to be vnderstood of yeares they must not tell vs of 42. weekes of yeares but of so many monthes which they cannot do and besides Bellarmine well proueth that there are not moneths of yeares as there are weekes and much lesse that moneths are taken for weekes which is There are no monethes of yeares a meere madnesse to imagine and altogeather as absurd as to thinke that Foxes head was of glasse as he is reported to haue most foÌ„dly imagined And yet is M. DownaÌ„ coÌ„teÌ„t thus to shift of the difficulty of all these places thinking it sufficient to haue found this goodly Glosse for the 42. months and that the number of daies or yeares need no further explication but is to be reduced to these 42. weekes of yeares though neither himself nor any man els can possibly inuent how to make theÌ„ agree For first
take a view of my answere to his proofes perhaps you will thinke them manifestly fond and foolish Secondly he saith that wee are to distinguish betwixt the tyme of Antichrists continuance the tyme of his heatest persecution which we willingly admit See chap. 4. though so that we alway thinke that his whole persecution shal be most hoat for we find no cold persecution of his at all Wherefore if he will graunt vs that the great and hoat persecution of Antichrist which is spoken of in the Scripture shal be very short least in a manner all perish we desire no more and thus much we must haue whether he will or no since the Scripture truly interpreted by the holy Fathers expresly affirmeth it In answering the fourth congruence he is somewhat large First he saith that Bellarmine presupposeth that Antichrist is but one man which is true in some sort because he had prooued it before and yet proueth it now againe thus farre that it is very improbable that more then one should be necessarie for the space of 3. yeares and a halfe longer then which Christ preached not and therefore in likelihood Antichrist shall preach no longer neither Secondly he taketh vp Bellarmine very short for making himself Gods Counsaylour which yet is farre otherwise for he only seeketh reasons of that which is already knowne that God hath done For I would haue M. Downam know that Bellarmine is too wise to haue deliuered any certainty only vpon this congruence and therefore would by no meanes make that inference which he would haue him that Antichrist shall peruert no more then Christ conuerted because The conuerting of one argueth more power theÌ„ the peruerting of many it is farre more easie to peruert then to conuert and so the conuerting of those few or any one of them which Christ conuerted sheweth farre more power then all that peruerting doth in Antichrist which bewrayeth no power at all but malice and hatred and yet would not Bellarmine say neither that Christ as man could conuert no more theÌ„ he did but that he vsed sufficient meanes to conuert farre more and could haue vsed more but he is wont to proceed sweetly though effectually with his elect whereas Antichrist vseth all cruelty and extremitie and findeth men more disposed to follow him then Christ did and therfore there is no comparison betwixt them two in this but only it seemeth vnfitting for vs to thinke that Gods goodnes will giue Antichrist a longer tyme to vse all those barbarous and tyraÌ„nycall meanes then was allotted to Christ only to allure men by his diuine perswasions and admirable workes Thirdly he would make a difference betwixt Christ and Antichrist in that Christ hath spoken by the mouth of his Prophets and Ministers As though Antichrist hath not alway had his Ministers also all heretikes and now M. Downam and his rable must be content to let all the world but themselues thinke that they are his Ministers Fourthly hee Antichrist may raise a vniuersall persecution â—â— one time would begin to proue that Antichrist cannot doe all those thinges which Catholikes attribute to him in so short a tyme. But this is another matter now and he cannot deny but that Antichrist may raise a generall persecution in all his Kingdomes in one tyme from which daie forward let M. Downam begin to reckon the three yeares a halfe of his raigne if any thing cannot be well comprized with in this space we will not stick to graunt that it was to be done before as the subduing of so many Kingdoms c. To the 5. and 6. proofe he only saith that they are not worth the mentioning But it should seeme he meant they were too hoat to be touched without burning his fingers and therfore he thought it best to haue only a snach away saying that the tyme and tymes and halfe a tyme as hath byn shewed belong not to antichrists raigne and that he taketh tymes for yeares How he hath shewed that this belongeth not to Antichrists raigne we haue already seene and refuted But now Bellarmine vrgeth how the 1260. daies being taken for yeares can agree with three yeares and a halfe and here M. Downam was faine to skippe for otherwise he could not haue escaped and it is Downam omitteth what he cannot answere inough in this place that he graunteth vs that a tyme and tymes and halfe a time signify three yeares and a halfe for by this it is manifest that both the 42. monthes as also â—he 1260. dayes signify the same and consequently that Antichrist is to raigne no longer since that it is euydent that they are vnderstood of his tyme as hath ben plainly proued 7. In the last place M. Downam goeth about to reply to the answers which Bellarmine gaue to his fellowes reasons and first to keep Chytraeus out of the ditch he lendeth him his authority saying that he saith it as well as Chytraeus at which I imagine the Reader will laugh and then because he saw that the place of S. Paul proued nothing neither vnlesse it might be graunted that Antichrist was already come he lendeth him another of S. Iohn affirming that the Antichrist was come in his tyme at which I suppose Chytraeus would chafe Chap. 2. Downam caÌ„not defend his fellowes For now we shall haue Antichrist to eÌ„dure as long as Christ besides S. Iohn affirmeth not that the Antichrist was come in his tyme but that he had many members then as hath byn sufficiently proued in due place so that Chytraeus remayneth in as ill case as he was before M. Downam layd to his helping hand But yet once againe he will try what he can do for him and Henry Bullenger togeather which he perfourmeth with a very subtill distinction saying that they speake of the tyme Bellarm. of the nuÌ„ber so that there shal be iust 42. 1260. but no man can tell of what And is not this a wise expositioÌ„ think you Will not Chytraeus Bullenger be ashamed of such a Pâ—â—cter who make the say they know not what theÌ„selues But M. DownaÌ„ will saue their credit if they will be ruled by him by bringing their vncertainties to some certainety as to the 4â— sabbothes of Iohn Fox the 1260. yeares of the MagdeburgeÌ„ses the former of which I refuted before and the latter is here exploded by Bellarmine in defence of which M. Downam hath nothing to say but to repeate their Argument out or Ezechiel without seeming to vnderstand Bellarmines distinction denying that daies are litterally taken there for yeares which is necessary for their argument though they may be a signe or figure of yeares and consequently signify theÌ„ mysticallie as thoâ—e 390. daies in which Ezechiel slept vpon his left side were a figure and signe of so many yeares euen as his sleeping was a sign of the toleration which God vsed towards the people of Israel but yet none but a mad man
be of little accompt except they could bring better proofes that they are the true Church of God which affirmation whilst it be proued is petitio principij and the Iewes Turkes and Pagans will say asmuch for themselues if any man wil be so foolish as to belieue them which he hath reason to doe assoone as heretikes of which number to vs it seemeth euident that Protestants are 5. Next M. Downam maketh Bellarmine to prooue that Antichrists name is not yet knowne by the authority of Irenaeus which he impugneth because Irenaeus liued before the fulfilling of this Prophesy which he affiâ—meth to be now fulfilled which obiection I thinke deserues no other name then the M. Downams Petitio principij former for it is a playne petitio principij And M. Downam might easily haue discerned that Bellarmine was in that place discussing and searching out the most probable opinion among Catholikes who all agree that Antichrist is not yet come no more then he was in Irenaeus his tyme and therfore his authority among them proueth very well that his name is not yet knowne As for M. Downam and his Mates who haue forsaken the Catholike Church and faith he argueth against them from their owne authority and manifest experience as we haue seene Wherefore all Irenaus his proofes are good and firme for the end that Bellarmine bringeth them as likewise his inference is euident to all Catholikes that The danger of ProtestaÌ„ts the Protestants are in great danger to receaue Antichrist when he commeth since before he come they so verily perswade themselues that he is already come which is a good warning for Protestants also to looke about them and to take heed that they be not so confident but vpon better groundes for the daunger is great But heere I must desire my Reader to marke attentiuely M. Downams deuise who will needes be so foolish as to seeme to thinke that M. Downam mistaketh Bellarmine the proofes which Bellarmine bringeth to conuince that Irenaeus was of that opinion that Antichrists name should not be certainely knowne before his coÌ„ming were brought by him to proue absolutely against Protestants that Antichrists name is yet vnkowne whereas he beginneth not to propose his argument to this purpose till he had fully examined both Irenaeus and all the other opinions 6. Well you must giue M. Downam leaue to mistake sometymes otherwise he should haue very little to say to the purpose Yet he will try what he can say to Bellarmines true proofe which is that Antichrists name is not yet knowne because there is a great controuersy about it Against which he obiecteth that by the same reason Bellarmine may conclude that few pointes of religion are yet knowne because there be few concerning which there is no controuersy But M. Downam must consider the difference which is great For first about Antichrists name there is not only a question betwixt Catholikes and Protestants but likewise euen Protestants M. Downam contradicteth himselfe themselues doe vary and Catholikes also are not all of one opinion which M. Downam insinuateth in some sort saying that in other controuersies the truth is knowne of those which are Orthodoxall howsoeuer others will not acknowledge it But of this matter he dareth not go so farre but only aduentureth to say that he doubteth not but that the truth of it is knowne although some cannot and others will not as yet see it So that in this some cannot know the truth but in other controuersies all may that will And besides M. Downam might haue noted that not only the Orthodoxall but all others must know and acknowledge Antichrists name thus farre that they confesse that he whome the Orthodoxall take to be Antichrist hath that name which hath this number of 666. as all Pagans Turkes and Iewes confesse that the name of Iesus which Christian should to be the name of Christ is indeed the name of our Christ and contayneth the number 888. But heere it is otherwise for though M. Downam and his fellowes giue the Pope the name of Romanus and Latinus yet neither the Popes themselues nor any other giue them that name without addition especially that of Latin cannot be attributed to him for he is head aswell of the Greeke as the The name of Latin cannot be giuen to the Pope Latin Church his particuler Sea or Bishoprick to which this supreme iurisdiction is annexed is only Rome And besides there is much controuersy whether these names contayne the number 666. or no as we shall see presently Neither can M. Downam help himselfe with telling vs that without doubt the Roman State is signified by the beast whose name contayneth this number 666. for this he knoweth is denied by vs and his proofes wherof he braggeth are all discussed and confuted in their due places 7. Wherefore now let vs see how he will confute Bellarmines Answere to the reasons which Chytraeus and Bibliander bring for their opinions And heere Bellarmine must be content to put vp an iniuryous imputation that M. Downam layeth vpon him that it is his manner to make choyce of the easiest Bellarmine slauÌ„dered by Downam obiections omitting the harder which is so manifest and notoriouâ— a slander that I dare remit the iudgement to any indifferent or morall Protestant For no man that hath read Bellarmine can deny but that he vrgeth all arguments against himselfe to the vttermost in so much that it is the common censure of Protestants that he is a good Author to be read against himselfe because his obiections are so forcible but their meaning is that the Reader should stay in them and not passe to his answers because they are also most plaine and euident But to come to our particuler M. Downam should haue shewed vs those hard obiections of Chytraeus and Bibliander which Bellarmine omitted but he hath no such matter only he writeth thus VVe produce three other arguments as you haue heard speaking of himselfe in the plurall number and as it seemeth vsing the same figure in numbring his arguments for I can only find one of his owne adding which is that the number of 666. is not the name of Antichrist himselfe but of the former beast which signifieth the Roman State But how can Bellarmine be blamed for not answering this argument which M. Downam hath framed so many yeares after his booke was written Downam contrary to his fellowes For Chytraeus and Bibliander could not vse this argument since they were not of M. Downams opinion in this point but tooke that number to be vnderstood of the name of Antichrist himselfe as all other Authors but M. Downam do also for ought I can perceaue since he alleadgeth none for See cap. 5. n. 5. c. his opinion and indeed the matter is playne as you may see in those places where it is discussed at large The first reason then which Bellarmine answereth is the authority of Irenaeus to
the Tribe of Dan then of divers other Tribes whose Genealogyes were also omitted in that place and therefore no meruaile though the Fathers made no inference out of this as M. Downam and some of his friends not very wisely doe 3. M. Downam hauing thus agreed with Bellarmine in not admitting the Fathers opinion in this point though he differeth in this that Bellarmine thinketh it very probable for their authority which he doth not he would by this president prooue that they may lawfully reiect the Downam impugneth the Fathers authority Fathers authority in all other pointes cōcerning Antichrist when it seemeth to them the Fathers alleadge not the Scriptures in their true sense But first M. Downom must remember that an vniuersall is not to be inferred from a particuler Secondly Bellarmine reiecteth not the authority of these Fathers but admitteth their opinion as probable which is asmuch as they themselues for the most part affirmed and so indeed Bellarmine followed them so farre as they would haue him Thirdly Bellarmine had the authority of some Fathers for his exposition of the two first places and therefore he might well follow their opinion especially since most of the other did rather follow the mysticall then the litterall sense In the third place where he brought no authority for himselfe M. Downam did rightely correct him shewing his instance to be very probable though still there remayneth some question why Ephraim was not named as well as Manasses but comprehended vnder the name of Ioseph Fourthly therefore M. Downam hath no reason to reiect all the Fathers when they agree without contradiction or doubt nor to make himself wiser then he is to take vpon him to vnderstand the Scripture better then they all yea though their arguments out of the Scripture should be only from the mysticall sense yet he may well assure himselfe that they would neuer be so resolute except they had some other good ground of diuine or Apostolicall tradition known by them to haue ben taught by the Apostles and from their tyme from age to age conserued in the Church for which reason I also incline to thinke that it is in a manner certayne that Antichrist shal be of the Tribe of Dan since so many Fathers affirme it without contradiction of any 4. But let vs passe ouer this argument as Bellarmine doth making it only probable and not certayne and come to those others that are most euident and certayne Against which M. Downam first obiecteth that Antichrist shall not be one singular man which I haue already shewed to be both false and impertine◠Secondly he saith that these opinions may be num 1. disproued by Scripture because Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God that is shall raigne in the Church of Christ But of this we shall See Cap. 13. haue occasion to treat afterward Besides saith he Bellarmine confesseth that Antichrist shal be the head of the Apostasy that is backesliding Christians Ergo not of the Iewes But M. Downam might easily haue considered that Antichrist may be the head of both as Bellarmine affirmeth After this he noteth that Antichrist shal be head of the Roman State and haue his Seate in Rome which how true it is we shall see afterward Now I would See cap. 13. faine know why a Iew may not haue both these cōditions Lastly M. Downam would know when the Iewes shal be called to Christ To which I answere that some shal be called in Antichrists raigne but the most after his fall which shal be not long before the end of the world as we haue already seene in part 5. Thus hath this wise man shot his bolt and now he holdeth vp his buckler to beare off Bellarmines Artillery and first to the testimony of S. Iohn 5. 43. he saith that he hath proued before that our Sauiour speaketh not absolutely but conditionally Io. 5. not definitely but indefinitely and only of the Iewes present which Cap. 2. are dead long since but all these shiftes are confuted long since at large and therefore it were needeles to repeat them or confute them heere againe 6. The second testimony 2. Thess 2. troubleth him somewhat more and therefore his tongue runneth at randome 2. Thess 2. explicating the place at large after his owne fancy and railing against Catholikes but obiecteth nothing worth the answering the most that he hath to the purpose is that the Apostles wordes may be applyed to all others that follow Antichrist aswell as to the Iewes In which we will not stand with him but now our question is whether the Iewes be included in these wordes or no and Bellarmine saith they are and that chiefly and this he proueth out of the Scripture it selfe First because none ought more and would lesse receaue Christ then the Iewes 7. To which M. Downam answereth not a word but that the Rhemists confesse that others may be said not to receaue the loue of the Truth also But what is this to the purpose Doe the Rhemists or can any other deny that none refused more to receaue the loue of the Truth then the Iewes And yet this is all the answere that M. Downam giueth but falleth into a rage and railing againe like a man more then halfe beside himselfe yet after a while he commeth to himselfe againe and returneth to Bellarmines second proofe out of the Scripture where he noteth that the Apostle speake in the preter tense of the refusers to receaue the Truth and in the future tense of the comming receauing of Antichrist out of which he inferreth that he is to be vnderstood of the Iewes who were they that chiefly had refused to receaue Christ in the Apostles tyme. To which M. Downam answereth that this preter tense is not to be referred to the tyme of the Apostles writing but to the tyme of their punishment By which as you see he maketh the preter and future tense all one or at least ioyneth them togeather expounding the later part of the Apostles words in English thus That all may be condemned that shall not haue belieued the Truth but shall haue delighted in iniquity and willing vs to conferre this place with Mar. 16. 16. which he likewise expoundeth in the same manner He that shall haue belieued and shall haue ben baptized shal be saued but he that shall not haue belieued shal be condenmed though in both places he is inforced to confesse that the greeke is the preter tense and he dareth not translate it otherwise howsoeuer he expoundes it So that vnlesse we will stand to M. Downam◠exposition rather then to the wordes of the Scripture we are to vnderstand all this of the preter tense only as the condemnation and the receauing of Antichrist in the future tense only which is a plaine signe that all this is not to be vnderstood of the same tyme as is also euident by the thing it selfe for men refuse to belieue and
Scripture and many of M. Downams bretheren are ashamed to deny it and by all probability he would be at least afraid to affirme the contrary if he were well examined by the temporall Maiestrate Secondly sayth M. Downam the Pope and Church of Rome vaunt that they alone are the Catholike Church and that all others professing the name of Christ which are not subiect to the Pope or acknowledge not themselues members of the Church of Rome are heretikes or schismatikes This is very true indeed for we thinke that there is but one faith and one Church and whatsoeuer One faith and one Church Christians are out of it must needes be schismatikes at least if not heretikes and I would haue thought that M. Downam would not haue beene so absurd as to deny this common principle agreed of by all which if he had graunted he would not much haue meruailed that we hould our selues to be of the true Church and consequently that all that are not vnited to vs are out of the Church for we do no more then all other Churches and Congregations do And finally M. Downam must of force put some limits to his Church also which if he make so capable that it may comprehend vs also we shall in some sort be beholding vnto him though we cannot requite him with the like But when we know all the conditions that are required to be of his Church it will be an easy matter to inferre that whosoeuer wanteth those conditions must of force be out of it and so this exposition will agree aswell to M. Downams Church and any other as to the Roman How the third exposition may be applied to the Pope M. Downam explicateth not but only affirmeth that this is the most true exposition and agreeth properly to the Pope of Rome Of the truth we shall see in due place but how properly it agreeth to the Pope is not so easy to conceaue For first all the Churches of those which M. Downam taketh to be the only true or at least the best Christians acknowledg not the Pope at all and Catholikes acknowledg him only to be Christs Vicegerent vpon earth which is far from that which Antichrist shall do when he shall so sit in the Temple of God that he shall shew himselfe as if he were God himselfe Concerning the fourth opinion which pleaseth not M. Downam first he denieth it to be the more common opinion as Bellarmine affirmed it was and yet wheras Bellarmin bringeth an cleauen Authors for his opinion M. Downam bringeth but fiue for his foure of which affirme also as much as Bellarmine doth and are by him alleadged to that purpose which M. Downam could not choose but see and therfore thought good to add that the being more common doth not proue it to be the more true for truth goeth not by voyces neither is it See Part. 2. cap. 4. §. 15. to be weighed by the multitude of suffrages but by weight of reason By which you may imagine what a great deale of reason and wit M. Downam thinketh him selfe to haue and how little he attributeth to the Fathers But all this is but in his owne proud and foolish conceipt for all but himselfe will be easily perswaded that there was more wit and true wisdome in the meanest of these ancient Fathers then there is in this insolent Minister though he had many of his fellow Ministers ioyned with him Secondly he denieth this exposition to be more probable because the Temple shall neuer be reedified which were his wonted figure of petitio principij but that he addeth as hath bene shewed Wherfore I will not censure him any further till the Reader hath seene how learnedly he sheweth it and whether the Fathers or he haue more reason and probability in this point Thirdly he addeth that it were not materiall though this exposition were more litterall vnles the litterall were vsuall And to shew that it is not vsuall he obserueth that in all the Epistles by the Temple of God is meant the Church where first the Reader must marke that the word Temple is not vsed in any Epistle but only in this place of the 2. to the Thessalonians and in the 2. to the Corinthians and only in 3. Chapters of them both in the which the faithfull and their bodies are called the Temple of God because the Holy Ghost is present and Temple what it signifieth in the new Testamēt remaineth with them But how can this be applied to Antichrist sitting in the Temple of God and shewing himselfe as if he were God Can Antichrist dwell in the soules and bodies of men as in his Temple Or if he could were this hidden and spirituall sitting any ostentation or shewing of himselfe as God And yet in this place S. Paul affirmeth that Antichrist shall do so for which no doubt he must sit visibly in a visible Temple by which most properly is signified the Temple of Hierusalem yea when S. Paul wrote and for many yeares after only that was so called as Bellarmine proueth and is to be seene in all the foure Euangelists and the Acts of the Apostles Wherfore since this place may yea indeed must litterally be vnderstood of a materiall Temple aswell as many other places of the new Testament it is ridiculous folly in M. Downam to tell vs that in some few places the word Temple is to be taken spiritually also and contrariwise the word Church materially for of this we neuer made question Yea but saith M. Downam to sit in the Temple of God as God is to rule and raigne in the Church of God as if he were a God vpon earth By which expositiō he maketh all Prelats Magistrats which rule and raigne in the Church of God to sit in the Temple of God as God in the manner that S. Paul saith that Antichrist shal sit in the Tēple of God which is a fit interpretation for a Puritanicall Minister who seeketh to peruert the whole order Hierarchy of Gods Church by with drawing the Christian people from the obedience of their lawfull Pastours prepare thē to receaue Antichrist himselfe when he commeth and in the meane time his forerunners the Heretikes of which because Downam seemeth to haue byn a Puritan whē he wrote this M. Downam is one himselfe no meruaile though he pleadeth so hard for himself his fellowes and Maister but if he had meant to deale sincerly he should haue proued his exposition out of the Fathers or answered the authority of those which Bellarm. alleadgeth for himselfe neither of which he once attempteth but yet remitteth vs to another place See part ◠§. 13. 14. 15. where God willing we will examine all that he obiecteth 4. M. Downam hauing in this sort answered to Bellarmines proofes out of the Scripture returneth to his argument ad hominem where first he taketh great exception at Bellarmine for not putting the word true in the premisses and
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
that word vntill for it importeth no such matter but only signifieth what is done till then but whether it continued at that time or after that time or no must be gathered by other coniectures or proofes As to exemplify in one of M. Downams authorities there was neuer any so foolish yet as to bring that place of Matth. 1. to proue our Blessed Ladies perpetuall Virginity but S. Hieroms and other Fathers haue byn inforced to answere it and to shew that the word vntill she weth only what hath byn done or not done vntill then but leaueth the rest of the time altogeather vncertaine whether things continued in the same state still or no. To Bellarmines second answere M. Downam hauing corrupted his words as the Reader may see if he please replieth first that the Primitiue Church belieued that the Temple should neuer be built againe held this assertion of the Papists as a Iewish fable But he bringeth not any one authority to proue Downam belyeth the Primitiue Church against the testimony of the Fathers this withall and therfore we must needes tell him that we do not belieue him for if we did we should do the Fathers great iniury which Bellarmine alleadgeth to reiect their authority without any ground and to thinke that M. Downam knew the beliefe of the Primitiue Church better then all they who liued so long before him For the other part of his answere we will not contend but that our Sauiour might meane the Army of the Romans by the Abhomination of Desolation but that he meant only that M. Downam neither hath proued The temple of Ierusalem shal alway be prophane though it be built againe nor euer will be able to proue and therfore Bellarmines solution is very good that Daniel when he affirmeth that the desolation shall perseuere to the consummation and end might very wel meane that though the Temple were built againe in the end of the world yet it should alway be prophaned after the ouerthrow made by Titus because the chiefest prophanation and abhomination of desolation shall be in Antichrists time At Bellarmines third solution M. Downam is much offended and telleth vs that in this place Daniel speaketh not a word of Antichrist nor yet of Antiochus his Type And for Antiochus we belieue him neither did Bellarmine euer dreame of any such matter of Antichrist the matter is not cleare though now it skilleth not whether he did or no for Bellarmine is only to shew that Antichrist sitting in the Temple of Hierusalem is not against this place of Daniel and not to proue out of this place that he shall sit there Wherfore let M. Downam begin his reply anew and so he doth arguing that it is not probable that Antichrist being so great a Monarch will suffer the temple which he chooseth for his chiefe seate to be vnbuilt or that he will sit in a temple without a roose or vnfinished To which it is easy to answere that this is not probable indeed if he may haue tyme inough and there fall no other hinderance But now M. Downam may remember that his raigne is to endure in that greatnes but only three yeares a halfe which is very little for the finishing of so sumptuous a building yet we thinke he may haue the roofe vp also at least in some part in which he shall sit till he may get the rest finished as he will hope he shall but yet he shall be hindred either The tēple of Ierusalem shall not be finished by Antichrist Socrat. l. 3. cap. 20. Theodoret. l. 3. c. 20. Sozom. l. 5. cap. vlt. Luc. 21. by the shortnes of time or by some accidents not vnlike to those that fell out in Iulians time though it be very likely that God wil permit much more in Antichrists daies without working myracles especially since it is certaine that the Temple was not to be built againe vntill the end of the world as Daniel foretould Which M. Downam will needes haue confirmed by that place of Luc. 21. where our Sauiour foretelleth that Hierusalem should be troden vnder the foote of the Gentiles vntill the tymes of the Gentiles be fulfilled Which words if they might haue that sense were a good explication of that which Daniel called the consummation and end for it is certaine that the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled before the end of the world be fully accomplished 10. To Bellarmines answere to the Fathers M. Downam replieth not a word and yet it contained matter of no smal importance but that which ouerthroweth the whole Protestants deuise For Bellarmine affirmeth proueth that those Antichrist shall sit in materiall Churches and not in the Church of Christ as a Bishop Fathers which they alleadg are no way against vs but manifestly against them since they speake of materiall Churches in which Antichrist will commaund himselfe to be placed and worshipped for God and not that he shall sit in the Church of Christ as a Bishop which is only the fond conceipt of M. Downam and his like without any authority either of Scriptures or Fathers or shew of reason Neither must the reader thinke that M. Downam omitted this reply because he maketh little accompt of the Fathers when they seeme to be on his side for of this we shal see the contrary in that he laboureth so earnestly to make S. Gregory seeme to say something in his fauour For to Bellarmines answere concerning his authority he replieth that the pride and ambition of Iohn of Constantinople though very great and Antichristian was not to be compared with the incredible insolency and pride of the Antichrist of Rome because Iohn of Constantinople challenged not that height of authority The Pope hath not so much soueraignty as Iohn of Constātinople challēged See part ◠cap. 1. soueraignty which Popes since haue vsurped not only ouer Bishops and Ecclesiasticall persons but also ouer the Kings and Monarches of the Earth VVhere to omit that Bibliander made his illation against the Pope precisely because he maketh himselfe the vniuersall Bishop and sitteth in the Church as head of all and consequently all other charges are from the purpose you see the Pope charged first with taking more soueraignty vpon him then Iohn of Constantinople did which is a loud lye by M. Downams leaue for Iohn of Constantinople would haue bene the Vniuersall Bishop in that sense that there should be no other properly Bishops besides himselfe but al others should be his Vicars and Vicegerents which was more then euer the Pope challenged or pretended The second charge seemeth to be that Iohn of Constantinople sought only a superiority ouer all Bishops but the Pope hath vsurped the same ouer all Kings and Monarches also But this is so ridiculous that M. Downam may well be ashamed therof for what doubt can there be but only in a flattering parasites conceipt that he who hath superiority ouer all Bishops must needes
Antichrist shall be a Sorcerer and after the manner of other Witches shall secretly adore the Diuell himselfe by whose help he shall do wonders and that he is called the God Maozim yea I do not thinke that Maozim is the name of a God but of a ceâ—aine most fortified and secret place in which shall be the chiefest treasures of Antichrist and in which as we said he shal adore the Diuell for it followeth in Daniel And he shall cause Maozim to be sortified with a stong God whome he hath knowne And truely Maoz signifieth both strength and a castle In this sort doth Lyranus expound it and that we must necessarily say that Antichrist is himselfe the God Maozim or if it be any other that he is not to be adored by Antichrist but in a most hidden place and secretly from the knowledge of all the very words of Daniel compel vs which otherwise should be contrary to themselues For if he shall care for none of the Gods how shall he openly worship Idolls Now the two arguments of Illyricus are of no importance for in the first he committeth three faults First in that he affirmeth that Christ explicateth the words of S. Paul wheras rather S. Paul ought to explicate the words of Christ Secondly in that he saith that Matth. 24. To come in the name of Christ doth signify the same as to be the Vicar of Christ For the explication of Christ himselfe is repugnant to this explication of Illyricus for when our Lord had sayd Many will come in my name forth with he addeth explicating saying I am Christ Wherfore to come in the name of Christ in that place is to vsurp to themselues the name of Christ which in old time Simon Magus did as witnesseth S. Iren. lib. 1. cap. 20. and in our time Dauid Georgius and at length Antichrist himselfe shall do But the Pope euen in that he nameth himselfe the Vicar of Christ doth make himselfe not to be Christ Illyricus his third fault is that he maketh Christ an vnfit interpreter of S. Paul for he doth not rightly expound that place of S. Paul He extolleth himselfe aboue all Gods by this many will come in my name that is will make themselues my Vicars for the Vicar of God is not aboue all Gods but vnder all Gods as the Vicar of a King is vnder all Kings for it cannot be imagined or deuised how he that professeth himselfe to be the Vicegerent of any King should boast that he is aboue all Kings by which the blindnesse and impudency of our Aduersaries is apparent who somtime vtter such things as are against common sense And to that argument of Illyricus by which he proued that the Pope did vsurpe greater authority then Christ hath I answere that the proposition and assumption of that argument are two lyes and besides that the consequence is nothing worth For first it is false that Christ subiected himselfe to the Scriptures since that it is manifest that he is the Author of the Scriptures and therfore aboue the Scriptures and when we read that Christ did those things which he did that the Scriptures might be fulfilled that vt or this signifyeth not the cause but the euent as S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine teach in cap. 12. Ioan. for Christ did not dye because Isay wrote so but Isay wrote it because it was to be Secondly it is also false that the Pope euer sayd in word or in dead that he can dispense against an Euangelist or Apostle for though he can dispense in the positiue precepts of the Apostles yet this is not against an Apostle but according to an Apostle who doubtles knew that the Apostolike power by which he ordained something in the Church for a time was to be in his successors by which they might moderate or change the same thinges as should be expedient for the Church But in the Euangelicall that is the diuine percepts no Catholike euer said that the Pope could any way dispense Finally the consequence is naught for in the Maior or Proposition Illyricus speaketh of the subiection of Christ vnder the Scriptures not concerning the precepts but concerning the Prophesies for Illyricus was not ignorant that Christ had taken away the Sabboath and abrogated the Ceremoniall Law in the Minor or Assumption he speaketh of precepts and so his argument hath foure termes and can conclude nothing This shall suffice for the doctrine of Antichrist in this place M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted 1. MAISTER Downam beginneth his answere telling vs that there are more Doctrines of Antichrist then foure which Bellarmine denieth not and therfore this is not to the purpose Secondly he sayth that those two doctrines of diuels 1. Tim. 4. of forbidding marriage and commanding abstinence frome meats belong also to Antichrist which Bellarmine will not stick to grant or at least to let passe as being nothing against him or the Pope as may easily be shewed vpon any good occasion But now we haue other foure Doctrines in hand of which M. Downam affirmeth two things First that they are not all the doctrines of Antichrist Secondly that those which be his Doctrines do not vnfitly agree to the Pope Wherfore let vs see how he can make either of these his assertions good or answere Bellarmines proofes to the contrary 2. First then concerning Antichrists deniall of Christ M. Downam denieth that it shall be openly directly and expresly and telleth vs that he hath prouided els where that Antichrist was only to deny Christ couertly indirectely and by Antichrist shall openly deny Iesus to be Christ consequent and that he hath likewise shewed that the Pope doth so Concerning which assertions of his I must craue thus much fauour at the Readers hands that he will not belieue M. Downam vpon his word vntill after the discussion of those proofes he find him to be an honest man for now this place requireth that we examine how he answereth Bellarmines arguments To the first of which M. Downam hath nothing See part 2. cap. 4. §. 6. 7. 8. See cap. 12. at all to say if Antichrist shall be by Nation and Religion a Iew. Which point hath byn already discussed and therfore now the reader is to giue iudgment whether he shall be so or no and consequently whether it be not also manifest by this argument that Antichrist shall deny Christ plainly and openly 3. For answere to the second argument M. Downam denieth that S. Iohn in that place speaketh either of the body of Antichrist 1. Ioan. 2. in generall or of the head of that body in particuler but of Cerinthus and others which denied the Diuinity of Christ as appeareth plainly by that which followeth in the text This is that Antichrist that denieth the Father the Sonne But M. Downam might haue remeÌ„bred how Bellarmine in his second argument obserued that in some places the article was put in and in some left out to signifie when
Gods seruants As though Bellarmine went about to conclude any thing now and did not only set downe his Assumption in plaine words which containe two things 1. That the Pope acknowledgeth himselfe to be the seruant of God 2. Nor God either of which M. Downam should haue proued to be otherwise if he would haue sayd any See part 2. cap. 5. Downam speaketh from the purpose thing to the purpose for whether the Pope may be called Rex Regum c. or no we shall see in another place where M. Downam will spit out all his venome at once Now it is sufficient that the Pope doth not plainely professe himselfe God as Antichrist shall do consequently he is not Antichrist which is al we go about to proue now In that other place we will also shew how falsly and slaunderously M. Downam affirmeth that the Pope taketh any authority vpon him that belongeth to God or that in practice deed or behauiour he vseth himselfe as if he were a God Now also his beast of the Apocalyps commeth so out of place that I will not stand to proue that by him not Antichrist See cap. 15. §. 10. but his false Prophet is described which I haue heretofore shewed in part and will heerafter declare more at large 11. M. Downam stormeth more at the fourth doctrine then at the rest calling it an absurd conceipt of the Papists and affirming that it is not only repugnant vnto the truth but also contradictory to their owne Doctrine in proofe wherof he asketh many Antichrist wil suffer no other God beside himselfe questions If it be credible either that a mortall man shall affirme himselfe alone to be the true God and none but he or if he shall so affirme of himselfe that Christians and Iewes and all the world almost will acknowledg and worship him as the only true God To which I answere that it is not only credible but also certaine And the difficulty which M. Downam putteth is none at all for there can be no doubt made but that a mortall man may A mortall man may be truely God be true God for so our Sauiour was while he liued vpon earth and now we see the whole Christian world perswaded of this truth though our Sauiours conuersation vpon earth was so contrary to flesh bloud that it was a scaÌ„dall to the Iewes and folly in eyes of the Gentiles wheras Antichrist will follow the humours of both seeming glorious in the eyes of world and wonderfull in lying and deceiptfull signes and myracles and with all giue such liberty to his followers that they will make no difficulty in belieuing any thing he sayth 2. He obiecteth that the Antichristian seate is figured by the whore of Babylon Apoc. 17. which togeather with Apoc. 17. her followers are giuen to Idolatry But M. Downam knoweth that Bellarmine denieth that Rome figured by that whore is the seate of Antichrist and likewise that those Idolatries are to be in Antichrists time but are long since post when Rome was Ethnike both which he proued before and M. See cap. 12. DownaÌ„ either would not or could not answere to either then and now he only affirmeth the contrary which is no sufficient proofe 3. The Papists themselues expound Deut. 11. 38. where Antiochus Epiphanes iâ— discribed as an Idolater as properly spoken of Antichrist where the Printer surely coÌ„mitted an errour though it be not noted amongst the falts escaped for in Deut. 11. there is nothing that can be applyed to Antiochus and only 32. verses wherfore no doubt M. Downam meaneth Dan. 11. Dan. 11. 38. where he speaketh of the God Maozim but this place Bellarmine handleth at large a little after wherfore I will intreat M. Downam and the Reader also to â—â—ay for a further answere till we come to examine M. Downams reply to Bellarmines answere concerning that place 4. He asketh this question Do not themselues teach that Antichrist shall professe himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes and consequently that he is sent and annoynted of God To which I answere that we teach indeed that he shall professe himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes but the consequent we teach not for he shall come in his owne name and not sent or annoynted by God and this he will professe also if not in the beginning yet at least after a while and by this M. Downams next question is also answered for since he shall professe himselfe not sent by God he may say that there is no God besides himselfe 5. Or if he being but a mortall man shall say that there is no God besides himselfe may we not well thinke saith M. Downam that they will either hisse at him as a foole or stone him to death as a blasphemer for answere of which I will spurre M. Downam another question Are you so simple Syr as to thinke that Antichrist will only say that there is no God besides himselfe or that he will discouer himselfe so farre till he see himselfe so applauded that he may say what he listeth without any feare at all of either being hissed or stoned and for that obiection of mortality it is already answered that it may stand with the Godhead and besides Antichrist will make a faire shew of either raising another or himself from death to life which will take away this obiection theÌ„ at heast if any stand vpon it at that time so much as M. Downam doth at this 6. Nay do not themselues teach that he shall be in religion â— Iew an obseruer of the Sabbaoth In Dan. â—â— and other Iewish Cerimonies And do they not alleadg Hierome to proue that Antichrist shall faigne himselfe to be the chiefe of the Couenant and a chiefe mantainer of the Law and Testament of God To all which I answere that we do so for he shall not professe himselfe to be any other God then the God of the Iewes and consequently shall approue their law 7. Lastly he poseth vs thus Are not his two hornes like the lambe expounded by some approued Authers among them of the two Testaments which he shall seeme to professe In Apoc. 13. To which I answere that M. Downam might haue done wel to haue named these approued authors for commonly Catholike authors thinke not that this beast with two horne like a lambe is to be vnderstood of Antichrist but of his precursor or false prophet whom S. Irenaeus calleth ArmigeruÌ„ by whose two hornes are signified his power in perswading and in working prodigious and strange things If any expound them of the two testaments they can haue no other true sense but that he shall professe great knowledg in both to establish the old and impugne the new that so he may preuaile with them the better which are lâ—ath to forsake Christ for the authority of the Scriptures 12. Now that M. Downam hath disgorged his owne proofes he is content to answere
appertayning to this purpose But what impudency is this Do not those authorities plainly shew that the Popes of Rome were highly esteemed of both among Christians Gentiles long before the times that the ProtestaÌ„ts assigne for Antichrists comming and consequently that those Popes which they most foolishly and impiously assigne did not arise from base estate But saith he the estate of the first Bishops of Rome was meane Well suppose it were so what were this against those Popes which you make Antichrist whose estate was not meane as Bellarmine proueth as indeed the state of the first cannot be said to be by any that maketh accompt of spirituall prehemmence and authority and preferreth it before any temporall dignity whatsoeuer But in these worldly Ministers eyes our Sauiour himselfe would seeme meane if he were vpon earth againe in the manner that he was And his other obiection is as foolish of the base birth and obscure parentage of diuers Popes As though this were the bâ—fâ—nes that we speake of now or the Protestants impugued any particuler Pope and not the whole succession of them for these 1000. yeares But if he would haue said any thing to the purpose he should haue shewed as Bellarmine rightly saith that the Pope vntill the yeare 600. was most obscure of no name and that then suddainly and by deceipts he vsurped some high place This M. DownaÌ„ neuer toucheth but passeth it ouer as though he had byn blind as no doubt he was with malice which made him break out into such a fit of rayling without all modesty or measure which See part 2. cap. 5. therfore I omit in this place reserue all such stuffe to the 2. Part especially since M. Downam acknowledgeth that now it is not to the purpose only the Reader must not let passe his Downam chargeth Bellarmin vniustly charge against Bellarmine for cunningly passing ouer in silence the other part of fraud and deceipt which he may see by the wordes which now I alledged out of Bellarmine to be most false True it is that he bringeth no distinct proofs for this but only by shewing the Popes greatnes before the yeare 600. euidently conuinceth that he came not to it then by any Fraud or deceipt but succeeded into the lawfull Inheritance of his Predecessours for as I said before now the Downam omitteth Bellarmin his argument question is not of the election of any particuler Pope but whether the Popes in generall did at that tyme obtayne by fraud any great dignity being base before And thus M. Downam concludeth his discourse concerning this first argument omitting as the Reader may consider the greatest part of it which is taken from the littlenesse of the home cap. 7. by which he will haue Antiochus to be signified and yet contendeth that he was not little but rather alway great which two assertions how they hang togeather I leaue to the Readers iudgement 12. To Bellarmines second argument he hath nothing else to answere but to tell vs that the 4. beast is the Kingdome of the Seleucidae Lagidae and that the 10. horne he meaneth the 11. was Antiochus Epiphanes All which hath ben sufficieÌ„tly Antichrist shall ouerthrow 3. Kings confuted already wherefore we are now only to note how he contradicteth himselfe in explicating how Antiochus Epiphanes was little before his comming to the Crowne for now besides his vile and base conditions he can tell vs that he was called little because of his vnlâ—kenes to be King First because he was the 3. and yongest sonne of Antiochus Magnus his elder brother Seleucus also hauing a sonne called Demetrius Secondly because he was to be a perpetuall hostage aâ— Rome wherefore he must needs graunt that Antiochus may be called despectus cap. 11. v. 21. aswell for these reasons and the like as for his base conditions which a little before he denied so obstinatly Now the 3. hornes which the Scripture saith were to be pulled vp before the little horne M. Downam will by no meanes haue to be Dan. 7. Kings of other Kingdomes then Syria and much lesse of diuers as of Egypt Lyhia and Ethiopia but the 3. immediate predecessors of Antiochus and this he proueth because they were expressly called the 3. former hornes viz. of the ten But he knoweth well Dan. 11. inough that these 3. Kinges are named cap. 11. as we shall see forthwith And besides the absurd it yes which this exposition conteyneth as we haue already shewed why doth he not shew vs what these 3. immediate predecessors were whom Antiochus made away According to the succession of the Kinges of Syria which he himselfe alloweth they should be Seleucus Ceraunus his Vncle Antiochus Magnus his Father and Seleucus Philopater his brother and though Antiochus Epiphanes were so wicked that in that respect it might be though that he would be ready inough to contriue any mischiefe yet to affirme all this without either History or other witnes is a strange liberty if not of lying yet at least of saygning The death of his brother Seleucus Philopater is affirmed by M. Downam to haue ben contriued by Heliodorus whom he affirmeth to haue ben suborned by Antiochus Epiphanes and quoteth v. 20. as though all this were Scriptures but there is no such matter and Appianus in Cyriâ—co who affirmeth that Heliodorus slew him treacherously likewise affirmeth that he would haue made himselfe King and that they who put him back admitted Antiochus by which it appeareth that Heliodorus was not so much deuoted to Antiochus as M. Downam imagineth And it is easie to answere to that proofe that the 3. hornes are called the 3. former for it is plaine that Daniel calleth them so because they appeared vnto him before the little horne and were likewise to be in the world before it yea if we would stand strictly vpon that word and admit M. Downams interpretation that those 10. hornes were to reigne successiuely we should rather say that the 3. former or first were the 3. first predecessors Why the 3. Kinges which Antichrist shall slay are called the 3. first or former of Antiochus then the 3. last which were rather to be called the 3. latter But since the truth is that all the 10. were to be togeather there can no order of first or last be appointed vs among them and therfore we must of force say that they were called 3. of the first because the 10. appeared before the little one for indeed they are not called the 3. former hornes as M. Downam auoncheth but 3. of the former betwixt which there is a great difference euen as much as betwixt Gods truth and M. Downams lye And all this is made Downam corrupteth the Scripture more plaine in the exposition of this vision v. 24. where this little horne is expounded to be another King which shall arise after the 10. and be more mighty then the former and shall humiliate 3. Kinges where
there be betwixt Dioscorus Patriarch of the second Sea presiding in a generall Councell and Luther a simple Monke writing in his chamber But now leauing Luther let vs come to Melancthon THE NINTEENTH CHAPTER The trifles of the Smalchaldicall Synod of the Lutherans are confuted THERE is a booke of the Power Primacy of the Pope or of the Kingdome of Antichrist put forth in the name of the Smalchaldicall Synod which to me seemeth to be Melancthons but whosoeuers it be it hath nothing but words vayne bragging It is well knowne saith the Author of the booke that the Bishops of Rome with their members defend impious doctrine and impious worships and plainly the notes of Antichrist agree to the kingdome of the Pope and his members Hitherto the Proposition Now let vs heare the proofes for Paul ad Thessal describing Antichrist calleth him the aduersary of Christ extolling himselfe aboue all that is said or worshipped for God suting in the Temple as God wherfore he speaketh of some that raigneth in the Church not of Heathen Kings and him he calleth the aduersary of Christ because he shall inuent doctrine repugnant to the Ghospell and he will vsurpe to himselfe diuine authority Although all this if it were true would hurt vs very little yet I aske vpon what foundation this exposition is built S. Paul plainly saith that Antichrist shall extoll himselfe aboue euery God and that he shall sit in the Temple not as a King not as a Bishop but plainely as a God and this same expresly affirme S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose and the rest of the ancient Fathers interpreters of this place With what right do you then without witnesse and without reason affirme that he is Antichist who sitteth in the Temple not as a God but as a Bishop And is so far from extolling himselfe aboue euery God that he doth not only adore God the Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost but also in the presence of all the people prostrateth himselfe before the Sacrament of the Eucharist before the Tombes of the Apostles and Martyrs before the Crosse and Images of Christ and his Saintes which you your selues though impiously are wont to call strange Gods and Idolls But let vs see how you apply this same to the Pope The Synode And first it is manifest that the Pope reigneth in the Church and vnder the pretext of Ecclesiasticall authority and Ministry hath made himselfe this Kingdome for he pretended these wordes I will giue vnto thee the Keyes Bellarmine You say indeed that the Pope reigneth in the Church but you proue it not But we can easily shew the contrary for he that reigneth acknowledgeth not any superiour in his Kingdome but the Pope professeth himselfe to be the Vicar and Seruant of Christ his King And although he vseth most ample power in the whole House of God and in the vniuersail Kingdome of Christ notwithstanding that power exceedeth not the condition of an administrator and seruant for Moyses also as S. Paul saith Hebr. 3. was faithfull in the whole house of God but as a seruant and Christ as a Sonne in his owne But to go forward The Synode Besides the doctrine of the Pope is many wayes repugnant to the Ghospell and vsurpeth to himselfe diuyne authority in three manners First in that he taketh to himselfe authority to change the doctrine of Christ and the worships instituted by God and he will haue his doctrine and his worships obserued as if they were diuine Bellarmine This likewise you say but proue it not and it seemeth to vs not only false but also a most impudent lye for you are not ignorant that in the Catholike Church it is taught by all that the doctrine of Christ and worships cannot be changed by any man no nor by any Angell neither Was there euer any question betwixt you and vs whether that which Christ taught or commaunded ought to be belieued and done but whether you or we interprete better the doctrine and procepts of Christ In which question you in a manner are wont to bring nothing els but your owne interpretation but we bring the consent of the Fathers and either the decrees or customes of the Catholike Church for we do not oppose as you falsely brag the consents of the Fathers and the decres and customes of the Church to the word of God but to your iudgement and interpretation But let vs heere the second proofe The Synode Secondly because he taketh to himselfe not only power to loose and bynd in this world but also power ouer soules after this life Bellarmine This also is said but not proued for the Pope doth not take to himselfe authority ouer the soules of the departed since that he doth not absolue them from their sinnes and punishments by his authority but only communicate with them the prayers and the good workes of the faithfull which lyue by manner of suffrage And all the ancient Fathers do teach that the prayers and almes of the liuing and chiefly the Sacrifice of the Masse do profit the dead of which since we haue largely disputed els where it shal be sufficient to haue noted one testimony of S. Augustine in this place wherefore serm 34. de verb. Apost S. Augustine speaketh thus It is not to be doubted that the dead are holpen by the prayers of the holy Church and the wholsome Sacrifice and the almes which are giuen for their soules But let vs go on The Synode Thirdly because the Pope will not be iudged by the Church or any other and taketh away their authority from the iudgment of Councells and of the whole Church But this is to make himselfe God to refuse to be iudged by the Church or by any other Bellarmine Heere also two things are said which are not proued for first by what Scriptures by what Councells by what reason do you proue that the Pope ought to be iudged by the Councells or the Church For we read to omit other things which are sufficiently disputed in the former booke that it was said to S. Peter by Christ Iohn 21. Feed my sheep and we thinke that there can be no doubt that the sheep are to be ruled and iudged by the Sheepheard and not the Sheephard by the sheep We also read Luc. 12. that it was said to the same Peter VVho thinkest thou is a faithfull and prudent Dispenser whom the Lord appointeth ouer his family In which place we see a certain Steward put ouer the whole family of Christ certainly to gouerne it and not to be gouerned by it And least perhaps some should obiect what if he were a naughty Steward by whom shall he be iudged if he be aboue all and subiect to none Therfore our Lord addeth forth with And if that seruant shall say in his hart my Lord delayeth to come and shall begin to strike the Men and Maid-seruants and to eate and drinke and be drunke the Lord of that seruant will come in