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
because the seed of Gods word had bene cast into the world by the Apostles which fructifying and increasing by little and little was to replenish the whole world as one that had put fire to diuers parts of a Citty might trulie be said to haue set all the Cittie on fire because he had applied the fire which increasing by little and little was to consume the whole Cittie And this verie same signifieth the Apostle when he saith in the whole world it is fructifying and increasing for it had not taken possession wholie of the whole world seeing it was yet more and more spread afterward abroad and yet in a certaine manner it had taken possession that is vertuallie and not actuallie We might also answere with S. Hierome in Matth. 20. S. Thomas in Rom. 10. that the Ghospell came to all in two māners one way by fame another way by peculiar preachers and foundation of Churches and that in the first manner the Ghospell came to all Nations of the whole world then knowne in the tyme of the Apostles and that S. Paul speaketh of this in which sort also S. Chrysostome in Matth. 24. is to be vnderstood But in the second manner that it came not then but is to come in the tyme appointed and that our Lord Matth. 24. Luc. vlt. Act. 1. speaketh of this Adde lastlie that it is not absurd if we graunt that our Lord spake properlie and the Apostle figuratiuelie For the reasons which compell vs to take our Lordes wordes in a proper signification haue not the same force if they be applied to the wordes of S. Paul especiallie seeing our Lord spake of a thing to come and S. Paul of a thing past M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted 1. IT pleaseth M. Downam to be a little merrie about these 6. Demonstrations calling them six slender coniectures and thinking Bellarmyne troubled with melancholie for deeming otherwise But I will leaue it to the Readers iudgment if it be not more likely that he is loaden with folly Afterward he iesteth at Bellarmine for making Antichrists death the end of the world which shal be after his death to be two signes of his comming As though all this were not to fall out within 3. or 4. yeares after his comming and consequentlie did not plainelie demonstrate that he came not a 1000. yeares since which is that which Bellarmine goeth about to prooue and so might verie well vse these signes to demonstrate his not comming so long agoe 2. But comming to answere the first demonstration it is wonderfull to see how many wordes he spendeth in vaine and how few to the purpose For he being to answere Bellarmines proofes which I haue alleadged he scarse euer toucheth any of them but maketh a long discourse altogeather friuolous about the expositiō of that whole place Matth. 24. Wherefore I shal be inforced to gather vp heere and there some scattered denialls and so replie to this his broken and confused answere 3. And first to the Fathers which Bellarmine alleadgeth as his chiefest proofe I find only these wordes of his Or to what end saith he should I spend my tyme in answering the Testimonies of the Fathers who supposed that the Ghospell should be preached in all the world before the comming of Antichrist seing according to the meaning of our Sauiour Christ it was to be preached in all the world before the destruction of Ierusalem And is not this a wise answere thinke Downam reiecteth the Fathers you to accuse the Fathers to be against Christ because their doctrine is contrary to M. Downams But I take it few will belieue him vpon his bare word against Bellarmine alone much lesse hauing so manie ancient Fathers ioyned with him 4. Bellarmines other proofe was out of the text because by that great tribulation before which it is said that the Ghospell shal be preached in the whole world the Fathers and in particuler S. Augustine vnderstandeth Antichrists persecution But M. Downam neuer mentioning S. Augustine or other Father flatlie denieth their doctrine in this point as he had done in the former therefore indeed neuer goeth about to answere the argument but to denie the conclusiō whatsoeuer the proofes be 5. Yea that which is worse because he would seeme to say something he beareth the Reader in hand that Bellarmine had bene so simple as to prooue his conclusion only Downam omitteth Bellarmines proofes answereth his owne out of those wordes Matth. 24. This ghospell of the Kingdome shal be preached in the whole world in testimony to all Nations And then he answereth verie grauelie But our Sauiour Christ doth not saie that the Ghospell shal be preached throughout the world before the comming of Antichrist but before the end And is not this to get himselfe out of his Aduersaries reach and then to shew great valour in playing his prize by himselfe alone and beating the ayre 6. Another tricke of M. Downās is to answere an argumēt which Bellarmine thought better for breuities sake to leaue vnproued that is that in Antichrists tyme the cruelty of the last persecution shall hinder all publike exercise of true Religion To which M. Downam answereth That it is not necessary that the Ghospell should be preached generally throughout the world at one tyme for it might suffice that in one age it were preached to one Nation and in another age to another people and so in Antichrists tyme it might be preached to some Nations where it had not bene formerly preached therfore might be preached to all Nations before the destruction of Antichrist though it were not before his comming But Bellarmine neuer affirmed that the Ghospell should be generallie preached throughout the world at one tyme but M. Downam dreameth it And if he would haue said any thing to the purpose he should haue tould vs how the Ghospell can be preached to any Nation when the persecution is so great and generall that all publike exercise of true Religion doth cease in all places throughout the whole world And this is all that he bringeth in answere to the arguments Wherfore only there remayneth that we see whether he proueth his owne exposition in those two pointes in which he is contrary to Bellarmine and the Fathers any better 7. For first he will needes haue the consummatiō of which Matth. 24. our Sauiour speaketh to be the destruction of Ierusalem and not the end of the world but yet neuer answereth to any of those argumēts which Bell. hath in his answere to the obiection three o◠the which namelie the authoritie of the Fathers and the two latter reasons are so manifest that M. Downam Downam dissembleth the difficultie delt very politikely in dissembling them since he could not answere them And to proue his owne expositiō he bringeth a conceited inuentiō of his owne to witt that our Blessed Sauiour would comfort his Disciples by telling them that the successe of their Ministry
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
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
figure of Petitio principij not only without any proofe as commonly he vseth it but against euident proofe which also he is forced to do now and then His second solution is that these notes agree also to Popish Rome both in respect of dominion vsurped more insolently ouer the Kings of the earth by the Pope then by any Emperour and in regard of most cruell persecution of the Saintes of Christ To which impudent assertion of his I see not what The Pope hath only a spiritual power ouer Princes other answere can be giuen but to refer the matter to the Readers iudgment who will easily perceaue that the Pope hath now only a spirituall power ouer Kings aswell as ouer other Christians for the good of their soules without exacting or vsurping any temporall dominion ouer their persons or estates as the old Roman Emperours did to whome they were Tributary if not altogeather subiect and whatsoeuer the Pope doth in temporall affaires it proceedeth from his spirituall authority to which no doubt temporall things do so farre belong as they may hinder or help the good of soules and no further as is largely explicated by Cardinall Bellarmine and other Catholike Deuines And as for M. Downams Saints which the Pope doth persecute I am content to referre the decision of this question whether Christian Rome may be called Babylon or no till he hath shewed vs an authenticall canonization of these his Saints and in the meane time it shall be also as certane that Ethnick Rome is meant by Babylon as that those blessed Martyrs which died in those daies were truly the Martyrs of Christ and glorious Saints 9. Thus much M. Downam thought sufficient to reply to Bellarmines answeres of their first argument and comming to the second where they contend that Antichrist shall sit in the Church of Christ because S. Paul saith that he shal sit in the temple of God he is content to let passe Bellarmines solution to the first proofe that the Apostle vnderstood the Church of Christ by the Temple of God which was because when the Apostle wrote there was no other Temple of God but the Church of Christ since that the Temple of the Iewes was ceased to be a Temple when the Iewish Sacrifice and Priesthood ceased To which Bellarmine answered that though it had ceased to be the Iewish Temple yet it ceased not forth with to be the Temple of God but belonged to the Christians so long as it remained as he proueth Downam omitteth Bellarmin his answere out of the Scriptures To which as I said M. Downam hath not one word for which cause I might also haue passed it ouer in silence but that I promised a little before to shew in this place how the Temple of Ierusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of God which as you see is no hard matter to do since that he speaketh of it as it was in his time whē it was most truly the Temple of God and besides since Antichrist shall build it againe for the Iewes and pretend not to withdraw them from the true God but to professe himself to come from him at least before he discouereth himselfe further the temple erected by him may be called the Temple of God though when he shall sit in it and shew himselfe as God he will professe himselfe to be the true God and so either auouch that he is the God of the Iewes in whose Temple he shall sit or els extoll himselfe aboue him for so much the words of S. Paul do import as we shall see afterward Concerning the place of Daniel M Downam hath foūd his tongue againe and giueth words inough but indeed nothing but words Well he replieth to all Bellarmines answers and to the first he vrgeth our Translation vsque ad consummationem finem perseuerabit desolatio and S. Hierome who saith Dan. 9. vsque ad finem mundi and others whome he nameth not because as it seemeth they were not worth the naming vsque The tēple of Hierusalem shall be built againe in the end of the world ad consummationem eamque praecisam and then he alleadgeth three places of Scripture out of which he inferreth that the word vntill signifieth rather a perpetuity then cessation before the time which seemeth therby to be limited But first we must charge M. Downam with a manifest falsification of Bellarmines words for he alleadgeth them in a different letter thus Danyel would say that the Temple should not bee reedified vntill a little before the end of the world wheras Bellarmines words are these Adillud ex Daniele respondeo vel Daniclem voluisse dicere non esse reedificandum Tēplum Downam corrupteth Bellarmines words nisi in fine mundi To that of Daniel I answere that either Daniel would say that the Temple is not to built againe but in the end of the world and is not this a great shame for a Doctour of Diuinity to be taken in so grosse an absurdity that either he must confesse that he cannot conster two words of latin or els that he is a wilfull falsifier Well now that we haue Bellarmines true words let M. Downam vrge our text and S. Hierome and see if he can pick any more out of them then that the Temple is not to be built againe before the end of the world which Bellarmine affirmeth also and only addeth that it may be Daniel meant that it was to be built in the end of the world but not before But against this M. Downam vrgeth the authoritie of others who add the word pracisam by which we might coniecture that they were some Precisians but whatsoeuer they be if by the precise consummation they meane the indiuisible instant which the Philosophers call vltimum quod non they shew thēselues to be more precise then wise for the Scripture is not to be interpreted so precisely or metaphysically but after the manner of common and ordinary speach as when we say such a man made not his will till his death we meane that he made it then c. And as for the three authorities of Scripture it were no hard matter to find 300. for M. Downams three where it is otherwise taken but now one or two shall suffice as Gen. 49. when Iacob foretould that the Scepter should not be taken from Iuda vntill the comming of Gen. 46. 2. Reg. 1. The word Vntill signifieth neither continuance nor cessation but is indifferent to both the Messias the sense is plaine that it was to be taken from them then yea a little before also if M. Downam will needes vrge that point Likewise 2. Reg. 1. where Dauid and those which were with him are said to haue mourned for Saul and Ionathas c. vsque ad vesperam vntill the euening I hope M. Downam will giue vs leaue to thinke that they left mourning then wherfore it is a fond illation of M. Downam to inferre a perpetuity out of
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