A TREATISE OF ANTICHRIST CONTEYNING The defence of Cardinall Bellarmines Arguments which inuincibly demonstrate That the Pope is not Antichrist AGAINST M. GEORGE DOWNAM D. of Diuinity who impugneth the same By Michael Christopherson Priest THE FIRST PART Si Patrem familias Beelzebub vocauerunt quantò magis domesticos eius Matth. 10. If they haue called the Goodman of the house Beelzebub how much more them of his houshould Imprinted with Licence M.DC.XIII TO THE KINGS MOST EXCELLENT MAIESTY MOST MIGHTY PRINCE I HOPE it will not be deemed any presumption but rather a iust and necessary preuention for me to offer this my Treatise concerning Antichrist to your Soueraigne Maiesty Sure I am that it procedeth from a loyall and dutifull mynd desirous to auoid all occasion of offence and ready to imploy my best labours yea my life it selfe in your Maiestyes seruice My aduersary likewise hath prouoked me hereunto who togeather with M. D. 〈…〉 Powell haue taken the same course with their disputations of the same subiect And though they may seeme to haue the better hand by reason of your Maiestyes education and present profession yet I want not reasons of encouragement wherby I may be induced to hope and expect your Maiesties fauourable patronage and protection At least your Maiesty giueth all men good leaue to dispute of this Controuersy by accounting the Protestants proofs but bare coniectures yea promising to yield to the Truth when it shal be manifested by more forcible Arguments and more probable Interpretations which we haue good cause of hope to see shortly performed by the labours of so many learned men of forraine Nations who haue endeauored to giue your Maiesty satisfaction in this kynd In the meane space we cannot but highly extoll this rare modesty in so great a Monarch especially when we heare M. Powell and other such vnlearned Vpstarts protesting with full mouth that they know as certainly that the Pope is the great Disput de Antichr in initio Antichrist as that God is in Heauen and Iesus Christ our Sauiour and Redeemer Certainely it is strange how any man could fall into a fit of such extreme and impudent madnes were it not that God permitteth sometymes such excesse of malicious folly for the reclayming of others misled and seduced by these erring guids and false Prophets In which respect I haue alway thought this Question very profitable and of great importance to omit how necessary the discussion thereof may proue sooner then we are aware in regard of the true and great Antichrist himselfe whose comming we haue far more reason to expect in our dayes then the Ancient Fathers had in theirs Thus the diuine Goodnesse alway turneth euill into good and maketh all things concurre to the welfare of his Elect and by this strang paradox and calumniation preuenteth and prepareth vs against Antichrists comming with an exact Discouery of his whole proceeding and persecution which whosoeuer considereth attentiuely as it is layd downe in the sacred Scripture and declared by the holy Fathers will easily perceaue that hitherto the chiefest signes and notes of Antichrist haue not byn fulfilled by any So that indeed there can be no doubt or question whether he himselfe be come only some controuersy might be moued which of his forerunners doth most resemble him And in this also the matter may easily be decided for who seeth not that the false Mahomet draweth nighest vnto him both in name and deedes His name contayning the number 666. which is by S. Iohn assigned to Antichrist and his impiety enmity and persecution against Christ and Christians is notorious to the whole world For which cause there haue not wanted some both Catholicks and See Peâ—erius in Apoc. Protestants who haue persuaded themselues that there is no other Antichrist to be expected But these are euidently confuted by many inuincible arguments Notwithstanding this their errour though neuer so grosse may seeme in some sort excusable because they impugne a certayne and manifest enemy But what shall we say of those who take their marke so much amisse that they make the chiefe visible Pastour of Christs Church a member of Sathan yea Antichrist himselfe Can any thing be more absurd or intollerable Is it possible that any Christian would giue Luther the hearing when his proud spirit of contention and contradiction made him first breake forth into this open blasphemy How did not Princes perceaue that this was the high way to all rebellion Could they conceaue or imagin that Temporall Authority Iurisdiction would be regarded where the chiefest spirituall power vpon earth was thus impudently contemned and trodden vnder foot Can they trust to their Pedigrees when they see the continuall succession of 1500. yeares so lightly esteemed What better Title can they pretend for themselues then the expresse words of our Sauiour with which he established S. Peter and his Successors Your Maiesty wisely obserued that vnlesse In the conference at Hampton court the Authority of Bishops were mayntained that of Princes could not stand No Bishop no King saith your Maiesty And certaine it is that no lawfull Bishop can be vpholden against the Popes Authority to which all other spirituall Iurisdiction is subordinate Can any Iudge or Magistrate of the Realme be independant of your Maiesty This is so euident that euen the Puritans themselues though otherwise neuer so blinded with malice against the Pope could not choose but see it For which cause they stick not to protest to all the world that if the Prelats haue the Truth especially in this point the Pope and the Church of Rome and in them God and Christ Iesus himselfe haue great wrong and indignity offered vnto them in In the Christian and modest offâ—r c. published anno 1606. pag. 16. that they are reiected and that all the Protestant Churches are Schismaticall in forsaking vnity and communion with them Thus then it plainely appeareth that the Protestants neither according to the Truth it selfe nor in the Puritans iudgment can defend themselues their pretended Bishops but by establishing the Pope and Roman Church And all the vehemency which they vse against the Pope to proue him Antichrist falleth vpon themselues who participate with him in admitting the Hierarchy of Bishops And as for other proofes proper to Puritans they are inforced to answere them as well as we yea most of all these Arguments be such as might very easily be turned against any lawfull Prince whatsoeuer and much more against such Protestant Princes as besides their Temporall power make clayme to spirituall Iurisdiction Let any discreet Reader reflect vpon all particulers and he will easily discerne that if Catholicks had byn no more moderate then Luther and other Protestants were King Henry could not haue intitled himselfe Head of the Church in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affayres without hauing the name of Antichrist applyed and appropriated vnto him For if such contumelious inferences be made against the Pope
only within their owne Trib◠for I can assure him that neither the Kings nor the Nobility of England will imitate those of Iuda in this and it will be their only way to get a Law enacted that their generation may succeed them in their Ministry which M. Downam seemeth to wish and to mislike that law not a little which in a parenthesis he telleth vs hath otherwise prouided These are the base and carnall cogitations of these new Ghospellers and yet all will not serue for they shall neuer find a remedy for this their griefe except they returne to the Catholike Church whom◠they may thanke for the liuing they haue But in it God hath prouided for this all other inconueniences that can any way arise and in particuler for the deciding of all questions and controuersies Wherefore if the Protestants and Puritans will haue an end of this of their Bishops and Presbitery they must of necessity stand to the Catholike Churches iudgment in which they shall find Bishops established and yet sometimes by reason of persecution Priestes only without Bishops as now we see in our Country where conformable to that which in their iudgmēt was practised in the Primitiue Church in many places at least for a tyme we haue hitherto only Priestes subordinate to an Arch-Priest but yet we are far from misliking Bishops but do both wish and expect them when our lawfull Superiour who succeedeth the chiefest of the Apostles shall see it conuenient M. C. A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS of this first Part of Antichrist THE disputation of Antichrist is propounded and the first Argument from the name it selfe discussed CHAP. I. That Antichrist shal be a certaine determinate man CHAP. II. That Antichrist is not yet come CHAP. III. The first demonstration That Antichrist is not yet come CHAP. IIII. The second demonstration CHAP. V. The third demonstration CHAP. VI. The fourth demonstration CHAP. VII The fifth demonstration CHAP. VIII The sixt demonstration CHAP. IX Of Antichristes Name CHAP. X. Of Antichristes Character CHAP. XI Of Antichristes Generation CHAP. XII Of Antichristes Seate CHAP. XIII Of Antichristes doctrine CHAP. XIIII Of Antichristes myracles CHAP. XV. Of Antichristes Kingdome warres CHAP. XVI Of Gog and Magog CHAP. XVII The dotages of Heretikes are confuted with which they do not so much proue as impudently affirme that the Pope is Antichrist CHAP. XVIII The trifles of the Smalcaldicall Synod of the Lutheranes are confuted CHAP. XIX Caluins lyes are refuted CHAP. XX. The lyes of Illyricus are refuted CHAP. XXI The fooleryes of Tylemanus are refuted CHAP. XXII The lyes of Chytraeus are refuted CHAP. XXIII The arguments of Caluin and Illyricus are confuted who go about to proue that the Pope is no longer a Bishop where also the fable of Pope Ioane the Woman is confuted CHAP. XXIIII CARDINALL BELLARMINES THIRD BOOKE of the Pope THE FIRST CHAPTER VVherin the disputation of Antichrist is propounded WEE haue demonstrated hitherto saith Bellarmine that the Pope succeedeth S. Peter in the chiefest Princedome of the whole Church It remayneth that wee see whether at any tyme the Pope hath fallen from this degree for that our aduersaries contend that hee is not at this time a true Bishop of Rome whatsoeuer hee was before And Nilus in the end of his booke against the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome speaketh thus But let that be the summe and head of my speach that while the Pope keepeth in the Church a conuenient heauenly and of ancient tyme appoynted order while hee holdeth and defendeth the heauenlie truth while he cleaueth to Christ the chiefe and true Lord and head of the Church I will easilie suffer him to be both the head of the Church the chiefest Priest the successor of Peter or els if he will of all the Apostles that all obey him and that whatsoeuer belongeth to his honour be in nothing diminished but if he be departed from the truth will not returne to it he ought deseruedly to be accounted of as one that is condemned and reiected But he should haue shewed into what errours the Bishops of Rome are fallen and when and by whome they were condemned For we know that in the Generall Lateran Councell vnder Innocentius the third and of Lyons vnder Gregory the tenth and of Florence vnder Eugenius the fourth the Greekes being conuicted of errour returned to the Faith of the Latins and afterward alway returned to their vomit againe and were therefore most grieuouslie punished by God but we neuer read that the Latins came to the Faith of the Greekes Neither can there any Ecclesiasticall iudgmēt be produced against the Latins as wee bring many against the Greekes Now Caluin Lib. 4. cap. 7. § 22. Let saith he all those things be true which notwithstanding wee haue now wrested from them that Peter was by the voice of Christ appointed Head of the vniuersall Church that he left the honour giuen vnto him in the Roman Sea that this was established by the authoritie of the auncient Church confirmed by long vse that the chiefest authoritie was alway due from all to the Bishop of Rome and that he was the iudge of all causes and men that he was subiect to the iudgement of none let them haue more also if they will Yet I answere in one word that nothing of this standeth in force except the Church and Bishop be at Rome And after § 24. Let the Romanists vntie me this knott I deny that their Pope is the Prince of Bishops since that he is not a Bishop And after Let Rome in tymes past haue bin the Mother of all Churches but since she began to become the seate of Antichrist she left to be that which she was And after § 25. VVee seeme to some backbyters and slanderers when wee call the Bishop of Rome Antichrist but they which thinke soe vnderstand not that they accuse Paul of immodesty after whome we speake yea out of whose mouth we speake soe And least any obiect that we wrongfullie wrest Paules wordes against the Pope which perteine to another purpose I will brieflie shew that they cannot be vnderstood otherwise then of the Popedome So he The like teach al the heretikes of this tyme chieflie Luther in supput temporum in assert art 28. 36. and often in other places Likewise the Magdeburgenses Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. colum 434. sequent and in all the following Centuries cap. 4. 7. 10. Illyricus in lib. de primat Dauid Chrytraus in cap. 9. 13. Apoc. Likewise VVolsgangus Musculus in loc commun tit de Ecclesia Theodor. Beza in Com. 2. Thessal 2. Theodor. Bibliander in Chron. tabul 10. 11. 12. 14. Henricus Pantaleon in Chron. Henricus Bullinger praesat in suas homil ad Apocal. And before all these Iohn VVicklisse art 30. amongst those which are condemned in Concil Constantiensi sess 8. pronounced the Pope to be Antichrist VVherfore that this question may
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
the Cittie of Constantinople haue as wee wish her glorie and Gods right hand protecting her let her enioy a long reigne of your Clemencie Alia tamen ratio est rerum saecularium alia diuinarum c. Yet worldly and diuine thinges haue different reasons neither will any other building be firme and stable besides that rock which our Lord hath put in the foundation He looseth his owne who desireth those thinges which are not his due Let it suffice that by the foresaid help of your Pietie and by the consent of my sauour he hath obteyned the Bishoprick of so great a Cittie non dedignetur Regiam Ciuitatem quam Apostolicā non potest facere Sedem let him not disdaine a Kinglie Cittie which he cannot make an Apostolicall Sea So that M. Downam in S. Leo his iudgment confoundeth worldlie and diuine thinges by going about to make vs belieue that Rome had the preheminēce of an Apostolicall Sea because it was the chiefe Citty which as you see S. Leo saith by no meanes can be Likwise Bellarmine bringeth the authoritie of Gelasius Epistola ad Episcopos Dardaniae who likewise reasoneth thus Millan Rauenna Syrmiū Treuers and Nicomedia were the Seates of the Empire many tymes and yet the Fathers neuer gaue any preheminence or Primacy to those Bishops as neither they would haue done to Rome only for that respect And as for the authority of the two Councells M. Downam must know if he be ignorant of it that the first of Chalcedon was not confirmed by S. Leo but only in matters of The Coūcell of Chalcedō See Paralelus Tortiac Tortoris cap. 4. The Canons of the 6. generall Councell Fayth and in this poynt was by him expresly reiected as may be seene in the Epistle already recited in diuers others ad Anatolium ad Pulcheriam ad Maximum ad Iuuenalē In which likewise as also in the 16. Act of the Councell it selfe it appeareth that this Decree was made in the absence of the Popes Legates who had the chiefe place in that Councell and that they did afterward openly gainesay and resist it And if by the Councell of Constantinople he meaneth the Canons commonly called the Canons of the sixt Generall Councell as it seemes he doth he must likwise be tould that those Canons are of no accompt as not made by that Councell but by certaine Bishops which afterward met priuately togeather as appeareth by the beginning of the Canons thēselues and by the confession of Tharasius Bishop of Constantinople in the 7. generall Councell Act. 4. and Bede calleth them Erraticam Synodum an erring Synode moreouer writeth that Sergius then Pope reiected them lib. 6. de sex atatibus in Iustiniano Iuniore And all this and much more to the purpose might Downam seemeth not to haue read so much of Bellarm. as he impugneth M. Downam haue learned out of Bellarmine himselfe if he would haue taken the paines to haue read him ouer or at least so much as he meant to impugne as it was good reasō he should haue done before he had gone about to answere him Neither shall I need to spend any more tyme in this matter since his chiefest authorities are out of these two Councels For what he meaneth by that which happened tempore Mauritij I cannot yet coniecture for it were too absurd for him to defend Iohn of Cōstantinople against S. Gregory as likewise the Bishops of Rauenna whose arrogancy ambition is condēned cōtemned also by the whole world But it is no meruaile though in so bad a cause M. Downam can find no better Patrons 5. Concerning the comming of Antichrist with the temporall sword which is the second degree M. Downam goeth about to iuggle with vs after a strange manner For wheras Bellarmine in the confutation of Luther confuteth three groundes which Luther built his opinion vpon I. the deposition of the Emperour Henry the 4. II. the hauing temporall dominion III the making of warre by shewing that all these three Actes had bene exercised by the Pope before this tyme putting Downams seely iugling particuler examples of euery one M. Downam very cunningly as he thought but indeed very seelily as it will appeare now that he is taken with the manner answereth that true it is that the Popes had a temporall dominion before but not generall and so with granting one part he thinkes he may safely deny the other without euer troubling himselfe to examine Bellarmines instance any further But we must put him in mind that when Gregory the second depriued Leo the Emperour of the Kingdome of Italy he did not only shew himselfe to haue right to the patrimony of S. Peter which could only haue warranted him to haue kept that from the Emperour but The pope hath power to depose Princes for the spirituall good of Christs Church likewise to haue a generall authority to depriue Princes of their owne dominions in some cases and for some causes which he could not do but by a generall power though we will not much stand with M. Downam about the name of Temporall power for that we rather thinke it to be spirituall therfore cānot be exercised by the Pope but for the spirituall good of Christs Church as M. Downam may see largely explicated by Bellarm. in his 5. booke where also he shall find diuers other examples to this purpose to which it will not be inough for him to oppose his hereticall author Auentinus Of Auentine See part 2. Chap. 3. n. 6. for we will at any tyme take M. Downams owne word so soone as any other of his mind except they bring better profs then he doth And this is all which M. Downam hath to saie against Bellarmine wherfore he concludeth in these wordes And thus haue I answered whatsoeuer is in his 3. Chapter pertinent to the matter in hand omitting as my manner is his other wranglings as being altogeather either impertinēt or merely personal Where I wil only craue the Iudicious Reader to looke ouer Bellarmines whole discourse and if he findeth nothing in it but which directly impugneth the opinions and not the persons which he alleageth and withall that he doth it so inuincibly that there can be no euasion as I verily perswade my selfe any Downams māner to omit that which he cannot answere indifferēt man will easily see then let him know that whatsoeuer M. Downam hath omitted was because he could by no meanes make so much as any shew of answering it as he hath gone about to doe in this which we haue examined and withall let him know also that this is M. Downams manner as he himselfe affirmeth and make accompt of the Man accordingly THE FOVRTH CHAPTER In which is explicated the first demonstration that Antichrist is not yet come WHEREFORE the true opinion is saith Bellarmine that Antichrist hath neither begun to raigne nor is yet come but is to come and to raigne about the end of
tyme and were so addicted to this world that they would by no meanes vnderstand that their Messias was to come in that humility in which our Sauiour came which notwithstanding was plainly foretould in the Scriptures which we haue no reason to thinke but that Ecclesiasticus and those of his tyme did vnderstand aright and consequently knew well inough that Elias was not to come at our Sauiours first comming but at his second since it is manifest in this place that they expected his comming litterally and in person Now as for the authority of Iansenius who M. Downam prayseth as he did before Arias Montanus because he Iansenius maketh for him to be one of the best writers among the Papists there had byn no great cause of his commending him if M. Downam had bene disposed to haue dealt sincerely since Bellarmine shewed how he changed his opinion in Matth. 17. where he writeth that the Prophet Malachie cannot be vnderstood but of the true Elias and consequently must needes Downam dealeth not sincerely taking the obiection omitting the answere thinke that Ecclesiasticus was not deceaued in vnderstanding him so But this is another of M. Downams tricks to steale an obiection from Bellarmine and omit his answere where we might meruayle at his impudent folly but that it is no new nor strange thing in him as it was in Iansenius or any Catholike Writer to attribute an errour to Canonicall Scripture which was the cause of Bellarmines meruayling at Iansenius and of his changing so absurd an opinion or rather errour in his later writings in which he doth not only auouch and prooue this truth but also affirmeth that it is the doctrine of the Catholike Church which none but an Heretike will deny Concerning the other place which speaketh of Henoch M. Downam triumpheth saying that it is Ecclesiast 44. a wonder that Bellarmine would alleage it for this purpose But that hauing nothing to say to the purpose he is desirous to say something to bleare the eyes of the simple The originall text hath Henoch pleased the Lord God and was translated for an example of repentance to the generations that is that the generations present and to come might be moued by his example to turne vnto the Lord and to walke before him knowing by his example that there is a reward layd vp for those that turne vnto the Lord and walke before him as Henoch did But will Bellarmine hence conclude that therfore Henoch is to come agayne in the flesh to oppose himselfe to Antichrist Hitherto M. Downam And this is all he hath to say Where first we see that he cannot deny but that the latin text which Bellarmine cited made much for this purpose and there is no reason but that we should attribute as much at least to the latin interpretation as to M. Downams interpretation since it cannot be denyed but that there is The latin interpreter not to be reiected lesse suspition of partiality in him being so ancient who made no doubt of the sense and therfore translated it in that sorte as it were to exclude M. Downams deuise and since the latin Church hath all this tyme receaued this translation for Scripture we must not deny it now because it is contrary to some Protestant opinions especially since we see far greater difference in other partes of Scripture betwixt the originall text some interpretations allowed by the Church neither of which the Fathers durst reiect but rather imbraced and expounded them both as the word of God and indeed who knoweth not that the chiefest certainty that we haue of either dependeth vpon the approbation and authority of the Church which cannot erre in matters of this moment And I belieue M. Downam will hardly giue vs any other sufficient reason why he belieueth these bookes to be Scripture rather then others or this interpretation to be good and others bad But besides the authority of the latin text we thinke the Greeke to be for vs also at leastwise no man can deny but that our exposition is conformable to the Fathers doctrine who affirme our assertion of Henochs comming and consequently we are sure that we may safely expound it so without danger of errour and that M. Downam hath no reason to deny our sense so peremptorily M. Downams opinion of Henochs trāslation maketh as much for any other vertue as for repentance cōtrary to the Scripture though he thinke his owne better which we meruayle not at But further we cannot well see why Henochs translation should rather serue for an example of Repentance then of Hope Religion Iustice Innocency Faith Charity or any other vertue if we admitt M. Downams exposition and yet he is said particulerly to be an example of pennance which commeth very fitly for the latin interpreter and our explication and agreeth passing well with that which S. Iohn writeth Apoc. 11. that these two diuine witnesses shall preach amicti saceis in sack-cloth which wil be a good example of pennance indeed 5. About the third place Matth. 17. 11. his first answere is that by the Euangelist Marke who speaketh in the present tense Elias I. VIII indeed comming first restoreth all thinges the meaning of our Sauiour Christ appeareth to haue byn this Elias quidem venturus fuit primum restituturus omnia Elias indeed was to come first and was to restore Matth. 17. Mar. 9. M. Downam egregiously corrupteth S. Marke S. Matthews Text. all thinges And you must note that he putteth S. Markes wordes as he citeth them as also his owne interpretation in latin in a distinct character to bleare the eyes of the simple and make them belieue that they are both very Scripture And surely howsoeuer he may excuse the later the first is somewhat hard since that S. Markes words are Elias cùm venerit primò restituet omnia which the Protestant English Bible translateth Elias verily when he commeth first restoreth all thinges where we see a when which sufficiently sheweth that Elias was not yet come and besides both venerit restituet are the future and not the present tense and in the wordes following S. Marke hath an which cleareth this matter greatly Sed dico vobis quia Elias venit But I say vnto you that Elias is also come which sheweth plainely that in the former clause our Sauiour spake of a future comming as if he had said Elias shall come in person and also is come in spirit in S. Iohn Baptist which only was required at the first comming of our Sauiour But nothing will serue head-strong Heretikes therfore M. Downam corrupteth S. Matth. Matth. 11. 11. also making him say Iohn Baptist is that Elias who was to come putting it downe in a distinct letter as before whereas the wordes are Ipse est Elias qui venturus est where he could see the first est and translate it truly but not the second because it was against
in great part because he is supposed though falsly to arrogate more to himselfe in Temporall affayres then of right he ought how much more would the same imputation fall vpon such a Prince as did first vsurp spirituall Iurisdiction without eyther example or other probable pretense But I will not vrge these odious inferences any further your Maiesty will easily conceaue how far this proiect might be pursued And by perusing this small labour of myne which I now offer to your Maiesty it will manifestly appeare that we haue euident and inuincible Arguments taken out of Scripture and all Antiquity to free our chiefest Pastour the Popes Holynes from this most absurd and false calumniation and that whatsoeuer any Protestant can answere to these our proofes is without any difficulty ouerthrowne and confuted As likewise their rayling inuectiues and friuolous obiections are presently dissolued returned vpon themselues All which considered I account it no presumption to be an humble Suppliant to your most Excellent Maiesty for some release and mitigation in the pressures and persecutions which Catholicks endure vnder this pretence of the Popes being Antichrist For how can it possibly stand with iustice or reason that a lawfull Prince should punish his loyall subiects for performing their duty to their spirituall and lawfull Pastour That Rebells should vphold Hereticks who are Traytors against God and his Church it were no meruaile since they all agree in the impugnation of superiour powers And yet it is too notorious to the world what Catholicks suffer for their conscience in your Maiestyes Dominions what losse of lyuings liberty yea sometyme of life it selfe How busy are Purseuants in ransacking their houses abusing their seruants and apprehending their persons What insolencyes and vexations are they constrayned to endure And to omit the generality and seuerity of this persecution from which neither frailty of sex nor band of matrimony nor Nobility of birth can exempt any how many things lye hid and vnknowne which would astonish and amaze the world if they were laid open to the view therof What prying and inquiring into mens secret actions in somuch that euen ordinary prouision for the sustenance of nature cannot be made without suspition of Treason as appeared not long since by the pot of peares which were supposed to haue bene balls of wildfyre How many are beaten and tormented euen to death in priuate houses without any publick tryall Some Prentises in the Citty of London can giue good testimony heerof I might adde such other particulers as the rods kept in store by some of no small account for yong youths vnder twenty yeares whom they vse like schollers thinking it not to be against their grauity to whip them priuately with their owne hands But I will not offend your Maiestyes eares with the recitall of such base and vnworthy actions Only I will humbly beseech our Blessed Sauiour to moue your Maiestyes hart to take pitty and compassion of these abuses by giuing present Order for the redresse and reformation of so much as your Maiestie already misliketh which we hope to be the greatest part And for the rest we only craue this fauour that we may be spared vntill vve be heard for vve nothing doubt but that if your Maiesty vvould once resolue to informe your selfe thoroughly of the truth God vvould not be vvanting to our iust desires and to your Maiesties so Honourable and necessary endeauours GOD of his goodnes direct and protect your Maiesty AMEN Your Maiesties most faithfull Subiect and humble Oratour Michael Christopherson P. THE PREFACE to the Reader TO some I doubt not this my labour which I haue taken in discussing this question of Antichrist will seeme superfluous or at least not so well bestowed as it might haue bene in many other subiects And they will be much confirmed in this their opinion if they consider that among so many learned men as haue written in our language and euidently confuted the heresies of our tymes none of them haue vouchsafed to yield so far to our Aduersaries as to handle this question of set purpose which doubtles they omitted not without great consideration and weighty reasons the chiefest of which if I be not deceaued was for that they perswaded themselues that few or none especiallie of the prudent and moderate sort did indeed and in their hart hold this absurd paradox though they were content to let it passe because it serued for a motiue to withdraw the common people from the Catholike faith which in their conceipt conteyned other errors And for this cause those worthy and zealous writers endeauored chiefly to take away this false perswasion of the Churches erring partly by confirming and demonstrating the infallibility of her authority and partly by descending to particuler controuersies and most euidently conuincyng the Churches doctrine in euery one of them to be conformable to the diuine Scriptures and all antiquity For they did easily discouer that by this course they should not only confute this abhominable bâ—asphemy but also with one and the same labour confirme and establish the contrary truth viz. that the Catholike Church togeather with her supreme Pastour is the piller of Truth and the building of Christ against which no force of errors or heresies either hath or euer shall be able to preuayle Which course of theirs as most prudent in it selfe so likewise most profitable to others I am far from mysliking but doe altogeather approue and admyre it And yet notwithstanding I hope that this my labour may be in some sort profitable also For all are not so quick wytted as to make these necessary inferences but rather many are with-held from yielding to the manifest truth in other pointes by a preiudicate opinion which they haue conceaued in this and the iust and discreet silence which hath hitherto bene vsed ministreth to them some cause of suspition that the Protestants haue reason for that they say especially since they vrge this point so much both in their Writings and Sermons and the matter is of so great importance and consequence that whosoeuer hath the truth on his syde in this ought iustly to be belieued in the rest since that Antichrist can neither agree with Christ nor so great a calumniation as this is of the Pope if it be false can agree or stand with the spirit of truth Besides the Protestants out of this their doctrine make most odious inferences against Catholikes as to go no further we may see in M. Downams last Chapter where he deduceth out of it six conclusions First that out of this all other controuersies may be decided and that the doctrine of the Catholike Church is to be reiected as the errors of Antichrist Secondly that their separation from vs is warranted yea commaunded by the word of God and all returning forbidden Thirdly that all they which partake with vs are reprobates and to be damned Fourthly that the Recusant Papists but especialy Iesuites and Seminary Priests
ought not to be fauoured or spared in a Christian Common wealth Fifthly that there can be no reconciliation betwixt Protestants and the Church of Rome Sixtly that Protestants ought to be thankefull to God who hath not suffered them to be carried away with this Catholike Apostasy By which last wordes we may also note that if this their position of the Pope being Antichrist doth fall they haue no colour left to accuse the Catholike Church of schisme or heresy and consequently it remayneth euident that she is the true Church of Christ For no schisme or heresy can be Catholike or vniuersall as the Roman Church is only the persecution and Apostasy of Antichrist may in some sort vsurpe this name because though it shall want the vniuersality of tyme being to remayne but a very short tyme yet it shal be very vniuersall in respect of place as is manifest by that which is said in this Treatise Thus much shall suffice of the importance and necessity of this my small labour And now I will briefely say some thing of Cardinall Bellarmine whome I defend and of M. Downam whome I confute And concerning this renowned and mâ—st learned Cardinall I shall not need to vse many wordes his fame being spred ouer the whole world by his large and profound disputations against all sortes of hereticks which haue risen or are extant in these our dayes Wherefore it shal be sufficient to note that which maketh to our purpose that in this his Treatise of Antichrist he vseth not so many arguments as some others haue don only contenting himselfe with those which are proper and peculiar to this place omitting others which do rather proue that the Pope is the chiefe Pastour of Christes Church then disprooue that he is not Antichrist which in him proceedeth from two causes the one is his exactnes in the method and diuision of his disputations which conteyne euery one seuerall questions and arguments the other for that hauing before sufficiently discussed the affirmatiue position that the Pope is and ought to be acknowledged to be the chiefe Pastour of Gods Church he would not make any needeles repetition of those demonstrations but rather proceed to other which hitherto he had not touched and which directly concluded that the Pope not only by reason of his office but also in respect of his person can in no sort be that Antichrist which the Scriptures and Fathers affirme that we are to expect towards the end of the world I shall not need to adde any more in commendation of this his worke for that the whole Treatise following hath no other subiect I haue translated his whole Booke verbatim so that the Reader may peruse it and iudge of it himselfe It were superfluous to giue any reason why in my allegations of this worthy Cardinall I only mention his name for the most part for any man may easily perceaue that I do it for breuities sake and according to the vse of Schooles and not for any want of respect to his place and person whome I honour from my hart and defend him in this Treatise so far as my poore ability will giue me leaue Concerning M. Downam for so I commonly call him to giue him to understand that I impugne not his person but his detestable heresy I shall haue something more to say for first the Reader must not be ignorant that he hath peruerted the order of this disputation For whereas Cardinall Bellarmine first demonstrateth that the Pope is not Antichrist and afterward answereth the obiections of his Aduersaryes M. Downam tooke it to be his best course first to obiect whatsoeuer either former heretikes had inuented or he himselfe could adde omitting altogeather the answers which Bellarmine gaue that by this meanes he might possesse his Readers mynd by inueighing against the Pope at his pleasure without any contradiction and so haue him the more fauourable when he came to make shew of answering to Bellarmins arguments This is the cause why I am constrayned to confute M. Downams second booke in the first place not producing the argumeÌ„ts without his solutions as he dealt with the Cardinall but examining whatsoeuer he answereth distinctly in so much that one Chapter excepted where his confusion would not permit Cap. 4. it in all the rest euery number of my confutation answereth to the same in him so that if any man hath a desire to confer what both he and I say he may easily do it by reading first one section or number in him then the same in me which I would require of all such as do any way doubt of my sincere dealing because he findeth not M. Downams wordes verbatim alleaged which could not be without great prolixity But he that goeth thus far should also do well to read so much in Cardinall Bellarmime as is discussed in euery seuerall number which that the Reader may conueniently doe I haue also prefixed numbers to the Cardinalls discourse and noted in the margent where that which is handled in euery seuerall place may be found in him without difficulty And by this meanes I hope the Reader may peruse this my labour with clarity and profit and discouer M. Downams false dealing aswell in this point specified as in many other which now it is no tyme to rehearse they beeing very neere as many as there be leaues in this whole Booke and they may easily be found by either perusing the marginall notes or seeking in the table at the word Downam And yet perhaps it will not be amysse to note one or two of them in this place which especially discouer the badnesse of M. Downams cause For what can be more absurd or hatefull to Christian eares then to heare the enemyes of Christ and his Church commended and imbraced and his true Seruants and Doctors insolently reiected and accused of errours And yet this is M. Downams case not once or twyce but throughout the whole course of this disputation for he doth not only agree in substance with the Samosatens who are knowne heretikes and condemned by his owne iudgement but also ioyneth himselfe ex professo with that vile Apostata and capitall enemy of Christ Porphiry not only against S. Hierome who most earnestly and learnedly confuteth him at large but also against all other Ecclesiasticall writers yea euen the very Iewes themselues who in that point agree with the Christians but in another where they are opposite to vs there M. Downam ioyneth with them so that it seemeth that M. Downam and his fellow Protestants seeke of purpose how they may oppose themselues to Christ and his Church yea that they esteeme more of Gentilles and Iewes then they do of Christian writers though neuer so many so worthy or so ancient And surely whosoeuer shall consider attentiuely how often and how scornefully the ancient Fathers and pillars of Christs Church be reiected by M. Downam cannot choose but admire yea â—hould vp his handes and blesse himselfe
name of the beast that is the Latin or Roman State and vnlesse it be such a name as he to whome all other notes of Antichrist doe agree causeth men to take vpon them which is to harpe still vpon the same string and to sing the same song like a Cuckow for this name belongeth to no other beast but Antichrist and the other part is the mayne controuersy and therefore to assume it as a thing graunted is petitio principij a figure wherewith M. Downam is well acquaynted and therefore chooseth to make it his conclusion also as the Reader may see if he please to whose iudgment I leaue it to consider whether M. Downam hath answered Bellarmines argument or rather that it is altogeather vnanswerable and inuincible as Bellarmine deseruedly affirmeth THE ELEAVENTH CHAPTER Of the Character of Antichrist THERE are also saith Bellarmine two or three opinions of Antichrists Character The first is of the heretikes of this tyme who teach that the Character of Antichrist is some signe of obedyence and coniunction with the B. of Rome yet they do not explicate after the same manner what that signe is Hemicus Bullengerus scr 61. in Apoc. will haue it to be the vnction of Chrisme with which all Christians that are obedient to the Pope are signed in their foreheads Theodorus Bibliander in Chron. tab 10. saith that the Character of the Pope is the profession of the Roman faith so that he is not accompted a true Christian who professeth not that he cleaueth to the Roman Church Dauid Chytraeus besides these two addeth the Oath of Fidelity which many are compelled to make to the Pope Likewise the Preistly vnction which is receaued in the crowne and hand and imprinteth as the Papists call it quoth hee an indeleble Character Finally to fall downe before Images and consecrated bread and to be present at Masses of Requiem Neither are these thinges vnlike to those which Sebastianus Meyer and others alleadged by Augustinus Marloratuâ— in Apoc. 13. do teach But it is an easie matter to confute these toyes both because they agree not with the words of the Text and also because all these signes were in the Catholike Church before that Antichrist had appeared in their opinion First therefore we haue out of the text that the Character shal be one not many for the Scripture alway speaketh in the singular number both of the Character and of the name number of Antichrist Wherefore there shal be one Character likewise one proper name of Antichrist and one number of his name Wherefore when our Aduersaryes multiply so many Characters they shew that they know not which that is of which S. Iohn speaketh Secondly that Character shal be common to all men in Antichrists Kingdome as is playne by those words He shall make all little great rich poore free and bound to take his Character But the Oath of obedyence and Priestly vnction agree to few Thirdly the Scripture declareth that the Character shal be such that it may indifferently be carried in the right hand or forehead for so it saith He shall make all men receyue his Character in their right hands or foreheads But none of those thinges which our aduersaryes bring is such That the vnction of Chrisme cannot be receyued in the right hand The profession of the Roman Faith is neither in the hand nor forehead but in the mouth by confession in the hart by faith The Oath of Fidelity is taken with the hand and mouth but can in no wyse be carryed in the forehead The Priestly vnction is neither receaued properly in the right hand nor in the forehead but vpon the head and fingers of both hands Finally to be present at Masses for the dead to kneele before Images and the Eucharist belong not to the forehead or hand but to the whole body and chiefely to the knees Fourthly the same Scripture saith That in the Kingdome of Antichrist no man shal be permitted to buy and sell vnles he shew the Character or the name or the number of the name But how many doe buy and sell in the dominious of the Pope who are not yet chrismed nor haue taken the Oath of fidelity nor are Priests Doe not many Iewes euen in the very Citty of Rome where the Pope hath his Sea negotiate publikely buy and sell although they haue none of those signes Let vs come to the other reason prooue that all these signes are elder then Antichrist Antichrist by the opinion of our aduersaryes came not before the yeare 606. but Tertullian lyued about the yeare 200. and yet maketh mention of Chrisme lib. de resurrectione carnis The flesh saith he is washed that the soule may be clensed the flesh is annoynted that the soule may be consecrated S. Cyprian liued about the yeare 250. and maketh mention of Chrisme lib. 1. epist 12. He must necessarily be an noynted saith he who is baptized that hauing receaued Chrisme that is vnction he may be the aunoynted of God and haue in him the grace of Christ S. Augustine lyued about the yeare 420. and yet he saith tract in Ioan. 118. VVhat is it that all know the signe of Christ but the Crosse of Christ VVhich signe vnles it be applyed either to the foreheads of the faithfull or to the water with which they are regenerated or to the oyle with which they are Chrismed or to the Sacrifice with which they are nourished none of these thinges is rightly performed Likewise to cleaue to the Roman Church was the signe and Character of a true Catholike man before the yeare of our Lord 606. S. Augustine writeth epist 162. of Caecilianus who liued about the yeare 300. He needed not to care for the multytude of enemyes which conspired against him since he saw himselfe vnited by communicatory letters to the Roman Church in which the principality of the Apostolicall chayre alway flourished and to the other Countries from whence the Ghospell came into Africa S. Ambrose who lyued about the yeare of our Lord 390. in orat de obitu fratris sui He asked the Bishop saith he if he agreed in doctrine with the Catholike Bishops that is with the Roman Church Victor Vticensis who lyued about the yeare of our Lord 490. lib. 1. de persecut Vandal writeth that an Arian Priest going about to perswade the King not to put a Catholike to death vsed these wordes If thou puttest him to death the Romans will accompt him a Martyr In which place by the name of Romans the Catholikes of Africa are designed who doubtles are not called Romans by the Arians for any other cause but for that they followed the Faith of the Roman Church and not the misbeliefe of the Arians We find the Oath of obedience made to the B. of Rome in the tyme of S. Gregory lib. 10. epist 31. and therefore before the yeare 606. for S. Gregory lyued not so long Of Priestly vnction we haue the testimony of
doctrine of Antichrist But M. Downam giueth vs two differences betwixt these markes before Antichrists comming and after First vntill the yeare 607. there was not saith he in the Catholike Church an vniuersall subiection to the Pope as the head and consequently till then these things could not be vsed as signes thereof as since they haue But M. Downam may when it pleaseth him take the paines to peruse what Bellarmine The Church was alway subiect to the Pope bringeth in the 19. last Chapter of his second booke concerning this point I doubt not but he will acknowledge an vniuersall subiection to the Pope euen from the Apostles or if he be obstinate and will nor yield to an euident truth yet I am sure he will neuer be able to answere Bellarmines proofes if his pryde be such that he presumeth that he can let him begin when he will and see what he shall gaine by it The second difference which M. Downam alleadgeth is that before the yeare 607. these thinges were not imposed and inioyned vpon all by the lawes of the Pope as since they are so that the cause of vsing them now is not the example of the ancient Church but the authority of the Popes law But this is a very poore difference and argueth a wonderfull corruption in the ancient Church since that she was so forward to take Antichrists markes that she needed no commaund and besides if M. Downam maketh the ancieÌ„t Church to be very corrupt Downam will take the paines to peruse the ancieÌ„t Councells and Decrees of Popes which Bellarmine bringeth in these particuler controuersies he shall find that there was the same necessity for all men to performe these things then that there is now many of them being commaunded by Gods law and others not exacted of all and some not of any as the Reader may easily distinguish by considering the particulers 6. Wherefore now let vs consider how M. Downam answereth VII Bellarmines particuler obiectioÌ„s And first coÌ„cerning Chrisme vsed in the Church before the yeare 607. Chrisme he answereth that those three Fathers speake of the annoynting with oyle vsed in the Sacrament of Baptisme and addeth that this also without warrant of the Scripture is retayned among the Papists Where you see he maketh these three Fathers Papists in that point at the least and though it be true that they acknowledge that Cerimony of Baptisme yet in these places they speake most plainely of Chrisme and the Sacrament of Confirmation For Tâ—rtullian and S. Cyprian compare it with baptisme attributing to it the effects of grace aswell as to Baptisme and S. Augustine placeth it betwixt baptisme and the Eucharist and calleth it Chrisming which is the proper name of this Sacrament Wherefore M. Downam must of force confesse that these Fathers were Papists in this point also and that this marke was long before the yeare 607. Now whether this vnction were vsed in the primitiue Church or no is a new question belonging to another place and it is inough for vs now that it was long before Antichrist came according to the Protestants accompt and that they do not much vse euen the imposition of hands which they acknowledg was vsed in the primityue Church of which M. Downam can giue no better reason then for that it was abused by vs. By which in their opinion they might also leaue off Baptisme Eucharist and all other rites and exercises of How chrisme maketh vs Christians de Consecrat dist 5. c. Vt ieiun Ibid. c. De bis verò Christian Religion as indeed they haue done in great part only they loue to heare themselues talke in a Pulpit though they say neuer a true nor wise word I omit his other impertinent obiections out of the Canon law where first that holy Pope and Martyr Melchiades saith that a man shall neuer be a Christian meaning a strong and valiant or perfect Christian except he first receaue this Sacrament for so he vseth the name Christianus as the Latins vse Vir and the Aurelian Councell saith that this Sacrament is more to be reuerenced then Baptisme if we respect the person of him who ministreth it because he must of necessity be a Bishop How Chrisme is more to be reuerenced then Baptisme and besides this Sacrament supposeth and in some sort includeth baptisme and in that respect is said to be more venerable then baptisme by it selfe And this is all that M. Downam can say for himselfe or against vs for that which he addeth coÌ„cerning the ordayning of the Sacrament as though it were ordayned by the Church and not by Christ is a fond Chymera of his owne For we affirme that it was instituted by Christ as all other Sacraments were and besides it is now from the purpose since our whole question is whether this Sacrament were vsed before the yeare 607. which Bellarmine hath euidently conuinced that it was To the second obiection M. Downam answereth with a distinction that to cleaue to the Roman Church in ancient tyme was the note of a good Christian because then that Church was Apostolicall but now it is the marke of an Antichristian because now that Church is Apostaticall Where you find him still in the same fault of petitro principij And besides you see he graunteth asmuch as Bellarmine would haue him that in old tyme the cleauing to the Roman Church was so far from beeing the marke of Antichrist that it was the chiefest note to know a good Catholike Christian from a false and wicked heretike and consequently it is to be accompted so still For the heretikes in those tymes could say as M. Downam doth that the Roman Church was Apostaticall but they were not able to proue it any more then M. Downam is and all good Catholikes were then and are now certayne that it can neuer be so since Christ hath promised the contrary to S. Peter and his successors And besides it is very strange that Christ Antichrist cannot haue both one marke Christ and Antichrist should both haue one marke And that the argumeÌ„ts which the old Fathers vsed against heretikes should come to be vsed by Antichrist against Catholikes But to these absurdities must they needes fall who call light darkenes and darkenes light as M. Downam and all heretikes doe M. Downam goeth forward with his distinctions and differences affirming that in ancient tymes at other Churches did cleaue to the Church of Rome so did the Church of Rome cleaue to them Now it acknowledgeth no Church besides it selfe All which is false for now also other Churches cleaue to the Church of Rome as to their head and the Church of Rome cleaueth to them as to her members and it acknowledgeth many other particuler Churches besides it selfe still though all subiect and subordinate to it as they were euer How the Church of Rome is vnited standeth with other Churches And that which he addeth is a meere
to Iudaize c. 5. To Bellarmines last confirmation frō the vehemency of Antichrists persecution which shall cause the publique Offices and the diuine Sacrifices to cease M. Downam answereth with a distinction that if he meaneth the true publique worship of God it hath ceased already in the Papacy by the vehemency of the Popes persecution who yet is no open enemy of Christ where by the true worship of God you may easily conceaue that he meaneth that of Protestants though he cannot shew vs that euer it was before Luthers time or name vs one who felt this vehement persecution for that cause well he may tell vs of some of their brethren for all heretikes will be brethren because they agree at least in one point that is The Pope suppresseth heretikes as Antichrist shall oppresse Catholikes in impugning Gods Church whome the Pope hath suppressed for it is his office to suppresse them as Antichrist shall endeauour to suppresse him and all that adhere vnto him for Christs cause whom he shal chiefly oppose himself vnto Neither is the other part of M. Downams distinction necessary for all false worshippers shall ioyne themselues to Antichrist and help him in the persecution of the others and if M. Downam remembreth in the place which Bellarmin alleadged he shewed that Antichrist shall make the daily sacrifice of the Church to cease which cannot be vnderstood See cap. 7. of the Protestants but of the Catholike Roman Church but since both Bellarmine and M. Downam remit themselues to that which they haue sayd before I will do so likewise only I will require the Reader to note by the way that M. Downam Downam mistaketh Bellarmin is at least mistaken in this place if not worse for he maketh this of the ceasing of the publike offices and the diuine Sacrifices to be a new argument to proue that Antichrist shall openly deny Christ and abolish all his ordinances wheras Bellarmine neuer meant any such matter but only hauing proued by the Fathers that Antichrist shall deny Christ impugne Baptisme seeke to dissolue the Ghospell of Christ teach that the Sabbaoth and other cerimonies of the Iewes are not ceased because he would auoyd prolixity be remitteth himselfe to his former proofes that he shall likewise cause the publike offices and the diuine sacrifices to cease so that M. Downam might aswell haue made a new argument of euery one of the Fathers Authorities as of this But I will not charge him with malice in this place except it may be attributed rather to malice then to simplicity that he was so blind of which I am content he shall haue his choice But surely the one of thē he cānot auoid as appeareth by that which I haue sayd and also by Bellarmines conclusion which followeth immediatly Ex quibus euidens est c. By which it is euident c. For that quibus cannot be referred to the last clause only but to the whole induction out of the Fathers as is manifest and this is alway Bellarmines vse to make the authority of the Fathers one argument 6. And thus we may come to the second doctrine for that which M. Downam sayth concerning Bellarmines assumption Downam speaketh from the purpose is neither to the purpose but only so farre as it includeth the deniall of the proposition nor belongeth to this place but to another to which he remitteth himselfe and so the Reader must haue patience till we come thither See part 2. §. 6. 7. 8. 7. Now then concerning the second doctrine M. Downam denyeth that Antichrist will openly and in so many words expresly affirme that he is the Christ or Messias of the world for Antichrist wil opēly affirme himself to be Christ which he remitteth himselfe to his former proofes touching only two 1. That his Religion is a mystery of iniquity which as a little before we shewed it is to be vnderstood of the heretikes and cannot be applied to Antichrist himselfe 2. Because he could not seduce so many Christians if he should plainely professe himselfe Christ But we see the contrary of this in the Turkes The Turks inferiour to Antichrist who notwithstanding are nothing comparable to Antichrist either in craft wonders or violence besides the ill disposition which he shall find in most Christians at that time Hauing thus eased his stomake a little M. Downam cōmeth to answere Bellarmines proofe out of the Scripture referring Ioan. 5. himselfe to his former answere to this place in Bellarmines second argument where he said that Christ spake conditionally if another shall come and indefinitly of See cap. 2. any false Prophet But there also I shewed the contrary of both as also that Antichrist is to come in his owne name and to professe so much which other false prophets vse not to do For as our Sauiour did not only come indeed but also professed himselfe to come in the name of his Father so likewise Antichrist shall not only come indeed but also professe himselfe to come in his owne name And if our Sauiour were to be vnderstood of all false prophets indefinitely Our Sauiours words not true in M. Downam his opiniō his speach were not true which me thinkes M. Downā should be afraid to affirme for it is euident by experience that many false prophets haue come since that time few or none of which the Iewes or the greatest part of them haue receaued wheras by his interpretation they should haue receaued them all and aboue all the Pope whome M. Downam will needs haue to be Antichrist himselfe whom notwithstanding they are so farre from receauing that they hate him aboue all other men and accompt him their greatest enemy as we haue seene and experience teacheth To the Fathers in this place he vouchsafeth no answere at all but reiecteth them absolutly because they were no prophets and spake without booke This is the impudency of this fellow that al they must of force speake without-book that interpret Scripture against his fond fancy But we make no doubt but that God hath giuen the interpretation of Scripture to his Church and the Doctors therof which by all reason we are to acknowleadg these holy Fathers to be since they came not without calling and commission as M. Downam and his fellow Ministers and all other heretikes do Neither can he help himselfe by flying to Bellarmine for aide for no man reuerenceth the Fathers more then he and it is false that he euer gaue any such rule that we are not to Bellarmin reuerenceth the Fathers giue credit to any such coniectures of the Fathers as haue no ground in the word of God For who shall be Iudge of this How farre he admitted the opinion of those twelue Fathers who affirmed that Antichrist as to be of the Tribe of Dan. we shew in that place and it was that he tooke it to be very probable See cap. 12. though not altogeather certaine
the name of Constantinople being omitted there remayned the fame and opinion of a woman Bishop and Vniuersall Bishop some began in hatred of the Roman Church to say that that woman had bene Bishop of Rome And it is very like that this fame arose about the tyme of Martin himselfe Certainly Martinus Polonus who first wrote it bringeth no Author but only said It is reported wherfore he only had it by an vncertaine rumour Neither ought it to seeme strange if some feigned this fable in hatred of the Church of Rome that ground of a woman being Bishop supposed and there being so many contentions at that tyme betwixt those which fauoured the Emperours and others which fauoured the Popes for now also we see that the Magdeburgians do feigne more incredible things for wheras Martin only wrote that this was an English woman of Mentz and added nothing of the Parents proper name of the woman and other things the Magdeburgians haue added that the Father of this woman was an English Priest and that she in the beginning was called Gilbert and that she was brought vp in the habite of a man in the Monastery of Fulda and that she wrote bookes of witchcraft which are all meere fancies inuented without witnesse or reason Adde that this Martinue Polonus seemeth to haue bene a most simple man for he writeth many other fables as though they were most authenticall hystories Now that which they obiect of the hollow seate of the womans Statua and the going out of the way is easily solued for as is manifest out of the first booke of sacred Cerimonyes Sect. 2. there were three seates of stone in the Lateran Church in which the new Pope did sit at the tyme of his Coronation The first seate was before the entrance into the Temple which was vile and abiect to which seate the new Pope was first brought and did sit vpon it for a little space that it might be signified by that cerimony that he ascended from a most low place to the highest place that is for lifting him from thence they sung that 1. Reg. 2. Suscitat de puluere egenum de stercore erigit paâ—perem vt sedeat cum Principibus solium gloria teneat and this is the cause why that seate is called Stercoraria Another seate was of Porphiry in the Pallace it selfe and there he sate the second tyme in token of Possession and sitting there he receaued the Keyes of the Church of the Lateran Pallace The third seat was like the second and not farre from it and after sitting a little in it he deliuered the same keyes to him of whome he had receaued them before Perhaps that by that cerimomony he might be admonished of death by which ere long he was to resigne that power to another Of any seate to discouer the sexe there is no mention any where And that Statua of the woman with child without doubt was not of Pope Iohn for if our Aduersaries say that the ancient Historiographers would not make mention of this woman in their bookes in the Popes fauour how is it probable that the Popes themselues would haue memory of it extant in a Statua Besides if it were the Statua of this Iohn it should haue represented a Woman with an infant newly borne but that Image did neither represent a woman nor did carry an infant in her armes but did expresse a good big boy and many yeares old as a seruant going before Wherefore some do coniecture that it was a Status of some heathen Priest prepared to Sacrifice before whom his Minister went Finally it is not in destestation of that cryme why the Popes go not the shorter way to the Lateran but because the way is narrow and steepy and therefore incommodious for the Popes trayne or compaine which alwayes vseth to be very great Adde that as Onuphrius witnesseth there want not Popes who haue oftner then once gone that very way FINIS Omnia Ecclesiae Catholicae Romanae subiecta sunto A TABLE OF THE PARTICVLER MATTERS CONTEYNED IN THIS BOOKE ADORATION of Images the Eucharist vsed before the yeare 606. c. 11. n. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what it signifieth in composition cap. 1. nu 3. Antichrist how taken in the Scriptures other Authors c. 1. n. 4. His members somtime open enemies to Christ cap. 2. n. 11. How he shal be an Apostata c. 2. n. 15. How he shall draw men to follow him c. 2. n. 17. His comming and reuelation all one cap. n. 18. He shal be one particuler man cap. 2. per totum He is signifyed by the former beast Apoc. 13 cap. 5 n. 5. His false Prophet is signified by the latter ibid. Whether he be the wounded head Apoc. 13. ibi His persecution most grieuous cap 7. n. 1. Greater then the calamities of the Iewes cap. 7 n 2. It shal be most manifest c 7 n â— In Antichrists time all the Churches enemies shall ioyne to impugne her c. 7. n. 6. The publike and daily sacrifice shall cease cap. 7. n. 7. The last moneth of Antichrists life is not accouÌ„ted in his raigne cap 8. n. â— He shall reigne yeares a halfe cap. 8. per totum He shal be Prince of all the wicked in generall c. 8. n. 3. The tyme of his reigne very short cap. 8. n. 5. He may rayse an vniuersall persecution at one time cap. 8. n. 6. Two degrees of his destruction c. 9. n. 2. Antichrists comming shall not be long before the end of the world c. 9. per totum He cannot be said to come at all but in the last houre cap. 9. n. 3. His name shal be knowne when he is come cap. 9. n. 1. 2. It is yet vnknowne c. 10. n. 4. He shal be a most potent King c 10. n. 7. His Marke or Character but one cap. 11. n. 4. He shall be receaued of the Iewes for their Messias cap 12. n. 4. seq He shal be Iew cap 12. n. 10. His seat shal be at Ierusalem c. 13. n. 1. seq Why those that follow him are called Gentills cap 13. 1. He shall sit in materiall Churches and not in the Church of Christ as a Bishop cap. 13. n. 10. Whosoeuer vsurpeth more dignity then is due to him is his forerunner ib. He is the head of all the proud ib. He shall openly deny Iesus to be Christ c. 14. n. 2. seq How he shall seduce cap. 14. n 3. He shall exceed all heretikes ibid. He shall deny Christ to be so much as the adopted sonne of God c. 14. n. 4. he shall prohibite the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme ib. he shal be the Iewes Captaine ibid. he shall restore all their cerimonies ibid. he shall cause the Sabaoth to be obserued ibid. he will openly affirme himselfe to be Christ c. 14. n. 7. he will openly name himselfe God cap. 14. n. 9. Why how he shall sit in the Temple ibid. He