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
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
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
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
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
to thinke how it hath byn and is still possible that either they themselues or others by them should be so bewitched Neither can there any probable cause be giuen of so great blindnes and so enormous a cryme but only the want of Gods grace which their sinnes haue with drawne and deserued that they should be in this sort as it were giuen ouer to a reprobate sense What can be said in defence of this detestable excesse Deny it they cannot the thing being so euident and so often reiterated And dare they excuse it by telling vs That the Fathers are only forsaken when they forsake the Scripture Is not this plainely to make Infidells and Heretikes better Interpreters of Scripture then the Church of Christ and all Christians in generall and the most learned Pastours thereof in particuler If they answer that it is not the authority of these Infidells which they follow but the inspiration of the Holy Ghost which they experience in themselues is this any thing els in effect then to acknowledge that Porphiry and the Iewes had the true spirit of Christ and that the ancient Fathers and the Church of Christ in their tyme had it not For if the Protestants haue the spirit of Christ now it is manifest that those others had it then since their expositions be all one But who is so foolish and sacrilegious as to depriue Gods Church and Saintes of his spirit and it tribute it to his professed enemyes and consequently how shall we belieue the Protestants when they tell vs that they are full of Gods Spirit since we see their spirit to agree with that of the Diuells instruments and to be quite opposite to that of Gods elect Heere is no starting hole to be found neither haue they any thing to reply but only to stand vpon their bare affirmation which M. Downam doth so often in his disputation still desiring to haue that graunted which is chiefly in question But I will omit this and the rest of his absurdities remitting the Reader to his owne experience after that he hath with diligence perused the whole Heere I would make an end of this Preface hauing said asmuch as I thinke necessary concerning the disputation which followeth But because I haue lately seene two Sermons not long since preached by this our Doctour by which it seemeth that he hath resolued to relinquish Puritanisme and turne Protestant I thought it good to admonish my Reader of this point also because I rather inclined before to thinke that he was a Puritan and insinuated so much in a place or two And withall Chap. 10. 13. by this occasion I must intreat my Reader to marke the great difference betwixt M. Downam in these his Sermons and the same man in his booke of Antichrist for in this he euery where reiecteth all antiquity as I haue said but in his Sermons he singeth vs a new song and can tell vs. that it neuer yet happened that the newest thinges did proue the truest and argueth chiefely from authority obiecting still to his Puritan Aduersaries That they go against the whole streame of all Antiquity yea he can alleadge S. Augustine lib. 4. de Bapt. con Donat. cap. 24. ep 118. to proue that the consent of the whole Church argueth either the definition of a Councell or an Apostolicali Tradition though he corruptely translateth Traditum Ordayned and likewise in the second place where S. Aug. affirmeth that Insolentissimae insaniae est it is a most insolent madnes to dispute against that which vniuersa Ecclesia the whole Church obserueth he addeth of his owne the word Primitiue that so he may haue some stareing hole against vs when he is vrged with the same Authority of S. Augustine which if he would follow himselfe as he would now haue the Puritans do he must of force retyre himselfe from the Protestants also and betake himselfe to the Catholike Church which all Antiquity most manifestly defendeth And surely whosoeuer considereth the arguments which Protestants make against Puritans cannot but euidently perceaue that the very same principles do ouerthrow the Protestants themselues And I meruaile much how they can defend themselues from that terrible sentence of S. Paul Inexcusabilises o homo omnis qui iudicas quo enim iudicas alterum teipsum condemnas eadem enim agis quae iudicas And the very same iudgment falleth vpon the Puritans themselues when they go about to impugne the Brownists Familists Anabaptists Arians or any other sect whatsoeuer For this they cannot do but by Antiquity which notwithstanding they are forced to reiect in all those pointes in which they differ and dissent from the Cathelike Roman Church I will not descend to any particulers though I easily might for what can be more euident then that the autherity of S. Cyprian other Fathers who vrge the necesâ—ity of a Bishop for the conseruation of vnity is much more to be vnderstood of one chiefe Bishop in the whole Church then of particuler Bishops in particuler Diocesses since there can be no question that vnity is as necessary in the whole world as in one Diocesse and much more easily mayntained in this then in that Likewise M. Downam can tell vs not only of Bishops but also of Metropolitans and Patriarches and alleadgeth for his purpose the Councell of Nice but he will not acknowledge that in the same Councell Rome hath the first place and is preferred before all others as likewise Alexandria and Antiochia are before Ierusalem which M. Downam would willingly haue the chiefe of which there can be no other true reason giuen but the excellency of S. Peter aboue the other Apostles who founded three Churches and placed or fixed his Sea in Rome where he ended his life with a most happy Martyrdome Now if we aâ—ke M. Downam a reason why he seeth not this aswell as that which fauoureth the Protestants against the Puritans I cannot imagine what he can answere vs but only that by this meanes he should incurre the disgrace and ouerthrow of his Ministry which he esteemeth so highly But I intreat both him and all other euen as they tender their owne saluation to looke about them in tyme and not to suffer themselues to be carried away with the sway of the tyme and the desire of worldly pleasures and preferments which M. Downam and all others may easily conceaue not to be very great if his complayntes of pouerty and contempt which he maketh in his former Sermon be true as no doubt they are in great part and these miseryes will daylie increase as their credit doth decrease so that if now that pittifull yâ—t ridiculouâ— complaint of M. Downam be true That not only euery meane man almost Ser. 1. pag. 67. preferreth himselfe before the Minister but also disdayneth to bestow either his Sonne on the Ministry or his Daughter on a Minister the tyme no doubt will come and that shortly also that they â—halbe inforced to marry
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
to delude his Reader either by scoffiing or any other lewd trick he could deuise for lightly he could not inuēt a worse then to scoffe at Gods Saints and particulerly at those to whom we are most behoulding among which in the first place S. Gregory is to be accompted for the great loue he bare to all English men and the great good he procured them for which he is worthily called and honoured as the Apostle of our Nation 8. Finally M. Downam answereth to Bellarmines reason that of Enoch Elias their translation there is this reason that there might be euident examples of reward and happines laid vp both for the vpright in Enoch and for the zealous in Elias of their yet liuing in mortall bodyes if they did so according to the opinion of some of the Fathers that reason might be giuen which they alleadge to witt to conuert Downam maketh Enochs translation an example of vprightnes contrary to Scripture the Iewes Where in the first part I only note that M. Downā maketh Enoch an example for the vpright wheras the Scripture maketh him an example of pēnance But indeed according to this explication he may as I noted before be aswell an example of the one as of the other yea hardly of pennance since we read none he did but rather that he was alway vpright and iust But now the second reason which only maketh to the purpose is the same which Bellarmine vrgeth if M. Downam vnderstandeth it aright as the Fathers held it to wit that these two witnesses shall labour to conuert the Iewes at the end of the world when Antichrist shall most labour to peruert them which wil be to oppose themselues to him Wherefore M. Downam thought best to retire himselfe Downam reiecteth the Fathers and to tell the Fathers flatlie that it is vntrue which they say that they liue in mortall bodies or that they shall euer dye and he offereth to dispute this matter with them And first he asketh them where they liue in mortall bodies To which S. Augustine lib. 2. de peccato originali cap. 23. answereth That S. Augustine answereth to Downās obiection this is one of those questions which pertayne not to Faith where Enoch Elias are quostamen non dubitamus in quibus nati sunt corporibus viuere whome notwithstanding wee doubt not to liue in the bodies in which they were borne By which oppositiō he plainly declareth that he taketh this to be a matter of Faith And in the same place he testifieth that Christian saith doubteth not but that the paradise where Adam was placed is though it be doubtfull wher or in what maner it is all which is alleadged by Bellar. lib. de gratia primi hominis cap. 14. to proue that paradise is yet extant but I cānot find that distinction which M. Downam bringeth out of him lib. 1. de Sanct. beat c. 3. that although the place remaine yet no paradise remaineth in the former place he seemeth to teath altogeather the contray Secondly if they be in the earthly paradise and not in heauen he asketh how it is said of Elias that hee was taken vp into Heauen To which demaund S. Gregorie will answere him if he may be so bould Hom. 29. in Euang. Aliud est caelum aëreū S. Gregorie āswereth another aliud aethereum c. vnde aues caeli dicimus c. In caelum aëreum Elias subleuatus est vt in secretam quandam terrae regionem repentè duceretur vbi cum magna iam carnis spiritus quiete viueret quousque ad finem mundi redeat mortis debitum soluat Ille etenim mortem distulit non euasit The ayre is also called Heauen for which cause we say the byrdes of heauen according to the phrase of Scripture and into this heauen was El as taken vp that he might forthwith be carried into a certaine secret Region of the earth where he might lyue in great quiet of bodie and mind till he returneth at the end of the world and payeth death his due for he hath deferred not escaped death Where also M. Downam may learne what priuiledge Enoch and Helias haue aboue others and how Enoch was said to haue byn translated that he should not see death to wit at Heb. 11. that tyme nor according to the course of nature thē which a great deale lesse is sufficient that one hath escaped death And if M. Downā be capable of so high and perfect doctrine A great happinesse to be put to death by Anticrist heere hee may be tould that Enoch and Helias thinke it no misery but an exceeding great happynesse that they shal be put to death by Antichrist by reason of the great desire they haueto doe and suffer whatsoeuer for the loue of God and this not for the reward which they expect at his hand but because he deserueth much more then we are able to performe 9. But I will conclude leauing the indifferent Reader to iudge whether it hath not byn sufficiently proued that Enoch Elias are still in their bodies and that their bodies are mortall that they are to returne into the world and die and that in the tyme of Antichrist to oppose themselues against him and consequentlie that Antichrist is not yet come which if he iudgeth to be so as I perswade myselfe he cānot otherwise choose I will also craue him to Downās bragging giue his verdict of M. Downam whether he thinke him more foolish or impudent to deny all these particularyties with this flourishing bragge Must not this needes be a good cause that by so learned a man is so stoutlie prooued THE SEAVENTH CHAPTER Conteyning the fourth demonstration THE fourth demonstratiō saith Bellarmine is taken frō Antichrists persecution which certainely will be most grieuous and manifest so that all publique cerimonies and sacrifices of Religion shall cease none of which thinges wee see hitherto That this persecution shal be most gricuious is manifest by Matth. 24. Then there shal be a great Tribulation the like wherof hath not bene from the beginning of the world nor shall be And Apoc. 20. where we reade that Sathan shal be then loosed who vntill that tyme was bound Of which place S. Augustine disputing l. 20. de Ciuitate Dei cap. 8. and 9. saith that in Antichrists tyme the Diuell is to be loosed and therfore that persecution shal be more grieuous then all the former by how much the Diuel can rage more cruelly being loosed then being bound Wherfore he saith that the Diuell then shall vexe the Church with al his owne his followers forces and S. Hippolytus Mart. in orat de mundi consum S. Cyril catechesi 15. do say that the Martyrs which Antichrist shall put to death shal be more renowned then all those which went before because they fought against men the diuells ministers but these shall fight against the Diuell himselfe persecuting in
were grosse indeed to imagine so if these Princes c. were not forced vnto it by danger of incurring otherwise some greater inconuenience because it is not probable that all shal be so far gone that they will glory in Antichrists marke though no doubt many will and others will seem to do so though in their harts they mislike it Neither are we to thinke that Antichrist shall want deuises how to do this without paine or deformity But I would faine know where M. Downam found this imagination of branding for I cannot see why all Catholikes may not be vnderstood to speake only of such a visible marke as the signe of the Crosse which is visible inough and yet we see no man branded with it His second Argument is that if this were Antichrist practize euery man would be able to discerne him But what meaneth M. Downam by discerning No doubt men shall discerne him to be an enemy of Christ and the question in those daies wil be which of them is the true Christ for he will affirme himselfe not only to be the true Christ but also will extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God Thirdly M. Downam obiecteth the ordinary glosse Downam contradicteth him selfe Antoninus and Lira and referreth himselfe to some places of Scripture by all which he only ouerthroweth his owne assertion that all Catholikes agree that Antichrists marke shal be such a visible signe as he impugneth since now he himselfe hath found some who thinke otherwise and besides this is a new confirmation that this Character is yet vnknowne since that Authors are so deuided in their opinions concerning it Finally so farre as these Authors agree See part 2. cap. 8. §. 4. with the heretikes or differ from Bellarmine they are sufficiently confuted by him with the same arguments with which he impugned the heretikes themselues And as for the Scriptures we shall more commodiously discusse them in another place where M. Downam vrgeth them somewhat more in particuler for now he alleadgeth them only in generall and so we answere in generall that though other places cannot without absurdity be vnderstood of visible marks yet that proueth not but that this place is so to be vnderstood since no doubt some markes may be visible and all circumstances argue a visible marke in this place though we cannot in particuler certainely tell what this marke shal be which is a plaine token that Antichrist is not yet come as M. Downam maketh Bellarmine to reason in this place and he himselfe demonstrateth a little before applying it to Antichrist name as we haue seene THE TVVELVTH CHAPTER Of Antichrists Generation AS for the fifth saith Bellarmine of the Generation of Antichrist there are some thinges euidently erroneous affirmed by some some thinges probable and some manifest and certayne First then there were in tymes past many errours of Antichrist The first that Antichrist shal be borne of a Virgin by the worke of the Diuell as Christ was borne of a Virgin by the worke of the holy Ghost This errour is reported by the Author of the Treatise of Antichrist which goeth vnder S. Augustines name in the end of his 9. Tome which seemeth probable to be made by Rabanus certainely it is not S. Augustines This is a manifest errour for it is only the worke of God who can supply all efficient causes to produce a man without the seed of man because he only is of infinite power and contayneth virtually all the perfection of creaâ—ures The Diuell who is a creature can indeed doe meruaylous workes by speedy application of actiue thinges to passiue but he cannot supply the actiuity of causes Wherfore S. Augustine ep 3. ad Volusian saith that to be borne of a Virgin was such a miracle in Christ that there could not be a greater expected from God Yet it were no errour to say that Antichrist shall be borne of the Diuell and a woman in that sort that some are said to be borne of the Diuells which we call Incubi for though the Diuell cannot by himselfe without the seed of man produce a man yet he can in a body assumed in the forme of a woman receaue the seed of man and after in the forme of a man cast that seed into a womans wombe so beget a child This S. Augustine testifieth lib. 15. de ciuitate Dei cap. 23. and addeth that this hath ben proued by so great experience that it may seeme madnes to go about to deny it still The second errour was of the blessed Martyr Hippolytus who in orat de consummatione mundi teacheth that Antichrist shal be the Diuell himselfe who shall assume false flesh of a false Virgin for as the word of God who is truth it selfe tooke true flesh of a true Virgin so S. Hippolytus thought it probable that the Diuell who is the Father of lyes would faigne himselfe to haue taken mans flesh of a Virgin This opinion is refuted both because 2. Thessal 2. Antichrist is called a man as also because the rest of the Fathers with common consent do write that Antichrist shal be truly a man The third errour is that Antichrist shal be a true man indeed but withall a Diuell by the incarnatioÌ„ of the Diuell as Christ by his incarnation is God and man This error is reported and confuted by S. Hierome in cap. 7. Dan. Beda in c. 13. Apoc. and S. Damaseen l. 4. c. 28. Origen thought this opinion possible for Tom. 2. in Ioan. he affirmed that some Angells were truly incarnate whom S. Hierome confuteth in praefat in Malach. in cap. 1. Aggaei And doubtlesse it is erroneous for no created and consequently finite person can sustayne two perfect natures as the Word of God who is infinite can Neither is there any controuersy of this now among Deuines for though some say that it doth altogeather imply a contradiction others teach it doth not vet all agree in this that it cannot be done by the force of only a creature as the Diuell is The fourth errour is that Nero shall rise againe and that he shal be Antichrist or els that he liueth still and is secretly preserued in his youthly vigour and shall appeare in his tyme. Sulpitius lib. 2. sacrae hist insinuateth this errour yet lib. 2. dial de virt S. Martini he writeth plainely that Nero shall not be Antichrist himselfe but that he shall come with Antichrist and at length be slayne by Antichrist But because all these thinges are said without any reason S. Aug. lib. 20. de ciu Dei cap. 19. deseruedly calleth this opinion a meruaylous presumption Besides these errours there are two probable opinions of the holy Fathers of the generation of Antichrist The first is that Antichrist shal be borne of an Harlot and not of any lawfull matrimony So teach S. Damascen lib. 4. c. 28. and some others But since it cannot be proued by Scripture it is probable but not certayne The second
vsed in their knauery as M. Downam may see of Caluin if he please to turne to Bellarmine lib. 4. de Ecclesia Militante cap. 14. where also he shall find that miracles are not alway the signes of Antichrist 3. Concerning the 3. miracles from which Bellarmine draweth his argument M. Downam answereth that the two first doe fitly agree to the Pope as he hath shewed elswhere which See part 2. c. 7. we leaue to examine till we come to that place The 3. saith M. Downam belongeth not to Antichrist and he taketh it to be a very fond assertion that Antichrist shall faigne himselfe to dye and by the help of the Diuell shall rise againe for saith M. Downam if his death be but counterfaite he shall not need the Diuells help to raise him but I haue shewed before that if the death had not ben counterfaite it had passed the Diuells cunning to haue raised him againe and I hoped well that M. Downam had not bene so resolute as he is that the Diuells help is not necessary to do counterfaite myracles by which he seemeth still to Downam seemeth to thinke that the Diuell can doe true miracles insinuate that the Diuell may truly raise a man from death to life but yet he saith it not plainely and therfore I will not charge him with it but only tell him once more that the Diuells help shal be necessary in the contryuing of this counterfait myracle that it may be carryed so cunningly that no man may be able to perceaue but that he was truly dead truly raised againe so that he will make the wound appeare more dangerous then indeed it shall be Likewise he will procure that there shall be all signes of death so that See c. 5. n. 5. none shall doubt but that he is truly dead Thirdly he will shew his cunning in the cure of this wound which shall seeme desperate and exceeding all naturall arte and yet he will heale it so suddainly and so perfectly and so secretly that it will seeme altogeather vnpossible to be any other then a true resurrection from death And by this tyme M. Downam I hope will acknowledg what a fond man he was to thinke this a fond asserâ—ion and if he be so fond of himselfe that hâ— cannot be brought to see his owne folly yet I nothing doubt but the Readers will be more indifferent wherefore let vs now see what M. Downam can say against the place of Scripture which is thus expounded by the Fathers Apoc. 13. he answereth first that those words are not to be vnderstood of Antichrist because the former beast described in that Chapter is not Antichrist but the Roman Empire especially vnder the persecuting Emperours as saith he hath byn shewed euery part of that description fitting the same but how well and how fitly he hath shewed this we shall see afterward till when we rather belieue the consent of the ancient interpreters then M. Downams new deuise Secondly he affirmeth that the later beast signifieth Antichrist and this he affirmeth to be in a manner confessed of all for proofe whereof he alleadgeth Bellarmine himself in the beginning of his tenth Chapter of this booke where he affirmeth that the 3. last verses of this 13. Chapter of the Apoc. are confessed by all wholy to apperteyne to Antichrist where you must marke two cunning shiftes of M. Downam first in translating omninâ— wholy wheras Downam translateth not well Bellarmine could by no meanes vse it in that sense since it is manifest euen by M. Downams consent that in those words both the Beastes are spoken of for it is plainely said that the latter beast shall cause all men to haue the Character or the name or the number of the name of the former beast which notwithstanding M. Downam seemeth wylling inough to dissemble in this place for which cause he alleageth only the beginning of the words thus And he shall make all both small and great c. which no doubt belong to the latter beast indeed and this is his second deuise But M. Downam taketh Bellarmines words in a contrary sense Downam knoweth well inough that Bellarmine alleadged not those words to shew who should cause men to take the Character c. but to proue that Antichrist was to haue a particuler name signified by that number and a particuler Character spoken of in that place both which euidently belong to the former beast and therefore it is also most manifest that Bellarmine affirmeth the quite contrary of that M. Downam would haue him say viz. that not the latter but the former beast is confessed by all to be Antichrist which is most true indeed as he sheweth in this chapter Neyther is the proofe which M. Downam bringeth out of this chapter any better for Bellarmine expresly explicateh himselfe that he calleth the two latter myracles the myracles of Antichrist because they shal be done by his Ministers those which they do are to be attributed to him as is euident in there v. Et potestatour prioris bâ—stiâ— omnem faciebat in conspectu 〈◊〉 and he the latter beast did the power of the former beast in his fight and coÌ„sequently whatsoeuer he doth by the formers power is to be attributed vnto him And thus we see what poore proofes M. Downam hath to proue that the latter beast is Antichrist since that he can produce no better authorityes but only two places of Bellarmine misunderstood at the least if not corrupted Now then set vs see how he impugneth the opinion of Rupertus in particuler who affirmeth that Antichrist is sighted by both these beasts as Bellarmine afterward explicateth This cannot be sayth M. Downam vnles we may say that the sornier and latter are one and the same which cannot be since that v. 11. the latter is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another beast But to this Rupertus might easily answere that two distiuct beasts may signify one thing as is manifest though indeed their descriptions are so diuers that it is hard to apply all the particulers of both to one man and therfore we rather thinke with the common opinion that by the latter is vnderstood eyther one or many false Prophets of Antichrist whom S. Irenaeus deseruedly calleth armigerum because he or they shall not only vse persivasions but also force as is manifest by the text The 2. beast Apoc 13. signifieth Antichrist his false Prophet which needeth not to seeme hard to any that considereth how both these offices are exercised by the Protestant false Bishops in our Countrey against Catholikes and this common exposition is much consumed out of the 16. 19. 20. Chapters where this second beast is called a false Prophet and ioyned with the former beast the Diuell also in doing mischiefe and suffering eternall torments for the same 4. In Bellarmines answere to his owne obiection M. DownaÌ„ taketh great hould of that he grateth that the
and by the heretikes of those tymes and because S. Augustine expoundeth it so All which as you see doe only confirme the former exposition but nothing impugne this latter specially since M. Downam confesseth himselfe that the defection from the Roman Empire was to goe before Antichrists comming and so this exposition contayneth nothing against Faith and cōsequentlie may be probablie defended which is inough for to solue the argument especially since it cannot be denied but that the word may haue this signification and S. Pauls drift and context doth fauour this explication for that he giueth reasons why the comming of Christ was not to be thought so neere at hand as some gaue out which he doth more fullie if we vnderstand it after this manner especially since as concerning Antichrist he speaketh plainely inough after As for the mysterie of iniquitie which M. Downam will needes haue to be all one with the Apostasie or departure it is manifest that they be two distinct thinges for that S. Paul supposeth euidentlie v. 3. that the reuolt was not yet The apostasie and the Mystery of Iniquitie not all one See cap. 14. 11. 3. come and v. 7. he affirmeth plainely that the mysterie of Iniquitie did worke then For now saith he the mystery of Iniquity worketh only that he which now houldeth doe hould vntill he be taken out of the way and then that wicked one shall be reuealed In which words he seemeth to repeat that which he had said before in other wordes assigning plainlie the tyme of Antichrists comming by the taking away of him which houldeth that is the Roman Emperour and consequentlie it is verie probable that he meant the reuolt from him before by the Apostasie which the latin Interpreter considering did not retaine the Greeke worde Apostasia which seemeth to be How far diuers expositions are to be admitted more appropriated to the falling from God but translated it Discessio which may very well be applied to this other Now it is no meruaile that S. Augustin fauoureth the other expositiō which he taketh for the best but yet he refuteth not this it is his rule that when diuers expositions be cōformable to Faith they are all to be admitted as Bellarmine admitteth Aug. lib. 12. Confess cap. 31. them But M. Downam will disprooue and disallow of what misliketh him or hindereth his heresies and this with his owne priuate but yet most absolute authoritie which he presumeth the holie Ghost hath giuen him in all such affaires But the best is that all men are as free from obligation to belieue him as he and his fellowes are readie to take so much vpon them 17. To the third Answere M. Downam replieth that the euent hath shewed that this generall reuolt hath byn made by little little Downams petitio principij To which to answere him in forme I denie his Antecedēt for that it is the chiefe matter in controuersie and therfore should not haue bene taken for the Antecedent but for the Consequent Next he saith that as this reuolt did grow by degrees so it cannot be abolished at once but by degrees and therefore was notlike to be an Apostasy of three yeares and a halfe only To which I answere that if it did not grow by degrees then it maie be abolished at once and therfore is like inough to be an Apostasie of three yeares and a half only Besides that it is not necessarie that it should be so long in abolishing as it was in growing especiallie when God himselfe taketh the matter in hand and vseth his absolute power as he will doe in this case as S. Paul testifieth 2. Thess 2. Thirdly he draweth an argument from the conuersion of the Iewes whom he saith neither our Sauiour as he was a man and the Minister of Circumcision nor the Apostles and other Disciples could for many yeares conuert notwithstanding their doctrine and miracles were more effectuall and admirable then those of Antichrist Where first M. Downam is verie bould with our Sauiour Christes knowledg power is not to be limitted by that which he did though he speake of him only as man limitting his knowledge and power to that only which he did wheras the rule therof is farre different except M. Downam doth also thinke that he had not all perfect knowledge and power from the beginning which I will not charge him with all vntill I heare him say so for that I haue a better opiniō of him then that he will fall into so great folly or blasphemy Wherfore I doubt not but that he will easily see that our Sauiour taught and wrought according to that which was set downe by the heauenly wisdome of his Eternall Father who gaue to the Iewes such outward meanes as were very sufficient in that kind to haue drawne them to acknowledg and receaue their true Messias but yet no doubt could haue taught them more plainly and not in Parables as our Blessed Sauiour said and did also to his Apostles and likewise could haue wrought greater miracles as well as the Apostles and their successors but he wrought those which were determyned to be wrought in that tyme and which were foretould in the Scriptures denied flatly to work some other as to giue them signes from Heauen and to come downe from the Crosse But besides these outward meanes he vsed other inward which are far more effectuall and therfore I meruaile much that M. Downam forgot them for I will not suspect that he was either so ignorant as not to know them or so addicted to Pelagius as to deny them and yet in these also he vsed such moderation as on the one side the Iewes had no want of them if they would not haue bene wanting themselues and yet our Sauiour could haue giuen them far greater inward helpes then he did Neither must M. Downam vrge his distinction too far of Christ as Man for either it will prooue too much or nothing at all For if he speake of the humanitie of Christ considered in it selfe and not as the instrument of his Diuinitie then he could not doe any miracle at all of those which he actuallie did and therefore I alway suppose that M. Downam speaketh not in this base and vnworthy sense by which Christ is considered not only as man but also as if he were no more nor no better then a pure man but if it be considered as the instrument of his Diuinity then his power extendeth it selfe so farre as the power of God himselfe though actually he putteth not all in execution but only that which Gods eternall wisdome hath appointed But now to M. Downams reply I graunt the Antecedent but deny the Consequent cheifly for that we haue sufficiēt ground to think so though we could not vnderstand the reason of it and besides that very obstinacy of the Iewes doth giue a sufficient cause of this euent For if being assailed by such effectuall and
wonderfull meanes as the doctrine and miracles of Christ his Apostles and Disciples were notwithstanding it was forcible inough to keep them in their former synnes and to draw them into farre greater what meruaile is it that being destitute of such extraordinary helpes and set vpon by Antichrist and his followers who shall abound with all power and deceitfull meanes and such especially as they expect that they yield vnto his doctrine take him with one accord to be the Messias whom they haue so long expected And as for the rest of the world that shall ioyne with him it shall not come especially at the first so much for the liking of his doctrine as for desire of liberty coldenes of charity and abounding in synne which be the chaines by How Antichrist shall draw men to follow him which men are drawen into errours heresies and infidelity as both our Sauiour and S. Paul teach and the experience of all ages and particulerly of this of ours doth manifestlie shew which I could wish M. Downam and others of his mind to consider attentiuely they may perhaps come to know more plainely the ground of their new ghospell by this consideration duly weighed then by all the bookes that they can read written eyther for it or against it And besides M. Downam may consider what great ouerthrowes in Faith temporall commodities and persecution will cause of which he may also find store of examples in this our miserable Countrey where no small multitudes ioyne with Protestants only for these respects as would easily appeare if it would please his Maiesty to giue all men liberty to vse their conscience and professe the Religion which they belieue in hart to be true Lastly M. Downam taketh vp Bellarmine very short for abusing the authority of S. Augustine and yet with reading the place in Bellarmine he should haue seene that Bellar saith only that S. Augustine writeth that the place of S. Paul Downam mistaketh and abuseth Bellar and other Authors was so vnderstood by many ancient writers so that in this M. Downam delt very hardlie with Bellarmine but after abuseth not only Bellarmine but also those Ancient writers and S. Augustine himselfe by affirming that they only speake of the mystery of Iniquity teaching that it should still worke that is that vnsound men in the church shall more more reuolt vntill they make a sufficient number for Antichrist but that there is neuer a word of this defection caused eyther by one man or in so short a time but rather the contrary The cause of which rash assertion is his mistaking for Bellarmine citeth those which S. Augustine alleadgeth for the exposition of the word Discessio or as he readeth it Transsuga by which he saith some vnderstand not ipsum Principem the chiefe Antichrist himselfe but his whole body that is the multitude of men which belong to him togeather with the chiefe himselfe By which it plainly appeareth that he speaketh of the defection caused by this Prince the tyme of whose raigne is manifest in the Scripture it selfe 18. To the 4. answere M. Downā replieth hauing first made aparēthesis in Bell. name as though he thought that the apostasy wherof the Apostle spake were to endure many ages though he could not chose but see that he thought nothing lesse that this 4. answere is ouerthrown by the first In which he is either very simple or deceiptful for it is plaine that whē one giueth diuers answeres to one argumēt he is not bound to make thē all agree togeather but euery one by it selfe After he saith that he hath shewed that the whole body of Apostataes and Heretikes professing the name of Christ is Antichrist about which I remit the Reader to that which hath bene answered to what he hath said hitherto Thirdly he answereth insteed of replying that all degrees going before the reuelation of Antichrist were a disposition not to the being but to the reuealing of Antichrist for as S. Iohn saith Antichrist was in the Apostasy neither could he be reuealed vnles he first were But to this Bellarmine answered long since that Antichrist was not in the Apostles tyme in person but only in his forerunners and the distinction of being and reuealing is impertinent euen in M. Downams owne opinion if he speake Antichrists comming reuelation all one of the chiefe Antichrist in person whome he will haue to haue bene reuealed so soone as he came so likewise were his forerunners also which is no meruaile if we consider that their comming is when they begin to teach false doctrines by which they are also necessarily knowne to be come to all such as know those doctrines to be false so that it is plaine that their comming and their reuelation is all one as the comming of the sunne the light by which it is reuealed And the like is of any thing that is necessarylie cōioyned to some manifest token by which it may be knowne as heretikes and Apostataes are if they declare themselues for such by doctrine and workes of which M. Downam may haue examples in his Maisters Luther Caluin and the rest who were forthwith reuealed to be Heretikes so soone as they began to teach new doctrines only it may be that they may for some space dissemble and seeme to be Catholikes though in hart they be Heretikes But this maketh nothing to the purpose for all that tyme they are not come in the sight of men but only in the sight of God and no man will deny but that Antichrist may come in this sort before he begin to teach But this is not the comming which M. Downam talketh of since he saith that Antichrist was come in Symon Magus and others who taught Heresies and yet he will not haue him reucaled till the chiefe Antichrist come also After this he citeth Theodoretus who by Apostasy vnderstandeth Antichristes presence As though Bellarmine had not admitted and answered that interpretation before Lastlie he noteth for a thing verie vnlikelie that the preparation for Antichrist should be 1500. yeares in making that he should continue ōly 3. yeares and a half As though the preparation for our Blessed Sauiour had not bene as long the tyme of his preaching and working miracles as short Besides that Antichrist was not to come till the Ghospell of Christ had bene preached ouer all the world many partes fallen away from the Faith which they had receaued and the rest in great disposition by reason of their corrupt customes to doe the same All which could not be done in few yeares as neither was Antichrist to be suffred to raigne any long tyme least he should ouercome euen the very chosen if it were possible and therfore our Sauiour was to destroy him in so short a space 19. To the last answere he vaunteth as though he had gotten a great aduantage for that Bellarmine goeth so farre as supposing all that which they would haue were true