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
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
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
those of Bellarmin And first concerning 2. Thess 2. he leaueth his brethren the Magdeburgians 2. Thess 2. Downam caÌ„not defend the MagdeburgeÌ„ses in the plaine field neuer so much as opening his lips in their defence wherin he seemeth to acknowledge that Bellarmine confuted them throughly wherfore admitting that the place is wel explicated he denieth the consequence For sayth he Antichrist may aduance himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped and yet suffer â—ea require them to be worshipped In proofe wherof he bringeth three instaÌ„ces 1. Iupiter was supposted amongst the Heathens to aduance himselfe aboue all other Gods and yet suffered them to be worshipped as Gods 2. The second beast Apoc. 1â— doth the like with the Image of the former beast Apoc 1â— 3. The Pope also aduanceth himselfe aboue Angells Kings and Princes who are called Gods aboue the Saints the Host the Crosse and whatsoeuer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Church of Rome But M. Downam is much mistaken in the matter for Antichrist shall not only extoll himselfe aboue all other Gods but oppose himselfe against them all for so S. Paul Antichrist shall not extoll him self aboue all other Gods but also oppose himself against them all sayth Qui aduersatur extollitur who is opposed and extolled Now how this aduancing and opposing himselfe can stand with suffering yea requiring them to be worshipped as God wil be very hard for M. Downam or any other to explicate Iupiter was supposed by the Gentiles to be the Father and King of the other Gods but likewise he was supposed to loue them as his children and seruants and not to oppose himselfe vnto them The other two instances are both false and foolish for that second beast is not Antichrist as M. Downam supposeth nor yet aduanceth himself aboue the former Iupiter by which indeed Antichrist is signified and not the renowned Empire The Pope aduanceth not himselfe aboue the Angels Saints the Host the Crosse c. as M. Downam Downam belyeth the Pope belieth him He is indeed the Pastour and the Bishop of KIngs aswell as of others and in that respect preferred before them by Christ himselfe But what hindrance is this that he may not command Princes to be honored and obeied by their subiects as he doth Or what haue any of these comparisons to do with the odoration of God as God which he that is opposite and extolled aboue all them that take that name vpon them should suffer or require it to be giuen to others And besides it is plaine that this opposition and aduancement of Antichrist aboue all other Gods shall be for no other cause but because they are called Gods for if the cause were particuler the quarrell would not be so general As if it should be true of any King that he opposeth and aduaÌ„ceth himself aboue al that are called Kings it were euident that his quarrel against theÌ„ were no other then for that they were Kings and were to called and it were manifestly Why Antichrist aduanceth and opposeth him self aboue all other Gods against his will that any other King should raigne or be acknowledged for a King but himselfe and he would be far inough from suffering yea requiring that any of them should be worshipped and further also from acknowledging or worshipping any of them himselfe for King Secondly M. Downam confirmeth this his answere by the example of Antiochus Epiphanes who aduanceth himselfe against euery God yea against the God of Gods Dan. 11. 56. and yet he was neuer Antioch ' an Idolatour so mad as to professe himselfe the only God But to this the answere is easy that this place cannot be vnderstood of Antiochus but only of Antichrist as S. Hierome sheweth for this very reason that Antiochus did not aduance himselfe against euery God for he was a great Idolater himselfe Thirdly M. Downam supposeth that he hath proued Antichristianisme not to be open Atheisme but a mystery of iniquity c. But we proued before that it cannot be the mystery of iniquity yet it shall not Antichristianisme is not Atheisme properly be Atheisme since those which follow Antichrist shall take him for their God and he himselfe though openly he will worship no God because he will professe himselfe to be God himsefe yet secretly it is not vnprobable that he will adore the Diuell as his God Fourthly M. Downam argueth out of the text it selfe which he sayth doth not ascribe to Antichrist so great an extolling of himselfe as the Iesuite imagineth first because he is called a man of sinne and Sonne of perdition and therefore we are to conceaue of such an aduancement of himselfe as is incident to a mortall and wretched man But to this of the mortality I haue answered sufficiently before and the words of the text rather giue vs occasion to increase then any way to diminish Antichrists sinne since that he is called Antonomasticè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ille home peccati and filius ille perditionis that man of sinne and that sonne of perdition Antichrist shall commit the greatest sins when he cannot all Which giueth vs iust occasion to thinke that there shall be no sinne nor perdition possible for any man to run into from which Antichrist shall be free or rather because some sins be contrary one to the other that he shall fall into the depth of them all by imbracing the greatest when he caÌ„not all Secondly by al that is called God in this place M. Downam will haue vs to vnderstand all to whome the name of God is communicated as to Angels in Heauen to Kings and Princes on earth and of this aduancing aboue Kings he would haue this place vnderstood because afterward it is said that the Roman Empire hindered Antichrists aduancing or reuealing himselfe and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would haue vs to vnderstand any thing that is worshipped as God or wherin God is worshipped Such in the Church of Rome saith he are the Host the Crosse the Saints and their Images and reliques Aboue all which he thinketh that a man may aduance himselfe as the Pope doth and yet may acknowledg some other God besides himselfe But to How the Pope may be called God answere briefly though it be true that Kings c. and coÌ„sequently the Pope also may be called God in some sort yet M. Downam will neuer be able to proue that God himselfe is also called God and likewise the false Gods wherfore S. Paul must needs comprehend these also vnder all that â—â— called God And M. Downams proofe is very weake that because the Roman Empire is sayd to hinder Antichriste reuealing therfore he shall only aduance himselfe aboue it for though it be true that he cannot aduance himselfe till he be reuealed yet afterward he may and shall not only aboue the Roman Empire for that he did
because I haue had occasion to handle this point heeretofore I will not weary the Reader with a needles repetion 8. After this M. Downam coÌ„meth againe to proue that the first place which Bellarmine citeth is to be vnderstood Downam speaketh foolishly and from the purpose of Antiochus which no man denieth and therfore all that labour is lost vnles he would infer out of that that it is not to be vnderstood of Antichrist but that also were foolish as we haue seen And it is litle better to infer that if Antichrist be spoken of in this place he was to be the immediate successor of Seleucus Philopater for who seeth not that this is a personall propriety of Antiochus which could not be fulfilled in any but himselfe so that M. Downam might aswell infer that Antichrist cannot be spoken of in this place except he had bin Antiochus himself which indeed is his wonted figure of petitio principij Wherfore we say that Antiochus who was Seleucus his brother and succeeded him in his kingdome was in the maÌ„ner of getting it â—et downe in the Scripture a figure of Antichrists coÌ„ming to his and this is that which S. Hierome all Christian writers affirme against Porphiry and his like But now M. DownaÌ„ denieth that Antiochus did arise from most base How Antiochus Epiphanes arose froÌ„ base estate estate because he was Sonne to Antiochus the great Brother to Seleucus Philopater As though a Kings Sonne and Brother may not be obscure and abiect in a kingdome out of which he hath liued and in which he had no right or title nor yet power to succeed for it were too much simplicity in M. Downam to imagine that Hierome and Bellarmine spake of basenes of birth since that it is evident they only speake of him in thâ—t sort in respect of the obtaining of the kingdome secretly Dan. 11. and by deceipt and not by force wheras otherwise he was by all thought vnworthy to be King And as for M. Downams exposition of the word vile or despised in Dan. no doubt somtime it may signifie wicked and now I will not contend whether Seleucus Philopater v. â—0 be called Vilissimus in the vulgar translation because of â—â— base poling of the people though Why Seleucus Philopater is called Vilissimus M. Downams friends translâ—â—e iâ— otherwise by which it appeareth that the Hebrew word is not all one in both places and besides many of Seleucus Philopaters predecessours were as wicked as he and therfore it is 〈◊〉 probable that he was called Vilissimus rather because he liued obscurely without doing any memorable act for which cause he is also said to raigne but a few daies though he were King twelue yeares But to omit all this M. Downam caÌ„not deny but that one may be called abiect vile base contemptible despised or what it pleaseth him by reason of his obscure life and vnfitnes want of meanes and vnworthines of the dignity which he pretendeth and when the word is to be taken in this sense we must gather out of the text and the circuÌ„stances which concurre in the History and Person out of which no man can deny but that S. Heromos sense is most cleare and if we speake of Antiochus before he was King it is more then M. Downam can proue that he was known to be so exceeding wicked that he deserued to be called vile in that respect and after he was King for all his wickednes he came to be called Noble and is so named in all Histories yea in the Scripture it self 9. Now wheras M. Downam sayth that though Antiochus be atype of Antichrist yet from hence we must infer not the selfe same particuler which is proper to the person of Antiochus but the like It is very true in this though sometime this rule doth not hould as is manifest in the example of Exodus where the Pascall Lambe is a figure of our Sauiour in that particuler of not hauing the bones broken but in this it is true and so nether S. Hierome and Bellarmine or any of the rest do infer that Antichrist shall vse the same deceipt that Antiochus did but the like nor that he shall obtayne the same Kingdome as M. Downam very ridiculously would beare his Reader in hand â—or who knoweth not that Antiochus was not only King of the Iewes but of Syria and Asia which S. Hierome inferreth Antichrist is not proued to be the King of the Iewes because Antiochus was so not of Antichrist only he nameth the Kingdome of the Iewes because it is manifest out of other places as hath byn shewed that Antichrist shall make himselfe their King and Messias But it was far from S. Hierome and Bellarmine to proue it out of this place And to this I might also â—d that by the Kingdome of the Iewes they meane not the country of Iewry but rather the dominion ouer that Nation and their persons wheresoeuer they be For it is vncertaine whether there shal be any Iewes in that Country at Antichrists comming or no and it seemeth more probable that they shall recouer it in his time and by his meanes Wherfore S. Hierome and Bellarmine only endeauour to proue out of this place that Antichrist shall haue an obscure beginning and come to be King by deceipt which M. Downam might haue perceaued by Bellarmins minor or Assumption in which he neuer goeth about to proue that the Pope is not Antichrist because he is not King of the Iewes which had bene his best and readyest way if he had inferred out of this place that Antichrist shal be so and wheras M Downam saith that to argue from an allegory iâ— but asleight argument in Diuinity I haue already shewed that when the allegoricall sense is certayne and knowne by the generall consent of Fathers as it is in this place the argument is not sleight but most Downam insolently reiecteth S. HieroÌ„e firme and strong and M. Downam is most ridiculous in affirming that S. Hierome â—â— ouerseene and that it is a wonder he being one of the most learned Fathers and the matter so easy for who seeth not the insolent vanity of this heriticall Doctor who perswadeth himselfe that his bare word is able to discredit S. Hieroms exposition whose learning and exactnes in the Scripture the whole world admireth and it is hard to find any place in the exposition whereof he is so earnest as in this impugning ex professo the exposition of Porphiry whoÌ„ M. DownaÌ„ â—aketh vpon hiâ— to defend and that not only agaynst S. Hierome but against all other Christian and Ecclesiasticall Downam abuseth S. Hierome expositours either before or after S. Hieromes time Finally M. Downam is too impudent and absurd to make a shew as if S. Hieroms meant to proue out of the 23. v. that Antichrist shal be of a small Nation since he himselfe acknowledgeth that S. Hierome expoundeth those words otherwise but this is