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
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
some of their owne brethren do much condemne their insolencie and rash bouldnes in this assertion 2. Now wheras he affirmeth that the conceipts of the elder Papists who liued in the dares of our forefathers concerning Antichrist were meere dotages he only sayth it and therby discouereth his spitefull spirit which prouoketh him to rayle without reason and to slander against all truth For the Catholikes of former dayes held the very same that we do now though Bellarmin agreeth with the elder Catholikes they explicated not themselues so fully as Bellarmine and others do now In which respect only these may in some sort be truly called the refiners of Popery that is the explicators and confirmers of Catholike doctrine against heretikes But the reason of this difference betwixt the elder and later writers is euident for in their dayes Heretikes were not so impudēt as to vrge so palpable and grosse errors as they are in our time for otherwise Bellarmine sufficiently declareth the antiquity of his doctrine by prouing whatsoeuer he sayth by the authority of the ancient Fathers Now whether many haue contributed to Bellarmins bookes or no it is little to the purpose though the truth is as those know that are best acquainted with his studies that they are all his owne labours And that this may not seeme strange M. Downam may easily informe himselfe that diuers other of his order that liued in the same time and some in the same place haue in diuers kindes written as large volumes as Bellarmine hath in this Wherof Salmeron Tolet Valentia Molina Suarez Vasquez and others may serue for example Well to come to the matter M. Downam seemeth to allow of Bellarmines method and diuision since that he obiecteth nothing against it but commeth presently to his first argument 3. In which to make a good beginning he corrupteth Bellarmines argument by altering both words and sense for thus he setteth it down Antichrist is hostis aemulus Christi Downam corrupteth Bellarmines argumēt that is such an enemy as is opposed vnto Christ in emulation of like honour The Pope is not an enemy nor opposed vnto Christ in emulatiō of like honour therfore the Pope is not Antichrist Wheras Bellarmine endeauoureth to prooue nothing els in this Chapter but that the name of Antichrist signifieth not the Vicar of Christ but only some that is contrary to Christ and contrary not howsoeuer but in such sort that he striueth with him for the seate and dignity of Christ so that he would be accompted Christ hauing cast him downe who is truly Christ which is not to be opposed vnto Christ in emulation of like honour but of the same and equall honour which are far different matters For who seeth not that many things are like which are not the same or rather speaking in rigour that nothing is like that is the same And so likewise of equalitie there be manie things like which are not equall As for example the vnitie of Christs seruants among themselues is like to the vnion of Christ with his Father but not the same nor Ioan. 17. equall vnto it And in this our question who doubteth that the Vicar of Christ as of any other is like vnto him in honour but yet he hath not in any sort the same or equall honour to that which Christ hath as not to explicate other differences it is euident that whosoeuer is Vicar to another acknowledgeth dependancie of another which the principall doth not Now then the whole controuersy being about this sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it may signify not only an enemy or emulous of Christ but also his Vicar or Vicegerent no meruaile though Bellarmin wholy insisteth vpon the proofe thereof and in this he sheweth not himselfe to be a sophister but M. Downam proueth himselfe to be a calumniatour and a falsifier as is manifest But yet in some sort he seemeth to acknowledg and amend this fault by affirming that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition commonlie signifieth three things opposition equalitie substitution by which as afterward he explicates himselfe he vnderstandeth subordination which indeed is that which Bellarmine denieth and M. Downam proueth onlie by repeating the example of Musculus adding two others to it which he interpreteth after that manner and saith in general that Greeke writers and Lexicographers doe teach see as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proconsul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proprator or legatus praetoris or qui est vice praetoris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the putting of one case for another And in this sense saith he the sacraments of the new Testament substituted and ordayned insteed of the old are called the Downam repeateth his fellowes argument omitting Bellarmines answere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them But it is meruaile he saw not that which Bellarmine had writtē against Musculus who aleadged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as M. Downam doth and Bellarmine answered to them both that it signifieth not the Vicegerent of a Captaine but ordinarilie a contrarie captaine as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make warre against and sometymes him that is in the Captaines place not as subiect to him but as equall as among the Latins Propraetor or Proconsul doth not signifie the Vicegerent of the Pretor or Consul but him who is in some Prouince that which the Pretor or the Consul is in the Citty And in this was Musculus deceyued for reading in Budaeus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth Propraetor he thought that it did signifie the Vicegerent of the Pretor which is false Thus far Bellarmine By which M. Downam might haue vnderstood the cause of Musculus his error whose authoritie as it should seeme by that he citeth no other he only followeth and in the other examples which he bringeth there is the same reason because one case is equiualent with the other and the Sacraments of the new law are not onlie equall but also of greater value and withall opposite to those of the old law with which they could not stand or be in vse at the same tyme. 4. To Bellarmins second proofe out of Scripture M. Downam granteth the Conclusion though he would faine wrāgle How Antichrist is taken in the Scripture about 2. Thess 2. and Matth. 24. for that Antichrist is not named there though he and all other graunt that they are to be vnderstood of Antichrist and consequentlie he shal be such as is there described Likewise he would cauill about the place in S. Iohns Epistle in which he saith the name 1. Iohn 2. of Antichrist is ascribed to such as being enemies notwithstanding professed the name of Christ as the heretikes of those tymes Where he semeth to haue forgotten what he and Bellarmine haue agreed Bellar. cap. 2. Dow. lib. 1. cap. 1. 3. vpon that the name of Antichrist is taken either properlie or commonly as also the name of Christ and consequently as the members
earth By which meanes the litle horne which he had betwixt his eyes that is the Kingdome which he gouerned came to be very great strong in a short space at his death was deuided into foure little ones in respect of his great Monarchie which contayned all those 4. After this M. Downam commeth to Bellarmines second answere to which he graunteth that S. Paul speaketh not of any of the 4. beastes spoken of by Daniel which in effect is to graunt that Bezas consequence was nothing worth and poore M. Downam had no other shift but to say that noe man said so because he meant not to say so himselfe And yet to set the better face on it he denieth also that Antichrist is the little horne as Bellarmine affirmeth But he should haue considered that the other was that which was necessary that the argumēt might stand in force and that now Bellarmine is the defendant and therfore it is not inough for M. Downam to deny what he saith but he must also proue the contrary Thus much for Bezas argumēt which as you see Bellarmine hath solued euen by M. Downams owne confession and therfore he hath added otherplaces of Scripture to hould it vp from falling or rather he hath let Bezas argument fall for that it was past recouery and hath patched vp another of his owne To which I āswere that in all the places which he citeth only in the 7. of Daniel by the beastes be signified Kingdomes for in the 11. of Daniel there is not once any Beast named and Apoc. 13. there be two Beastes but the former signifyeth only one man Antichrist the latter his chiefe false Prophet and Apoc. 17. the Beast signifieth the Diuel All which M. Downam must not put me to proue now till it be my turne and then he shall see I shal be better stored both with arugments authority thē he is who bringeth neither And as for the assumption that in the 13. of Apoc. Antichrist is the secōd Beast I haue already denied it for M. Downam was in some need of Scripture so he was inforced to vse one place both in his propositiō assūptiō and to thrust in other which made nothing to his purpose 15. About the third obiection M. Downam had little to adde only he explaneth what a substantiall ground they haue for the exposition of that word Apostasy which is no other but because it pleaseth them to vnderstand it so And to Bellarmines first answere he saith that it doth rather make against himselfe then otherwise for that he cannot inferr thence that Antichrist is but one Man As though he that answereth were to inferre any thing and not only to shew how his aduersary inferreth nothing VVherfore M. Downam addeth that rather the contrary is to be inferred for if Apostasy be put by a Metonymie of the adiunct for the subiect or rather of the effect for the cause that is for the parties which doe reuolt then it followeth that Antichrist signifieth the whole body and Kingdome of Antichrist In which Downam mistaketh Bellarmine reply of his I can see no other reason but want of consideration of that which Bellarmine hath said for the interpretation which is giuen by him in his first answere of the word Apostasie is onely this that Antichrist is called the Apostasie for that he shal be the cause that many forsake God so that not those which forsake God but he that is the cause therof is called the Apostasie And so though those that forsake God be many yet he that is the cause may be only one If M. Downam hath any thing to reply against this eyther he must shew that the cause of the Apostasie may not be called the Apostasie or else that one man may not be the cause that many forsake God and not speake so confusedly and darkly as he doth least he make Downam speaketh from the purpose men thinke that he vseth that art to seeme to say somthing when he hath nothing to say indeed which may be also suspected by that which he addeth out of S. Augustine of an opinion which he misliketh not and which Bellarmine alleadgeth in his third answere as also of Antichrists sitting in the Church all which he knoweth well inough to make nothing to the force of this argument nor to be against this first answere of Bellarmine and therfore is but an idle addition for want of matter to the purpose About the second reason that Bellarmine giueth why Antichrist may be called the Apostasy M. Downam hath nothing to say against it but Antichrist shal be an Apostata only noteth that seeing none can be an Apostata which hath not bene a Christian Antichrist shal not be a Iew but a back sliding and reuolted Christian which if we take the name properly as it signifieth one that falleth from Christ is a probable argument that Antichrist shal be baptized but yet he may be a Iew both by birth as also by profession as Iulian was a Gentile in profession and yet a notable Apostata But this name may also be vnderstood of those which fall from God though they were no Christians And in this sēse it is more ample and therfore more fit for Antichrist who shall not only oppose himselfe to Christ but also extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God And this is all that M. Downam replyeth to Bellarmines first answere for he hath not soe much as gone about to proue that Antichrist may not be vnderstood by the Apostasy because he shal be the cause that many forsake God or because he shal be a most notable Apostata nor that one man may not be called soe for these two reasons which be only the points that could make against Bellarmines answere 16. To the second answere M. Downam replieth first that the dissention of the Fathers proueth that their exposition can be noe good rule of interpreting the Scriptures Which note I would he would applie to himselfe and his fellow-Ministers for no doubt The Protestants expositiō of Scripture not much worth he would find that their expositions are not much worth since they agree so little and if when the Fathers doe diuersly expound the same place it is a signe that it is not certaine which interpretation is to be followed but that either may be admitted so far as they swarue not from any point of Faith how much lesse certainty can we haue of M. Downam and his fellowes who many tymes doe not only differ from all others but also among themselues and that in matters which belong to Faith in which one houldeth against the other and both against all the world besides After this M. Downam goeth about to prooue that the Apostasie cannot signifie the reuolt from the Roman Empire because in other places of Scripture it signifieth a falling away from God and for that afterward it is called the mystery of iniquitie which was working in
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
praâ—us dux 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est verè nocens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est olim inuiden◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est agnus nocens Primasius addeth another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est contrarius Rupertus and before him Haymo inuented two other viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a Gothes name DIC LVX a Latin which maketh 666. if after the Latin manner we take D for 500. l. for one C. for 100. L. for 50. V. for 5. and X. for 10. Of the later writers Lindanus l. 3. Dubitantij noteth that Martyn Lauter maketh the number 666. if the Latin letters be taken for numbers after the manner of the Greeke and Hebrew thus A. 1. B. 2. C. 3. D. 4. E. 5. F. 6. G. 7. H. 8. I. 9. K. 10. L. 20. M. 30. N. 40. O. 50. P. 60. Q. 70. R. 80. S. 90. T. 100. V. 200. X. 300. Y. 400. Z. 500. Gilbert Genebrard in the last booke of his Cronologie noted also that the name of Luther in hebrew maketh that nuÌ„ber Lulter I add two more in fauour of Luther Chytraeus to wit Dbid Citriu id est Dauid Chytraeus and σαξόνειος which later agreeth aswell to Luther as the name Latinus to the Pope Daleth 4. σ. 200. Beth. 2. α. 1. Iod. 10. ξ. 60. Daleth 4. ο. 70. Caph. 20. ν. 50. Iod. 10. ε. 5. Tau 400. ι. 10. Resc 200. ο. 70. Iod. 10. σ. 200. Vau. 6.    666.  666. The third opinion is of many Catholikes who ghesse that Antichrist shal be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because this name properly agreeth vnto him and conteyneth exactly that number So affirme Primasius Anselmus and Richardus This opinion is well confuted by Rupertus because the name which S. Iohn insinuateth in this place shall not be giuen to Antichrist by his Aduersaries but taken by himselfe as glorying therin insomuch that he shall make it be written in mens foreheades And yt is not probable that he will take to himselfe any hatefull or vile name such as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and almost all the other aboue rehearsed The 4. opinion is of Rupertus himselfe who thinketh that the name of Antichrist is not signified by this number but a triple preuarication of the Diuell to be fulfilled in Antichrist for the number of 6. because it commeth not to 7. in which is rest and happynes is the number of a creature by preuarication falling from rest And the Diuell hath incurred a threefold preuarication or rather hath tripled one For first he preuaricated when he sinned in himselfe after againe when he made the first man sinne and then to 6. he added 60. Thirdly he shall preuaricate when he shall seduce the whole world by Antichrist and then to 60. he shall adde 600. The fifth opinion is Bedes who taketh the contrary course and teacheth that the number of 6. is perfect because God made heauen and earth in 6. dayes and 60. more perfect and 600. most perfect Whereupon he gathereth that Antichrist is designed by the number 666. because he shall vsurpe to himselfe the most perfect tribute which is only due to God In figure wherof we read lib. 3. Reg. cap. 10. that the weight of gold which was brought euery yeare to Salomon was 666000. talents These two opinions seeme not sufficiently to agree with that which S. Iohn saith that that number is the number of the name not of the dignity or preuarication neither would these Fathers haue their opinions otherwise accompted of then as suspicions and coniectures Wherefore their opinion is truest who confesse their ignorance and say that Antichrists name is yet vnknown which is the opinion of S. Irenaeus vpon this place of the Apocalyps and of others And I will set downe S. Irenaeus his words because Chytraeus exhorteth his reader to peruse them I exhort saith he the studious Reader to peruse the last pages of Irenaeus vpon this place which are the 333. and the 334. who disputeth of this number of the Beast modestly and piously and among other things sheweth that Antichrist shal be a Latin or Roman by the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wherefore Irenaeus saith thus It is therefore more certayne and without danger to expect he fulfilling of the Prophesy then to suspector ghesse at any names since there may be many names found which haue the foresaid number And notwithstanding there remayneth the same question for if we find many names which haue this number the question is which of them be shall beare that is to come Neither doe we say this for any scarsity of names which haue the number of his name but for the feare of God and zeale of truth for the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the number we seeke but we affirme nothing of it Likewise the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the number 666. and is very likely because this name hath the truest Kingdome for the Latins are they which raigne now But we will no beast of this But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hauing the first syllable written by the two greeke vowells â— â— is the name which deserueth most credit of all that are sound in our language c. And after Since therefore this name Titan hath so many perswasions and so great likelyhood that we may gather by many thinges that peraduenture he that is to come shal be called Titan yet we will not hazard our selues in it nor affirme with asseueration that he shall haue this name because if his name were to be publikely manifested at this tyme doubtlesse it would haue byn declared by him who saw the Reuelation So he Wherefore let Chytraeus giue eare to Irenaeus disputing modestly piously and learnedly and let him not falsly impute that vnto him which he neuer sayd For Irenaeus did not thinke that Antichrist should be a Latin or a Roman but he saith and repeateth oftener then once that the name of Antichrist cannot be knowne yet and this he also proueth by two very good reasons First because there be many names which make that number neither can we ghesse which of them is that which is foretould Secondly because if God would haue had it knowne at this tyme certainly he would haue reuealed it by S. Iohn himselfe And he added that he did not speake thus for any want of names but for the feare of God and zeale of the truth For which cause he rehearsed three names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which he affirmed that the second was more likely then the first and the third then the second but that none of them was certaine We may also adde a third reason out of the same Irenaeus for a little before disputing against them which gathered false names of Antichrist out of their owne conceipt he saith that they fall into many inconueniences for they expose themselues to the danger of erring and of deceauing
before Manasses the elder Gen. 48. But what hath M. Downam gained by this Is not this rather a confirmation of the Fathers opinion that Antichrist M. Downam impugneth himselfe shal be borne of the Tribe of Dan since that only was omitted in this place Yea but saith M. Downam Symeon is not mentioned in the blessing of Moyses Deut. 33. no more then Dan in the Apocalyps But he himselfe confesseth that Symeon is comprehended vnder Iuda but that Dan is altogether omitted Deut. 33. which as you see is a great difference And besides though Symeon were altogeather omitted also the reason were to be found out and not put off with another difficulty Wherefore Why Moyses omitted Symeon in his blessing there be two reasons why he was not mentioned by Moyses First because that Tribe was not to haue any particuler possession distinct from the rest in the land of Promise but only some small portion among those of Iuda for which cause as it seemeth M. Downam saith that Symeon is comprehended vnder Iuda in this place to which we may adde that other obseruation of S. Hierome in quaest Hebr. that in processe of tyme the Tribe of Symeon was constrayned to goe into the desert because they had not possession sufficient for them after they were multiplyed which he proueth out of 1. Paral. 4. But though this reason be probable â—et the two Apollinarij giue another more certayne for this reason would also haue excluded the Tribe of Leui which had no particular possession in the Land of Promise but was Why the Tribe of Leui is often omitted deuided among all the Tribes for which cause when mention is made of the Tribes in respect of their temporall possessions the Tribe of Leui is omitted But heere we see that Moyses maketh most honorable mention of Leui. Wherfore the two Apollinarij with whome also agreeth Caietan and Lippomanus rather thinke that Moyses made no mention of Caiet in Genes Symeon by reason of the curse which Iacob laid vpon him togeather with Leui vpon his death-bed from which the Tribe of Leui was freed by the zeale which the shewed in Gods cause against Idolatry at Moyses his commandement by which they wiped away the curse which Iacob had laid vpon them for their fury and vniust reuenge and consecrated their handes to God and deserued to haue a benediction giuen them as we see that Moyses gaue them absoluing them from their Father Iacobs malediction but passing ouer Symeon Exod. 32. in silence Deo iudicandum relinquens and leauing him to Gods iudgment as the elder Apollinarius writeth with whom agreeth the assertion of the Iewes that there was not a poore Scribe nor Schoolemaster among all the Tribes but he was of the Tribe of Symeon many of them as it seemeth beeing constrayned by necessity to seeke their liuing by that meanes as others were inforced to fly the country and so Iacobs Prophesy was fulfilled in both these Tribes that they were deuided and dispersed through Iacob and Israel but with this difference that Leui liued with great authority and plenty and Symeon in great disgrace and pouerty which perhaps was also insinuated by the holy Patriarch by those distinct wordes of deuiding and dispersing in Iacob and Israel So that now we haue the reason why Symeon was omitted Deut. 33. but still we seeke for this other why Dan is omitted Apoc. 7. And M. Downam giueth vs a generall reason why some one was to be left out viz. because Leui was Why the Tribe of Dan is omitted Apoc. 7. put in and consequently if all the rest had byn recyted there should haue ben 13. Whereas he supposeth that the Holy Ghost would neither number more nor lesse then 12. But first this were strange that the Holy Ghost should stand so precisely vpon any number And if a Papist should do so M. Downam would exclaime against him for superstition Secondly Moyses Deut. 33. indeed numbreth only 1â— Tribes for he includeth Ephraim and Manesses vnder the name of Ioseph as he himselfe expresseth in the end of his benediction and M. Downam well obserueth that the like is to be seene Deut. 27. and Ezech. 48. Thirdly our difficulty is not now why any Tribe is omitted but why rather the Tribe of Dan then any other And to this M. Downam answereth that the reason is because that was the first Tribe which fell from God vnto Idolatry and that for the same cause as some thinke the Genealogy of that Tribe is omitted in the first booke of Chronicles But this is not a good reason for though it were true that the Tribe of Dan fell first from God to Idolatry yet this is no particuler cause why that The Tribe of Dan fell not first to Idolatry Exod. 32. Num. 25. Ios 22. Tribe should be omitted only in these two places and in no other and besides it is not true that this Tribe fell first to Idolatry for all the Tribes are said to haue fallen togeather when they worshiped the calfe and after againe Beelphegor which seemeth to be particulerly obiected to the Tribe of Ruben and God and the halfe Tribe of Manasses by Phinees and the 10. Princes of the other 10. Tribes And in the tyme of the Iudges almost in euery Chapter there is mention made of the peoples falling to Idolatry without any particuler mention of Dan and euen that particuler Idolatry Iudic. 17. 18. which M. Downam seemeth to ayme at was not begun by the Tribe of Dan but by Michas of the mountayne of Ephraim from whome those of Dan tooke perforce his idolls and Priest which indeed was a great sinne in them but not the first nor yet the greatest and therefore not a sufficient reason why the Tribe of Dan should be omitted only in these two places as M. Downam will needes affirme against the Fathers but indeed proueth nothing at all against them For suppose his reason were good yet that is no hinderance why the reason of the Fathers should not be good also for why might not this Tribe be omitted for both these reasons and the latter which these Fathers bring be a punishment of the former which M. Downam alleadgeth For since S. Iohn speaketh of those which shal be saued of the Iewes in the tyme of Antichrist and only omitteth the Tribe of Dan of which he reckoneth none to be saued is it not more then probable that the cause of this is because the Tribe of Dan shall wholy giue themselues to Antichrist Antichrist shall be of the Tribe of Dan. as to the head of their Tribe And likewise since the chiefe reason why the Genealogyes of the Tribes are rehearsed is because Christ was to be borne of one of them may it not be very well thought that in hatred of Antichrist which was to be of the Tribe of Dan the Genealogy of that Tribe was omitted though indeed this latter proueth no more of
true Messias wherefore all these miracles shall either be Antichrists or his Ministers Hence it followeth that the Pope is not Antichrist for neuer any Pope faigned himselfe to die and rise againe nor he himself or any of his preachers made fyre come downe from Heauen or the Image to speake But the Magdeburgenses object cent 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col 436. that there haue ben many lying myracles wrought by them which hould with the Pope as say they visions of soules babling of Purgatory and crauing Masses to be said for them and recouery from sicknesses which haue hapned to the worshippers of Statua's and vowers to Saintes I answere first These are not the miracles which S. Iohn writeth that Antichrist shall doe but to die and rise againe to send fier from Heauen and giue the Image power to speake wherefore let them shew that these haue ben don by the Pope or his followers Secondly those 3. kindes of miracles were vsed in the Church before that tyme in which our aduersaries say that Antichrist appeared for S. Gregory writeth lib. 4. dial cap. 40. that the soule of Paschasius a Deacon who liued in the tyme of Pope Symachus about the yeare of our Lord 500. appeared to S. German Bishop of Capua and desired him to praie for him that he might be deliuered from the torments of purgatory Certainely this miracle happened an hundred yeares before Antichrist appeared by the opinion of all the heretikes of this tyme. For none of them doth put the comming of Antichrist but after the yeare 600. and S. Gregories death The same S. Gregorie telleth of other apparitions of soules asking Masses in the same booke cap. 55. Of the miracles of healing diseases for the veneration of Images there is an example extant in Eusebius lib. 7. hist cap. 14. where he reporteth that there was a brasen Statua erected to our Sauiour by that woman which our Sauiour healed from the issue of bloud and that there was wont to grow an herbe vnder that Statua which being growne to the hemmes or skirts of the Image and touching it healed all kindes of diseases by which myracle it is euident that God would approue the worship of holy Images Of the Recoueryes graunted to them who had vowed any thing to the Saints there are innumerable Testimonies in the ancient Wryters but that which Theodoretus recyteth lib. 8. ad Graces qui est de Martyribus is notable that in his tyme the Temples of Martyrs were full of little Tablets or Portraicts of hands feete eyes heads and other parts of men by which were signifyed the diuers gifts of healings which men that had vowed had receaued of the holy Martyrs M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted 1. MAISTER Downam will not contend with Bellarmine but that Antichrist and his Adherents shall worke many signes and wonders and that they shall be lying signes and wonders both in respect of the end which is to seduce and confirme lyes and in respect of the substance which is counterfayt In which latter clause M. Downam is a little confused or at least not so cleere as Bellarmine who distinguisheth the substance into matter forme Antichrist shall work many signes and sheweth how Antichrists signes shal be lying in both But it is very likely that M. Downam past this ouer so sleightly because he agreed with Bellarmine fully in that point wherfore he commeth to the efficient and author of these myracles in respect of which Bellarmine also affirmeth that they are lying signes wonders because this efficient cause shal be the Father of lyes according to whose power Antichrist was to come who as some of the Fathers affirme was to be a Magiciā or notable Sorcerer And heere M. Downam is somwhat doubtful saying that it seemeth to be somwhat far fetched vnlesse we will take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be masculine as none doth But what meaneth M. Downam by this phrase of far fetched Is it not an ordinary matter that the effect should be denominated How Antichrists signes are said to be lying signes of the efficient cause Why was Manna called the Bread of Angells but because it was giuen by the Ministry of Angells Wherfore we shall not need M. Downams masculine for Bellarmine goeth not about to proue that the word lying signifieth that they shal be such by reason of the efficient cause But that since they are to be wrought by the Diuell as the Apostle affirmeth and M. Downam acknowledgeth and likewise all the Fathers agree and not some only as M. Downam alleageth Bellarmines words corruptly that Antichrist shal be a Sorcerer it is also manifest that they shal be wrought by the Father of lyes and consequently of him as well as for other respects be called lying But we shall not need to stand any longer vpon this since M. Downam is content to yield because he doth not doubt but that he can apply this note also to the Pope Church See part ◠c. 6. of Rome which how well he can do it is not now tyme to examine but in another place 2. The 2. Arguments which M. Downam frameth out of these two positions that Antichrist shall worke signes and that they shall be lying were too ridiculous for Bellarmine to haue made who only noteth those two points for explication of the whole matter and that the third point from which he draweth his argument may be the better vnderstood for who seeth not that those things which are cōmon Myracles in general belong both to good and bad both to good and bad as myracles in generall are can be no note only to know the bad by For that which M. Downam addeth that myracles in these latter tymes belong only to Antichrist is spoken without all ground eyther of Scripture or reason and only affirmed by Protestants because they can neyther worke true myracles being the Diuells Ministers nor false because their Maister is not let loose Why Heretiks can worke no myracles at all yet as he shal be in Antichrists tyme which is the reason why no Heretikes can worke any myracles at all but only the true Church true myracles so long as the Diuel is boūd because God is alway powerfull and Antichrists false myracles in that short space that the Diuell shal be loosed and permitted to vse this manner of seducing aswell as all the rest Now to proue or disproue that any is Antichrist because his signes are true or false is a harder matter then M. Downam taketh it to be as we shall see when we examine his See part 2. c. 7. obiections against the myracles which haue bene wrought in the Catholike Church and the Diuell will carry his matters so craftily in Antichrists tyme that it will not be easy to descry that his myracles are any way false as that of Caluin and some other Ministers was who were taken tardy by the punishment and confession of those whom they
then he hath bene since and shal be more againe hereafter in Antichrists tyme then euer he was before â—fter which he shall go into eternall destruction as S. Iohn affirmeth 7. And by this we may see that Bellarmines exposition conteyneth no absurdity at all nor can be impugned by any found ground so farre as concerneth the substance Apoc. â—3 therof for all that can be obiected against it is that it seâ—meth 〈◊〉 to explicate how Antichrist should be signifyed 〈…〉 himselfe and also by one of his heades 〈…〉 very probable that it is not Antichriâ—◠〈…〉 this deadly wound but one of the 7. Kings signified by those 7. heads who shall concurre with Antichrist in his wickednesse for that in this 13. Chapter S. Iohn speaketh of particuler Kings and not of seuerall States is manifest by that which hath bene said and shall heerafter be againe confirmed And thus we may conclude this Chapter for M. Downam replyeth not a word to Bellarmines answere to the obiection of the Magdeburgians THE SIXTENTH CHAPTER Of the Kingdome and Warres of Antichrist OF the Kingdome and Warres of Antichrist we read saith Bellarmine 4. things in the Scriptures First that Antichrist rising from a most base place shall obtayne the Kingdome of the Iewes by deceipt and craft Secondly he shall fight with 3. Kings riz of Egypt Lybia and Ethiopia and that he shall ouercome them and postesse their Kingdomes Thirdly that he shall subdue other 7. Kings and by that meanes become the Monarch of the whole world Fourthly that he shall persecute the Christians with an innumerable army through the whole world and that this is the battayle of of Gog and Magog of all which since nothing agreeth to the Pope it followeth manifestly that he can by no meanes be called Antichrist Of the first thus speaketh Dan. cap. 11. There shall stand in his place a contemptible one and Kingly honour shall not be giuen to him and he shall come secretly and shall obtayne a Kingdome in deceipt Vpon which place S. Hierome wryteth that although these words be in some sort vnderstood of Antiochus Epiphanes yet they are far more perfectly to be fulfilled in Antichrist as those things which are said of Salomon are indeed vnderstood Psal 71. of Salomon but are more perfectly fulfilled of Christ wherefore S Hierome in the same place after he had expounded this place of Antiochus following Pâ—rphery writeth thus But our men better and more rightly interprete that Antichrist shall do these things in the end of the world who is to rise of a meane nation that is of the people of the Iewes and shal be so base and obiect that the Kingly honour shall not be giuen him and he shall obtayne the Princedome by wiles and deceipts c. Where Saint Hierome signifieth that this is the common exposition of Christians for which cause also Daniel cap. 7. compareth Antichrist with a little horne viz. by reason of his base and obscure beginning And certainly this first doth in no sort agree to the Pope for we should say that the Pope was vntill the yeare 600. most obscure and of no name and that then suddainly and by deceipts he vsurped some high place But this is manifestly false For as S. Augustine epist 162. saith In the Roman Church alway flourished the Princedome of the Apostolike Chayre and S. Prosper lib. 2. de vocat gentium cap. 6. Rome by the Princedome of preisthood is made more ample by the sortresse of Religion then by the throne of power and the Councell of Calcedon epist ad Leonem affirmeth that at Rome do shine the Apostolike beames which from thence extend themselues to all and communicate their treasures with others Finally euen that Heathen writer Amianus Marcellus l. 27. writing of the schisme of Damasus and Vrsicinus saith that he doth not meruayle if men striue so earnestly for the Bishopricke of Rome since that the riches and amplitude of it are so great Of the second the same Dan. cap. 7. speaketh thus I considered the hornes and behould another little horne arose in the middest of them and three of the first hornes were pulled vp beâ—ore his face and after explicating Moreouer saith he the ten hornes are ten Kinges and another shall rise after them and he shal be more mighty then the former and shall humiliate 3. Kings And cap. 11. explicating who these three Kinges be He shall send his hand quoth he into lands and the land of Egypt shall not escape and he shall haue dominion of the treasures of gould and siluer and in all the precious things of Egypt and he shall passe also through Lybia and Ethiopia Vpon which places and especially vpon cap. 7. S. Hierome writing saith Let vs say that which all Ecclesiasticall VVriters haue deliuered In the consuÌ„mation of the world when the Kingdome of the Romans is to be destroyed there shal be ten Kinges who shall deuide the Roman world amongst them and there shall arise an eleuenth little King Antichrist who shall ouercome three of the ten Kinges that is of the Egyptians and of Africa and Ethiopia who being slaine the other 7. Kinges shall also submit themselues to the Conquerour The same doe teach of the three Kinges to be slaine by Antichrist S. Irenaeus lib. 5. Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 16. and Theodoretus in cap. 7. 11. Daniel And this most of all refuteth the madnes of heretikes who make the Pope Antichrist for let them say if they can when the Pope slew the Kinges of Egypt of Lybia and Ethiopia and vsurped their Kingdome Theodorus Bibliander in his Chronicle saith that the Pope as a little horne shaked the first horne of the ten when Gregory the second excommunicated Leo the Greeke Emperour the Image breaker and prohibited the tributes of Italy to be rendred vnto him and by little and little obteyned his Princedome that is the Exarchate of Rauenna He saith that he shaked off the secoÌ„d horne when Pope Zacharie deposed Childerichus King of the French and commaunded Pepin to be created in his steed Of the third he speaketh not plainely but he seemeth to insinuate that the third horne was then stroken of when Gregory the 7. excommunicated and deposed Henry the 4. Emperour There is also extant a certaine Epistle of Fredericus the second Emperour of that name written against the Pope in which he affirmeth that the three hornes pulled vp by Antichrist are the Kingdome of Italy Germany and Sicilie which the Pope had chiefly made to serue him But these are most vaine cauills for first Daniel speaketh not of the Kingdome of France or Germany but of the Kingdome of Egypt Lybia and Ethiopia Besides the Pope hath slaine none of those Kings but Antichrist shall kill those 3. Kings as S. Hierome saith Likewise Antichrist shall vsurpe those Kingdomes to himself and not giue them to others but the Pope kept not the Kingdome of France to himselfe but gaue it to Pepin
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