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
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
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
certaine that the day of oppression hath begun to be ouer our heades and the end of the world and tyme of Antichrist is approached S. Hierome ep ad Ageruchiam de Monogamia He which did hould is in making out of the way and doe we not vnderstand that Antichrist approacheth S. Gregorie lib 4. ep 38. All thinges which haue bene foretould are in doing the King of Pride is neere And in his Homylies vpō the Ghospells he doth bouldly pronounce that the end of the world draweth neere but these were suspicions and not errors For these Holy Fathers durst not set downe any certaine tyme. Others more bouldlie appointed a certaine tyme. One Iudas as S. Hierome relateth l. de Viris Illust thought that Antichrist should haue come and the world ended the two hundreth yeare after Christ who as is manifest was deceiued Lactantius l. 7. cap. 25. diuin Instit saith That all expectation seemeth to be for no more then two hundred yeares c. Where he teacheth that Antichrist was to come and the world to end within two hundred yeares after his tyme and he liued in Constātines tyme in the three hundreth yeare after Christ so that he thought the worldes end should haue bene the fiue hundreth yeare after Christ But he also was deceaued as experience witnesseth S. Augustine lib. 18. de ciuitate Dei cap. 53. mentioneth the errour of some others which said that the world should be ended the foure hundreth yeare after our Lords Ascēsion and of others which appointed the thousandth yeare who were all deceaued as it happened also to the Pagans who as S. Augustine witnesseth in the same place out of the answere of some Oracle gathered that Christian religion should endure only three hundred threescore and fiue years There was also a Bishop of Florence about the yeare of our Lord a thousand an hundreth and fiue who affirmed that Antichrist was then borne and therefore that the worldes end was at hand For which cause there was a Councell of three hundred and fourty Bishops gathered at Florence by Paschalis the second Pope of that name See the Chronicle of Matthew Palmer and Platina in the life of Paschalis the second Lastly it hath alway byn a famous opinion of many which affirme that the world shall last six thousand yeares since God created the world in six daies and a thousand yeares are with God as one daie So teach S. Iustine Martyr q. 71. ad Gentes S. Irenaeus lib. 5. Lactantius l. 7. cap. 14. S. Hilar. in cap. 17. Matth. S. Hierom. in Psal 89. ad Cyprianum with which doth also agree the opinion of the Thalmudists who say that they haue a Prophesy out of the Prophet Hely by which it is affirmed that the world shall endure six thousād yeares This opinion cannot yet be refuted by experience for according to the true Chronologie or accompt of times there are about fiue thousand and six hundreth yeares past since the world was made Wherfore S. Ambrose who l. 7. in Luc. cap. 2. reiecteth this opinion affirming that in his time there were 6. thousand yeares past is manyfestly deceaued S. Augustines moderation is very good who thought this opinion probable and followed it as probable l. 20. de Ciuit. Dei c. 7. Neither doth it follow from hence that we doe know the tyme of the last daie for we say that it is probable that the world will not endure aboue 6. thousand yeares but we doe not say that it is certaine Wherfore S. Augustine sharpely rebuketh those who affirme that the world shal be ended at some certaine tyme since our Lord said Act. 1. that it doth not belong to vs to know the tymes and moments which the Father hath put in his owne power See S. Augustine epist 80. ad Hesychium in Psal 89. lib. 18. de ciuitate Dei cap. 53. But omitting these let vs come to the Heretikes Wheras all the Heretikes of this tyme doe teach that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist and that he hath appeared already is now in the world notwithstanding they doe not agree among themselues of the tyme when he appeared for there be six opinions of theirs The first is of the Samosatenes which liue in Hungary and Transiluania who in a certaine booke which they intitle Forewarnings of Christ and the Apostles of the abolishing the true Christ by Antichrist do teach that Antichrist appeared a little after the Apostles time to wit when that doctrine began first to be preached that Christ is the euerlasting Sonne of God for they thinke that Christ is only man and that in God there is only one person and that this faith was preached by Christ and his Apostles but that a little after the Apostles death the Roman Antichrist came and hauing abolished the true Christ which was only man brought in another eternall Christ and made a threefould God and a twofould Christ This opinion besides the arguments which afterward we will bring against all Heretikes is most easilie refuted in two sortes First for that Antichrist when he commeth shall make himselfe God and not any other as the Apostle saith 2. Thess 2. but the Bishop of Rome as they themselues say hath not made himselfe God but preached Christ and of only man hath made him God Secondly because they saie that straight after the death of Christ and his Apostles the true faith of Christ was wholy extinguished by Antichrist and afterward in the whole world Christ was adored for God But Christ foretould that the gates of hell should not preuaile against his Church Matth. 16. and the Angell fortould that Christs Kingdome should endure for euer Luc. 1. and Dauid foretould that all Kinges should serue Christ Psal 71. how therefore is it true that in the very beginning the Church being yet but newly borne was destroyed by Antichrist The second opinion is of Illyricus who in his Catalogue of witnesses teacheth that Antichrist came when the Roman Empire began to incline to destruction but it is manifest that the Roman Empire began to decline after the tenth yeare of Honorius when Rome was first taken that is in the yeare foure hundreth and twelue as Blondus doth shew in the first booke of the first Decade of Histories from the declination of the Roman Empire But Illyricus doth seeme to vnderstand this of the conception not of the natiuitie of Antichrist for he himselfe Cent. 6. Cap. 1. in the beginning saith that Anchrist was conceaued after a certaine manner in the beginning of the 400. yeare after quickned formed and nourished in his Mothers wombe about the fiue hundreth yeare and lastlie borne the 6. hundreth and sixt yeare to wit when Phocas graunted to the B. of Rome that he should be called the head of the whole Church Againe cent 1. l. 2. cap. 4. colum 438. he affirmeth that Antichrist should reigne tyranize with the spirituall sword a thousand two hundred and threescore yeares and with
tyme and were so addicted to this world that they would by no meanes vnderstand that their Messias was to come in that humility in which our Sauiour came which notwithstanding was plainly foretould in the Scriptures which we haue no reason to thinke but that Ecclesiasticus and those of his tyme did vnderstand aright and consequently knew well inough that Elias was not to come at our Sauiours first comming but at his second since it is manifest in this place that they expected his comming litterally and in person Now as for the authority of Iansenius who M. Downam prayseth as he did before Arias Montanus because he Iansenius maketh for him to be one of the best writers among the Papists there had byn no great cause of his commending him if M. Downam had bene disposed to haue dealt sincerely since Bellarmine shewed how he changed his opinion in Matth. 17. where he writeth that the Prophet Malachie cannot be vnderstood but of the true Elias and consequently must needes Downam dealeth not sincerely taking the obiection omitting the answere thinke that Ecclesiasticus was not deceaued in vnderstanding him so But this is another of M. Downams tricks to steale an obiection from Bellarmine and omit his answere where we might meruayle at his impudent folly but that it is no new nor strange thing in him as it was in Iansenius or any Catholike Writer to attribute an errour to Canonicall Scripture which was the cause of Bellarmines meruayling at Iansenius and of his changing so absurd an opinion or rather errour in his later writings in which he doth not only auouch and prooue this truth but also affirmeth that it is the doctrine of the Catholike Church which none but an Heretike will deny Concerning the other place which speaketh of Henoch M. Downam triumpheth saying that it is Ecclesiast 44. a wonder that Bellarmine would alleage it for this purpose But that hauing nothing to say to the purpose he is desirous to say something to bleare the eyes of the simple The originall text hath Henoch pleased the Lord God and was translated for an example of repentance to the generations that is that the generations present and to come might be moued by his example to turne vnto the Lord and to walke before him knowing by his example that there is a reward layd vp for those that turne vnto the Lord and walke before him as Henoch did But will Bellarmine hence conclude that therfore Henoch is to come agayne in the flesh to oppose himselfe to Antichrist Hitherto M. Downam And this is all he hath to say Where first we see that he cannot deny but that the latin text which Bellarmine cited made much for this purpose and there is no reason but that we should attribute as much at least to the latin interpretation as to M. Downams interpretation since it cannot be denyed but that there is The latin interpreter not to be reiected lesse suspition of partiality in him being so ancient who made no doubt of the sense and therfore translated it in that sorte as it were to exclude M. Downams deuise and since the latin Church hath all this tyme receaued this translation for Scripture we must not deny it now because it is contrary to some Protestant opinions especially since we see far greater difference in other partes of Scripture betwixt the originall text some interpretations allowed by the Church neither of which the Fathers durst reiect but rather imbraced and expounded them both as the word of God and indeed who knoweth not that the chiefest certainty that we haue of either dependeth vpon the approbation and authority of the Church which cannot erre in matters of this moment And I belieue M. Downam will hardly giue vs any other sufficient reason why he belieueth these bookes to be Scripture rather then others or this interpretation to be good and others bad But besides the authority of the latin text we thinke the Greeke to be for vs also at leastwise no man can deny but that our exposition is conformable to the Fathers doctrine who affirme our assertion of Henochs comming and consequently we are sure that we may safely expound it so without danger of errour and that M. Downam hath no reason to deny our sense so peremptorily M. Downams opinion of Henochs trāslation maketh as much for any other vertue as for repentance cōtrary to the Scripture though he thinke his owne better which we meruayle not at But further we cannot well see why Henochs translation should rather serue for an example of Repentance then of Hope Religion Iustice Innocency Faith Charity or any other vertue if we admitt M. Downams exposition and yet he is said particulerly to be an example of pennance which commeth very fitly for the latin interpreter and our explication and agreeth passing well with that which S. Iohn writeth Apoc. 11. that these two diuine witnesses shall preach amicti saceis in sack-cloth which wil be a good example of pennance indeed 5. About the third place Matth. 17. 11. his first answere is that by the Euangelist Marke who speaketh in the present tense Elias I. VIII indeed comming first restoreth all thinges the meaning of our Sauiour Christ appeareth to haue byn this Elias quidem venturus fuit primum restituturus omnia Elias indeed was to come first and was to restore Matth. 17. Mar. 9. M. Downam egregiously corrupteth S. Marke S. Matthews Text. all thinges And you must note that he putteth S. Markes wordes as he citeth them as also his owne interpretation in latin in a distinct character to bleare the eyes of the simple and make them belieue that they are both very Scripture And surely howsoeuer he may excuse the later the first is somewhat hard since that S. Markes words are Elias cùm venerit primò restituet omnia which the Protestant English Bible translateth Elias verily when he commeth first restoreth all thinges where we see a when which sufficiently sheweth that Elias was not yet come and besides both venerit restituet are the future and not the present tense and in the wordes following S. Marke hath an which cleareth this matter greatly Sed dico vobis quia Elias venit But I say vnto you that Elias is also come which sheweth plainely that in the former clause our Sauiour spake of a future comming as if he had said Elias shall come in person and also is come in spirit in S. Iohn Baptist which only was required at the first comming of our Sauiour But nothing will serue head-strong Heretikes therfore M. Downam corrupteth S. Matth. Matth. 11. 11. also making him say Iohn Baptist is that Elias who was to come putting it downe in a distinct letter as before whereas the wordes are Ipse est Elias qui venturus est where he could see the first est and translate it truly but not the second because it was against
to delude his Reader either by scoffiing or any other lewd trick he could deuise for lightly he could not inuēt a worse then to scoffe at Gods Saints and particulerly at those to whom we are most behoulding among which in the first place S. Gregory is to be accompted for the great loue he bare to all English men and the great good he procured them for which he is worthily called and honoured as the Apostle of our Nation 8. Finally M. Downam answereth to Bellarmines reason that of Enoch Elias their translation there is this reason that there might be euident examples of reward and happines laid vp both for the vpright in Enoch and for the zealous in Elias of their yet liuing in mortall bodyes if they did so according to the opinion of some of the Fathers that reason might be giuen which they alleadge to witt to conuert Downam maketh Enochs translation an example of vprightnes contrary to Scripture the Iewes Where in the first part I only note that M. Downā maketh Enoch an example for the vpright wheras the Scripture maketh him an example of pēnance But indeed according to this explication he may as I noted before be aswell an example of the one as of the other yea hardly of pennance since we read none he did but rather that he was alway vpright and iust But now the second reason which only maketh to the purpose is the same which Bellarmine vrgeth if M. Downam vnderstandeth it aright as the Fathers held it to wit that these two witnesses shall labour to conuert the Iewes at the end of the world when Antichrist shall most labour to peruert them which wil be to oppose themselues to him Wherefore M. Downam thought best to retire himselfe Downam reiecteth the Fathers and to tell the Fathers flatlie that it is vntrue which they say that they liue in mortall bodies or that they shall euer dye and he offereth to dispute this matter with them And first he asketh them where they liue in mortall bodies To which S. Augustine lib. 2. de peccato originali cap. 23. answereth That S. Augustine answereth to Downās obiection this is one of those questions which pertayne not to Faith where Enoch Elias are quostamen non dubitamus in quibus nati sunt corporibus viuere whome notwithstanding wee doubt not to liue in the bodies in which they were borne By which oppositiō he plainly declareth that he taketh this to be a matter of Faith And in the same place he testifieth that Christian saith doubteth not but that the paradise where Adam was placed is though it be doubtfull wher or in what maner it is all which is alleadged by Bellar. lib. de gratia primi hominis cap. 14. to proue that paradise is yet extant but I cānot find that distinction which M. Downam bringeth out of him lib. 1. de Sanct. beat c. 3. that although the place remaine yet no paradise remaineth in the former place he seemeth to teath altogeather the contray Secondly if they be in the earthly paradise and not in heauen he asketh how it is said of Elias that hee was taken vp into Heauen To which demaund S. Gregorie will answere him if he may be so bould Hom. 29. in Euang. Aliud est caelum aëreū S. Gregorie āswereth another aliud aethereum c. vnde aues caeli dicimus c. In caelum aëreum Elias subleuatus est vt in secretam quandam terrae regionem repentè duceretur vbi cum magna iam carnis spiritus quiete viueret quousque ad finem mundi redeat mortis debitum soluat Ille etenim mortem distulit non euasit The ayre is also called Heauen for which cause we say the byrdes of heauen according to the phrase of Scripture and into this heauen was El as taken vp that he might forthwith be carried into a certaine secret Region of the earth where he might lyue in great quiet of bodie and mind till he returneth at the end of the world and payeth death his due for he hath deferred not escaped death Where also M. Downam may learne what priuiledge Enoch and Helias haue aboue others and how Enoch was said to haue byn translated that he should not see death to wit at Heb. 11. that tyme nor according to the course of nature thē which a great deale lesse is sufficient that one hath escaped death And if M. Downā be capable of so high and perfect doctrine A great happinesse to be put to death by Anticrist heere hee may be tould that Enoch and Helias thinke it no misery but an exceeding great happynesse that they shal be put to death by Antichrist by reason of the great desire they haueto doe and suffer whatsoeuer for the loue of God and this not for the reward which they expect at his hand but because he deserueth much more then we are able to performe 9. But I will conclude leauing the indifferent Reader to iudge whether it hath not byn sufficiently proued that Enoch Elias are still in their bodies and that their bodies are mortall that they are to returne into the world and die and that in the tyme of Antichrist to oppose themselues against him and consequentlie that Antichrist is not yet come which if he iudgeth to be so as I perswade myselfe he cānot otherwise choose I will also craue him to Downās bragging giue his verdict of M. Downam whether he thinke him more foolish or impudent to deny all these particularyties with this flourishing bragge Must not this needes be a good cause that by so learned a man is so stoutlie prooued THE SEAVENTH CHAPTER Conteyning the fourth demonstration THE fourth demonstratiō saith Bellarmine is taken frō Antichrists persecution which certainely will be most grieuous and manifest so that all publique cerimonies and sacrifices of Religion shall cease none of which thinges wee see hitherto That this persecution shal be most gricuious is manifest by Matth. 24. Then there shal be a great Tribulation the like wherof hath not bene from the beginning of the world nor shall be And Apoc. 20. where we reade that Sathan shal be then loosed who vntill that tyme was bound Of which place S. Augustine disputing l. 20. de Ciuitate Dei cap. 8. and 9. saith that in Antichrists tyme the Diuell is to be loosed and therfore that persecution shal be more grieuous then all the former by how much the Diuel can rage more cruelly being loosed then being bound Wherfore he saith that the Diuell then shall vexe the Church with al his owne his followers forces and S. Hippolytus Mart. in orat de mundi consum S. Cyril catechesi 15. do say that the Martyrs which Antichrist shall put to death shal be more renowned then all those which went before because they fought against men the diuells ministers but these shall fight against the Diuell himselfe persecuting in
seemeth to be only to confirme Bellarmines assertion which wee onlie request him to graunt though wee would not haue him afraid to thinke that the persecution vnder Antichrist shal be greater then the calamities of the Iewes since the same wordes are vnderstood of both and that of the Iewes was but a figure in comparison of the other Wherfore Dan. also cap. 12. writeth that this shal be such a tyme as hath not bene since the Nations began to be And surely no persecutioÌ„ can be greater theÌ„ that in which the Diuell shall vse the vttermost of his owne all his followers forces as S. Augustine affirmeth he shall in this being then loosed from his long imprisonment as S. Iohn affirmeth whatsoeuer M. Downam imagineth 3. Well this supposed M. Downam will needes make vs belieue that this great persecution hath bene made by the Popes against men of his Religion and first he is fayne to tell vs of the Popes spirituall persecution wherin saith he he taketh such liberty to himselfe that if he carry whole troupes of soules into hell no man may say vnto him Syr why do you so But this is a A shameleslye shameslye especially now that it hath bene so fully discouered by the author of the VVarn-word against Syr Frauncis Hastings and O. E. otherwise M. Sutcliffe who patched vp a lie out Encount 2. cap. 13. 11. 16. of two places of the Canon law wherof one had no coÌ„nextion at all with the other as that Author at large declareth who likewise telleth him where and when some Catholikes were bayted by dogges in beares skins which to him is such great newes Ibid. cap. 2. n. 4. 4. And besides this allegation of spirituall persecution is from the purpose and a fault by some called petitio principij DownaÌ„s petitio principij because all Catholikes count it a great blessing and no persecution at all Secondly he goeth into France for Martyrs where he taketh into his accoumpt the Albigenses VVallenses ioyneth theÌ„ with his Hâ—gonâ—â—s so he may wel inough for they be Martyrs al alike to wit of the Diuell since they were al Heretiks though of diuers sects as he may be fully instructed by the same Author I mentioned before in his Treatise of Fox his Calendar-Martyrs And yet M. Downam part 1. cap. 3. shall not find so many Martyrs of these neither except he will number them who were miraculously slaine in lawful warre by Symon Momford theÌ„ Earle of Leicester after of Tolosa which were plaine rebells against their King Countrey And Iohn Fox could only find 13. of these two sects which he thought worth the putting into his Kalender as the same Author sheweth euery man may see in Fox himselfe After France he commeth into the Low CouÌ„tries there nuÌ„breth 36000. which the Duke of Alba caused to be executed which how many soeuer they were as al the world knoweth were open rebells as likewise those 40000. if they were so many killed in the Massacre at Paris But M. Downams religion hath this vertue in it that houlding but one or some few pointes DownaÌ„s Martyrs Heretikes Rebels of it a man may safely dye for any other heresy or crime yet by his fellow Hugonots be accompted a Martyr Lastly he citeth Vergerius and in the margent quoteth Io. Bale de act Pontif. who witnesseth that within the space of 30. yeares there were put to diuers fearfull deathes by the bloudy Inquisition an hundreth and fifty thousand Christians But we must haue better proofes then only the testimonie of two most violent and lying heretikes before we belieue this and besides it were necessary for M. Downam to proue that all those Christians were of his religion which wil be very hard for him to do since that these his Authors affirme no such matter 5. But why doth not M. Downam answere to Bellarmine who telleth him that all this persecution is but a ciuist warre since Protestants put Catholikes to death as well as they do Protestants and S. Augustine telleth vs that in Downam flieth the difficulty Antichrists persecution only the children of the Church shal be in Tribulation and not their persecutors The cause of this was because he saw there was no shew of answere to be made and therfore he thought it best to passe it ouer in silence hoping that the Reader would not take the paines to looke vpon Bellarmine nor any other to discouer his follies for he cannot deny but that Catholikes haue bene persecuted by ProtestaÌ„ts yet he would fayne diminish these persecutions against Catholikes by his brethren first hee auoucheth plainly that the warres which haue bene vndertaken by the Hugonots in France and Flanders for their owne defence that they Downam maynteyneth open Rebellion treasoÌ„ might be free from their Princes outrages were lawfull battailes euen as when the Machabees resisted Antiochus and other Tyrants So that you see open rebellion and treason mainteyned for lawfull by this new Ghospeller which defence notwithstanding cannot comprehend the manifold murthers of Priestes Religions and others which these Hugonots committed in cold bloud out of battaile of which M. DownaÌ„ could not be ignorant But let vs see what he saith of our English persecution for he is not afraid forthwith to charge all Priests and Catholikes put to death in our Countrey of treason and to complaine greatlie of the fauour which the Prince in some sort hath vsed to them in durance so cruell and bloudie a mynd carrieth this Minister with him being not ashamed to affirme that the life of the prisoners The persecutioÌ„ of Catholikes in England in VVisbich Framingham hath bene more easie and pleasant and mayntenance more plentifull then of the Students and ministers of his crew which all wise men will easilie laugh at except he should speake of spirituall and heauenlie comfortes which this poore Minister neuer tasted of for other ease pleasure or maintenance it were hard for them to haue liuing in prison and often in chaines hauing no other maintenance then the almes of poore Catholikes many of them being so impouerished with oppressions for their conscience that they should scarce be able to mainteyne themselues and their families were they not content to liue within their compasse and vnder their degrees whilst a sort of marryed Ministers feed vpon their substance which is another kind of persecution which Bellarmine vrgeth and M. DownaÌ„ passeth ouer in silence to wit to be cast out of their Churches and Church-lyuings Vniuersities and the like which were instituted for Catholikes by their Ancestors and are now vsurped by ProtestaÌ„ts altogeather against the Founders will intention and the like is of the Inheritances in some and of their Countrey in many And this shall suffice for these persecutions or rather the cyuill wars of this tyme betwixt Catholikes Heretiks only I could wish my Reader to reflect a
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
figure of Petitio principij not only without any proofe as commonly he vseth it but against euident proofe which also he is forced to do now and then His second solution is that these notes agree also to Popish Rome both in respect of dominion vsurped more insolently ouer the Kings of the earth by the Pope then by any Emperour and in regard of most cruell persecution of the Saintes of Christ To which impudent assertion of his I see not what The Pope hath only a spiritual power ouer Princes other answere can be giuen but to refer the matter to the Readers iudgment who will easily perceaue that the Pope hath now only a spirituall power ouer Kings aswell as ouer other Christians for the good of their soules without exacting or vsurping any temporall dominion ouer their persons or estates as the old Roman Emperours did to whome they were Tributary if not altogeather subiect and whatsoeuer the Pope doth in temporall affaires it proceedeth from his spirituall authority to which no doubt temporall things do so farre belong as they may hinder or help the good of soules and no further as is largely explicated by Cardinall Bellarmine and other Catholike Deuines And as for M. Downams Saints which the Pope doth persecute I am content to referre the decision of this question whether Christian Rome may be called Babylon or no till he hath shewed vs an authenticall canonization of these his Saints and in the meane time it shall be also as certane that Ethnick Rome is meant by Babylon as that those blessed Martyrs which died in those daies were truly the Martyrs of Christ and glorious Saints 9. Thus much M. Downam thought sufficient to reply to Bellarmines answeres of their first argument and comming to the second where they contend that Antichrist shall sit in the Church of Christ because S. Paul saith that he shal sit in the temple of God he is content to let passe Bellarmines solution to the first proofe that the Apostle vnderstood the Church of Christ by the Temple of God which was because when the Apostle wrote there was no other Temple of God but the Church of Christ since that the Temple of the Iewes was ceased to be a Temple when the Iewish Sacrifice and Priesthood ceased To which Bellarmine answered that though it had ceased to be the Iewish Temple yet it ceased not forth with to be the Temple of God but belonged to the Christians so long as it remained as he proueth Downam omitteth Bellarmin his answere out of the Scriptures To which as I said M. Downam hath not one word for which cause I might also haue passed it ouer in silence but that I promised a little before to shew in this place how the Temple of Ierusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of God which as you see is no hard matter to do since that he speaketh of it as it was in his time whē it was most truly the Temple of God and besides since Antichrist shall build it againe for the Iewes and pretend not to withdraw them from the true God but to professe himself to come from him at least before he discouereth himselfe further the temple erected by him may be called the Temple of God though when he shall sit in it and shew himselfe as God he will professe himselfe to be the true God and so either auouch that he is the God of the Iewes in whose Temple he shall sit or els extoll himselfe aboue him for so much the words of S. Paul do import as we shall see afterward Concerning the place of Daniel M Downam hath foūd his tongue againe and giueth words inough but indeed nothing but words Well he replieth to all Bellarmines answers and to the first he vrgeth our Translation vsque ad consummationem finem perseuerabit desolatio and S. Hierome who saith Dan. 9. vsque ad finem mundi and others whome he nameth not because as it seemeth they were not worth the naming vsque The tēple of Hierusalem shall be built againe in the end of the world ad consummationem eamque praecisam and then he alleadgeth three places of Scripture out of which he inferreth that the word vntill signifieth rather a perpetuity then cessation before the time which seemeth therby to be limited But first we must charge M. Downam with a manifest falsification of Bellarmines words for he alleadgeth them in a different letter thus Danyel would say that the Temple should not bee reedified vntill a little before the end of the world wheras Bellarmines words are these Adillud ex Daniele respondeo vel Daniclem voluisse dicere non esse reedificandum Tēplum Downam corrupteth Bellarmines words nisi in fine mundi To that of Daniel I answere that either Daniel would say that the Temple is not to built againe but in the end of the world and is not this a great shame for a Doctour of Diuinity to be taken in so grosse an absurdity that either he must confesse that he cannot conster two words of latin or els that he is a wilfull falsifier Well now that we haue Bellarmines true words let M. Downam vrge our text and S. Hierome and see if he can pick any more out of them then that the Temple is not to be built againe before the end of the world which Bellarmine affirmeth also and only addeth that it may be Daniel meant that it was to be built in the end of the world but not before But against this M. Downam vrgeth the authoritie of others who add the word pracisam by which we might coniecture that they were some Precisians but whatsoeuer they be if by the precise consummation they meane the indiuisible instant which the Philosophers call vltimum quod non they shew thēselues to be more precise then wise for the Scripture is not to be interpreted so precisely or metaphysically but after the manner of common and ordinary speach as when we say such a man made not his will till his death we meane that he made it then c. And as for the three authorities of Scripture it were no hard matter to find 300. for M. Downams three where it is otherwise taken but now one or two shall suffice as Gen. 49. when Iacob foretould that the Scepter should not be taken from Iuda vntill the comming of Gen. 46. 2. Reg. 1. The word Vntill signifieth neither continuance nor cessation but is indifferent to both the Messias the sense is plaine that it was to be taken from them then yea a little before also if M. Downam will needes vrge that point Likewise 2. Reg. 1. where Dauid and those which were with him are said to haue mourned for Saul and Ionathas c. vsque ad vesperam vntill the euening I hope M. Downam will giue vs leaue to thinke that they left mourning then wherfore it is a fond illation of M. Downam to inferre a perpetuity out of
also haue it ouer all Christian Kings and Monarches since that these are also subiect in spirituall causes to their particuler Bishops and Pastors But M. Downam knew well inough where he wrote this in which respect he doubted not that it would be pleasing and then it made no matter Downam seemeth to haue byn a Puritan wheÌ„ he wrote this See part 2. cap. 5. for the truth though it went against his owne conscience for he seemeth by his writing to be of the Puritanicall sect and consequently to thinke himselfe a better man by his Ministery then euer a King in the world howsoeuer he is content rather to dissemble and flatter then to put his bennefice in icopardy Now for his bragges that he hath shewed els where that in some things the Pope matcheth himselfe with Christ in somethings he aduanceth himselfe aboue him and aboue all that is called God I must desire the Reader to haue patience till we come to that place and in the meane time to looke wishly vpon M. Downams forehead whether it be made of brasse or no for surely it is exceeding hard But now I would aske M. Downam in good earnest why he left out the chiefest part of Bellarmines answere for this other was but to shew that the obiection proued asmuch against the Protestants as for them which is not to solue an argument but to make another Wherefore Bellarmine answereth directly that the sense of S. Gregories words is that because Antichrist shall be most proud and the head of all the proud so that he will not suffer any equalls therfore whosoeuer vsurpeth to himselfe any thing otherwise then he ought Whosoeuer vsurpeth more dignity theÌ„ is due to him is Antichrist his foreruÌ„ner and will exceed and surpasse others is his forerunner and such were the Bishops of Constantinople who being in the beginning but Archbishops first vsurped to be Patriarches and after the title of Vniuersall How chance M. Downam replieth not against this nor doth so much as go about to shew that the Pope vsurpeth any more then he ought according to his place and dignity which is to be Christs Vicegerent in spirituall causes as the Emperours and temporall Princes are in temporall To the other part of Bellarmines answere M. Downam replieth thus Shameles and yet ridiculous Doth it not follow that if he be the Prince of priests as they are proud that he is the Prince of proud Priests such as the whole Hierarchie of Rome consisteth of Where first I desire the Reader to consider whether M. Downam be not exceeding shameles to leaue out that clause of Bellarmines Downam corrupteth Bellarmines words answere which is most to the purpose which is his proofe that S. Gregory meaneth not that Priests as Priests belong to the army of Antichrist in these words for so he should haue put himselfe in that army Secondly I must craue the like iudgment of his ridiculous sophistry for Bellarmine answereth to Biblianders argument who proueth that Antichrist shall be the head of Priests because S. Gregory Antichrist the head of all the proud affirmeth that his army shall be Priests That S. Gregory meaneth not Priests as they are Priests but as they are proud and consequently it followeth not that Antichrist shall be the head of Priests is they be not proud but of the proud whether they be Preists or others M. Downam replieth that he shal be the prince of proud Priests Can there be any thing more ridiculous then this to infer the same which his Aduersary graunteth Yea but he addeth such as the whole hierarchy of Rome consisteth of This is the question and this M. Downam after his wonted manner would haue granted Downam his petitio principij which if it may not be he hath no more to say but will put vp his pipes and make an end as he doth heere but yet with a crake for otherwise he were no Minister THE FOVRTENTH CHAPTER Of Antichrists Doctrine OF Antichrists Doctrine saith Bellarmine there is very great controuersy betwixt vs and the heretikes It is manifest out of the Scriptures euen by the testimony of our Aduersaries that there shall be foure heads of Antichrists Doctrine For first he shall deny that Iesus is Christ and for that cause shall impugne all the ordinances of our Sauiour as Baptisme Confirmation c. and shall teach that Circumcision is not yet ceased nor the Sabaoth and the other cerimonies of the Law 1. Ioan. 2. VVho is a lyer but he that denieth Iesus to be Christ And this is Antichrist who denteth thâ— Father and the Soane Afterward when he hath perswaded that our Sauiour is not the true Christ then he will affirme that he himselfe is the true Christ promised in the Law and the Prophets Ioan. 5. If any come in his owne name him you will receaue viz. for the Messias Thirdly he will affiâ—me that he is God and will be worshipped for God 2. Thess 2. so that he sit in the Temple of God shewing himselfe as though he were God Lastly he will not only say that he is God but also that he is the only God and he will impugne all other Gods that is aswell the true God as also the false Gods and all Idols 2. Thess 2. VVho extelleth himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped as God And Dan. 11. And he will not repute the God of his Fathers nor care for any of the Gods because he will rise against all That all these things are in some sort true and belong to Antichrist our Aduersaries agree with vs But the question is of the sense of these foure heads for the Catholikes vnderstand them plainely and as the words of Scripture sound that Antichrist will deny the true Christ make himselfe Christ proclaime himsefe God detest all other Gods and Idols Out of which are taken foure arguments that the Pope is not Antichrist for it is manifest that the Pope denieth not Iesus to be Christ nor bringeth in Circumcision or the Sabaoth insteed of Baptisme and our Lords day And likewise it is manifest that the Pope doth not make himselfe Christ nor God and chiefly it is manifest that he maketh not himselfe the only God since that he openly worshippeth Christ and the Trinity and in our aduersaries conceipt he worshippeth all Idolls that is Images and Saints departed But our Aduersaries interprete all these things farre otherwise for first they say that Antichrist will not deny in word and openly that Iesus is Christ nor Baptisme and other Sacraments but that he will deny him in worke because vnder the colour of christianisme and the Church he will corrupt the doctrine of Sacraments of Iustification c. Caluinus lib. 4. cap. 7. § 25. VVe gather saith he that the Tyranny of Antichrist is such that it abolisheth not the name of Christ or of the Church but rather abuseth it vnder the colour pretext of Christ and
with Antichrist which they cannot do without yielding themselues vnto him since it is certayne that he shal be the Moâ—â—â—ch of the whole world and because the Scripture is not so expresse Bellarmine only saith that it may be inferred out of that place as it may likewise out of the 12. and 13. Apoc. as in part hath ben touched And is it not euident inough of it selfe that the little horne which presumed to encounter if not all the 10. yet Apoc. 12. 13. at least three of them while he was so little will not stay there when he is growne great but cause the other 7. to subiect themselues vnto him The other questions and assertions which M. Downam hath are already confuted and therefore not to be repeated now againe Wherefore let vs see what he saith to the testimonies of S. Chrysostome and S. Cyril I answere saith he that for substance these Fathers held the truth for what Monarch hath there byn in the VVest these 5. or 6. hundreth yeares besides the Pope c where I beseech the Reader to Why M. Downam admitteth any of the Fathers marke attentiuely M. Downams reason why he alloweth the testimony of the Fathers which is no other but because they are against the Pope in some sort according to his conceipt for otherwise we may see by that which he answeteth to the 3. former and that which he saith of them all in generall a little before how little he setteth by their authority Now for the Monarchy of the West it is euident The Pope no temporall Monarch that it remaineth in the Emperours and that which he attributeth to the Pope euery child will see how different it is from the Monarchy of the Romans and how small a thing it is if you take away his spirituall authoritie which no doubt is the greatest vpon earth But what is that to the temporall power of which these Fathers speake Now how the Pope is Lord of the whole earth and how he disposeth of the new found world we shall examine at large in the second part and how the gouernment of Rome belongeth not to Antichrist in whose time it shal be destroyed as neither the 2. beast Apoc. 13. nor the 7. head Apoc. 17. to the Pope hath bin already sufficiently declared 15. To the 4. argument M. Downam answereth nothing Antichrist shall persecute the Christians through the whole world with an innumerable army which Bellarmine himself hath not confuted at large in his discourse of Gog and Magog which M. Downam wholy omitteth vnder pretext of not troubling his Reader but indeed because he would not discouer his owne shame for otherwise at least he might haue answered to so much of it as made against himself The like deceipt he vseth in passing ouer Bellarmines answers to the Protestants obiections or arguments wherby they indeauour to proue the Pope Antichrist because he saw that they contayned in effect an answere to his former booke But I may not omit either that so the Reader may iudge how well M. Downam hath cleared them in his former booke of which he seemeth himself to make some doubt by telling vs that the controuersie betwixt vs is not whether euery argument that hath bin produced by euery one doth necessarily conclude the Pope to be Antichrist and that that discourse is rather personall then reall and therfore he letteth it passe THE SEAVENTENTH CHAPTER Of Gog and Magog WHERFORE the first opinion or rather errour saith Bellarmine is of the Iews who teach that Gog is Antichrist Magog innumerable Scythian Nations which lurke within the Caspian Mountaynes and that Antichrist shall come with Magog that is with an Army of Scythians at the same tyme that the Messias shall first appeare in Hierusalem and that there shal be a battaile fought in Palestine and such an ouerthrow in the Army of Gog that for 7. yeares the Iewes shall not cut any wood from trees to make fire withall but shall burne the speares bucklers and other weapons which shal be found with the dead bodyes and that afterward there shall be a golden world c. S. Hierome relateth this opinion in cap. 38. Ezech. and Petrus Galatinus lib. 5. cap. 12. cont Iudaeos and Rabbi Dauid Kimhi in his CoÌ„mentary vpon the Psalmes in many places but the Iewes erre in two things First that they think the battaile of Gog Magog shal be in the first comming of Christ confouÌ„ding the first with the second Wheras notwithstanding the Scriptures plainly teach that Christ in his first coÌ„ming was to come in humility and as a meeke sheep to be sacrificed as it is manifest Isa 53. and in other places Secondly in that they thinke that Antichrist shall come against them and fight with their Messias wheras indeed Antichrist shall be their Messias and shall fight with the Iewes against our Sauiour the true Christ The second opinion is of Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 24. 25. 26. who thinketh that the battaile of Gog and Magog shall be a thousand yeares after the death of Antichrist for he teacheth that after 6000. yeares from the beginning of the world Antichrist shall come and raygne three yeares a halfe and that then Antichrist shal be slayne Christ shall appeare the Resurrection shall be and the Saints shall raign heere with Christ vpon earth for a thousand yeares in great peace and tranquillity the Infidels not being wholy rooted out but seruing peaceably Which ended the Diuell shal be loosed againe and a most fierce warre of all Nations be raysed against the same Saints which they serued for a thousand yeares and this is the battaile of Gog and Magog of which Ezechiel and S. Iohn do speake But that a little after all the wicked shal be slayne by God and that then the second Resurrection shall be and the world be wholy renewed This opinion was also of many of the ancient Fathers as Papias S. Iustine S. Irenaeus Tertullian Apollinaris and some others as S. Hierome relateth in cap. 36. Ezech. and Eusebius lib. 3. hist cap. vlt. But it is long since exploded as a manifest errour for our Lord Matth. 24 and â—5 plainly teacheth that after the persecution of Antichrist the last iudgment shall follow forthwith and that all the good shall go into euerlasting life and all the euill into euerlasting fire and therfore that afterward there shall not be another thousand yeares nor euer after any more battailes The third opinion is of Eusebius who lib 9. demonst Euang. cap. 3. thinketh that Gog is the Roman Emperour and Magog his Empire But he buildeth vpon a false Foundation for he deduceth this opinion ouâ— of Numb 24. where according to the translation of the 70. we read the kingdome of Gog shal be extolled and his Kingdome shal be increased God hath brought him out of Egypt c. where the Scripture seemeth to say thaâ— when Christ shall returne out oâ— Egypt in his infancy