only within their owne Trib◠for I can assure him that neither the Kings nor the Nobility of England will imitate those of Iuda in this and it will be their only way to get a Law enacted that their generation may succeed them in their Ministry which M. Downam seemeth to wish and to mislike that law not a little which in a parenthesis he telleth vs hath otherwise prouided These are the base and carnall cogitations of these new Ghospellers and yet all will not serue for they shall neuer find a remedy for this their griefe except they returne to the Catholike Church whom◠they may thanke for the liuing they haue But in it God hath prouided for this all other inconueniences that can any way arise and in particuler for the deciding of all questions and controuersies Wherefore if the Protestants and Puritans will haue an end of this of their Bishops and Presbitery they must of necessity stand to the Catholike Churches iudgment in which they shall find Bishops established and yet sometimes by reason of persecution Priestes only without Bishops as now we see in our Country where conformable to that which in their iudgmēt was practised in the Primitiue Church in many places at least for a tyme we haue hitherto only Priestes subordinate to an Arch-Priest but yet we are far from misliking Bishops but do both wish and expect them when our lawfull Superiour who succeedeth the chiefest of the Apostles shall see it conuenient M. C. A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS of this first Part of Antichrist THE disputation of Antichrist is propounded and the first Argument from the name it selfe discussed CHAP. I. That Antichrist shal be a certaine determinate man CHAP. II. That Antichrist is not yet come CHAP. III. The first demonstration That Antichrist is not yet come CHAP. IIII. The second demonstration CHAP. V. The third demonstration CHAP. VI. The fourth demonstration CHAP. VII The fifth demonstration CHAP. VIII The sixt demonstration CHAP. IX Of Antichristes Name CHAP. X. Of Antichristes Character CHAP. XI Of Antichristes Generation CHAP. XII Of Antichristes Seate CHAP. XIII Of Antichristes doctrine CHAP. XIIII Of Antichristes myracles CHAP. XV. Of Antichristes Kingdome warres CHAP. XVI Of Gog and Magog CHAP. XVII The dotages of Heretikes are confuted with which they do not so much proue as impudently affirme that the Pope is Antichrist CHAP. XVIII The trifles of the Smalcaldicall Synod of the Lutheranes are confuted CHAP. XIX Caluins lyes are refuted CHAP. XX. The lyes of Illyricus are refuted CHAP. XXI The fooleryes of Tylemanus are refuted CHAP. XXII The lyes of Chytraeus are refuted CHAP. XXIII The arguments of Caluin and Illyricus are confuted who go about to proue that the Pope is no longer a Bishop where also the fable of Pope Ioane the Woman is confuted CHAP. XXIIII CARDINALL BELLARMINES THIRD BOOKE of the Pope THE FIRST CHAPTER VVherin the disputation of Antichrist is propounded WEE haue demonstrated hitherto saith Bellarmine that the Pope succeedeth S. Peter in the chiefest Princedome of the whole Church It remayneth that wee see whether at any tyme the Pope hath fallen from this degree for that our aduersaries contend that hee is not at this time a true Bishop of Rome whatsoeuer hee was before And Nilus in the end of his booke against the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome speaketh thus But let that be the summe and head of my speach that while the Pope keepeth in the Church a conuenient heauenly and of ancient tyme appoynted order while hee holdeth and defendeth the heauenlie truth while he cleaueth to Christ the chiefe and true Lord and head of the Church I will easilie suffer him to be both the head of the Church the chiefest Priest the successor of Peter or els if he will of all the Apostles that all obey him and that whatsoeuer belongeth to his honour be in nothing diminished but if he be departed from the truth will not returne to it he ought deseruedly to be accounted of as one that is condemned and reiected But he should haue shewed into what errours the Bishops of Rome are fallen and when and by whome they were condemned For we know that in the Generall Lateran Councell vnder Innocentius the third and of Lyons vnder Gregory the tenth and of Florence vnder Eugenius the fourth the Greekes being conuicted of errour returned to the Faith of the Latins and afterward alway returned to their vomit againe and were therefore most grieuouslie punished by God but we neuer read that the Latins came to the Faith of the Greekes Neither can there any Ecclesiasticall iudgmēt be produced against the Latins as wee bring many against the Greekes Now Caluin Lib. 4. cap. 7. § 22. Let saith he all those things be true which notwithstanding wee haue now wrested from them that Peter was by the voice of Christ appointed Head of the vniuersall Church that he left the honour giuen vnto him in the Roman Sea that this was established by the authoritie of the auncient Church confirmed by long vse that the chiefest authoritie was alway due from all to the Bishop of Rome and that he was the iudge of all causes and men that he was subiect to the iudgement of none let them haue more also if they will Yet I answere in one word that nothing of this standeth in force except the Church and Bishop be at Rome And after § 24. Let the Romanists vntie me this knott I deny that their Pope is the Prince of Bishops since that he is not a Bishop And after Let Rome in tymes past haue bin the Mother of all Churches but since she began to become the seate of Antichrist she left to be that which she was And after § 25. VVee seeme to some backbyters and slanderers when wee call the Bishop of Rome Antichrist but they which thinke soe vnderstand not that they accuse Paul of immodesty after whome we speake yea out of whose mouth we speake soe And least any obiect that we wrongfullie wrest Paules wordes against the Pope which perteine to another purpose I will brieflie shew that they cannot be vnderstood otherwise then of the Popedome So he The like teach al the heretikes of this tyme chieflie Luther in supput temporum in assert art 28. 36. and often in other places Likewise the Magdeburgenses Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. colum 434. sequent and in all the following Centuries cap. 4. 7. 10. Illyricus in lib. de primat Dauid Chrytraus in cap. 9. 13. Apoc. Likewise VVolsgangus Musculus in loc commun tit de Ecclesia Theodor. Beza in Com. 2. Thessal 2. Theodor. Bibliander in Chron. tabul 10. 11. 12. 14. Henricus Pantaleon in Chron. Henricus Bullinger praesat in suas homil ad Apocal. And before all these Iohn VVicklisse art 30. amongst those which are condemned in Concil Constantiensi sess 8. pronounced the Pope to be Antichrist VVherfore that this question may
the Cittie of Constantinople haue as wee wish her glorie and Gods right hand protecting her let her enioy a long reigne of your Clemencie Alia tamen ratio est rerum saecularium alia diuinarum c. Yet worldly and diuine thinges haue different reasons neither will any other building be firme and stable besides that rock which our Lord hath put in the foundation He looseth his owne who desireth those thinges which are not his due Let it suffice that by the foresaid help of your Pietie and by the consent of my sauour he hath obteyned the Bishoprick of so great a Cittie non dedignetur Regiam Ciuitatem quam Apostolicā non potest facere Sedem let him not disdaine a Kinglie Cittie which he cannot make an Apostolicall Sea So that M. Downam in S. Leo his iudgment confoundeth worldlie and diuine thinges by going about to make vs belieue that Rome had the preheminēce of an Apostolicall Sea because it was the chiefe Citty which as you see S. Leo saith by no meanes can be Likwise Bellarmine bringeth the authoritie of Gelasius Epistola ad Episcopos Dardaniae who likewise reasoneth thus Millan Rauenna Syrmiū Treuers and Nicomedia were the Seates of the Empire many tymes and yet the Fathers neuer gaue any preheminence or Primacy to those Bishops as neither they would haue done to Rome only for that respect And as for the authority of the two Councells M. Downam must know if he be ignorant of it that the first of Chalcedon was not confirmed by S. Leo but only in matters of The Coūcell of Chalcedō See Paralelus Tortiac Tortoris cap. 4. The Canons of the 6. generall Councell Fayth and in this poynt was by him expresly reiected as may be seene in the Epistle already recited in diuers others ad Anatolium ad Pulcheriam ad Maximum ad Iuuenalē In which likewise as also in the 16. Act of the Councell it selfe it appeareth that this Decree was made in the absence of the Popes Legates who had the chiefe place in that Councell and that they did afterward openly gainesay and resist it And if by the Councell of Constantinople he meaneth the Canons commonly called the Canons of the sixt Generall Councell as it seemes he doth he must likwise be tould that those Canons are of no accompt as not made by that Councell but by certaine Bishops which afterward met priuately togeather as appeareth by the beginning of the Canons thēselues and by the confession of Tharasius Bishop of Constantinople in the 7. generall Councell Act. 4. and Bede calleth them Erraticam Synodum an erring Synode moreouer writeth that Sergius then Pope reiected them lib. 6. de sex atatibus in Iustiniano Iuniore And all this and much more to the purpose might Downam seemeth not to haue read so much of Bellarm. as he impugneth M. Downam haue learned out of Bellarmine himselfe if he would haue taken the paines to haue read him ouer or at least so much as he meant to impugne as it was good reasō he should haue done before he had gone about to answere him Neither shall I need to spend any more tyme in this matter since his chiefest authorities are out of these two Councels For what he meaneth by that which happened tempore Mauritij I cannot yet coniecture for it were too absurd for him to defend Iohn of Cōstantinople against S. Gregory as likewise the Bishops of Rauenna whose arrogancy ambition is condēned cōtemned also by the whole world But it is no meruaile though in so bad a cause M. Downam can find no better Patrons 5. Concerning the comming of Antichrist with the temporall sword which is the second degree M. Downam goeth about to iuggle with vs after a strange manner For wheras Bellarmine in the confutation of Luther confuteth three groundes which Luther built his opinion vpon I. the deposition of the Emperour Henry the 4. II. the hauing temporall dominion III the making of warre by shewing that all these three Actes had bene exercised by the Pope before this tyme putting Downams seely iugling particuler examples of euery one M. Downam very cunningly as he thought but indeed very seelily as it will appeare now that he is taken with the manner answereth that true it is that the Popes had a temporall dominion before but not generall and so with granting one part he thinkes he may safely deny the other without euer troubling himselfe to examine Bellarmines instance any further But we must put him in mind that when Gregory the second depriued Leo the Emperour of the Kingdome of Italy he did not only shew himselfe to haue right to the patrimony of S. Peter which could only haue warranted him to haue kept that from the Emperour but The pope hath power to depose Princes for the spirituall good of Christs Church likewise to haue a generall authority to depriue Princes of their owne dominions in some cases and for some causes which he could not do but by a generall power though we will not much stand with M. Downam about the name of Temporall power for that we rather thinke it to be spirituall therfore cānot be exercised by the Pope but for the spirituall good of Christs Church as M. Downam may see largely explicated by Bellarm. in his 5. booke where also he shall find diuers other examples to this purpose to which it will not be inough for him to oppose his hereticall author Auentinus Of Auentine See part 2. Chap. 3. n. 6. for we will at any tyme take M. Downams owne word so soone as any other of his mind except they bring better profs then he doth And this is all which M. Downam hath to saie against Bellarmine wherfore he concludeth in these wordes And thus haue I answered whatsoeuer is in his 3. Chapter pertinent to the matter in hand omitting as my manner is his other wranglings as being altogeather either impertinēt or merely personal Where I wil only craue the Iudicious Reader to looke ouer Bellarmines whole discourse and if he findeth nothing in it but which directly impugneth the opinions and not the persons which he alleageth and withall that he doth it so inuincibly that there can be no euasion as I verily perswade my selfe any Downams māner to omit that which he cannot answere indifferēt man will easily see then let him know that whatsoeuer M. Downam hath omitted was because he could by no meanes make so much as any shew of answering it as he hath gone about to doe in this which we haue examined and withall let him know also that this is M. Downams manner as he himselfe affirmeth and make accompt of the Man accordingly THE FOVRTH CHAPTER In which is explicated the first demonstration that Antichrist is not yet come WHEREFORE the true opinion is saith Bellarmine that Antichrist hath neither begun to raigne nor is yet come but is to come and to raigne about the end of
A TREATISE OF ANTICHRIST CONTEYNING The defence of Cardinall Bellarmines Arguments which inuincibly demonstrate That the Pope is not Antichrist AGAINST M. GEORGE DOWNAM D. of Diuinity who impugneth the same By Michael Christopherson Priest THE FIRST PART Si Patrem familias Beelzebub vocauerunt quantò magis domesticos eius Matth. 10. If they haue called the Goodman of the house Beelzebub how much more them of his houshould Imprinted with Licence M.DC.XIII TO THE KINGS MOST EXCELLENT MAIESTY MOST MIGHTY PRINCE I HOPE it will not be deemed any presumption but rather a iust and necessary preuention for me to offer this my Treatise concerning Antichrist to your Soueraigne Maiesty Sure I am that it procedeth from a loyall and dutifull mynd desirous to auoid all occasion of offence and ready to imploy my best labours yea my life it selfe in your Maiestyes seruice My aduersary likewise hath prouoked me hereunto who togeather with M. D. 〈…〉 Powell haue taken the same course with their disputations of the same subiect And though they may seeme to haue the better hand by reason of your Maiestyes education and present profession yet I want not reasons of encouragement wherby I may be induced to hope and expect your Maiesties fauourable patronage and protection At least your Maiesty giueth all men good leaue to dispute of this Controuersy by accounting the Protestants proofs but bare coniectures yea promising to yield to the Truth when it shal be manifested by more forcible Arguments and more probable Interpretations which we haue good cause of hope to see shortly performed by the labours of so many learned men of forraine Nations who haue endeauored to giue your Maiesty satisfaction in this kynd In the meane space we cannot but highly extoll this rare modesty in so great a Monarch especially when we heare M. Powell and other such vnlearned Vpstarts protesting with full mouth that they know as certainly that the Pope is the great Disput de Antichr in initio Antichrist as that God is in Heauen and Iesus Christ our Sauiour and Redeemer Certainely it is strange how any man could fall into a fit of such extreme and impudent madnes were it not that God permitteth sometymes such excesse of malicious folly for the reclayming of others misled and seduced by these erring guids and false Prophets In which respect I haue alway thought this Question very profitable and of great importance to omit how necessary the discussion thereof may proue sooner then we are aware in regard of the true and great Antichrist himselfe whose comming we haue far more reason to expect in our dayes then the Ancient Fathers had in theirs Thus the diuine Goodnesse alway turneth euill into good and maketh all things concurre to the welfare of his Elect and by this strang paradox and calumniation preuenteth and prepareth vs against Antichrists comming with an exact Discouery of his whole proceeding and persecution which whosoeuer considereth attentiuely as it is layd downe in the sacred Scripture and declared by the holy Fathers will easily perceaue that hitherto the chiefest signes and notes of Antichrist haue not byn fulfilled by any So that indeed there can be no doubt or question whether he himselfe be come only some controuersy might be moued which of his forerunners doth most resemble him And in this also the matter may easily be decided for who seeth not that the false Mahomet draweth nighest vnto him both in name and deedes His name contayning the number 666. which is by S. Iohn assigned to Antichrist and his impiety enmity and persecution against Christ and Christians is notorious to the whole world For which cause there haue not wanted some both Catholicks and See Peâ—erius in Apoc. Protestants who haue persuaded themselues that there is no other Antichrist to be expected But these are euidently confuted by many inuincible arguments Notwithstanding this their errour though neuer so grosse may seeme in some sort excusable because they impugne a certayne and manifest enemy But what shall we say of those who take their marke so much amisse that they make the chiefe visible Pastour of Christs Church a member of Sathan yea Antichrist himselfe Can any thing be more absurd or intollerable Is it possible that any Christian would giue Luther the hearing when his proud spirit of contention and contradiction made him first breake forth into this open blasphemy How did not Princes perceaue that this was the high way to all rebellion Could they conceaue or imagin that Temporall Authority Iurisdiction would be regarded where the chiefest spirituall power vpon earth was thus impudently contemned and trodden vnder foot Can they trust to their Pedigrees when they see the continuall succession of 1500. yeares so lightly esteemed What better Title can they pretend for themselues then the expresse words of our Sauiour with which he established S. Peter and his Successors Your Maiesty wisely obserued that vnlesse In the conference at Hampton court the Authority of Bishops were mayntained that of Princes could not stand No Bishop no King saith your Maiesty And certaine it is that no lawfull Bishop can be vpholden against the Popes Authority to which all other spirituall Iurisdiction is subordinate Can any Iudge or Magistrate of the Realme be independant of your Maiesty This is so euident that euen the Puritans themselues though otherwise neuer so blinded with malice against the Pope could not choose but see it For which cause they stick not to protest to all the world that if the Prelats haue the Truth especially in this point the Pope and the Church of Rome and in them God and Christ Iesus himselfe haue great wrong and indignity offered vnto them in In the Christian and modest offâ—r c. published anno 1606. pag. 16. that they are reiected and that all the Protestant Churches are Schismaticall in forsaking vnity and communion with them Thus then it plainely appeareth that the Protestants neither according to the Truth it selfe nor in the Puritans iudgment can defend themselues their pretended Bishops but by establishing the Pope and Roman Church And all the vehemency which they vse against the Pope to proue him Antichrist falleth vpon themselues who participate with him in admitting the Hierarchy of Bishops And as for other proofes proper to Puritans they are inforced to answere them as well as we yea most of all these Arguments be such as might very easily be turned against any lawfull Prince whatsoeuer and much more against such Protestant Princes as besides their Temporall power make clayme to spirituall Iurisdiction Let any discreet Reader reflect vpon all particulers and he will easily discerne that if Catholicks had byn no more moderate then Luther and other Protestants were King Henry could not haue intitled himselfe Head of the Church in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affayres without hauing the name of Antichrist applyed and appropriated vnto him For if such contumelious inferences be made against the Pope
it selfe since he could haue no certaine ground to thinke soe vnles he had appeared in some sort soe is it also impertinent to the matter we haue in hand since our question is about his appearing and they which put it latest which are Luther and Bibliander make him to come euen with the temporall sword which cannot choose but appeare after the yeare of our Lord 1000. And this is the notable consent which M. Downam hath found among all his writers whom Bellarmine alleageth in this mayne poynt concerning the time of the comming of Antichrist 4. After hauing laboured to make an agreemēt betwixt his Doctours with the euent which you haue seene he maketh a shew as though he would answere all Bellarmines arguments against them beginning thus Now let vs see what he obiecteth against this receyued truth but comming to the point he only chooseth out Bellarmines answere to Chytraeus his secōd proofe for the first degree of Antichrists comming to wit with the spirituall sword which as you see is no argument at all but a peece of an answere to an argument so that to doe well M. Downam should replie and not answere But let Downam answereth when hee should reply vs not vrge the poore man too farre for it is pure want that driueth him to these miserable shiftes Wherefore let vs see how he can auoid Bellarmines answere Chytraeus proofe was this In the yeare 606. Bonifacius the third did obteyne of Phocas the title of vniuersall Bishop ergo Amichrist appeared about the yeare 600. To which Bellarmine answereth in these words Phocas gaue not the title of Vniuersall to the Pope but called him the head of the Churches But long before Iustiniā ep ad Ioā 2. had done the same before that also the Councell of Chalcedon in ep ad Leonem VVithout cause therefore is the comming of Antichrist put in the tyme of Phocas To which first as I haue noted M. Downam saith that Bellarmine obiected this whereas it is most manifest that he answereth an obiection Secondlie he addeth that good authors Phocas gaue not the title of Vniuersall to the Pope that which hee gaue the Pope had before affirme that he receyued from Phocas both the title of the Head of the Church and also of Vniuersall or Oecumenicall bishop but they are too good to be named or els M. Downam was ashamed of thē and therefore he must pardon vs if we belieue neither him nor them till we know what they are Thirdlie he auoucheth that there is no doubt but that Bonifacius sought for and by suite obteyned that which Iohn of Constantinople had before claymed But if he had remembred what himselfe wrote in his 1. chap. of his former booke of S. Gregorie the great his dislike of that title in Iohn of Constantinople he would haue seene that there had bene great doubt whether Bonifacius were not more likelie to approue his holy predecessors iudgment in refusing that title for due respectes though otherwise neuer soe due to him rather then his proud aduersaries opinion in desiring or vsing it at that tyme when at leastwise in that Iohn of Constantinoples sense it was not only scandalous See part 2. Chap. 1. but perfidiouslie false also Wherfore keeping the dignitie it selfe they vsed such wordes as might modestlie expresse what they had and no way signifie that which they had not themselues and much lesse Iohn of Constantinople who most arrogantlie vsurped that false and also foolish title being taken in the sense in which he vsurped it Fourthly M. Downam would shift of the matter with saying that there is no great difference betwixt these two titles as they are now giuen to the Pope saue that to be the head of the Vniuersall Church is the more Antichristian stile But this will not serue his turne neither for howsoeuer these titles be all one in substance yet since Chytraus and others will giue vs a reason why they assigne the first degree of Antichrists comming in the tyme of Phocas to wit because he first gaue the Pope the title of Vniuersall Bishop it is not inough when this is denied to tell vs that at least if he gaue him not that he gaue him another as great for all the force of the argument consisteth in this that this title of Phocas is a new one which the Pope neuer had giuen him before for otherwise there is no reason why Antichrist should be thought more to come in Phocas his tyme then before And this was that which Bellarmine answered and M. Downam hitherto hath not said any thing to the purpose against him Wherefore lastly he goeth about to make vs belieue that though he cannot deny but that the Pope had the same title which Phocas gaue him long before yet there was a great difference in the sense and meaning For he affirmeth that before this graunt of Phocas the Church of Rome had the preheminence and superioritie ouer all other Churches excepting that of Constantinople not in respect of Authoritie and Iurisdiction but in respect of order and dignitie and for this cause especiallie because Rome wherof he was Bishop was the chiefe Cittie for which he citeth the Councells of Chalcedon Constantinople And for the same cause saith he was the Patriarch of Constantinople sometymes matched with him for which he citeth Concil Chalcedon sometime preferred aboue him for which he noteth in the margent tempore Maurity because Constantinople which they called new Rome was become the Imperiall seate yea he addeth that the Bishops of Rauenna because their Cittie was the chiefe in the Exarchy of Rauenna wherevnto Rome was for a Downams answere or replie confuted by Bellarmine in other places tyme subiect stroue with the Bishop of Rome in the tyme of the Exarchies for superiority But all this discourse of his is refuted at large by Bellarmine in his second Booke of the Pope and if M. Downam will loose so much labour about the answering of that as he hath done about this other which is the third he shal be confuted I hope fully satisfied in this point also But now it were to great a labour to put downe all Bellarmines proofes Wherefore both I and M. Downam must of reason be content with briefly answering his obiections though that also in truth were not to be expected in this place but that I desire that M. Downam should haue no reason to complayne And first that the reason why Rome had the preheminence The reason of Romes preheminence is not because it is the chiefe Citty ouer all other Churches was not because it was the chiefe Cittie as M. Downam would proue out of the Councels of Chalcedon and Constantinople Bellarmine proueth by the authoritie of S. Leo. ep 54. ad Martianū where inueighing against the ambition of Anatolius then Bishop of Constantinople which he had discouered in that very Councell of Chalcedon which M. Downam mentioneth he hath these wordes Let
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
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