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
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
ought not to be fauoured or spared in a Christian Common wealth Fifthly that there can be no reconciliation betwixt Protestants and the Church of Rome Sixtly that Protestants ought to be thankefull to God who hath not suffered them to be carried away with this Catholike Apostasy By which last wordes we may also note that if this their position of the Pope being Antichrist doth fall they haue no colour left to accuse the Catholike Church of schisme or heresy and consequently it remayneth euident that she is the true Church of Christ For no schisme or heresy can be Catholike or vniuersall as the Roman Church is only the persecution and Apostasy of Antichrist may in some sort vsurpe this name because though it shall want the vniuersality of tyme being to remayne but a very short tyme yet it shal be very vniuersall in respect of place as is manifest by that which is said in this Treatise Thus much shall suffice of the importance and necessity of this my small labour And now I will briefely say some thing of Cardinall Bellarmine whome I defend and of M. Downam whome I confute And concerning this renowned and mâ—st learned Cardinall I shall not need to vse many wordes his fame being spred ouer the whole world by his large and profound disputations against all sortes of hereticks which haue risen or are extant in these our dayes Wherefore it shal be sufficient to note that which maketh to our purpose that in this his Treatise of Antichrist he vseth not so many arguments as some others haue don only contenting himselfe with those which are proper and peculiar to this place omitting others which do rather proue that the Pope is the chiefe Pastour of Christes Church then disprooue that he is not Antichrist which in him proceedeth from two causes the one is his exactnes in the method and diuision of his disputations which conteyne euery one seuerall questions and arguments the other for that hauing before sufficiently discussed the affirmatiue position that the Pope is and ought to be acknowledged to be the chiefe Pastour of Gods Church he would not make any needeles repetition of those demonstrations but rather proceed to other which hitherto he had not touched and which directly concluded that the Pope not only by reason of his office but also in respect of his person can in no sort be that Antichrist which the Scriptures and Fathers affirme that we are to expect towards the end of the world I shall not need to adde any more in commendation of this his worke for that the whole Treatise following hath no other subiect I haue translated his whole Booke verbatim so that the Reader may peruse it and iudge of it himselfe It were superfluous to giue any reason why in my allegations of this worthy Cardinall I only mention his name for the most part for any man may easily perceaue that I do it for breuities sake and according to the vse of Schooles and not for any want of respect to his place and person whome I honour from my hart and defend him in this Treatise so far as my poore ability will giue me leaue Concerning M. Downam for so I commonly call him to giue him to understand that I impugne not his person but his detestable heresy I shall haue something more to say for first the Reader must not be ignorant that he hath peruerted the order of this disputation For whereas Cardinall Bellarmine first demonstrateth that the Pope is not Antichrist and afterward answereth the obiections of his Aduersaryes M. Downam tooke it to be his best course first to obiect whatsoeuer either former heretikes had inuented or he himselfe could adde omitting altogeather the answers which Bellarmine gaue that by this meanes he might possesse his Readers mynd by inueighing against the Pope at his pleasure without any contradiction and so haue him the more fauourable when he came to make shew of answering to Bellarmins arguments This is the cause why I am constrayned to confute M. Downams second booke in the first place not producing the argumeÌ„ts without his solutions as he dealt with the Cardinall but examining whatsoeuer he answereth distinctly in so much that one Chapter excepted where his confusion would not permit Cap. 4. it in all the rest euery number of my confutation answereth to the same in him so that if any man hath a desire to confer what both he and I say he may easily do it by reading first one section or number in him then the same in me which I would require of all such as do any way doubt of my sincere dealing because he findeth not M. Downams wordes verbatim alleaged which could not be without great prolixity But he that goeth thus far should also do well to read so much in Cardinall Bellarmime as is discussed in euery seuerall number which that the Reader may conueniently doe I haue also prefixed numbers to the Cardinalls discourse and noted in the margent where that which is handled in euery seuerall place may be found in him without difficulty And by this meanes I hope the Reader may peruse this my labour with clarity and profit and discouer M. Downams false dealing aswell in this point specified as in many other which now it is no tyme to rehearse they beeing very neere as many as there be leaues in this whole Booke and they may easily be found by either perusing the marginall notes or seeking in the table at the word Downam And yet perhaps it will not be amysse to note one or two of them in this place which especially discouer the badnesse of M. Downams cause For what can be more absurd or hatefull to Christian eares then to heare the enemyes of Christ and his Church commended and imbraced and his true Seruants and Doctors insolently reiected and accused of errours And yet this is M. Downams case not once or twyce but throughout the whole course of this disputation for he doth not only agree in substance with the Samosatens who are knowne heretikes and condemned by his owne iudgement but also ioyneth himselfe ex professo with that vile Apostata and capitall enemy of Christ Porphiry not only against S. Hierome who most earnestly and learnedly confuteth him at large but also against all other Ecclesiasticall writers yea euen the very Iewes themselues who in that point agree with the Christians but in another where they are opposite to vs there M. Downam ioyneth with them so that it seemeth that M. Downam and his fellow Protestants seeke of purpose how they may oppose themselues to Christ and his Church yea that they esteeme more of Gentilles and Iewes then they do of Christian writers though neuer so many so worthy or so ancient And surely whosoeuer shall consider attentiuely how often and how scornefully the ancient Fathers and pillars of Christs Church be reiected by M. Downam cannot choose but admire yea â—hould vp his handes and blesse himselfe
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
doctrine of Antichrist But M. Downam giueth vs two differences betwixt these markes before Antichrists comming and after First vntill the yeare 607. there was not saith he in the Catholike Church an vniuersall subiection to the Pope as the head and consequently till then these things could not be vsed as signes thereof as since they haue But M. Downam may when it pleaseth him take the paines to peruse what Bellarmine The Church was alway subiect to the Pope bringeth in the 19. last Chapter of his second booke concerning this point I doubt not but he will acknowledge an vniuersall subiection to the Pope euen from the Apostles or if he be obstinate and will nor yield to an euident truth yet I am sure he will neuer be able to answere Bellarmines proofes if his pryde be such that he presumeth that he can let him begin when he will and see what he shall gaine by it The second difference which M. Downam alleadgeth is that before the yeare 607. these thinges were not imposed and inioyned vpon all by the lawes of the Pope as since they are so that the cause of vsing them now is not the example of the ancient Church but the authority of the Popes law But this is a very poore difference and argueth a wonderfull corruption in the ancient Church since that she was so forward to take Antichrists markes that she needed no commaund and besides if M. Downam maketh the ancieÌ„t Church to be very corrupt Downam will take the paines to peruse the ancieÌ„t Councells and Decrees of Popes which Bellarmine bringeth in these particuler controuersies he shall find that there was the same necessity for all men to performe these things then that there is now many of them being commaunded by Gods law and others not exacted of all and some not of any as the Reader may easily distinguish by considering the particulers 6. Wherefore now let vs consider how M. Downam answereth VII Bellarmines particuler obiectioÌ„s And first coÌ„cerning Chrisme vsed in the Church before the yeare 607. Chrisme he answereth that those three Fathers speake of the annoynting with oyle vsed in the Sacrament of Baptisme and addeth that this also without warrant of the Scripture is retayned among the Papists Where you see he maketh these three Fathers Papists in that point at the least and though it be true that they acknowledge that Cerimony of Baptisme yet in these places they speake most plainely of Chrisme and the Sacrament of Confirmation For Tâ—rtullian and S. Cyprian compare it with baptisme attributing to it the effects of grace aswell as to Baptisme and S. Augustine placeth it betwixt baptisme and the Eucharist and calleth it Chrisming which is the proper name of this Sacrament Wherefore M. Downam must of force confesse that these Fathers were Papists in this point also and that this marke was long before the yeare 607. Now whether this vnction were vsed in the primitiue Church or no is a new question belonging to another place and it is inough for vs now that it was long before Antichrist came according to the Protestants accompt and that they do not much vse euen the imposition of hands which they acknowledg was vsed in the primityue Church of which M. Downam can giue no better reason then for that it was abused by vs. By which in their opinion they might also leaue off Baptisme Eucharist and all other rites and exercises of How chrisme maketh vs Christians de Consecrat dist 5. c. Vt ieiun Ibid. c. De bis verò Christian Religion as indeed they haue done in great part only they loue to heare themselues talke in a Pulpit though they say neuer a true nor wise word I omit his other impertinent obiections out of the Canon law where first that holy Pope and Martyr Melchiades saith that a man shall neuer be a Christian meaning a strong and valiant or perfect Christian except he first receaue this Sacrament for so he vseth the name Christianus as the Latins vse Vir and the Aurelian Councell saith that this Sacrament is more to be reuerenced then Baptisme if we respect the person of him who ministreth it because he must of necessity be a Bishop How Chrisme is more to be reuerenced then Baptisme and besides this Sacrament supposeth and in some sort includeth baptisme and in that respect is said to be more venerable then baptisme by it selfe And this is all that M. Downam can say for himselfe or against vs for that which he addeth coÌ„cerning the ordayning of the Sacrament as though it were ordayned by the Church and not by Christ is a fond Chymera of his owne For we affirme that it was instituted by Christ as all other Sacraments were and besides it is now from the purpose since our whole question is whether this Sacrament were vsed before the yeare 607. which Bellarmine hath euidently conuinced that it was To the second obiection M. Downam answereth with a distinction that to cleaue to the Roman Church in ancient tyme was the note of a good Christian because then that Church was Apostolicall but now it is the marke of an Antichristian because now that Church is Apostaticall Where you find him still in the same fault of petitro principij And besides you see he graunteth asmuch as Bellarmine would haue him that in old tyme the cleauing to the Roman Church was so far from beeing the marke of Antichrist that it was the chiefest note to know a good Catholike Christian from a false and wicked heretike and consequently it is to be accompted so still For the heretikes in those tymes could say as M. Downam doth that the Roman Church was Apostaticall but they were not able to proue it any more then M. Downam is and all good Catholikes were then and are now certayne that it can neuer be so since Christ hath promised the contrary to S. Peter and his successors And besides it is very strange that Christ Antichrist cannot haue both one marke Christ and Antichrist should both haue one marke And that the argumeÌ„ts which the old Fathers vsed against heretikes should come to be vsed by Antichrist against Catholikes But to these absurdities must they needes fall who call light darkenes and darkenes light as M. Downam and all heretikes doe M. Downam goeth forward with his distinctions and differences affirming that in ancient tymes at other Churches did cleaue to the Church of Rome so did the Church of Rome cleaue to them Now it acknowledgeth no Church besides it selfe All which is false for now also other Churches cleaue to the Church of Rome as to their head and the Church of Rome cleaueth to them as to her members and it acknowledgeth many other particuler Churches besides it selfe still though all subiect and subordinate to it as they were euer How the Church of Rome is vnited standeth with other Churches And that which he addeth is a meere
Antichrist shall be a Sorcerer and after the manner of other Witches shall secretly adore the Diuell himselfe by whose help he shall do wonders and that he is called the God Maozim yea I do not thinke that Maozim is the name of a God but of a ceâ—aine most fortified and secret place in which shall be the chiefest treasures of Antichrist and in which as we said he shal adore the Diuell for it followeth in Daniel And he shall cause Maozim to be sortified with a stong God whome he hath knowne And truely Maoz signifieth both strength and a castle In this sort doth Lyranus expound it and that we must necessarily say that Antichrist is himselfe the God Maozim or if it be any other that he is not to be adored by Antichrist but in a most hidden place and secretly from the knowledge of all the very words of Daniel compel vs which otherwise should be contrary to themselues For if he shall care for none of the Gods how shall he openly worship Idolls Now the two arguments of Illyricus are of no importance for in the first he committeth three faults First in that he affirmeth that Christ explicateth the words of S. Paul wheras rather S. Paul ought to explicate the words of Christ Secondly in that he saith that Matth. 24. To come in the name of Christ doth signify the same as to be the Vicar of Christ For the explication of Christ himselfe is repugnant to this explication of Illyricus for when our Lord had sayd Many will come in my name forth with he addeth explicating saying I am Christ Wherfore to come in the name of Christ in that place is to vsurp to themselues the name of Christ which in old time Simon Magus did as witnesseth S. Iren. lib. 1. cap. 20. and in our time Dauid Georgius and at length Antichrist himselfe shall do But the Pope euen in that he nameth himselfe the Vicar of Christ doth make himselfe not to be Christ Illyricus his third fault is that he maketh Christ an vnfit interpreter of S. Paul for he doth not rightly expound that place of S. Paul He extolleth himselfe aboue all Gods by this many will come in my name that is will make themselues my Vicars for the Vicar of God is not aboue all Gods but vnder all Gods as the Vicar of a King is vnder all Kings for it cannot be imagined or deuised how he that professeth himselfe to be the Vicegerent of any King should boast that he is aboue all Kings by which the blindnesse and impudency of our Aduersaries is apparent who somtime vtter such things as are against common sense And to that argument of Illyricus by which he proued that the Pope did vsurpe greater authority then Christ hath I answere that the proposition and assumption of that argument are two lyes and besides that the consequence is nothing worth For first it is false that Christ subiected himselfe to the Scriptures since that it is manifest that he is the Author of the Scriptures and therfore aboue the Scriptures and when we read that Christ did those things which he did that the Scriptures might be fulfilled that vt or this signifyeth not the cause but the euent as S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine teach in cap. 12. Ioan. for Christ did not dye because Isay wrote so but Isay wrote it because it was to be Secondly it is also false that the Pope euer sayd in word or in dead that he can dispense against an Euangelist or Apostle for though he can dispense in the positiue precepts of the Apostles yet this is not against an Apostle but according to an Apostle who doubtles knew that the Apostolike power by which he ordained something in the Church for a time was to be in his successors by which they might moderate or change the same thinges as should be expedient for the Church But in the Euangelicall that is the diuine percepts no Catholike euer said that the Pope could any way dispense Finally the consequence is naught for in the Maior or Proposition Illyricus speaketh of the subiection of Christ vnder the Scriptures not concerning the precepts but concerning the Prophesies for Illyricus was not ignorant that Christ had taken away the Sabboath and abrogated the Ceremoniall Law in the Minor or Assumption he speaketh of precepts and so his argument hath foure termes and can conclude nothing This shall suffice for the doctrine of Antichrist in this place M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted 1. MAISTER Downam beginneth his answere telling vs that there are more Doctrines of Antichrist then foure which Bellarmine denieth not and therfore this is not to the purpose Secondly he sayth that those two doctrines of diuels 1. Tim. 4. of forbidding marriage and commanding abstinence frome meats belong also to Antichrist which Bellarmine will not stick to grant or at least to let passe as being nothing against him or the Pope as may easily be shewed vpon any good occasion But now we haue other foure Doctrines in hand of which M. Downam affirmeth two things First that they are not all the doctrines of Antichrist Secondly that those which be his Doctrines do not vnfitly agree to the Pope Wherfore let vs see how he can make either of these his assertions good or answere Bellarmines proofes to the contrary 2. First then concerning Antichrists deniall of Christ M. Downam denieth that it shall be openly directly and expresly and telleth vs that he hath prouided els where that Antichrist was only to deny Christ couertly indirectely and by Antichrist shall openly deny Iesus to be Christ consequent and that he hath likewise shewed that the Pope doth so Concerning which assertions of his I must craue thus much fauour at the Readers hands that he will not belieue M. Downam vpon his word vntill after the discussion of those proofes he find him to be an honest man for now this place requireth that we examine how he answereth Bellarmines arguments To the first of which M. Downam hath nothing See part 2. cap. 4. §. 6. 7. 8. See cap. 12. at all to say if Antichrist shall be by Nation and Religion a Iew. Which point hath byn already discussed and therfore now the reader is to giue iudgment whether he shall be so or no and consequently whether it be not also manifest by this argument that Antichrist shall deny Christ plainly and openly 3. For answere to the second argument M. Downam denieth that S. Iohn in that place speaketh either of the body of Antichrist 1. Ioan. 2. in generall or of the head of that body in particuler but of Cerinthus and others which denied the Diuinity of Christ as appeareth plainly by that which followeth in the text This is that Antichrist that denieth the Father the Sonne But M. Downam might haue remeÌ„bred how Bellarmine in his second argument obserued that in some places the article was put in and in some left out to signifie when
to Iudaize c. 5. To Bellarmines last confirmation frō the vehemency of Antichrists persecution which shall cause the publique Offices and the diuine Sacrifices to cease M. Downam answereth with a distinction that if he meaneth the true publique worship of God it hath ceased already in the Papacy by the vehemency of the Popes persecution who yet is no open enemy of Christ where by the true worship of God you may easily conceaue that he meaneth that of Protestants though he cannot shew vs that euer it was before Luthers time or name vs one who felt this vehement persecution for that cause well he may tell vs of some of their brethren for all heretikes will be brethren because they agree at least in one point that is The Pope suppresseth heretikes as Antichrist shall oppresse Catholikes in impugning Gods Church whome the Pope hath suppressed for it is his office to suppresse them as Antichrist shall endeauour to suppresse him and all that adhere vnto him for Christs cause whom he shal chiefly oppose himself vnto Neither is the other part of M. Downams distinction necessary for all false worshippers shall ioyne themselues to Antichrist and help him in the persecution of the others and if M. Downam remembreth in the place which Bellarmin alleadged he shewed that Antichrist shall make the daily sacrifice of the Church to cease which cannot be vnderstood See cap. 7. of the Protestants but of the Catholike Roman Church but since both Bellarmine and M. Downam remit themselues to that which they haue sayd before I will do so likewise only I will require the Reader to note by the way that M. Downam Downam mistaketh Bellarmin is at least mistaken in this place if not worse for he maketh this of the ceasing of the publike offices and the diuine Sacrifices to be a new argument to proue that Antichrist shall openly deny Christ and abolish all his ordinances wheras Bellarmine neuer meant any such matter but only hauing proued by the Fathers that Antichrist shall deny Christ impugne Baptisme seeke to dissolue the Ghospell of Christ teach that the Sabbaoth and other cerimonies of the Iewes are not ceased because he would auoyd prolixity be remitteth himselfe to his former proofes that he shall likewise cause the publike offices and the diuine sacrifices to cease so that M. Downam might aswell haue made a new argument of euery one of the Fathers Authorities as of this But I will not charge him with malice in this place except it may be attributed rather to malice then to simplicity that he was so blind of which I am content he shall haue his choice But surely the one of thē he cānot auoid as appeareth by that which I haue sayd and also by Bellarmines conclusion which followeth immediatly Ex quibus euidens est c. By which it is euident c. For that quibus cannot be referred to the last clause only but to the whole induction out of the Fathers as is manifest and this is alway Bellarmines vse to make the authority of the Fathers one argument 6. And thus we may come to the second doctrine for that which M. Downam sayth concerning Bellarmines assumption Downam speaketh from the purpose is neither to the purpose but only so farre as it includeth the deniall of the proposition nor belongeth to this place but to another to which he remitteth himselfe and so the Reader must haue patience till we come thither See part 2. §. 6. 7. 8. 7. Now then concerning the second doctrine M. Downam denyeth that Antichrist will openly and in so many words expresly affirme that he is the Christ or Messias of the world for Antichrist wil opēly affirme himself to be Christ which he remitteth himselfe to his former proofes touching only two 1. That his Religion is a mystery of iniquity which as a little before we shewed it is to be vnderstood of the heretikes and cannot be applied to Antichrist himselfe 2. Because he could not seduce so many Christians if he should plainely professe himselfe Christ But we see the contrary of this in the Turkes The Turks inferiour to Antichrist who notwithstanding are nothing comparable to Antichrist either in craft wonders or violence besides the ill disposition which he shall find in most Christians at that time Hauing thus eased his stomake a little M. Downam cōmeth to answere Bellarmines proofe out of the Scripture referring Ioan. 5. himselfe to his former answere to this place in Bellarmines second argument where he said that Christ spake conditionally if another shall come and indefinitly of See cap. 2. any false Prophet But there also I shewed the contrary of both as also that Antichrist is to come in his owne name and to professe so much which other false prophets vse not to do For as our Sauiour did not only come indeed but also professed himselfe to come in the name of his Father so likewise Antichrist shall not only come indeed but also professe himselfe to come in his owne name And if our Sauiour were to be vnderstood of all false prophets indefinitely Our Sauiours words not true in M. Downam his opiniō his speach were not true which me thinkes M. Downā should be afraid to affirme for it is euident by experience that many false prophets haue come since that time few or none of which the Iewes or the greatest part of them haue receaued wheras by his interpretation they should haue receaued them all and aboue all the Pope whome M. Downam will needs haue to be Antichrist himselfe whom notwithstanding they are so farre from receauing that they hate him aboue all other men and accompt him their greatest enemy as we haue seene and experience teacheth To the Fathers in this place he vouchsafeth no answere at all but reiecteth them absolutly because they were no prophets and spake without booke This is the impudency of this fellow that al they must of force speake without-book that interpret Scripture against his fond fancy But we make no doubt but that God hath giuen the interpretation of Scripture to his Church and the Doctors therof which by all reason we are to acknowleadg these holy Fathers to be since they came not without calling and commission as M. Downam and his fellow Ministers and all other heretikes do Neither can he help himselfe by flying to Bellarmine for aide for no man reuerenceth the Fathers more then he and it is false that he euer gaue any such rule that we are not to Bellarmin reuerenceth the Fathers giue credit to any such coniectures of the Fathers as haue no ground in the word of God For who shall be Iudge of this How farre he admitted the opinion of those twelue Fathers who affirmed that Antichrist as to be of the Tribe of Dan. we shew in that place and it was that he tooke it to be very probable See cap. 12. though not altogeather certaine
because the most of them tooke it not to be so and besides they were deuided in the expositioÌ„ of those places of Scripture some of them following the litterall sense and some the mysticall But here is no such diuision all agreeing both in the exposition of Scripture and also in the assertion it selfe 8. And thus we are to passe to the third doctrine For that which M. Downam sayth concerning the assumption is nothing but a little tast of his gift in railing against the Pope in which he is so expert that he cannot hould his babling though it be nothing at all to the purpose as in this place he himselfe confesseth that it is not for he goeth only about to shew that the Pope indirectly and by consequent maketh himselfe Christ Which if it were true would only proue him to be an heretike or a false prophet but not Antichrist himselfe of whome only we speake in this place But how false all this impudent calumniation of our chiefe Pastour is shall appeare in due place to which See part 2. cap. â— also M. Downam remitteth himselfe for his proofes 9. Concerning the third doctrine M. Downam denieth that it is necessary that Antichrist should in word plainely and openly professe himselfe to be God to the place of S. Paul he sayth that the meaning is that Antichrist shall rule raigne in the Church 2. Thess 2. of God as if he were a God vpon earth shewing himselfe not so much by words aâ— by deeds that he is a God and to mantaine this his exposition Antichrist shall openly name himselfe God he is content to helpe himself with the translation of the Rhemish and of the Latin vulgar edition who read tamquam fit Deus as though he were God and likwise with the exposition of S. Chrysostome Theophilact and Oecumenius whose words he putteth downe first in Greeke and after in English thus He sayth shewing himselfe he sayd not saying buâ— endeauouring to shew for he shall worke great works and shall shew forth wonderfull signes Finally he bringeth the authority of Beza who obserueth that the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shewing is answerable to the Hebrew Mozeh faciensse apparere praese ferens or as we say saith M. Downam taking vpon him as if he were God All which maketh nothing at all against Bellarmine but addeth this more that he shall not only say that he is God by which he would not be able to seduce many but shall likewise giue great shews therof insomuch that if it were possible the very elect should be seduced by him But M. Downams deuice is by telling vs that he shall endeauour to shew himselfe to be God by works and wonders to make vs belieue that he shall not be so shameles as to say plainly that he is God which is a very strange conceipt if you marke it well for he confesseth that by his actions he shall come to be acknowledged saluted and called God that he shall cause or at least suffer himselfe to be worshipped as God and finally that he shall challenge vnto himselfe those titles attributes and workes which are proper and peculier vnto the Lord and yet hauing done all this M. Downam wil by no meanes grant that he shall name himself M. DownaÌ„s straÌ„ge paradox God Is not this a strange paradox yet M. Downam will de fend it though it be neuer so absurde only for this cause that he can make a florish amongst fooles as though the Pope did all this but that the Pope calleth himselfe God he can by no deuice make it carry any colour This is the cause why Bellarmine is constrained to stand so much vpon the name so that he may leaue his aduersaries no starting-hole at all And this he manifestly proueth out of the text it selfe for S. Paul expresseth that Antichrist shall sit in the Why and how Antichrist shall sit in the Temple Temple not as others do but as God for if he would not be accompted and adored as God he might as well sit in another place as in the Temple but because that is his end he choseth to sit in the temple as in a place proper to his dignity for as the Throne is proper to a King so is a Temple proper to God and this is plaine in the greeke which hath shewing himselfe that he is God Against this M. Downam taketh many exceptions 1. That the Temple signifieth not the materiall See cap. 13 Temple at Hierusalem of which we haue treated before 2. That by fitting is not meant the corporall gesture of sitting in Apoc. 17. that materiall Temple But how chance he did not answere Bellarmines proofes to the contrary for he shewed that all the Fathers without controuersy vnderstood it so the words themselues are plaine 3. That the Temple is not to be erected to Antichrists honour since it is called the Temple of God This Bellarmine affirmed not for the Temple shall be erected in the beginning when Antichrist shall only discouer himselfe to be the Messias which when he hath obtayned then he shall affirme that he is their God himselfe and consequently that it belongeth to him to sit in that Temple and to be adored as God wherfore the Temple may very well be called the Temple of God because it shall be erected to him yet afterward Antichrist may sit in it as God And besides S. Paul calleth it the Temple of God because it was so in Why the Temple that Antichrist shall sit in is called the TeÌ„ple of God his time 4. That the greeke text hath not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which he hurteth Bellarmine sorely for it is manifest that this maketh his assertion proofs much more plaine since that the same thing is affirmed heere and he speaketh only of the last words which by the latin might seeme to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but is indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Bellarmine affirmeth Wherefore none of those foure deuices will serue the turne and Bellarmines argument is inuincible that Antichrist shall plainely professe himselfe to be God 10. The authorities of the Fathers are so plaine that M. Downam could not deuise what to say to them for they Downam omitteth Bellarmines argument expound a place of Scripture and therfore he could not reiect them vnder pretence of want of Scripture wherfore â—e thought it his best neuer to make mention of them hoping perhaps that his reader would neuer misse them And thus he commeth to the Assumption which is that the Pope acknowledgeth himselfe to be the seruant of God and not God To which he answereth that Bellarmine might as well conclude that the Pope neuer calleth himselfe Regem Regum terrae ac Dominum Dominorum the King of the Kings of the earth and Lord of Lords because he acknowledgeth himselfe Seruum seruorum Dei the Seruant of
then he hath bene since and shal be more againe hereafter in Antichrists tyme then euer he was before â—fter which he shall go into eternall destruction as S. Iohn affirmeth 7. And by this we may see that Bellarmines exposition conteyneth no absurdity at all nor can be impugned by any found ground so farre as concerneth the substance Apoc. â—3 therof for all that can be obiected against it is that it seâ—meth 〈◊〉 to explicate how Antichrist should be signifyed 〈…〉 himselfe and also by one of his heades 〈…〉 very probable that it is not Antichriâ—◠〈…〉 this deadly wound but one of the 7. Kings signified by those 7. heads who shall concurre with Antichrist in his wickednesse for that in this 13. Chapter S. Iohn speaketh of particuler Kings and not of seuerall States is manifest by that which hath bene said and shall heerafter be againe confirmed And thus we may conclude this Chapter for M. Downam replyeth not a word to Bellarmines answere to the obiection of the Magdeburgians THE SIXTENTH CHAPTER Of the Kingdome and Warres of Antichrist OF the Kingdome and Warres of Antichrist we read saith Bellarmine 4. things in the Scriptures First that Antichrist rising from a most base place shall obtayne the Kingdome of the Iewes by deceipt and craft Secondly he shall fight with 3. Kings riz of Egypt Lybia and Ethiopia and that he shall ouercome them and postesse their Kingdomes Thirdly that he shall subdue other 7. Kings and by that meanes become the Monarch of the whole world Fourthly that he shall persecute the Christians with an innumerable army through the whole world and that this is the battayle of of Gog and Magog of all which since nothing agreeth to the Pope it followeth manifestly that he can by no meanes be called Antichrist Of the first thus speaketh Dan. cap. 11. There shall stand in his place a contemptible one and Kingly honour shall not be giuen to him and he shall come secretly and shall obtayne a Kingdome in deceipt Vpon which place S. Hierome wryteth that although these words be in some sort vnderstood of Antiochus Epiphanes yet they are far more perfectly to be fulfilled in Antichrist as those things which are said of Salomon are indeed vnderstood Psal 71. of Salomon but are more perfectly fulfilled of Christ wherefore S Hierome in the same place after he had expounded this place of Antiochus following Pâ—rphery writeth thus But our men better and more rightly interprete that Antichrist shall do these things in the end of the world who is to rise of a meane nation that is of the people of the Iewes and shal be so base and obiect that the Kingly honour shall not be giuen him and he shall obtayne the Princedome by wiles and deceipts c. Where Saint Hierome signifieth that this is the common exposition of Christians for which cause also Daniel cap. 7. compareth Antichrist with a little horne viz. by reason of his base and obscure beginning And certainly this first doth in no sort agree to the Pope for we should say that the Pope was vntill the yeare 600. most obscure and of no name and that then suddainly and by deceipts he vsurped some high place But this is manifestly false For as S. Augustine epist 162. saith In the Roman Church alway flourished the Princedome of the Apostolike Chayre and S. Prosper lib. 2. de vocat gentium cap. 6. Rome by the Princedome of preisthood is made more ample by the sortresse of Religion then by the throne of power and the Councell of Calcedon epist ad Leonem affirmeth that at Rome do shine the Apostolike beames which from thence extend themselues to all and communicate their treasures with others Finally euen that Heathen writer Amianus Marcellus l. 27. writing of the schisme of Damasus and Vrsicinus saith that he doth not meruayle if men striue so earnestly for the Bishopricke of Rome since that the riches and amplitude of it are so great Of the second the same Dan. cap. 7. speaketh thus I considered the hornes and behould another little horne arose in the middest of them and three of the first hornes were pulled vp beâ—ore his face and after explicating Moreouer saith he the ten hornes are ten Kinges and another shall rise after them and he shal be more mighty then the former and shall humiliate 3. Kings And cap. 11. explicating who these three Kinges be He shall send his hand quoth he into lands and the land of Egypt shall not escape and he shall haue dominion of the treasures of gould and siluer and in all the precious things of Egypt and he shall passe also through Lybia and Ethiopia Vpon which places and especially vpon cap. 7. S. Hierome writing saith Let vs say that which all Ecclesiasticall VVriters haue deliuered In the consuÌ„mation of the world when the Kingdome of the Romans is to be destroyed there shal be ten Kinges who shall deuide the Roman world amongst them and there shall arise an eleuenth little King Antichrist who shall ouercome three of the ten Kinges that is of the Egyptians and of Africa and Ethiopia who being slaine the other 7. Kinges shall also submit themselues to the Conquerour The same doe teach of the three Kinges to be slaine by Antichrist S. Irenaeus lib. 5. Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 16. and Theodoretus in cap. 7. 11. Daniel And this most of all refuteth the madnes of heretikes who make the Pope Antichrist for let them say if they can when the Pope slew the Kinges of Egypt of Lybia and Ethiopia and vsurped their Kingdome Theodorus Bibliander in his Chronicle saith that the Pope as a little horne shaked the first horne of the ten when Gregory the second excommunicated Leo the Greeke Emperour the Image breaker and prohibited the tributes of Italy to be rendred vnto him and by little and little obteyned his Princedome that is the Exarchate of Rauenna He saith that he shaked off the secoÌ„d horne when Pope Zacharie deposed Childerichus King of the French and commaunded Pepin to be created in his steed Of the third he speaketh not plainely but he seemeth to insinuate that the third horne was then stroken of when Gregory the 7. excommunicated and deposed Henry the 4. Emperour There is also extant a certaine Epistle of Fredericus the second Emperour of that name written against the Pope in which he affirmeth that the three hornes pulled vp by Antichrist are the Kingdome of Italy Germany and Sicilie which the Pope had chiefly made to serue him But these are most vaine cauills for first Daniel speaketh not of the Kingdome of France or Germany but of the Kingdome of Egypt Lybia and Ethiopia Besides the Pope hath slaine none of those Kings but Antichrist shall kill those 3. Kings as S. Hierome saith Likewise Antichrist shall vsurpe those Kingdomes to himself and not giue them to others but the Pope kept not the Kingdome of France to himselfe but gaue it to Pepin
that word vntill for it importeth no such matter but only signifieth what is done till then but whether it continued at that time or after that time or no must be gathered by other coniectures or proofes As to exemplify in one of M. Downams authorities there was neuer any so foolish yet as to bring that place of Matth. 1. to proue our Blessed Ladies perpetuall Virginity but S. Hieroms and other Fathers haue byn inforced to answere it and to shew that the word vntill she weth only what hath byn done or not done vntill then but leaueth the rest of the time altogeather vncertaine whether things continued in the same state still or no. To Bellarmines second answere M. Downam hauing corrupted his words as the Reader may see if he please replieth first that the Primitiue Church belieued that the Temple should neuer be built againe held this assertion of the Papists as a Iewish fable But he bringeth not any one authority to proue Downam belyeth the Primitiue Church against the testimony of the Fathers this withall and therfore we must needes tell him that we do not belieue him for if we did we should do the Fathers great iniury which Bellarmine alleadgeth to reiect their authority without any ground and to thinke that M. Downam knew the beliefe of the Primitiue Church better then all they who liued so long before him For the other part of his answere we will not contend but that our Sauiour might meane the Army of the Romans by the Abhomination of Desolation but that he meant only that M. Downam neither hath proued The temple of Ierusalem shal alway be prophane though it be built againe nor euer will be able to proue and therfore Bellarmines solution is very good that Daniel when he affirmeth that the desolation shall perseuere to the consummation and end might very wel meane that though the Temple were built againe in the end of the world yet it should alway be prophaned after the ouerthrow made by Titus because the chiefest prophanation and abhomination of desolation shall be in Antichrists time At Bellarmines third solution M. Downam is much offended and telleth vs that in this place Daniel speaketh not a word of Antichrist nor yet of Antiochus his Type And for Antiochus we belieue him neither did Bellarmine euer dreame of any such matter of Antichrist the matter is not cleare though now it skilleth not whether he did or no for Bellarmine is only to shew that Antichrist sitting in the Temple of Hierusalem is not against this place of Daniel and not to proue out of this place that he shall sit there Wherfore let M. Downam begin his reply anew and so he doth arguing that it is not probable that Antichrist being so great a Monarch will suffer the temple which he chooseth for his chiefe seate to be vnbuilt or that he will sit in a temple without a roose or vnfinished To which it is easy to answere that this is not probable indeed if he may haue tyme inough and there fall no other hinderance But now M. Downam may remember that his raigne is to endure in that greatnes but only three yeares a halfe which is very little for the finishing of so sumptuous a building yet we thinke he may haue the roofe vp also at least in some part in which he shall sit till he may get the rest finished as he will hope he shall but yet he shall be hindred either The tēple of Ierusalem shall not be finished by Antichrist Socrat. l. 3. cap. 20. Theodoret. l. 3. c. 20. Sozom. l. 5. cap. vlt. Luc. 21. by the shortnes of time or by some accidents not vnlike to those that fell out in Iulians time though it be very likely that God wil permit much more in Antichrists daies without working myracles especially since it is certaine that the Temple was not to be built againe vntill the end of the world as Daniel foretould Which M. Downam will needes haue confirmed by that place of Luc. 21. where our Sauiour foretelleth that Hierusalem should be troden vnder the foote of the Gentiles vntill the tymes of the Gentiles be fulfilled Which words if they might haue that sense were a good explication of that which Daniel called the consummation and end for it is certaine that the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled before the end of the world be fully accomplished 10. To Bellarmines answere to the Fathers M. Downam replieth not a word and yet it contained matter of no smal importance but that which ouerthroweth the whole Protestants deuise For Bellarmine affirmeth proueth that those Antichrist shall sit in materiall Churches and not in the Church of Christ as a Bishop Fathers which they alleadg are no way against vs but manifestly against them since they speake of materiall Churches in which Antichrist will commaund himselfe to be placed and worshipped for God and not that he shall sit in the Church of Christ as a Bishop which is only the fond conceipt of M. Downam and his like without any authority either of Scriptures or Fathers or shew of reason Neither must the reader thinke that M. Downam omitted this reply because he maketh little accompt of the Fathers when they seeme to be on his side for of this we shal see the contrary in that he laboureth so earnestly to make S. Gregory seeme to say something in his fauour For to Bellarmines answere concerning his authority he replieth that the pride and ambition of Iohn of Constantinople though very great and Antichristian was not to be compared with the incredible insolency and pride of the Antichrist of Rome because Iohn of Constantinople challenged not that height of authority The Pope hath not so much soueraignty as Iohn of Constātinople challēged See part ◠cap. 1. soueraignty which Popes since haue vsurped not only ouer Bishops and Ecclesiasticall persons but also ouer the Kings and Monarches of the Earth VVhere to omit that Bibliander made his illation against the Pope precisely because he maketh himselfe the vniuersall Bishop and sitteth in the Church as head of all and consequently all other charges are from the purpose you see the Pope charged first with taking more soueraignty vpon him then Iohn of Constantinople did which is a loud lye by M. Downams leaue for Iohn of Constantinople would haue bene the Vniuersall Bishop in that sense that there should be no other properly Bishops besides himselfe but al others should be his Vicars and Vicegerents which was more then euer the Pope challenged or pretended The second charge seemeth to be that Iohn of Constantinople sought only a superiority ouer all Bishops but the Pope hath vsurped the same ouer all Kings and Monarches also But this is so ridiculous that M. Downam may well be ashamed therof for what doubt can there be but only in a flattering parasites conceipt that he who hath superiority ouer all Bishops must needes
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