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
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
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
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
name of the beast that is the Latin or Roman State and vnlesse it be such a name as he to whome all other notes of Antichrist doe agree causeth men to take vpon them which is to harpe still vpon the same string and to sing the same song like a Cuckow for this name belongeth to no other beast but Antichrist and the other part is the mayne controuersy and therefore to assume it as a thing graunted is petitio principij a figure wherewith M. Downam is well acquaynted and therefore chooseth to make it his conclusion also as the Reader may see if he please to whose iudgment I leaue it to consider whether M. Downam hath answered Bellarmines argument or rather that it is altogeather vnanswerable and inuincible as Bellarmine deseruedly affirmeth THE ELEAVENTH CHAPTER Of the Character of Antichrist THERE are also saith Bellarmine two or three opinions of Antichrists Character The first is of the heretikes of this tyme who teach that the Character of Antichrist is some signe of obedyence and coniunction with the B. of Rome yet they do not explicate after the same manner what that signe is Hemicus Bullengerus scr 61. in Apoc. will haue it to be the vnction of Chrisme with which all Christians that are obedient to the Pope are signed in their foreheads Theodorus Bibliander in Chron. tab 10. saith that the Character of the Pope is the profession of the Roman faith so that he is not accompted a true Christian who professeth not that he cleaueth to the Roman Church Dauid Chytraeus besides these two addeth the Oath of Fidelity which many are compelled to make to the Pope Likewise the Preistly vnction which is receaued in the crowne and hand and imprinteth as the Papists call it quoth hee an indeleble Character Finally to fall downe before Images and consecrated bread and to be present at Masses of Requiem Neither are these thinges vnlike to those which Sebastianus Meyer and others alleadged by Augustinus Marloratuâ— in Apoc. 13. do teach But it is an easie matter to confute these toyes both because they agree not with the words of the Text and also because all these signes were in the Catholike Church before that Antichrist had appeared in their opinion First therefore we haue out of the text that the Character shal be one not many for the Scripture alway speaketh in the singular number both of the Character and of the name number of Antichrist Wherefore there shal be one Character likewise one proper name of Antichrist and one number of his name Wherefore when our Aduersaryes multiply so many Characters they shew that they know not which that is of which S. Iohn speaketh Secondly that Character shal be common to all men in Antichrists Kingdome as is playne by those words He shall make all little great rich poore free and bound to take his Character But the Oath of obedyence and Priestly vnction agree to few Thirdly the Scripture declareth that the Character shal be such that it may indifferently be carried in the right hand or forehead for so it saith He shall make all men receyue his Character in their right hands or foreheads But none of those thinges which our aduersaryes bring is such That the vnction of Chrisme cannot be receyued in the right hand The profession of the Roman Faith is neither in the hand nor forehead but in the mouth by confession in the hart by faith The Oath of Fidelity is taken with the hand and mouth but can in no wyse be carryed in the forehead The Priestly vnction is neither receaued properly in the right hand nor in the forehead but vpon the head and fingers of both hands Finally to be present at Masses for the dead to kneele before Images and the Eucharist belong not to the forehead or hand but to the whole body and chiefely to the knees Fourthly the same Scripture saith That in the Kingdome of Antichrist no man shal be permitted to buy and sell vnles he shew the Character or the name or the number of the name But how many doe buy and sell in the dominious of the Pope who are not yet chrismed nor haue taken the Oath of fidelity nor are Priests Doe not many Iewes euen in the very Citty of Rome where the Pope hath his Sea negotiate publikely buy and sell although they haue none of those signes Let vs come to the other reason prooue that all these signes are elder then Antichrist Antichrist by the opinion of our aduersaryes came not before the yeare 606. but Tertullian lyued about the yeare 200. and yet maketh mention of Chrisme lib. de resurrectione carnis The flesh saith he is washed that the soule may be clensed the flesh is annoynted that the soule may be consecrated S. Cyprian liued about the yeare 250. and maketh mention of Chrisme lib. 1. epist 12. He must necessarily be an noynted saith he who is baptized that hauing receaued Chrisme that is vnction he may be the aunoynted of God and haue in him the grace of Christ S. Augustine lyued about the yeare 420. and yet he saith tract in Ioan. 118. VVhat is it that all know the signe of Christ but the Crosse of Christ VVhich signe vnles it be applyed either to the foreheads of the faithfull or to the water with which they are regenerated or to the oyle with which they are Chrismed or to the Sacrifice with which they are nourished none of these thinges is rightly performed Likewise to cleaue to the Roman Church was the signe and Character of a true Catholike man before the yeare of our Lord 606. S. Augustine writeth epist 162. of Caecilianus who liued about the yeare 300. He needed not to care for the multytude of enemyes which conspired against him since he saw himselfe vnited by communicatory letters to the Roman Church in which the principality of the Apostolicall chayre alway flourished and to the other Countries from whence the Ghospell came into Africa S. Ambrose who lyued about the yeare of our Lord 390. in orat de obitu fratris sui He asked the Bishop saith he if he agreed in doctrine with the Catholike Bishops that is with the Roman Church Victor Vticensis who lyued about the yeare of our Lord 490. lib. 1. de persecut Vandal writeth that an Arian Priest going about to perswade the King not to put a Catholike to death vsed these wordes If thou puttest him to death the Romans will accompt him a Martyr In which place by the name of Romans the Catholikes of Africa are designed who doubtles are not called Romans by the Arians for any other cause but for that they followed the Faith of the Roman Church and not the misbeliefe of the Arians We find the Oath of obedience made to the B. of Rome in the tyme of S. Gregory lib. 10. epist 31. and therefore before the yeare 606. for S. Gregory lyued not so long Of Priestly vnction we haue the testimony of
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