to thinke how it hath byn and is still possible that either they themselues or others by them should be so bewitched Neither can there any probable cause be giuen of so great blindnes and so enormous a cryme but only the want of Gods grace which their sinnes haue with drawne and deserued that they should be in this sort as it were giuen ouer to a reprobate sense What can be said in defence of this detestable excesse Deny it they cannot the thing being so euident and so often reiterated And dare they excuse it by telling vs That the Fathers are only forsaken when they forsake the Scripture Is not this plainely to make Infidells and Heretikes better Interpreters of Scripture then the Church of Christ and all Christians in generall and the most learned Pastours thereof in particuler If they answer that it is not the authority of these Infidells which they follow but the inspiration of the Holy Ghost which they experience in themselues is this any thing els in effect then to acknowledge that Porphiry and the Iewes had the true spirit of Christ and that the ancient Fathers and the Church of Christ in their tyme had it not For if the Protestants haue the spirit of Christ now it is manifest that those others had it then since their expositions be all one But who is so foolish and sacrilegious as to depriue Gods Church and Saintes of his spirit and it tribute it to his professed enemyes and consequently how shall we belieue the Protestants when they tell vs that they are full of Gods Spirit since we see their spirit to agree with that of the Diuells instruments and to be quite opposite to that of Gods elect Heere is no starting hole to be found neither haue they any thing to reply but only to stand vpon their bare affirmation which M. Downam doth so often in his disputation still desiring to haue that graunted which is chiefly in question But I will omit this and the rest of his absurdities remitting the Reader to his owne experience after that he hath with diligence perused the whole Heere I would make an end of this Preface hauing said asmuch as I thinke necessary concerning the disputation which followeth But because I haue lately seene two Sermons not long since preached by this our Doctour by which it seemeth that he hath resolued to relinquish Puritanisme and turne Protestant I thought it good to admonish my Reader of this point also because I rather inclined before to thinke that he was a Puritan and insinuated so much in a place or two And withall Chap. 10. 13. by this occasion I must intreat my Reader to marke the great difference betwixt M. Downam in these his Sermons and the same man in his booke of Antichrist for in this he euery where reiecteth all antiquity as I haue said but in his Sermons he singeth vs a new song and can tell vs. that it neuer yet happened that the newest thinges did proue the truest and argueth chiefely from authority obiecting still to his Puritan Aduersaries That they go against the whole streame of all Antiquity yea he can alleadge S. Augustine lib. 4. de Bapt. con Donat. cap. 24. ep 118. to proue that the consent of the whole Church argueth either the definition of a Councell or an Apostolicali Tradition though he corruptely translateth Traditum Ordayned and likewise in the second place where S. Aug. affirmeth that Insolentissimae insaniae est it is a most insolent madnes to dispute against that which vniuersa Ecclesia the whole Church obserueth he addeth of his owne the word Primitiue that so he may haue some stareing hole against vs when he is vrged with the same Authority of S. Augustine which if he would follow himselfe as he would now haue the Puritans do he must of force retyre himselfe from the Protestants also and betake himselfe to the Catholike Church which all Antiquity most manifestly defendeth And surely whosoeuer considereth the arguments which Protestants make against Puritans cannot but euidently perceaue that the very same principles do ouerthrow the Protestants themselues And I meruaile much how they can defend themselues from that terrible sentence of S. Paul Inexcusabilises o homo omnis qui iudicas quo enim iudicas alterum teipsum condemnas eadem enim agis quae iudicas And the very same iudgment falleth vpon the Puritans themselues when they go about to impugne the Brownists Familists Anabaptists Arians or any other sect whatsoeuer For this they cannot do but by Antiquity which notwithstanding they are forced to reiect in all those pointes in which they differ and dissent from the Cathelike Roman Church I will not descend to any particulers though I easily might for what can be more euident then that the autherity of S. Cyprian other Fathers who vrge the necesâ—ity of a Bishop for the conseruation of vnity is much more to be vnderstood of one chiefe Bishop in the whole Church then of particuler Bishops in particuler Diocesses since there can be no question that vnity is as necessary in the whole world as in one Diocesse and much more easily mayntained in this then in that Likewise M. Downam can tell vs not only of Bishops but also of Metropolitans and Patriarches and alleadgeth for his purpose the Councell of Nice but he will not acknowledge that in the same Councell Rome hath the first place and is preferred before all others as likewise Alexandria and Antiochia are before Ierusalem which M. Downam would willingly haue the chiefe of which there can be no other true reason giuen but the excellency of S. Peter aboue the other Apostles who founded three Churches and placed or fixed his Sea in Rome where he ended his life with a most happy Martyrdome Now if we aâ—ke M. Downam a reason why he seeth not this aswell as that which fauoureth the Protestants against the Puritans I cannot imagine what he can answere vs but only that by this meanes he should incurre the disgrace and ouerthrow of his Ministry which he esteemeth so highly But I intreat both him and all other euen as they tender their owne saluation to looke about them in tyme and not to suffer themselues to be carried away with the sway of the tyme and the desire of worldly pleasures and preferments which M. Downam and all others may easily conceaue not to be very great if his complayntes of pouerty and contempt which he maketh in his former Sermon be true as no doubt they are in great part and these miseryes will daylie increase as their credit doth decrease so that if now that pittifull yâ—t ridiculouâ— complaint of M. Downam be true That not only euery meane man almost Ser. 1. pag. 67. preferreth himselfe before the Minister but also disdayneth to bestow either his Sonne on the Ministry or his Daughter on a Minister the tyme no doubt will come and that shortly also that they â—halbe inforced to marry
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
his owne person But certainely we haue experienced no such thing from the yeare 600. or 1000. The Heretikes indeed say that they suffer great persecution by Antichrist because sometime some of their number are burnt but what comparison is there betwixt such a persecution and that of Nero Domitian Decius Dioclesian and others since that for one heretike which is burnt there were in times past a thousand Christians put to death and that in the whole Roman Empire not in one only Prouince wheras now the greatest punishmēt is to be burnt then there were incredible and innumerable torments of which see Cornelius Tacitus in Nerone and Eusebius in his Ecclesiasticall History S. Damasus in the life of S. Marcellinus writeth that there were aboue 17. thousād Christiās put to death by Dioclesiā Eusebius who liued at that tyme writeth lib. 8. cap. 6. hist that al prisōs were so full of Martyrs that there was no place for offenders and in all that booke he affirmeth that there were so many put to death within the space of two yeares that it is impossible to number them Besides the heretikes of our tymes haue put to death more Catholikes within these 20. or 30. yeares in France and Flanders then the Inquisitors haue burnt heretikes perhaps these hundred yeares Wherfore they cannot call this a persecution but rather a ciuill warre for as S. Augustine teacheth ep 80. ad Hesychium when the true persecution of Antichrist shall come only the children of the Church shal be in tribulation and not their persecutours as in the tyme of Dioclesian and the former Princes only Christians were persecuted but did not persecute againe And if this be to be called a persecution rather Catholikes suffer it then Lutherans and Caluinists for Catholikes are cast out of many Prouinces and haue lost their Churches their Inheritance and their Country it selfe these new Ministers of this Ghospell intruding themselues into other mens possessions and as we said may be seene in the Commentaryes of Laurence Surius and other Historiographers of our tyme the fury of Caluinists consumed more Catholikes in few yeares then there haue bene Heretikes punnished by the iudgement of Catholike Princes for denying their Faith Now that the persecution of Antichrist shal be most manifest and knowne S. Aug. proueth lib. 20. de ciuitate Dei cap. 11. out of those wordes of the Apoc. 20. And they compassed the tents of the Saintes and the beloued Citty for by these wordes it is signified that all the wicked shal be togeather in Antichrists army and shall with open warre impuge all the Church of Saintes for now there are many faigned in the Church which hiding their malice are in hart out of the Church and in it only in bodie But thē all shall break forth sayth S. Augustine into open persecution out of their lurking corners of hatred This surely is so farre of from being fulfilled at this tyme that there was neuer almost a greater number of false brethren and faygned Christians and this persecution is so farre of from being knowne and manifest that neither they which say they suffer it nor wee that are said to cause it can tell whē it began Certainly the persecutiōs of Nero Dominā other Romā Princes were diligently noted by Eusebius Orosius Sulpitius there is no doubt whē they began whē they ended as likewise the comming of Christ because it was true manifest we know verie well when it was and to whome first manifested and there is no diuersitie of opinions among vs concerning this matter But the heretikes which say that Antichrist is come and hath persecuted so long cannot produce one author who hath noted the tyme whē Antichrist came or to whome he first appeared or when he began his persecution and they disagree so among themselues that one saith he came in the yeare 200. another in the yeare 606. another in the yeare 773. another in the yeare 1000. another 1200. So that they seeme rather to dreame in their sleepe then to speake waking Finallie that in Antichrists tyme the publique and dailie office and Sacrifice of the Church shall cease by reason of the greatnes of the persecution Daniel plainely teacheth cap. 12. from the tyme that the continuall Sacrifice shal be taken away M. CC. XC dayes where by the consent of all he speaketh of Antichrists tyme and as S. Irenaeus lib 5. S. Hierome and Theodoretus vpon that place S. Hippolytus Martyr in orat de consūmatione mundi and Primasius in cap. 11. Apoc. expound it the is sense is that Antichrist shall forbid all the diuine worship which is now exercised in the Christian Churches and especiallie the holie Sacrifice of the Eucharist but that this signe is not yet fulfilled experience teacheth Out of which three thinges may be gathered First that Antichrist is not yet come since the continuall Sacrifice is still in vse Secondlie that the Bishop of Rome is not Antichrist but most contrarie to him since he doth chiefly adorne and defend the Sacrifice which Antichrist shall take away Thirdlie that the heretikes of this tyme aboue all others are the forerunners of Antichrist since they wish nothing more earnestly then vtterly to abolish the Sacrifice of the Eucharist M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted 1. MAISTER Downam verie courteously admitteth that Antichrists persecution was to be verie grieuous but alloweth not of Bellarmines proofes affirming that The persecution of Antichrist most grieuous the great tribulation which our Sauiour speaketh of Matth. 24. is no other then the calamyties which at the destruction of Hierusalem by the Romans the Iewes susteyned which how true it is may be sufficiently seene by that which hath bene said in the 4. chapter Now it is sufficient that we agree in the cōclusion 2. Wherefore all his long discourse about the thousand yeares Apoc. 20. is altogeather impertinent and foolish also in that he vnderstandeth those 1000. yeares definitely The 1000 yeares Apoc. 20. are to be takē indefinitely which indefinitely signify all the yeares and space from Christs Passion when the Deuill was bound vntill Antichrists time when he shall be loosed and it is false that any were put to death by the chiefe Antichrist within those thousand yeares For how could that be since he was not to come before they were expired as all but Heretikes agree But all this as also the question of Gog and Magog is from the present purpose which M. Downā could not choose but see though he were content to cast this mist before the Readers eyes that he might not see the force of Bellarmines argument which consisteth in this that the persecution of Antichrist is to be most grieuous which he is content to The persecution of Antichrist shal be greater then the calamities of the Iewes graunt because he cannot deny it would help to prooue it also though verie simplie God wot but wee will accept his good will since his meaning
little vpoÌ„ the ChristiaÌ„ Princes in whose dominioÌ„s at this daie there is The difference betwixt the Catholike the ProtestaÌ„t Princes diuersity of Religions he shall find that all the Catholike Princes tolerate in some sort their Hereticall subiects as the Emperour the King of France the King of Poland now the Arch-duke in Flanders whereas heere in England the Catholikes canfind no such fauour who that they suffer for Religion and not for treason none but impudent Ministers and their mates can deny Neither is this craft of ProtestaÌ„ts any great glory for theÌ„ who by reasoÌ„ of the distrust which they haue in their owne cause vse to put Catholiks to death vnder the name of Treason Catholikes are put to death for Religion by Protestants though they can prooue nothing against them but the exercise of their Religion For in this they imitate the Iewes who dealt so with our Sauiour and some other Tyrants but chiefly Iulian the Apostata which were alway accompted the greatest and worst persecutors Whereas Catholikes haue alway punished heretikes directely for their heresie esteeming it as it deserued a far greater crime then treason as being coÌ„mitted against the King of HeaueÌ„ whoÌ„ all earthly Princes are bouÌ„d to respect more then theÌ„selues so wee see in Queene Maries tyme Bishop Craâ—mer had his Treasons pardoned but not his heresies for which hee was burned And so it appeareth by the proceeding of our aduersaries that wee are free froÌ„ heresie how false their imputations of treasons are is proued by many and lastely by W. R. in his CoÌ„futatioÌ„ of O. E. aliâs Sutcliffes vaunting challeng in the last chapter to which I remit my reader And this shall suffice for the greatnes of the persecution vnder Antichrist 6. Touching the manifestnes of it M. Downam is not of Bellarmines mynd yea he thinketh his doctrine contrary to our Sauiours who hath said that the good and bad shall grow togeather like wheat and tares vntill the day of the great haruest But M. Downam Antichrists persecutioÌ„ most manifest Matth. 13. may vnderstand that Bellarmine houldeth with S. Augustine quaest 11. super Matth. that this is to be vnderstood of the whole world in which Bellarmine denieth not but there wil be store of tares in this tyme of Antichrist and besides our Sauiour only willeth his seruants not to roote out all the tares when there is danger that the corne may also he destroyed by that meanes But now we speak of his enemies who partly by persecuting partly for feare of persecution will separate themselues of their owne accord from among Gods wheate to wit his elect and yet are to bee separated also in the day of Iudgment against their wills which is all that the place alleadged doth proue To the authority of S. Augustine alleadged by Bellarmine he giueth two answeres First if he had said so we might haue Downam reiecteth S. Augustine esteemed his speach to haue bene but a human coniecture rather then a prophesy diuine so that it is no matter what S. Augustine or any other can say For if it please not M. Downams vaine fancy it shall be accompted but an humane coniecture though he gather it out of Scripture as S. Augustine doth this But secondly saith M. Downam Bellarmine without all shame falfifieth his wordes who speaketh of the Diuell alone and not of all the wicked saying Now it is said that he shall goe forth viz. into open persecution he shall breake forth of the couerts of hatred for which we must note that S. Augustine interpreteth the depth into which the Diuell was put to be their hartes which hate the Christians in quorum saith he quotidie velut in abysso Bellarmin vniustly charged by M Downam cacis prosundis cordibus includitur cap. 8. In whose blind and profound hartes he is daily inclosed as in a depth Which exposition he mentioneth againe cap. 11. which Bellarmine cited where he expoundeth how he is said to come forth out of this depth to wit out of the couerts of hatred within which he was inclosed into open persecution because he shall seduce those whose harts he possessed to make warre against Christians which before he hated but was not permitted to hurt all which that he meaneth of all the wicked the wordes following immediately declare Haec enim erit nouissima persecutio noâ—issimo imminente iudicio cùm saÌ„cta Ecclesia toto terrarum orbe patietur vniuersa scilicet ciuitas Christi ab vniuersa Diaboli ciuitate quantacumque erit vtraque super terram For this shal be the last persecution the last iudgment being at hand which the holy Church shall suffer ouer all the world to wit the whole citty of Christ by the whole citty of the Diuell how great soeuer either of them shall be vpon the earth Can any thing be more plaine then this And after againe he saith that the holy Church shal be enuironed ab omnibus inimicâ—â— suis by all her enemies yea he repeateth the very like wordes to those which he had spoken in the singular number againe in the plurall speaking of the Nations quae sunt in quatuor angulis terrae in the foure corners or quarters of the earth in apertum odium de operto erupturae sunt they shal breake forth into open hatred of their hidden malice Wherfore let any man iudge whether Bellarmine changed S. Augustines sense though for brenity and perspicuities sake he cited his wordes in the plurall number as they were to be vnderstood are repeated also by S. Augustine himselfe All the Churches enemies shal ioyne to impugne her in Antichrists tyme. 7. Now that al that hate Christians or the Church haue not hitherto ioyned against them is so manifest that M. Downam cannot deny and therfore granting it he only turneth to aske whether they shall do so when Antichrist commeth or no To whome we returne answere that they shall as hath bene sufficiently proued and therfore it is manifest that Antichrist is not yet come To the second part of Bellarmines proofe he answereth that the vncertainty of the beginning of Antichrists persecution if it were true doth not disproue the greatnes but argueth the length As though now we treated of the greatnes and not of the manifestnes of this persecution Downam forgetteth what he impugneth which surely is plainly disproued if it were so secret that no man can tell when it began Secondly he saith the persecutions vnder Nero the rest were wel knowne when they began and when they ended because there was some intermission of them but these now haue no end nor yet intermission except it be when they haue none to persecute And is not this a wise answere thinke you to tell vs that the beginning of a persecution cannot be shewed because it hath no intermission nor end Except he would haue vs to vnderstand him that he meaneth that it hath had no beginning
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
the Tribe of Dan then of divers other Tribes whose Genealogyes were also omitted in that place and therefore no meruaile though the Fathers made no inference out of this as M. Downam and some of his friends not very wisely doe 3. M. Downam hauing thus agreed with Bellarmine in not admitting the Fathers opinion in this point though he differeth in this that Bellarmine thinketh it very probable for their authority which he doth not he would by this president prooue that they may lawfully reiect the Downam impugneth the Fathers authority Fathers authority in all other pointes cōcerning Antichrist when it seemeth to them the Fathers alleadge not the Scriptures in their true sense But first M. Downom must remember that an vniuersall is not to be inferred from a particuler Secondly Bellarmine reiecteth not the authority of these Fathers but admitteth their opinion as probable which is asmuch as they themselues for the most part affirmed and so indeed Bellarmine followed them so farre as they would haue him Thirdly Bellarmine had the authority of some Fathers for his exposition of the two first places and therefore he might well follow their opinion especially since most of the other did rather follow the mysticall then the litterall sense In the third place where he brought no authority for himselfe M. Downam did rightely correct him shewing his instance to be very probable though still there remayneth some question why Ephraim was not named as well as Manasses but comprehended vnder the name of Ioseph Fourthly therefore M. Downam hath no reason to reiect all the Fathers when they agree without contradiction or doubt nor to make himself wiser then he is to take vpon him to vnderstand the Scripture better then they all yea though their arguments out of the Scripture should be only from the mysticall sense yet he may well assure himselfe that they would neuer be so resolute except they had some other good ground of diuine or Apostolicall tradition known by them to haue ben taught by the Apostles and from their tyme from age to age conserued in the Church for which reason I also incline to thinke that it is in a manner certayne that Antichrist shal be of the Tribe of Dan since so many Fathers affirme it without contradiction of any 4. But let vs passe ouer this argument as Bellarmine doth making it only probable and not certayne and come to those others that are most euident and certayne Against which M. Downam first obiecteth that Antichrist shall not be one singular man which I haue already shewed to be both false and impertine◠Secondly he saith that these opinions may be num 1. disproued by Scripture because Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God that is shall raigne in the Church of Christ But of this we shall See Cap. 13. haue occasion to treat afterward Besides saith he Bellarmine confesseth that Antichrist shal be the head of the Apostasy that is backesliding Christians Ergo not of the Iewes But M. Downam might easily haue considered that Antichrist may be the head of both as Bellarmine affirmeth After this he noteth that Antichrist shal be head of the Roman State and haue his Seate in Rome which how true it is we shall see afterward Now I would See cap. 13. faine know why a Iew may not haue both these cōditions Lastly M. Downam would know when the Iewes shal be called to Christ To which I answere that some shal be called in Antichrists raigne but the most after his fall which shal be not long before the end of the world as we haue already seene in part 5. Thus hath this wise man shot his bolt and now he holdeth vp his buckler to beare off Bellarmines Artillery and first to the testimony of S. Iohn 5. 43. he saith that he hath proued before that our Sauiour speaketh not absolutely but conditionally Io. 5. not definitely but indefinitely and only of the Iewes present which Cap. 2. are dead long since but all these shiftes are confuted long since at large and therefore it were needeles to repeat them or confute them heere againe 6. The second testimony 2. Thess 2. troubleth him somewhat more and therefore his tongue runneth at randome 2. Thess 2. explicating the place at large after his owne fancy and railing against Catholikes but obiecteth nothing worth the answering the most that he hath to the purpose is that the Apostles wordes may be applyed to all others that follow Antichrist aswell as to the Iewes In which we will not stand with him but now our question is whether the Iewes be included in these wordes or no and Bellarmine saith they are and that chiefly and this he proueth out of the Scripture it selfe First because none ought more and would lesse receaue Christ then the Iewes 7. To which M. Downam answereth not a word but that the Rhemists confesse that others may be said not to receaue the loue of the Truth also But what is this to the purpose Doe the Rhemists or can any other deny that none refused more to receaue the loue of the Truth then the Iewes And yet this is all the answere that M. Downam giueth but falleth into a rage and railing againe like a man more then halfe beside himselfe yet after a while he commeth to himselfe againe and returneth to Bellarmines second proofe out of the Scripture where he noteth that the Apostle speake in the preter tense of the refusers to receaue the Truth and in the future tense of the comming receauing of Antichrist out of which he inferreth that he is to be vnderstood of the Iewes who were they that chiefly had refused to receaue Christ in the Apostles tyme. To which M. Downam answereth that this preter tense is not to be referred to the tyme of the Apostles writing but to the tyme of their punishment By which as you see he maketh the preter and future tense all one or at least ioyneth them togeather expounding the later part of the Apostles words in English thus That all may be condemned that shall not haue belieued the Truth but shall haue delighted in iniquity and willing vs to conferre this place with Mar. 16. 16. which he likewise expoundeth in the same manner He that shall haue belieued and shall haue ben baptized shal be saued but he that shall not haue belieued shal be condenmed though in both places he is inforced to confesse that the greeke is the preter tense and he dareth not translate it otherwise howsoeuer he expoundes it So that vnlesse we will stand to M. Downam◠exposition rather then to the wordes of the Scripture we are to vnderstand all this of the preter tense only as the condemnation and the receauing of Antichrist in the future tense only which is a plaine signe that all this is not to be vnderstood of the same tyme as is also euident by the thing it selfe for men refuse to belieue and
to be baptized in this life when they are preached vnto but they are condemned in the other life when all Sermons are at an end for them And this out Sauiours words signify most exactely if M. Downams commentary be taken away And yet the matter is more cleere in the words which Bellarmine vrgeth in which there is no Participle in the Greeke as in the places which M. Downam compareth but the Verbe it selfe which cannot well be vnderstood but of things truly past as neither the Verbe in the future tense but of thinges truly to come and since the Apostle limitteth not that preter tense to any other tyme as our Sauiour doth it must be vnderstood to signify that which was past before the tyme of his writing But M. Downam obiecteth further that if Bellarmine will needes vrge the preter tense as though the Apostle meant that Antichrist should be receaued only of those who before that tyme had reiected the truth he must withall hould that Antichrist shal be receaued in the end of the world of those who dyed aboue 1500. yeares since But this is both a false and friuolous obiection false because it addeth the word Downam falsifieth Bellarmines wordes only which Bellarmine hath nor for he neuer went about to prooue that only the Iewes should receaue Antichrist but that they should receaue him friuolous because the Apostle Bellarmine also speake of the Nation of the Iewes and not of any particuler men as is manifest to any that is not wilfully blinded with malice of which number it grieueth me that M. Downam will needes be one 8. To the authority of the Fathers M. Downam briefly answereth that there is no probability in their assertion or exposition no more then in the former that Antichrist should be of the Tribe of Dan or in their expositions of the places of Scripture which they brought to that effect which sayth he no man now vnles he wil be too ridiculous can vnderstand of Antichrist Where I desire the Reader to cōsider the little accompt that M. Downam maketh of al the Fathers when they make against Downam reiecteth the Fathers him and as for his similitude I haue already shewed how vnlike it is aswell because the Fathers speake not resolutly thēselues in that point as they do in this and also because all the Fathers do not agree in that assertion or exposition And yet M. Downam is very insolent in condemning all for ridiculous which follow the Fathers exposition of those places of Scripture for first there is no doubt but that the two former may be mystically so vnderstood and the last can haue no other probable sense as hath sufficiently appeared Neither is that obiection of his worth the answering by which he would prooue that the Fathers might aswell prooue that Antichrist shall be of the Tribe of Beniamin because of him it is said in the same place that he shall raigne as a wolfe for M. Downam might haue added the other clause which is to be taken in good num 2. part and therfore cannot be applied to Antichrist but to some other who shall change his condition and of a rauening wolfe become a glorious Preacher and Apostle of Christ as S. Paul did of whom some of the Fathers mistically expound those words Wherfore M. Downam must be content though much against his will that both these assertions and expositions haue that probability and certainty which the Fathers affirme that they haue as Bellarmine hath sufficiently declared 9. Lastly to Bellarmines reason M. Downam answereth that Antichrist shall ioyne himselfe not to any whatsoeuer but to those in the Church that are ready to receaue him For proofe wherof he alleadgeth S. Cyprian epist 1. lib. 1. where he affirmeth that the Diuell troubleth the seruants of God and Antichrist impugneth Christians and seeketh not those whome he hath already subdued or desireth to ouerthrow those whome he hath already made his owne c. Which in truth is a strange proofe if you marke it well for M. Downam ridiculously impugneth himselfe Bellarmine speaketh not a word of troubling impugning or ouerthrowing but only of ioyning with the Iewes as with friends and M. Downam to proue that Antichrist shall not ioyne with them so alleadgeth S. Cyprian who affirmeth that he shall impugne Christians Would any man take M. Downam for a Doctor or Reader of Diuinity that should heare him dispute thus grossely bringing quid pro quo and impugning himselfe insteed of his aduersary But let vs pitty his folly and affirme with S. Cyprian and Bellarmine that Antichrist shall impugne Christians and to that effect first ioyne himselfe to the Iewes To Bellarmines minor that the Iewes are ready to receaue Antichrist M. Downam hath nothing to answere directly but only repeateth certaine assertions of his owne that Antichrist shall not be one particuler man c. which haue and shall be confuted in their due places But now M. Downam should haue impugned Bellarmines proofe which is that the Iewes expect a temporall King as Antichrist shall be and not only affirme vpon his bare word that Antichrist shall not b◠such a one as the expected Messias of the Iewes and that there is no necessity that there should such a one come to the Iewes as they expect both which assertiōs are ouerthrown by Bellarmines reasons and other proofes And to the second part that Christians expect Antichrist with feare and terrour M. Downam only answereth that vnsound and back-sliding Christians are ready to receaue Antichrist By which if he meaneth The difference betwixt Christians and Iewes in expecting Antichrist that they are in great danger to be drawne to him by little and little it is very true and that which Bellarmine affirmeth but if he would say that they expect Antichrist with ioy and desire as the Iewes do he is farre wide for the Iewes will receaue him the sooner because he is against Christ which very few Christians though neuer so vnsound will yield to at the first but rather be terrified with the very mention therof as M. Downam may experience amongst Protestants whome we accompt vnsound Christians and the world will testify of all Catholikes whome he taketh to be such Now for his supposition that Antichrist is come and that the Pope is Antichrist we know this to be the question and maine controuersy and therfore cannot but acknowledg M. Downams ordinary fault which is petitio principij 10. M. Downam hauing thus worthily answered Bellarmines first certaine position he commeth to the second which is that Antichrist shall be a Iew which Bellarmine proueth out of his former assertion that the Iewes shall receaue Antichrist which they would neuer do except he Antichrist shall be a Iew. were a Iew. To which M. Downam answereth that he hath ouerthrowne that former assertion which how true it is I remit to the Readers iudgment Secondly he obiecteth that the Herodians receaued Herod
as S. Augustine expoundeth it l. 20. Ciuit. Dei c. 19. where he deduceth this exposition out of the manner of S. Pauls speaking who sayd not in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Templo but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Templum as if he should say that Antichrist shal sit in TempluÌ„ Dei that is as though he and his were the TeÌ„ple of God although this annotation of S. August is not necessary for though in Latine we cannot wel say sedere in TempluÌ„ for in Templo yet in greeke it is not euill said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea it is commonly so said Some also vnderstand the Churches of Christians which Antichrist shall command to serue him as S. Chrysostome interpreteth it yet the more common more probable and the more litterall exposition is of them who teach that the temple of Salomon is vnderstood by the Temple of God in which after some sort repaired Antichrist â—â—all fit For first in the Scripture of the new Testament the Churches of Christians are neuer vnderstood by the Temple of God but alway the Temple of Hierusalem and that which is more the ancient Fathers Latine and Greeke for some ages neuer called the Churches of Christians Temples which in greeke are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in this place of S. Paul but they called them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Oratoria Ecclesias Domas orationis Basilicas Martyria Certainely neither S. Iustine nor S. Irenaeus nor Tertullian nor S. Cyprian do vse the name of Temple when they treat of the Churches of Christians and S. Ierome ep ad Riparium saith that Iulian the Apostata commanded that the * Basilicae Churches of the Saints should either be destroyed or turned into Temples And the reasons why the Apostles call not the Churches of Christians Temples are two the one because then they had not any Temples but only in priuate houses they appointed certayn places for praier Sermons and saying of Masse The other reason is because the memory of the Iewish Temple was fresh least the Apostles might seeme to bring in some thing like to them and that they might distinguish the Church from the Synagogue they abstained from the name of Temple As also for the same reason the Apostles in the Scripture neues call Christian Priests Sacerdotes but only Episcopos and Presbyteros But after that Hierusalem was ouerthrowne and the Temple burnt and the memory of the old Temple and Priesthood abolished the holy Doctors began to vse commonly the name of Temple and Priesthood Since therfore the Apostle writing that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God said somthing which he would haue vnderstood of them to whome he wrote and they then did not vnderstaÌ„d by the name of Temple any other but the Temple of Hierusalem it seemeth certaine that the Apostle spake of it which is also confirmed by the common exposition of the Fathers S. Irenaeus lib. 5. VVhen Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of Hierusalem then our Lord will come c. S. Hippolytus Mart. orat de mundi consummat He shall build the Temple at Hierusalem And S. Martin apud Sulpitium lib. 2. dial teacheth the same S. Cyril Hierosol cateches 15. VVhat manner of Temple meaneth the Apostle In the Temple of the Iewes which is remayning for God forbid that it should be done in this in which we are And S. Hilary can 25. in Matt. Antichrist being receaued of the Iewes shall stay in the place of Sanctification Where he plainly speaketh of the Temple of the Iewes for he calleth the place of Sanctification that which Christ Matth. 24. calleth the holy Place when he saith VVhen you see abhomination standing in the holy place S. Ambrose in c. 21. Luc. saith that Antichrist according to the history shall sit in the Temple into which the Romans cast the head of a swine in the time of the Emperour Titus and according to the mysticall sense that he shall sit in the inward Temple of the Iewes that is in their perfidious minds Sedulius vpon this place of the Apostle explicateth that in the Temple of God He will endeauour to repaire the temple of Hierusalem c. S. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 28. In the Temple sayth he not ours but the old Iewish S. Chrysostome Theodoret and Theophilact who say that Antichrist shall sit in the Churches of Christians affirme also that he shall sit in the Temple of Salomon for S. Chrysostome writeth thus vpon this place He shall command himselfe to be worshipped for God and to be placed in the Temple not only of Hierusalem but also in the Churches The same say Theophilact and Theodoret. S. Augustine also lib. 20. Ciuit. Dei cap. 19. S. Hierome quaest 11. ad Algasiam do not deny that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of Salomon Only Oecumenius denieth that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of the Iewes but he is the last of all and by no meanes to be preferred before all the Fathers perhaps also his text is corrupted there wanteth but one particle only for it is not credible that he would depart from S. Chrysostome Theodoret and Theophilact whome in all other things he alway followeth Now let vs answere to the arguments of our Aduersaries which we proposed before To the first I answere in three manners First it may be sayd with S. Augustine in Psal 26. Arethas Haymo Bede and Rupert in cap. 17. Apoc. that by the Harlot which sitteth vpon seauen hills and hath her Kingdome ouer the Kings of the earth Rome is not vnderstood but the whole Citty of the Diuel which in the Scripture is often called Babylen and is opposed to the Citty of God that is to the Church which is called Hierusalem and that by the seauen hils is vnderstood the vniuersality of the proud and chiefly of the Kings of the earth Secondly it may be sayd and in my iudgment better that by the harlot is vnderstood Rome as Tertull. l. cont Indaeos lib. 3. cont Martian and S. Hierome ep 17. ad Marcellam quast 11. ad Algasiam but â—thnick Rome raigning worshipping Idols and persecuting Christians and not Rome Christian for so those Authors expound And surely meruailous is the impudency of Heretikes who to proue that the Roman Church is the purple Harlot vse the testimony of Tertullian and S. Hierome for since at that time Heathen Rome was contrary to Christian Rome which of them I pray you do those Fathers call the purple Harlot If heathen Rome why then do the Heretikes abuse their testimonies If Christian Rome it followeth that the Roman Church had degenerated then and Antichrist did raigne then which they themselues do not graunt Furthermore if Christian Rome was Babylon then why doth Tertullian de praescript say Happy Church to which the Apostles powred out their whole doctrine with their bloud And why doth S. Hierome lib. 2. cont Iouinianum in the end
speaking to Rome say Shall I speake to thee who hast wiped away the blasphemy written in thy forehead with the confession of Christ Finally the same is manifest out of S. Iohn himselfe who saith that he speaketh of that Rome who held the Empire ouer the Kings of the earth and which was drunke with the bloud of Saints and with the bloud of the Martyrs of Iesus which certainly haue not place but in that Rome which in the raigne of Nero and Domitian slew the Martyrs Thirdly I say although that Woman were Christian Rome as the heretikes would haue it yet their argument hath no force at all for as we shewed before Antichrist shall hate Rome and fight with it and consume and burne it out of which it manifestly followeth that Rome shall not be the seate of Antichrist To the second we haue already said that S. Paul in that place speaketh of the Temple of Salomon and to the reason which we made I answere that the Iewish Sacrifice and Priesthood ceasing the Temple also ceased to be the Iewish Temple but it ceased not forth with to be the tēple of God for the same Temple might be the Temple of Christians and indeed it was so so long as it remained for the Apostles preached in it and prayed after the Ascension of Christ and the comming of the Holy Ghost as is manifest by those words Luc. vltimo They were alway in the Temple praysing and blessing our Lord. Likewise Act. 3. Peter and Iohn went vp into the Temple at the ninth houre of prayer and Act. 5. the Angell sayth to the Apostles Speake in the Temple to the people all the words of this life To that of Daniel I answere that eyther Daniel would say that the Temple is not to be built againe but in the end of the world which is true for Antichrist shall not come but in the end of the world or that the desolation shall remaine for euer because though it were built againe yet the Temple should neuer be but prophaned after the ouerthrow made by Titus for when it shall be erected by Antichrist thē chiefly shall the abhomination of desolation remaine in it that is Antichrist himselfe or his Image or finally that the Temple should neuer be perfectly built againe but yet that the building should be begun that Antichrist should sit in the Temple begun in some sort To the places of the Fathers we haue already answered that they affirme or at least deny not that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of Salomon and wheras many of thē add that Antichrist shall also sit in the Churches of Christians it is true and not contrary to vs for the Fathers meane not that Antichrist shall sit in the Church as a Bishop as Heretikes dreame but that he shall sit as God For Antichrist shall command that all the Temples of the whole world be conuerted to his worship and he will make himselfe to be adored in them He will command saith S. Chrysostome in this place himselfe to be worshiped and reuerenced for God and to be placed in the Temple not only of Hierusalem but also in the Churches and the rest speake in the same manner To the arguments taken out of the words of S. Gregory I answere that out of his words the contrary of that is deduced which the heretikes infer for they argue thus The Bishop of Constantinople did forerun Antichrist because he made himselfe the Vniuersall Bishop therefore Antichrist shall be some Vniuersall Bishop who shall vsurpe all to himselfe But the contrary is inferred for the forerunner is not to be the same with him whome he forerunneth but farre lesse though like him in some thing as appeareth in S. Iohn Baptist and Christ If therfore the forerunner of Antichrist be he who maketh himselfe the vniuersall Bishop the true Antichrist himselfe shall not make himselfe that but some other thing greater viz. he shall extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God or if the true Antichrist shall only make himselfe the Vniuersall Bishop that Iohn of Constantinople who did this was not the forerunner of Antichrist but the true Antichrist himselfe which notwithstanding neither S. Gregory nor our Aduersaries say Wherfore 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 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 themselues to be Patriarches and after the title of Vniuersall In like manner when S. Gregory sayth an army of Priests is prepared for him he meaneth not that Priests as Priests belong to the army of Antichrist for so he should haue put himselfe in that army but that Priests as they are proude prepare an army for Antichrist for he speaketh of the same Iohn and of Priests like him who were extolled aboue the rest vniustly But hence it followeth not that Antichrist shall be the Prince of Priests but that he shall be the Prince of the Proud Out of this sixt head we haue a notable argument that the Pope is not Antichrist since his Seate is not Ierusalem nor in the Temple of Salomon yea it is credible since the yeare 600. no Bishop of Rome was euer at Hierusalem M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted 1. MAISTER Downam denieth that Antichrist shall fit at Hieresalem and to Bellarmines first proofe out of Apoc. 11. he answereth first that it may be doubted that S. Antichrist his Seate shall be in Ierusalē Iohn speaketh not of Antichrist because he seemeth to speake of the former beast Apoc. 13. which M. Downam supposeth not to be Antichrist But this is a very good confirmation that S. Iohn speaketh of Antichrist in this place also since it is certaine that he speaketh of him in the 13. chapter and expresseth Apoc. 11. Apoc. 13. See c. 5. §. 5. c. him by the former beast and in a manner all Interpreters agree that Antichrist is spoken of in both places and of this latter we haue said some thing before Secondly M. Downam confirmeth this his doubt that Antichrist is not spoken of Apoc. 11. because the Papists teach that Antichrist shall be the King of the Iewes and counterfaite Christians therfore by their owne Doctrine this persecution of the Church by the Gentiles should not be the persecution vnder Antichrist But the answere is easie as Ribera and others vpon this place learnedly declare for S. Iohn Why those that follow Antichrist are called Gentiles speaketh of the Church vnder the metaphor of the Temple and consequently calleth her enemies Gentiles because those that impugned the Temple were such and besides M. Downam cannot choose but know that the Papists thinke that all those which follow Antichrist though they were before Iewes and Christians
Scripture and many of M. Downams bretheren are ashamed to deny it and by all probability he would be at least afraid to affirme the contrary if he were well examined by the temporall Maiestrate Secondly sayth M. Downam the Pope and Church of Rome vaunt that they alone are the Catholike Church and that all others professing the name of Christ which are not subiect to the Pope or acknowledge not themselues members of the Church of Rome are heretikes or schismatikes This is very true indeed for we thinke that there is but one faith and one Church and whatsoeuer One faith and one Church Christians are out of it must needes be schismatikes at least if not heretikes and I would haue thought that M. Downam would not haue beene so absurd as to deny this common principle agreed of by all which if he had graunted he would not much haue meruailed that we hould our selues to be of the true Church and consequently that all that are not vnited to vs are out of the Church for we do no more then all other Churches and Congregations do And finally M. Downam must of force put some limits to his Church also which if he make so capable that it may comprehend vs also we shall in some sort be beholding vnto him though we cannot requite him with the like But when we know all the conditions that are required to be of his Church it will be an easy matter to inferre that whosoeuer wanteth those conditions must of force be out of it and so this exposition will agree aswell to M. Downams Church and any other as to the Roman How the third exposition may be applied to the Pope M. Downam explicateth not but only affirmeth that this is the most true exposition and agreeth properly to the Pope of Rome Of the truth we shall see in due place but how properly it agreeth to the Pope is not so easy to conceaue For first all the Churches of those which M. Downam taketh to be the only true or at least the best Christians acknowledg not the Pope at all and Catholikes acknowledg him only to be Christs Vicegerent vpon earth which is far from that which Antichrist shall do when he shall so sit in the Temple of God that he shall shew himselfe as if he were God himselfe Concerning the fourth opinion which pleaseth not M. Downam first he denieth it to be the more common opinion as Bellarmine affirmed it was and yet wheras Bellarmin bringeth an cleauen Authors for his opinion M. Downam bringeth but fiue for his foure of which affirme also as much as Bellarmine doth and are by him alleadged to that purpose which M. Downam could not choose but see and therfore thought good to add that the being more common doth not proue it to be the more true for truth goeth not by voyces neither is it See Part. 2. cap. 4. §. 15. to be weighed by the multitude of suffrages but by weight of reason By which you may imagine what a great deale of reason and wit M. Downam thinketh him selfe to haue and how little he attributeth to the Fathers But all this is but in his owne proud and foolish conceipt for all but himselfe will be easily perswaded that there was more wit and true wisdome in the meanest of these ancient Fathers then there is in this insolent Minister though he had many of his fellow Ministers ioyned with him Secondly he denieth this exposition to be more probable because the Temple shall neuer be reedified which were his wonted figure of petitio principij but that he addeth as hath bene shewed Wherfore I will not censure him any further till the Reader hath seene how learnedly he sheweth it and whether the Fathers or he haue more reason and probability in this point Thirdly he addeth that it were not materiall though this exposition were more litterall vnles the litterall were vsuall And to shew that it is not vsuall he obserueth that in all the Epistles by the Temple of God is meant the Church where first the Reader must marke that the word Temple is not vsed in any Epistle but only in this place of the 2. to the Thessalonians and in the 2. to the Corinthians and only in 3. Chapters of them both in the which the faithfull and their bodies are called the Temple of God because the Holy Ghost is present and Temple what it signifieth in the new Testamēt remaineth with them But how can this be applied to Antichrist sitting in the Temple of God and shewing himselfe as if he were God Can Antichrist dwell in the soules and bodies of men as in his Temple Or if he could were this hidden and spirituall sitting any ostentation or shewing of himselfe as God And yet in this place S. Paul affirmeth that Antichrist shall do so for which no doubt he must sit visibly in a visible Temple by which most properly is signified the Temple of Hierusalem yea when S. Paul wrote and for many yeares after only that was so called as Bellarmine proueth and is to be seene in all the foure Euangelists and the Acts of the Apostles Wherfore since this place may yea indeed must litterally be vnderstood of a materiall Temple aswell as many other places of the new Testament it is ridiculous folly in M. Downam to tell vs that in some few places the word Temple is to be taken spiritually also and contrariwise the word Church materially for of this we neuer made question Yea but saith M. Downam to sit in the Temple of God as God is to rule and raigne in the Church of God as if he were a God vpon earth By which expositiō he maketh all Prelats Magistrats which rule and raigne in the Church of God to sit in the Temple of God as God in the manner that S. Paul saith that Antichrist shal sit in the Tēple of God which is a fit interpretation for a Puritanicall Minister who seeketh to peruert the whole order Hierarchy of Gods Church by with drawing the Christian people from the obedience of their lawfull Pastours prepare thē to receaue Antichrist himselfe when he commeth and in the meane time his forerunners the Heretikes of which because Downam seemeth to haue byn a Puritan whē he wrote this M. Downam is one himselfe no meruaile though he pleadeth so hard for himself his fellowes and Maister but if he had meant to deale sincerly he should haue proued his exposition out of the Fathers or answered the authority of those which Bellarm. alleadgeth for himselfe neither of which he once attempteth but yet remitteth vs to another place See part ◠§. 13. 14. 15. where God willing we will examine all that he obiecteth 4. M. Downam hauing in this sort answered to Bellarmines proofes out of the Scripture returneth to his argument ad hominem where first he taketh great exception at Bellarmine for not putting the word true in the premisses and
yet expressing it in the conclusion which is a meere cauill for Bellarmine would not add any word in the premisses which he found not in Melancthon Caluin and Illyricus whose opinion he alleadged In the conclusion which was his owne he might very well expresse that which was necessarily to be vnderstood as Bellarmin explicateth out of Caluin himselfe for M. Downams deuise that the Church of Christ The Church comprehendeth not al that professe the name of Christ may be taken for the company of Christians that is of those that professe the name of Christ is too ridiculous since by this meanes he includeth all heretikes whatsouer who are indeed the Synagogue of the Diuell so confoundeth the Church of God and the Sinagogue of the Deuill wheras S. Paul saith that Antichrist shall sit in the TeÌ„ple of God he meaneth according to M. Downams interpretation the temple of the Diuell All which is so obsurd that the authors with whom Bellarmine disputeth would haue byn ashamed of so ridiculous an assertion and therfore they sought other cuasions as we shal see forthwith but now let vs go on with the other illation that the Protestants are out of the true Church for how the Temple of Hierusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of God we shall see afterward in the discussion of Bellarmines answeres to the arguments of the Protestants 5. Wherfore M. Downam to saue himselfe and his brethren from being out of the true Church of Christ is driuen to this exigent to deny that there is any one visible Catholike Church but only one invisible Catholike Church and many particuler visible Churches which is a most extrauagant and absurd paradox contrary both to Scriptures Fathers and Councells as Bellarmine sufficiently proueth lib. 4. de There is one visible Catholicke Church Ecclesia militant cap. 10. But now I will only oppose to this insolent madnes the authority of the Creed generally receaued of all where the Church is called One Holy Catholike and Apostolike and who seeth not that all which belong truly to Christ must agree in one faith and not to be deuided by schismes and heresies which in M. Downams conceipt can only happen in particuler Churches or at least in them only be acknowledged and rooted out So that if any particuler Church will wholy fall to either or rather if the chiefe head and pastour of any such Church shal become either schismaticall or hereticall there is not meanes left for his reduction since that he is not bound to be at vnity with other particuler Churches nor to subiect himselfe to any visible Catholike Church or to any visible head therof which is as much in effect as to say that Christ hath left no meanes vpon earth to decide controuersies concerning Faith or to take away schismes diuisions but that euery particuler Church or Pastor yea indeed euery particuler man may freely follow his owne fancies without contradiction or controlement of any so long as he can pretend any text of Scripture though neuer so much wrested and falsly vnderstood for that which he is resolued to hould And is it meruarle that heresies and schismes be so rife in our daies since these absurd paradoxes are so currant But what should heretikes and schismatikes do but defend schismes and diuisions and imâ—ugne vnity and concord which if they would admit they must of force returne to the Catholike Church whereit is only to be found Since therfore the visible Church of Christ is one and by the aduersaries confession it is the RomaÌ„ it followeth manifestly that they themselues are out of Christs Church since that they The ProtestaÌ„ts are out of the Church of Christ are out of the Roman For the other cauill which M. Downam maketh that the RomaÌ„ Church is a particuler Church is not worth the answering for euery child can tell him that the Roman Church is taken for all those which agree in faith and are vnited with the Bishop of Rome who is not only Bishop of that particuler Citty but also the head and Pastor of the whole Church which of him her Head is called the Roman Church which coÌ„tinueth the true Church of Christ as Bellarmine proueth and Melancthon Caluin and Illyricus dare not deny howsoeuer M. Downam is so impudent in his rayling consorting himselfe with a vaine Poet whose meaning notwithstanding was far better then M. Petrarcha Downams is 6. M. Downam hauing thus shufled vp the matter hitherto at length commeth to explicate himselfe more plainly and agreeth with Caluin that the Church of Rome vnder the Pope may be called the Church of God in respect both of some notes and signes of a visible Church as the administration of the Sacrament of Baptisme and the profession of the Name of Christ as also of some reliques and remainder as it were the gleanings of the inuisible Church for he doubteth not but that in the corruptest times of Popery the Lord hath reserued some who haue not receaued the marke of the beast And for explication he compareth the Church of Rome to the state of Israel vnder Ieroboam and Achab because they then retained the Sacrament of Circumcision and professed Iehoua to be their God although they worshipped him Idolatrously And euen vnder Achab the Lord had reserued 7000. who neuer bowed their knee to Baal In which comparison M. Downam insisteth wholy Downam his petitio principij vpon his wonted figure of Petitio principij and consequently all that he saith is but meere railing If he would haue said any thing to the purpose he should haue shewed two points in that example the first that the visible Church among the Iewes was altogeather ceased by that Idolatry of Israel The second that Israel departed not from the Religion which was generally houlden before but that the ancient Religion was by little and little changed to Idolatry and that those which came after separated themselues from the former and yet were the true Church With these two points M. Downam might haue made some comparison betwixt the people of Israel and the Church of Rome But since The Protestants like to Israel the Catholikes to Iuda neither of these are so but the quite contrary it will fall to M. Downam and his fellowes share to be like the people of Israel since they haue left the visible Church of which they once were as the other did and consequently the Church of Rome is like to the people of Iuda and the rest which ioyned with them since it continueth in the ancient faith generally holden throughout Christendome before there were any Protestants in the World Neither do we graunt that the Protestants haue any part of Christs Church no more then the Israelites had since they haue not any iote of true faith howsoeuer they make profession of some articles for the reason why they hould them is not the authority of God proposed by the Scriptures or the
the Kingdome of Gog shal be extolled But it is manifest that in the infancy of Christ no Kingdome was extolled but that of the Romans But without doubt the edition of the 70. is corrupted in this place for in Hebrew it is not Gog but Agag veâ—arom meagag malcho tolletur propter Agag vel prae Agag Rex etus And his King shal be taken away for Agag or in respect of Agag and the sense is according to S. Hierome in cap. 38. Ezech. and Saul the first King of Israel shall be taken away for Agag that is because he shall sinne not killing Agag or according to others Saul shal be extolled before Agag that is he shall preuayle and ouercome Agag Both are true And it is certaine that that place of Numer is vnderstood of the Kingdome of the Iewes and not of Christ or the Romans for it beginneth How faire are thy Tabernacles ó Iacob thy Tents ô Israel c. The fourth opinion is of others who by Gog and Magog vnderstand the battayles of the Diuell and his Angells long since past in Heauen with the good Angells which S. Hierome confuteth as destroying the letter in cap. 38. Ezechiel The 5. opinion of Theodorus Bibliander whom Chytraeus followeth in his Commentary vpon Apoc. 20. wherfore Bibliander Tab. 14. suae Chronologia where he treateth exactly of Gog and Magog and at length teacheth that the Prophesy of Ezechiel and S. Iohn pertayneth not to the same tyme but that the Prophesy of Ezechiel was fulfilled in the tyme of the Machabees and that Gog and Magog were Alexander the Great and his successors the Kinges of Egypt and Syria who fought many battayles with the Iewes and were at length ouercome by the Machabees and that the Prophesy of S. Iohn was fulfilled in the tyme of Gregory the 7. and of some ensuing Popes and that the Popes were Gog and Magog and the other Princes and armyes of Christians who fought a long tyme against the Saracens for the recouery of the holy Land and our Lords Sepulcher The first part of this opinion is also of Theodoretus in cap. 38. Ezech. but it cannot be defended First because without doubt the Prophesy of Ezechiel and S. Iohn is one and the same and therefore both are to be fulfilled after the comming of Christ for first S. Iohn saith that the army of Gog shall come from the foure corners of the earth and the same saith Ezechiel namely expressing that in the army of Gog there shal be Persians from the East Aethiopians from the South Tubal that is Spanyardes from the VVest and â—ogorma that is Phrygians from the coasts of the North. Secondly S. Iohn saith that this army shal be destroyed by fier sent from Heauen and the same affirmeth Ezechiel in the end of the 38. Chapter I will rayne saith he fier and brimstone vpon him and his Army Finally S. Iohn after this battaile presently addeth the renewing of Ierusalem that is the glorification of the Church and likewise Ezechiel from chap. 40. to the end of his booke treateth of nothing els but of the wonderfull renewing of Ierusalem Besides Secondly it is proued that the Prophesy of Ezechiel was not fulfilled in the tyme of the Machabees for Ezech. 38. it is said to Gog Thou shalt come in the last yeares but Alexander the Great with his came in the middle yeares Likewise Ezechiel expresly saith that in the army of Gog there shal be Aethiopians Lybians Spaniards Cappadocians c. which notwithstanding neuer fought against Ierusalem and chiefly in the tyme of the Machabees for only the Syrians and the Aegyptians fought against the Machabees Finally Ezechiel describeth such a victory against Gog and Magog that afterward no enemies were to be feared but all battayles should be ended but the victory of the Machabees was not such against the Kinges of Syria and Egypt for nether the Iewes did euer altogeather ouercome the Kinges of Syria and Egypt and a little after the Iewes were vexed and subdued againe by the Romans neither did they euer deliuer themselues out of their handes as S. Augustine deduceth and proueth lib. 18. de ciuitate Dei cap. 45. therefore the Prophesy of Ezechiel was not fulfilled before Christs tyme. The other part of Biblianders opinion which is his owne and peculiar to him is not only false but also impious for first S. Iohn saith that the battaile of Gog and Magog shal be against the Camp of the Saints and the beloued Citty that is against Gods true Church But the warre of the Christians for the recouery of the Holy Land was wholy against the Saracen Mahometans vnlesse perhaps Bibliander would haue the Mahometans to be the true Church and camp of the Saints Secondly S. Iohn saith that there shal be in the army of Gog men out of the 4. corners of the earth But in the Army of the Christians there were only out of the West and North that is French Germans Italians Besides S. Iohn saith that the warre of Gog and Magog being ended Hierusalem shall forthwith be renewed and glorified and that the Diuell Antichrist and the false Prophets shal be throwne into euerlasting fire But the warre of Christians for the Holy Land is long since ended and yet we see not any Hierusalem renewed nor the Diuell and the false Prophets cast into hell for now as our Aduersaries also confesse the Diuell and false Prophets most of all flourish Furthermore God himselfe by manifest signes and wonders aswell at Antioch of Syria as in other places manifestly shewed that that warre was acceptable vnto him of which see Gulielm Tyriâ—s lib. 6. de bello sacro and Paulus Aemilius lib. 4. de rebus Francorum Finally S. Bernard whom Bibliander calleth a Saint in Chronico where he treateth of the tymes of Eugenius the 3. besides other holy men was one of the chiefest Authors of this warre for he both by wordes and myracles perswaded an infinite multitude of French and Germans to go to that war as he himselfe sheweth initio lib. 2. de Consid and the author of his life lib. 2. cap. 4. writeth that S. Bernard after the battaile was ended restored a blind man to his sight in testimony that he had preached that warre in the name of God The 6. opinion is of the Magdeburgenses cent 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. column 435. where they teach that Gog Magog is the Kingdome of the Saracens or Turkes which opinion is wholy opposite to the opinion of Bibliander therfore it is better or rather lesse euill But yet absolutely it is falsâ— for Gog shall come in the last yeares and shall not endure long as it is plainly gathered out of S. Iohn Ezechiel But the Kingdome of the Saracens began long since and hath endured hitherto almost a thousand yeares which doubtlesse cannot be called a little tyme. The 7. is of S. Ambrose lib. 2. de fide cap. vlt. that Gog are the Gothes who destroyed
will permit no other Gods besides himselfe cap. 14. 11. 12. He shall commit the greatest sinnes when he cannot all cap 14. n. 12. How he may extoll himselfe aboue God ibid. he shall not worship or honour many Gods c 14 n. 14. He shall adore the diuell secretly c. 14. n. 14. his disposition ibid. He shall worke many signes c 15. n. 1. he is not proued to be King of the Iewes because Antiochus was so c. 16. n. 9. he shall arise from base estate cap. 16. n. 14. sequ He shall ouercome ◠Kings cap. 16. n 12. he shall subdue the 7 Kings which remayne after the three and so he shal be monarch of the whole world cap. 16. n 14. he shall persecute the Christians through the whole world with an innumerable army cap. 16. n. 1◠c. 17. per totum Antichristianisme is not Atheisme c. 4. n. 12. Antiochus Epiphanes is not spoken of at all in the 7. 11. chap of Daniel cap 7 n. 7. he was an Idolater c. 14. n. 12. he impugned not the Gods of Syria c. 14. n. 16. he worshipped many Gods ibid he was a type of Antichrist only in some principall points cap. 16. n. 3. Only he among the Kings of Syria is in the Scripture accounted a persecutour of the Iewes c 16. n. 7. how he arose from base estate cap. 16. n. 14. seq he inuaded not Egypt oftner then twice c. 16. n. 13. Antiochus Magnus Seleucus Philopater his elder sonne were the Iewes benefactors c. 16. n. 7. Arias Montanus cap. 6 n. 3. S. Augustine answereth Downams obiection c. 6 n 5. 8. he maketh no more doubt that Elias shall come then that S. Iohn Baptist is come ibid. The Apostasy is not the mistery of iniquity c. 2. n. 16. c. 14. n. 3. B BELL ARMINES aduantage in this controuersie cap. 1. n. 1. He agreeth with former Catholikes c. 1. n. 2. he is vniustly charged by Downam cap. 7. n. 5. c. 8. n. 5. c. 10 n. 7. c 14 n 10. c 16. n. 11. he vrgeth Downams obiection further then he doth himselfe c. 11. n. 9. his sincere dealing cap. 12. n. 1. He reuerenceth the Fathers c. 14. n 7. C CALVIN thinketh that only Christ is in heauen and that others stay without cap. 6. n. 6. The Canons of the generall Coūcell c ◠n. 4. Catholike doctrine standeth not so much vpon denyalls as the Protestants doth c. 12. 13. The Character of Antichrist shall be common to all in his Kingdome c. 11. n. 4. It shal be carryed not only by Christians but also by Iewes ibid. It may be carryed in the right hand or in the forhead ib. It is not profession or practise ibid. It shal be visible c. 11. n. 12. Christs first comming was not terrible as his second shall be c. 6. n. 3. His power and knowledge are not to be limited by that which he did cap. 2. n. 17 He and Antichrist cānot haue both one marke c. 11. n. 7. The Church of Christ cānot haue the marke of Antichrist c. 11 n. 5. The Church was alwayes subiect to the Pope ibid. The Church cōprehendeth not all that professe the name of Christ cap. 13. n. 4. There is one visible Catholike Church cap. 13. n. 5. It is to endure to the end of the world cap. 13. n. 7. Chrisme vsed in the Church before the yeare 607 c 11. n 6. how it maketh vs Christians ib. how it is more to be reuerenced then Baptisme ibid. The Conuerting of one argueth more power then the peruerting of many cap 6. n. 6 The Councell of Chalcedon cap. 3. n. 4. D THE Tribe of Dan fell not first to Idolatry c. 12. n. 2. Why it is omitted Apoc 7. ib. Dayes are not taken for yeares cap. 8. n. 7. The Diuell is signified by the beast Apoc 17. c. 15. n 5 6. M. Downam seemeth not to haue read so much of Bellarmine as he impugneth cap. 3. n. 4. he omiteth Bellarmines proofes and answereth his owne cap 4 n. 4. 5. 6. 7. he changeth Bellarmines argument c. 5. n ◠3. c. 8 n. 7. c 13. n. 9. he taketh the obiection and omitteth the answere c. 6 n. 4. c. 13 n 9. 10. He cannot defend his fellowes c. 2. n. 14. c. 6 n. 6. c 8. n. 7. c. 14. n. 12. 19. c. 16. n. 14. he impugneth his fellowes cap. 8 n 7. c. 10. n. 7. He impugneth himselfe cap. 12. n. 2. 9. c. 15. n. 5. ◠he contradicteth himselfe cap. 5. n 5. c. 10. n. 3. 4. 6. c 11. n. 4. 12. c. 13. n. 1. c. 16. n. 5. 7. 12. he speaketh from the purpose c. 2. n 12. 15. c 14. n. 6. 8. 10. c. 16. n. 4. 8. his petitio principij c. 2. n. 17. 20. c. 5. n. 3. c. 6. n. 4. c 7. n. 3. 7. c. 10 n. 4. 5. 7. c. 11. n. 4. 7. c. 13. n. 6. 8. 10. he dissembleth the difficulty c. 2. n. 20. c. 4. n. 7. c. 7. n. 4. c. 16. n. 11. his poore shifts c. 3. n. 1. 5. c. 6. n 4. his iuggling c. 10. n. 2. c. 12. n. 2. c. 13 n. 1. 2. he translateth not well c 3. n. 1 c. 5. n. 4. c. 15. n. 3. he expoundeth the Scripture childishly c. 4. n. 8 He mangleth the scripture c. 5 n. 5. c. 6. n. 5. he admitteth what translation interpretation he listeth c. 6. n. 3. he condemneth Ecclesiasticus the Iewes of his time c 6. n 4. he condemneth the Apostles and in some sort our Sauiour himselfe c. 6. n. 5. he ioyneth with Porphiry an Apostata against all ecclesiasticall writers and Iewes also c. 5. n. ◠6. 7. n. 7. c. 16. n. 5. Our Sauiours words in his opinion are not true c. 14. n. 7. his boldnes with the Scripture c. 14. n. 16. he ioyneth with the Iewes in impugning the Pope c. 16. n. 3. his exposition contrary to all others euen his owne fellowes c 16. n. 7. he belyeth the Primitiue Church against the testimonies of the Fathers c 13 n. 9. he scoffeth at S. Gregory cap. 6 n. 7. c 8. n. 6. he corrupteth S. Ireraeus his words and meaning c 10. n. 7. he impugneth the fathers authority c. 12. n. 2. he acknowledgeth the Fathers to be against him c. 14. n. 19. he abuseth S. Hierome c. 16 n. 9 he maketh much account of one Father if he fauoureth his fancy c. 4. n. 1◠he forgetteth what he impugneth c 5. n. 2 c. 7. n. 6. he confirmeth one absurdity with another far greater c 5. n. 2. he cutteth of those wordes which make most to the purpose c 6. n. 3 he proueth an vniuersall by a particuler c 10 n 3. he rūneth to generalities when he cannot answere the particuler argument c. 1◠n. 4. his strange paradexe cap. 14. n. 9. he belyeth the Pope and Church of Rome c. 14.
n. 17 he weakneth his fellowes arguments c. â— n. 9. his absurd folly c. 2 n. 10. He censureth the Fathers c 2. n 13. His vayne bragging c 2 n. 19 c. 6. n. 8. he addeth an head of his owne to the 7. of the beast Apoc. 17. c. 2. n 21. he is nothing scrupulous in his account c. 3. n. 3. his fond imagination c. 4. n. 10. his immodesty c. 4. n. 14. he is not moderate in his censure c. 5. n. 3. his impudency c 5. n. 3. c. 6. n. 3. c. 14. n. 4. He seemeth to thinke that the Diuel can do true myracles c. â— n. 5. c. â—5 n. 3. he attributeth more to merits then euer any Catholik did c. 6 n. 3. In his opinion Enochs translation maketh as much for any other vertue as for pennance contrary to the Scripture c. 6 n 4. 8. his Martyrs heretikes and rebells c. 7. n. 3. he maintayneth open rebellion and treason c. 7. n. 4. his shamlesselye c. 7. n. 3. his Porphiryes pertinacy c. 7. n. 7. his conferrence of Scripture ibid. his and Foxes exposition of Scripture c. 8. n. 3. his and his fellowes manner of disputing c. 7. n. 7. his childish cauill c 8 n 1. he maketh the ancient Church to be very corrupt c 11 n 5. his blasphemy ibid. He seemeth to haue bene a Puritan when he wrote of Antichrist c. 13. nu 3. 10. his trifling c. 14. n. 4. he belyeth Gregory the 7. cap. 16. n. 12. He belyeth the Cardinalls ibid. Why he admitteth any of the Fathers c. 16. n. 14. E THE Booke of Ecclesiasticus Canoricall Scripture cap 6. n 4. Elias and Enoch shall preach in a manner as long as Antichrist shall raigne cap. 6. n. 7. Elias shall come in person cap. 2. n 13 cap 6 per totum How Elias shall restore all things ibid. The necessity of the comming of Enoch and Elias cap 6 n 5 Enoch Elias are not in heauen cap 6. n 6 Enoch and Elias shall begin to preach in the beginning of Antichrists raigne cap. 8 n 4. The End of the world is not only the last instant c 9 n 4. Whether they which liue at Antichrists death may gather how long it is to the end of the world c. 8. n. 4. Only the iust and learned shall make this collection ibid. The Trybe of Ephraim not omitted Apoc. 7. cap. 12. n 2. When the proper Exposition is to be preferred cap. 4 n 12. How far diuers Expositions are to be admitted cap. 2. n 16. F RHE necessity of the Fathers expositions c. 10. n. 3. Their authority ibid how Catholikes esteeme of them cap. 12. n. 1. The Foolish dreame of the feele Fox c. 8. n. 3. G HOvv the Ghospell was in the whole world in the Apostles tyme cap 4 n 14. The Ghospell shal be preached to all Nations before Antichrists comming cap. 4. per â—oâ—â—m Greeke article when it signifieth a particuler thing c. 2 n 4 S. Gregory answereth Downams obiection cap c. n 8. Gregory the 14. c. 16. n. 12. Gog Magog c. 17. per totum H A Great Happinesse to be put to death by Antichrist cap. 6. n 8. The Herodians c. 12. n 10. Why Heretikes can worke no myracles cap. 15. n. 2. The 7. Heads of the beast Apoc. 13. are not the same with Apoc. 17. cap. 15. n. 4. The little Horne Dan. 7. is not the same with that of Dan. 8. c. 16. n. 1. S. Hippolytus cap. 11. n. 12. I IANSENIVS cap. 6. n. 4. S. Ierome confuteth Porphiry Downam c 7. n 7. The Importance of the controuersie c 1 n. 1. The Interruption of the Iewes sacrifice was only 3. yeares c. 7. n. 7. Iosephus corrupted c. 8. n 2 Iupiter cap 14 n 12 K THE Kingdomes wherof Daniel speaketh were not to be ended before Christ cap. 16. nu 5. WheÌ„ our Sauiour is to destroy theÌ„ ibid. When he began spiritually to ouerthrow them ibid. The â— Kingdomes into which that of Alexander was deuided belong to the beast described Dan. 7. and not to the 4. c. 16. n 6. 18. The Kingdomes of the Lagidae and Seleuâ—idae caÌ„not be signified by the 4 beast Dan. 7. c. 16. n. 6. Why theâ— Kings which Antichrist shall slay are called the 3. first â—â— former c. â—â— n. 1â— L THE Latin Interpreter is nor to be reiected cap. 6. n. 4. The name of Latin cannot be giuen to the Pope c. 10. n. 4. It contayneth not the number 666. ib. n. 7. How Latria is giuen to the Crosse by Catholikes c. 11. n. 1â— Why the Tribe of Leui is often omitted c. 1â— n. 2. M MARTINVS 5. his Bul against the Huffites cap 11. n. 4. A Mortall man may be truly called God cap 14. n. 1â— Maozim signifieth not the true God c. 14. n 14. It may signify Antichrist ibid. It signifieth a strong tower cap 14. n. 15 Myracles in generall belong both to good bad c. 15. n 2. Why the diuells help is necessary to worke counterfait Myracles c. 5. n. 5. c. 15. n. 3. N THE Name which contayneth the nuÌ„ber 666. shal be the proper vsual name of Antichrist c. 10. n. 7. Many Names contayne that number ibid. Nilas cap. 15 n. 2. O THE Oath of Obedience made to the B. of Rome before the yeare 606. cap. 11. n. 8. If the Oath be lawful the often exacting of it is not culpable ibid. One faith one Church c. 13. n 3. P PROTESTANTS put Catholikes to death for ReligioÌ„n c 7. n. 4. An inuisible Persecution of an inuisible congregation cap. 7. n. 6. Phoâ—as gaue not the title of vniuersall to the Pope c. n. 4. And that which he gaue the Pope had before ibid. The Pope hath power to depose Princes for the spirituall good of Christs Church cap. 3. n. 5. The Popes whom the Protestants account Antichrist arise not from base estate cap. 16. n. 11. The Pope no temporal Monarch cap. 16. n. 14. The Protestants expositioÌ„ of Scripture not much worth cap. â— n. 16. How much they agree with the Samosatens and all other heretikes c. 3. n 2. Their disagreement about Antichrists coÌ„ming c 3 n. 3. The Prophesies concerning the destruction of Ierusalem and the end of the world intermingled c 4. n. 9. The Persecution of Catholikes in England c. 7 n. 4. R THE reason of Romes preheminence is not because it is the chiefe Citty c. 3. n. 4. X. Kings shall diuide the Roman Empyre among them so that there shal be no Roman Emperour in their time cap 5. n. 2. The Roman Empyre signified by the 2. iroÌ„ Legs of Nabuchodonosors Statua and the 4. beast Dan 7. cap. 5. n. 2. By the 10. toes of Nabuchodonosors Statua and the 10. hornes of the 4. beast Dan. 7. are signified the 10. Kings which shall deuide the Roman Empyre among them cap. 5. n. 2. The Roman Empyre shal be vtterly destroyed by the 10. Kings c. 5. n. 3. per totum How many wayes the Fathers affirme the vtter destruction of the Roman Empire why they speake sparingly of this point c. 5. n. 3. There is now a Roman Emp. indeed and not in name or title only cap. 5. n. 3. The name Romanus contayneth not the number 666 c. 10. n. 7. To cleaue to the Roman Church was the signe of a true Catholike before the yeare 696. c. 11. n. 7. How the Church of Rome is vnited staÌ„deth with other Churches ibid. Those which belong not to the Church of Rome belong not to Christ but to Antichrist ibid. Not Christian but Heathen Rome is called Babylon and an Harlot Apoc 17. c. cap. 13. n. 8. S SACRIFICE for the dead vsed before the yeare 606. c 11. n. 10. The difficulty of Scripture and why many erre in the interpretation therof cap 7. n. 7. When the Scripture is litterally to be vnderstood of the figure and when of the thing figured c. 14. n. 13. How we may argue from the mysticall sense of Scripture c. 10. n. 3. The mysticall Sâ—nse intended by the holy Ghost ibid. Except the litterall Sense be certaine we caÌ„not argue from it ibid. The consent of the Fathers maketh both Senses certayne ibid. Why Seleucus Philopater is called Vilissimus c. 16. n. 8. The Seauenty two Interpreters not to be reiected c. 6. n. 7. The Sybils verses of Adrian are expounded c. 10. n. 2. Why Symeon is omitted in Moyses his blessing cap. 12. n. 2. How the Signes of Antichrist shal be lying c. 15 n. 1. T TEMPLE what it signifieth in the new Testament c. 13. n. 3. How the Temple of Ierusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of God c. 13. n 9. And it shal be built again in the end of the world ibid. But it shal be alway prophane ibid. It shall not be finished ibid. The thousand yeares Apoc. 2. are to be taken indefinitely cap. 7. n. 2. By the great Tribulation Matth. 24. is meant the persecution of Antichrist a little before the end of the world cap. 4. n. 5. 13. The Turks inferior to Antichrist c. 14. n. 7. V VNCTION of Priests vsed before the yeare 606 cap. 11. n. 9. The word vntill signifieth neither continuance nor cessation but is indifferent to both cap. 13. n. 9. Vrbanus 7. cap. 16. n. 12. FINIS Faultes escaped in the Printing Page Line Fault Correction â—8 29. is forerunner is forerunne 41. 39. in the Apostasy in the Apostles time 133. 33. beginning neither beginning neither ibid. 8. hatred of hatred out of 172. 15. deemeth denyeth 180. 34. graunteth groundeth 192. 12. 19. and last chapter 19. last chapters 229. 34. former grounds founder grounds 237. 38. them so them so 266. 39. Antichrist sitting Antichrist his sitting 272. 20. all Idols also Idols 275. 2. frame himselfe feigne himselfe 276. 7. shewing as shewing himselfe as 281. 7. prouided proued 298. 5. proue that proue but that 310. 18. tortures torturers 315. 29. Antichrists Antichrist 320. 36. one and one And 335. 23. as neither the 2. as neither the 3. 339. 34. exposition wherof exposition wherof 380. 1. Maozim Neither Maozim who seeth not that Christ is the God Maozim Neither c. 387 13. bould of bloud of 413. 24. aboue those about those Other faultes of lesse moment by reason of the obscure copy and absence of the Author haue likewise escaped which the Reader may easily find and correct of himselfe