city that is the church vnder the heathen namelie the persecuting Emperours for 42. moneths which is mentioned Apocalypse 13. 5. But supposing it to be vnderstood of Antichrist his persecution let vs consider the force of their argument Where the two witnesses of God are slayne by Antichrist there is say they the seat of Antichrist At Ierusalem the two witnesses of God shall bee slaine therefore at Ierusalem shall be the seat of Antichrist The proposition they take for graunted the which notwithstanding is not generallie true For the two witnesses of God may bee slaine in that place by the authoritie and commaundement of Antichrist where his proper seat is not For as our Sauiour Christ was put to death by the authority of the Romane Empire at Ierusalem where notwithstanding was not the imperiall seat of the Emperour So the witnesses of our Sauiour Christ might be slaine by the authority and commaundement of the Antichrist of Rome either at Ierusalem or else where where notwithstanding is not the proper seat of Antichrist This alone is sufficient to ouerthrow their whole argument For if their proposition be not generally true then their whole argumentation from a particular proposition is mere sophistry 17 Notwithstanding their assumption is also to be denyed because the holy ghost speaketh not of Ierusalem as Hierome proueth but of Rome or rather of the Empire of Rome Yea but say they Christ also was crucified where the two witnesses should bee slayne at Ierusalem Christ was crucified and not at Rome therefore at Ierusalem the two witnesses should bee slayne I answere to the assumption Christ was crucified at Ierusalem and in the great city also that is to say within the Romane Empire wherein and by authoritie where of our Sauiour Christ was put to death In which sence the Rhemists seeme to apply this prophecy to Rome If by the great city say they is meant any one city it is most like to be old Rome For by in Apoc. 17. 18. the authoritie of the old Romane Empire Christ was put to death first Whereunto I might adde that euen in Rome it selfe Christ hath bene crucified in his members and that within Ierusalem Christ was not crucified Heb. 13. 12. Now that Ierusalem is not here meant but Rome or rather the Romane Empire I proue first because it is called the great citie By which title throughout the Apocalypse is meant Babylon or Rome as appeareth by conference of these places Apoc. 14 8. and 16. 19. 18. 10. 16. 18. 19. 21. but especially Apoc. 17. 18. where the woman that is the whore of Babylon is said to be the great city which reigneth ouer the kings of the earth And of this great city i. Empire of Rome which as it is called Sodome which is the name of a city so also Egypt which is the name of a kingdom the streets may fitly signifie the cities or townes of the seuerall prouinces Once only is this title giuen to Ierusalē then not to the earthly Ierusalem but to the heauenly Ap. 21. 10. And so Augustine expoūdeth this place In pla Homil. 8. ◅n Apoc. te is ciuit at is magnae i. in medio ecclesiae in the streets of the great city that is in the middest of the church Sauing that by the name church he must needs vnderstand an adulterous apostaticall church which elsewhere is called the whore of Babylon because as it foloweth in the text it is called spiritualy Sodō or E For euen as in the middest of the church euen at Ierusalē christ was crucified so also the two witnesses of Christ were to bee slaine in the middest of the church euen in that city which professeth her selfe to be as it were the Ierusalem of Christendome Secondly the great city whereof he speaketh is called spirituallie Sodom or Egypt Sodom for her pride and vncleannes Egypt for her idolatrie and crueltie towards the Israell of God Which titles most fitly agree to Rome which is not inferiour either to Sodome in pride and vncleannesse or to Egypt in grosse idolatry and sauage cruelty towards the Mat 4. 5. Mat. 27. 53. church of God But they are not in this place ascribed to Ierusa lem which in the Apocalypse and elsewhere in the new testament is called the holy city euen then when it had crucifyed our Sauiour Christ. And not to seeke further euen in that eleuenth chapter of the Apocalypse vers 2. neither is the citie of Ierusalem in the Apocalypse any where spoken of in the ill Hicrome ad Marcell part This is also Hieroms argument in his Epistle to Marcella None of the holy scripture saith he can be contrary to it selfe and much lesse the same place of scripture For about ten verses before Ierusalem is called the holy city Now if it be called the holy city euen after the passion of our Lord how is it againe call◅d Cap. 13. spirituallie Sodom and Egypt But Bellarmine answereth that Hierome did not write this in good sooth by which aunswere it were easie to elude any testimony as though Hierome made no conscience to write vntruthes especially in so waightie a Irenaus matter although in the name of others Thirdly before the time of this reuelation which was in the latter end of Domitians raigne the temple and city of Ierusalem were vtterly destroyed and neuer so to be reedified as to become the seat of Antichrist therefore this place cannot be vnderstood of Ierusalem Wherefore these obiections notwithstanding our assertion remaineth fi◅e and stedfast that Antichrist was to sit in Rome christened and professing her selfe the church of God Euen as the Bishops of Germanie in Auentinus applying both this prophecie of Paul and that of Iohn Apocalypse 17 to the Lib. 5. hist. Boe. Antichrist of Rome In Babylonia say they in temple Dei sedet he sitteth in Babylon in the temple of God 18. Now let vs further consider what other euasions they vse to auoide this trueth First they say that Babylon did not signifie any one citie but the whole societie of the wicked Secondly if it signified any one citie that then it was olde Rome Now thirdly if the whore of Babylon doe signifie Rome christened that yet notwithstanding it is not as Bellarmine De Pont. Rom. lib. 3. c. 13. is not ashamed to say the seat of Antichrist But if Rome christened or Church of Rome be the whore of Babylon as wee haue proued though our aduersaries should not confesse it then is it so called because shee is an adulterous and apostaticall church which hath fallen from Christ to Antichrist whom in steed of Christ she acknowledgeth to be her husband and head then is she the mother both of all fornications Apoc. 17. 5. that is of all superstitious and idolatrous worshippe and also of al abominations as Atheisme Machiauellisme Sodomy and Antichristian heresies with whom the Kings and inhabitants Apoc. 17. 2. 4. of
seuen heads of the Romane state as vndoubtedly hee is and as our aduersary here confesseth then can it not be denied but that the Pope who is the seuenth head is Antichrist 5 The other interpretation that the beast with seuen heads doth signifie the whole multitude of the wicked is senselesse and absurd For if the beast be the vniuersall company of the wicked what is the world which verse 3. is said to wonder after the beast what are all the kinreds tongues nations which are made subiect to the beast verse 7. who are all those inhabitants of the earth that do worship him doth not the holy Ghost plainely say verse 8. that they are those whose names are not written in the booke of the Lambe that is to say the company of the wicked and reprobates When as Bellarmine therefore saith that this beast signifieth either the Romane Empire or the whole company of the wicked wee may adde but it signifieth not the whole company of the wicked It remaineth therefore that it signifieth the Romane state whereof Antichrist is a head But although Antichrist bee one head of the seuen yet it followeth not that the head which was as it were wounded to death is Antichrist but rather the estate of Emperours which then was For albeit the bâ—…ast with seuen heads doth signifie the Romane state in generall yet in that place it seemeth to bee described as it was subiect to the sixt head In the 17. chapter as it is renewed and subiected to the Antichristian state For the beast which he there speaketh of which was and is not though it be was after to arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and being the eight in order was in name one of the seuen on which beast as also vpon those waters that is nations wherof the old Empire did arise the whore of Babylon whereby is meant the Antichristian state sitteth that is ruleth and raigneth as a Queene 6 And that it may appeare that there is no necessitie that we should vnderstand this wound of Antichrist let vs consider what wounds the Romane state had receiued and was cured thereof First therefore by the death of Iulius Caesar and the ciuill warres therevpon ensuing the Romane Empire receiued as it were a deadly wound yet recouered it so againe as that in Augustus and some of his successors it flourished more then euer before And this some thinke to be the wound of the beast which was cured whereof the holy Ghost here speaketh describing the beast by that which was knowne to haue bene done in the Romane state The second wound which the Romane Empire receiued was at the death of Nero in whom the stocke of the Caesars ended which being cut off the succession of the Imperiall Crowne was vncertaine and by the vncertaintie of succession the like desolation threatned to that Empire which happened to the Graecian Monarchy after the death of Alexander the great the Empire being left as a prey for the mightiest Neither was this wound cured vntill Uespasian obtained the Empire For after Nero Sergius Galba seized vpon the Empire and enioyed the same but seuen monethes and seuen dayes And albeit to establish the succession hee had adopted Piso yet was hee murdered by Syluius Otho who succeeded him and Otho after three moneths and fiue dayes was slaine by Uitellius who also after eight moneths was deposed and put to an ignominious death by Uespasian In whom the Empire which since the death of Nero had bene incertum vagum as Suetonius saith was established and as it were cured of the former wound which diuers learned men thinke to be vnderstood in this place Others rather expound this deadly wound of the dissolution of the Empire in the West Augustulu being ouercome by the Gothes and the Empire in the West lying voyd vntill Charles the great in whom this wound was after a sort cured Therefore although Antichrist be one of the heads of this beast yet seeing he is but one of the seuen and the holy Ghost speaketh of this Empire especially as it was ruled by the sixt head that is to say the Emperours there is no necessitie nay no probabilitie that by the head which was wounded wee should vnderstand Antichrist especially seeing Antichrist is afterwards described at large and that by these notes among others that he causeth men to worship the former beast whose mortall wound was healed verse 13. and caused an Image to be made to the beast which had the deadly wound verse 14. which as appeareth also by the Image was the Romane state vnder the Emperors for thereof the Empire renewed is an Image 7 But now suppose that Antichrist were this head which was wounded and cured as he is not yet how doth it follow that therefore Antichrist shall faigne himselfe to die and rise againe seeing he speaketh not of a particular mans death and resurrection as the Papists imagine but of the wounding and curing of a state signified by the head Neither speaketh he of death and resurrection but of wounding and curing neither is the wound and the cure counterfeit and faigned but the wound is truly inflicted and truly cured such as was both the wound of the Romane Empire either at the murther of Iulius Caesar or death of Nero or vanquishing of Augustulus and also the cure in Augustus in Vespasian and as Bellarminee else-where De translat imperiâ—… lib. 1. cap. 4. saith in Carolus Magnus If therfore neither Antichrist be spoken of in this place nor yet he who is spoken of doth faigne himselfe to die and rise againe how is it proued from these words that Antichrist shall faigne himselfe to die and rise againe Chap. 16. Of the kingdome and battailes of Antichrist COncerning the kingdome and battailes of Antichrist we reade foure thinges in the scriptures 1 saith Bellarmine 1. that Antichrist arising from a most base estate shall by fraude and deceit obtaine the kingdome of the Iewes 2. that he shall fight with three kings to wit of Egypt Libya and Aethiopia and hauing ouercome them shall possesse their kingdomes 3. that he shall subdue seuen other kings and by that meanes shall become the Monarch of the whole world 4. that with an innumerable army he shall persecute the Christians in the whole world and that this is the battaile of Gog and Magog Of all which seeing none agreeth to the Pope it followeth manifestly that he can by no meanes be called Antichrist To these foure points I will answere first ioyntly to them all and then seuerally to euery one For whereas Bellarmine saith that these foure thinges are read in the scriptures concerning the kingdome and battailes of Antichrist I answere that not any one of these foure is to be found in the scriptures and therefore that this argument as it is the last so of least force and that his disputation standing now as it were on the tilt he seemeth to drawe of the lees Notwithstanding the
and therefore the Angell nūb eth them vers 10. Fiue saith he are fallen one is and the other is Apoc 17. 10. not yet come which is verified of these 7. regiments wherof I spake For the regiments of Kings Consulles Decemuirs Tribunes Dictators were ceassed in the Apostles time One that is of the Emperours then was and the seuenth that is to say of the Popes was not yet come And as touching the Romane Empire erected and reuiued by the Pope it is the beast that was a flowrishing imperiall state but is not Apoc. 17. 8. indeede and in trueth the Empire of Rome but rather an image of it Apocal. 13. although it bee in name and title the Empire of Rome This beast that was and is not it is also the eight head or regiment and is one of the seuen namely of Apoc. 17. 11. Emperours 5. Secondly that Rome is mysticall Babylon it may bee Hieronym in Esay cap. 47. v. 1. item in epist. ad Marcell◅ quaest 11. ad Algasiam in praef de spirit sanct ad Paulin proued by the testimonies of very good Authours Ierome saith Romanam vrbem in Apocalypsi Ioannis Epistola Petri Babylonem specialiter appellar◅ that the citie of Rome is called Babylon specially in the Reuelation of Iohn and epistle of Peter Augustine calleth Rome the second Babylon and Babylon of the West To these we may adde Tertullian Primasius Victorinus who saith the seuen heads are the seuen hilles on De ciuit Dei lib. 18. cap. 22. 27. which the woman that is the citie of Rome doth sitte Prosper and many others Sibylla also oftentimes expresly calleth Rome Babylon Lib. aduers. Indaeos 3. 6. Thirdly by the confession of our aduersaries themselues De promiss praedict For first to proue that Peter was at Rome they say that by Babylon mentioned 1. Pet. 5. 13. is meant Rome although there can no sufficient reason be giuen why the Apostle if he had meant Rome should not rather haue vsed the name of Rome then of Babylon Secondly the Rhemists conuicted with clearenesse of truth writing on the last verse of the 17. of the In Apoc. 17. 18. Apocalypse confesse that if by Babylon is meant any one citie which before we haue proued it is most like to be old Rome And on the 5. verse they doe confesse that as the persecuting Emperours which as they say were figures of Antichrist did principally sit in Rome so it may well be that the great Antichrist shall haue his seate there And againe on the 18. verse they alledge a reason For say they by the authoritie of the old Romane Empire Christ was put to death first applying the prophecie of the 11. Chapt. verse 8. to Rome thereby at vnawares confessing that Rome is that great citie which as in the 17. of the Apocalyps is called Babylon mystically so in that place is termed spiritually Sodom and Egypt where our Lord was also crucified Thirdly the authour of the Wardword not knowing how to denie this so euident trueth is content thus farre to agree with vs that Rome is Babylon For not onely S. Iohn saith he in the Apocalyps but Peter also in his Epistle doth call Rome Babylon and we doe not denie it Bellarmine also confesseth so much Per meretricem intelligi Romain that Lib. 3. de pont R. c. 13. by the whore of Babylon is to be vnderstood Rome and proueth the same by the testimonie of Tertullian and Hierome Therfore seing mysticall Babylon is the chiefe citie and See of Antichrist as our aduersaries cannot denie with any shewe of reason and seing Rome is mysticall Babylon as hath bene proued not onely by reason testimonies but also by the confession of our aduersaries the conclusion must necessarily be inferred that Rome therefore is the seate of Antichrist 7 What then what cā the Papist answer to this syllogisme Mysticall Babylon is the seat of Antichrist Rome is mysticall Babylon Therfore Rome is the seat of Antichrist It may well be ◅y the Rhemists that the great Antichrist shall haue his seate there And we doe not denie saith the authour of the Wardword but that Rome is Babylon And Bellarmine doth not onely say it but proue it How then Forsooth wee must distinguish of Rome For Rome is either Heathenish or Christened Heathenish Rome vnder the persecuting Emperours was Babylon But Rome Christened is the Apostolicke See and as it were the Ierusalem of the Christians But this cuasion of theirs howsoeuer they please themselues in it is friuolous and absurde as shall appeare by these reasons For 1. first if Rome be Babylon as now at the length they confesse and consequently the seate of Antichrist as they cannot denie with any shewe of reason I would faine know of them whether vnder the heathenish Emperours Rome could be called the seat of Antichrist because Antichrist did then sitte in Rome or because he was to sitte there after the Heathenish Emperours were remoued If they say because he sate there then their answere is ridiculous and contrary to all that themselues hold concerning Antichrist Therefore they must needs confesse that Rome is called Babylon and the seat of Antichrist not because Antichrist sate there whiles it was heathenishe but because he was to sitte there after the Emperours were remooued 8 And that the holy ghost by Babylon doth not meane Heathenish Rome vnder the persecuting Emperours either onely or principally but Rome christened vnder the Pope it may further appeare out of the whole discourse of Saint Iohn in the seuenteenth and eighteenth of the Apocalypse The whore of Babylon is the great city which in the Apostles 2. time and since vnder the Popes reigned ouer the kings of the earth called a whore and the mother of fornications not onely because her selfe hath by spirituall fornications plaid the strumpet according to that which is sayd of Ierusalem Fidelis ciuit as fact a est meretrix The faithfull city is become an Esay 1. harlot but also infected al kings and nations subiect vnto her with her superstition idolatry But Rome heathenish which neither dealt by whorish sleights and allurements but by martiall pollicy and power neither had professed her selfe to bee the Church and spouse of Christ could not so fitly be called an harlot whereby is signified an adulterous and apostaticall state And besides Heathenish Rome for the most part permitted to euery countrey their owne religion and was so far from enforcing her religion vpon other nations subiect vnto her that as in her was erected the Pantheon in honour of all the Gods which Boniface the fourth hauing obtained of Phocas Marcellin lib. 16. Rosin lib. 2. c. 9. consecrated to the virgin Mary and all the Saints so shee admitted the idoles religions and superstitions allmost of all other countries excepting the religions of the Egyptians and the Iewes because they did not forsooth beseeme the maiesty of the
wicked man shal be reuealed That this is to be vnderstood of the Romane Empire he not onely affirmeth but also confirmeth by the testimonies of diuers of the Fathers the which we are so farre from denying that from hence as one especiall argument we prooue the Pope to be Antichrist But neither the Apostle nor any of the Fathers excepting Lactantius whose Prophecie in this point the Papists themselues do thinke to be erronious doth say that the Empire of Rome shall so vtterly be abolished as that not so much as the name of the Emperour or King of the Romanes shall remaine which Bellarmine should haue prooued For otherwise that the Empire was indeed dissolued before the reuelation of Antichrist the holy Ghost prophecied the euent hath prooued and we doe willingly confesse Quâ—… tenebat de medâ—… fit Ad Gerontid de Monogamia saith Ierome in his time non intelligimus Antichristum appropinquare He which held is taken away and doe we not vnderstand that Antichrist is at hand Yea but saith Bellarmine the Romane Empire is not yet vtterly destroyed and therefore Antichrist is not yet come Neither is it necessary it is sufficient that he which hindered the reuelation of Antichrist waâ—… done out of the way which was done first by remoouing the Imperiall seate from Rome which was to be the seate of Antichrist as hath beene prooued secondly by the dissolution of the Empire in the West As for the Empire renued by the Pope that hindereth not Antichrist but rather furthereth as hath beene shewed and therfore there is no necessitie that it should be taken away Neither is there now an Emperour of the Romanes indeed but onely in title without the thing it selfe as enjoying neither the citie of Rome it selfe nor yet the Prouinces And therefore either vnskilfully or sophistically are these Emperors which haue no imperiall authoritie either in the citie or the prouinces compared with those ancient Emperours who although they had the Empire wanted Rome it selfe 5. And hereby appeareth the error of our aduersaries who thinke that Antichrist commeth not before the vtter desolation of the Romane Empire whereas neither of the Apostles Paul or Iohn do say so but rather the contrary as hath bin shewed For to omit the rest before alledged Iohn saith Apoc. 13. That one head of the beast meaning the state of the emperors had indeed â—…ceiued deadly wounâ—… both in respect of Rome the head city and of the Emperours in the West but was cured therefore not vtterly destroyed and cured by the Pope both in respect of the city and in regard of the Emperour And therefore the Pope is Antichrist as some of our writers infer because this wound was to be cured by the second beast which figureth Antichrist And Ambrose saith vpon 2. Thes. 2. That Antichrist shall restore libertie to the Romans but in his owne name Bellarmine answereth That he readeth no where in Iohn that the beast which signifieth the Romane Empire was to be cured by antichrist Yea but this he might haue read that the second beast which is Antichrist causeth the image of the beast that is the new Empire to be made and putteth life vnto it For by this renuing of the Empire Bellarmine elswhere De translat imperij lib. 1. c. 4. prosesseth that the Romane Empire was restored to the same estate wherin it was before Augustulus But what hath Bellarmine read in Iohn Forsooth That one of the heads of the beast should dye and shortly after rise againe by the helpe of the diuel which the Ancient expouÌ„d of Antichrist who shall faine himselfe to be dead and by diuellish art rise againe that so by resembling the true death and resurrection of Christ he might seduce many First it is euident that the former beast figureth not Antichrist but the Romane state and that vnder the Romane Emperors especially Secondly it is not said that one of the heads did faine it selfe dead and by the helpe of the diuell did rise againe which needed not if the death were couÌ„terfeit but that one of the heads had receiued a deadly wound was cured againe The head was the state of the Emperours to wit the sixt head which receiued a deadly wound in Augustulus after whom the Empire in the West lay voide 325. yeares But this head was cured after a sort in Charlemaine his successouâ—…s in whom there was an image of the former Emperours erected by the Pope And therefore this state of Emperours renued in Charlemaine and his successours is said to be the eight head of the beast yet is one of the seuen So that the sixt head which before was wouÌ„ded to death was cured after a sort repaired in theÌ„ This in substance is confessed by Bellarmine himself in this chapt where vnderstanding by the two legs of the image §. quod 〈◊〉 in Daniel the Westerne and Easterne Empire he saith That the Westerne which was the one leg failed namely in Augustulus and was after erected in Charlemaine and that as else-wheré he boasteth by the Pope Now whereas Bellarmine laboureth to prooue that this head which was wounded to death and reuiued againe is not Charles the great he sheweth himselfe rediculous in fighting with his owne shadow For by the head is not meant any one man but the state and succession of Emperours which was interrupted and cut off in Augustulus renewed in Charles the great and his successours And that which is added concerning the vniuersalitie either of worship or of rule is not spoken of the head which was reuiued but of the beast which was to Apoc. 13. 7. 8. haue one of his seauen heads wounded to death cuted againe The sixt Chapter answering his third demonstration concerning Enoch and Elias 1. NOw we are to come to those signes which in Bellarmines conceit are to accompany Antichrist the former wherof is the comming of Enoch and Elias in the flesh to oppose themselues against Antichrist and to conuert the Iewes From whence Bellarmine reasoneth thus If Enoch and Elias be not yet come againe in the flesh then Antichrist is not yet come But Enoch and Elias are not yet come againe in the flesh and therefore Antichrist is not yet come To the proposition I answer first that if Enoch and Elias were to come in their owne persons before the second comming of Christ as some of the Ancient haue thought and that to oppose themselues against Antichrist as the Papists dreame yet it followeth not that therefore Antichrist should not be come before their comming It is sufficient that they come before his ouerthrowe and the second comming of Christ. And therefore if they were indeed to come their coÌ„ming might yet be expected notwithstanding the truth of our assertion that Antichrist is already come But if Enoch and Elias be not to come againe in their owne persons before the end of the world to fight against Antichrist what force of
Act. 17. 53. 23. 10. hinder and was to be taken away and in what sence it hindered not and was to remaine For the better vnderstanding whereof we are to distinguish betwixt the old Empire and 1. Cor. 5. 2. 2 Coâ—… 6. 17. the new The old Empire as it hindered the dominion of Antichrist was to be taken out of the way that it might bee no more an hinderance thereunto The new Empire in the west erected by the Pope hindreth not the dominion of Antichrist but rather supporteth him and therefore together with Antichrist was to remaine Neither doth the Apostle speake of the new Empire but of the old as shall appeare by these reasons 3 First the Apostle speaketh of the Empire which hindered 1. or held then of that only for so he saith only he which now letteth wil let vntill he be taken out of the way And Hierome expoundeth those words and now what hindreth you know after Ad Algas quaest 11. this maner quae causa sit vt Antichrist us in praesentiaruÌ„ non veniat optimè nostis You know very well what the cause is that Antichrist cometh not now But the old Empire hindered them and not the new And therefore the Apostle speaketh of the taking away of the old Empire not of the new Again when he saith 2. the Empire hindred he meaneth the imperial authority dominioÌ„ that at Rome not the title or name therof in Germany For it is not the name or title of an Emperour in Germany that can hinder the dominion of Antichrist at Rome much lesse at IerusaleÌ„ where the Papists say his seat shall be Thirdly 3. Antichrist appeared shewed himselfe and in that sence was reuealed before the erection of the new Empire For the new Empire is the image of the former beast which Antichrist the 2. beast Ap. 13. causeth to be made And wheras Antichrist is as the Papists also coÌ„sesse the 7. head of the beast which hath heads the Empire renewed which is the beast that was and is not though it be is the 8. in order though in name it is one of the 7. and in that sence is to bee referred to the sixt head namely the Emperours Fourthly the whore of Babylon that 4. is the Antichristian state was to sitte vpon the beast which afterwards was to ascend that is the Empire renewed Therfore with Antichrist there was to remaine an imperial state though much abased vnder him Fiftly the Empire renewed is the 5. beast whereon the whore of Babylon sitteth And therefore is Ioan de turrecrem lib. 2. c. 114. so farre from hindring Antichrist that it supporteth him as the beast doth the rider And to that end in deed was this Empire erected in the west that it might support the church of Rome For when as the church of Rome was oppressed by the king Adrian 4. in epistol ad archiep German apud Auenlin lib. 4. of the Lombards it sought aide of the Emperours of Constantinople and when they would not defend the church the Pope translated the Empire to the French king and from him vpon the same occasion to the Germaines and that to this end vt Dist. 96. c. si imperator in glossa Rex Teutonicorum foret imperator patronus sedis Apostolicae that the king of the Almaines might be Emperour and patrone of the See Apostolicke And for the same cause the Emperour 6. is called of them procurator siue defensor Romanae Ecclesiae the proctor or defender of the church of Rome Sixtly the Papists themselues doe hould that the Empire which now is shall continue vnto the end of the world For they say that in the second of Daniel as many others also haue said is described a succession of the chiefe kingdomes or Monarchies of the earth which should continue vntill the end of the world the last whereof is the Romane Empire Seauenthly the destruction of the Romane Empire which the fathers say shall go before the reuelation of Antichrist is the dissolution and diuision thereof among ten kings which in deede long since happened to the old Empire but cannot happen to the new vnlesse we can imagine that ten mightie kings shall arise out of the bare name and title of an Emperour diuided among them When as the Papists therefore teach vs not to expect Antichrist vntill the Empire that now is either be diuided into ten kingdomes they are ridiculous or vtterly abolished which they say shall continue to the end they are absurd and in both impious making as it may seeme a scorne of the prophecyes concerning Antichrist which they make to imply impossibilities and contradictions 4. By this which hath bene said it plainely appeareth that howsoeuer the old Empire in the west which hindered the dominion of Antichrist was to be takeÌ„ out of the way before Antichrist should be reuealed yet notwithstanding euen with vnder Antichrist there was to be an imperiall state in name title which is the beast whereon the whore of Babylon sitteth therfore is so far froÌ„ hindering Antichrist as that it supporteth him Let vs then coÌ„sider how the Empire which hindred the reuelatioÌ„ of Antichrist was takeÌ„ out of the way how afterwards Antichrist was reuealed Of the taking away of the Emperour as also of the reuelation of Antichrist there are two degrees The Romane Emperour was first takeÌ„ out of the way when the imperiaâ—… seat was by Constantine the great translated from Rome to Bizantium or Constantinople and that to this end as they haue set downe in the forged donation of Constantine that he might leaue rowme to the Pope Because forsooth where the princehood of priests and head of Christian religion Dist. 69. c. Constantinus de electione c. fundament in sexto was by the heauenly Emperour placed there it is not iuste that the earthly Emperour should haue power Secondly after the death of Constantine the great and of Flauius Valerius ConstaÌ„tinus his son the Romane Empire being diuided into 2. partes the Easterne the Westerne and by diuisioÌ„ being weakened the Westerne was ouerthrowne in the yeare of our Lord 475. Rome it selfe taken by the Gothes So that neither in Rome any Romane afterwards had his seate of authority vntill the Pope tooke vpon him the souerainty neither in the West was there any Romane Emperour vntill Charles the great that is to say from the yeare 475. vnto the end of the yeare 800. In the meane time Italy was gouerned first by the Gothes and afterwards a great part thereof by the Lombards And howsoeuer the Emperours of the East had recouered Rome and some part of Italy which because they gouerned by exarches hauing their seat in Rauenna was called the exarchat of Rauenna the Lombards enioying the rest yet before the renewing of the Empire in the West the Emperour of the East had lost all Italy and Rome and
be giuen which they alledge to wit to conuert the Iewes But the assumption also is false For it is vntrue that they liue in mortall bodies or that they shall euer dye For where I beseech you doe they liue in mortall bodies in the earthly Paradice or in the heauenly In the earthly say the Papists but that was defaced either at or before the floud so that although the place remaine yet no Paradice remaineth as Bellarmine else where confesseth And if they were Lib. 1. de Sanctor beatitud C. 3 liuing in the earthly Paradise how is it said they were taken vp as it is plainely said of Elias that he was taken vp into heauen Or what priuiledge or reward haue they aboue others if all this 2. Kin. 2. 12 while they haue wanted Gods glorious presence which others enioy and hereafter are to be slaine of Antichrist Or how was Enoch translated that he should not see death if notwithstanding his translation he must dye the death If in the celestiall Paradise that is the third heauen as Paul speaketh it may first be 2. Cor. 12. doubted whether they be there in body because it may be thought that Christ was the first that in body ascended into heauen or if their bodies â—…o there we must hold that in the translation they were changed into immortall and incorruptible bodies as theirs shall who shall be found liuing vpon the earth as the second comming of Christ and shal be rapt vp into the aire 1. Cor. 15. 51. For this I say with Paule that flesh and bloud cannot inherit the kingdome of heauen neither doth corruption inherit incorruption 1. Thes. 4. 17. 9. But will you see vnder one view how farre this slender 1. Cor. 15. 50. coniecture taken from the comming of Enoch and Elias is from being a demonstratiue proofe First he cannot prooue necessarily that they are yet in their bodies Secondly if they be in their bodies he cannot proue that their bodies are mortall Thirdly if their bodies be mortal it is not necessary that they should returne into the world and die because at the end of the world they might be changed with the rest that then shal be liuing as some also haue thought Fourthly if they should returne into the Iustin. q. 85 ad orthodoxos world and dye there is no necessity that they should come in the time of Antichrist Fiftly if it should be granted that they are to come against Antichrist yet it would not follow that therefore Antichrist is not yet come but this only would follow that Antichrist is not yet destroyed which we doe not deny And this was his third demonstration whereby he proueth that Antichrist is not yet come and consequently that the Pope is not Antichrist To conclude therefore must not this needs be a good cause that by so learned a man is so stoutly proued The 7. Chapter answering his fourth demonstration concerning the most greeuous persecution vnder Antichrist 1. THe second signe accompanying Antichrist from whence Bellarmine draweth his fourth demonstration is the most greeuous notorious persecutioÌ„ of the Church in so much that the publicke seruice of God shall wholy cease His demonstration is thus to be framed When Antichrist is come there shal be the most greeuous and manifest persecution that euer was insomuch that the publicke seruice of God shal wholy cease But as yet there hath bin no such persecution neither hath the publicke seruice of God wholy ceased therefore Antichrist is not yet come Of his third argument and consequently of the proposition and assumprion there are three partes which seuerally are to be considered that the persecution vnder Antichrist is 1. Most greeuous 2. Most manifest 3. Such as shall cause all Gods worship to cease As touching the first he reasoueth thus Vnder Antichrist shal be the most greeuous persecution as yet this most greeuous persecution hath not bin especially vnder the Pope therefore Antichrist is not yet come neither is the Pope Antichrist The proposition namely that the most grieuous persecution is vnder Antichrist he proueth by two testimonies The first Mat. 24. 21. And then shal be great tribulation such as hath not bin since the beginning of the world neither shal be The other Apoc. 20. 7. Then shall Satan be let loose namely after the thousand yeeres are expired Answer We doubt not but that the persecution vnder Antichrist was to be very greeuous because the holy Ghost testifieth so much Apoc. 17. 6. Where the whore of Babylon is said to be drunke with the bloud of the Saints and with the bloud of the Martyrs of Iesus But his proofes are not to the purpose For the place in Mathew as heretofore hath beene shewed and as appeareth by the text it selfe is to be vnderstood of the calamities which at the destruction of Ierusalem by the Romanes the Iewes sustained For when you see saith our Saulour Christ the abomination Mat. 24. 15 of desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet standing in the holy place that is as Luke expoundeth when you see Ierusaelem Luk. 21. 20 compassed about with armies which Daniel calleth the abominable Dan. 9. 27. wings of desolation then let those which are in Iewry flye vnto the mountaines c. And his reason is because then there Mat. 24. 2â—… shal be great affliction such as hath not beene from the beginning of the world vntill now neither shal be Which Luke expresseth thus for there shall be great distresse in the Land and wrath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Luk. 21. 23. 24. this people and they shall fall by the edge of the sword and shall be carryed captiue into all nations and Ierusalem shall be troden vnder fâ—…ote of the Gentiles vntill the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled 2. As touching the thousand yeers mentioned Apoc. 20. After which Satan was to be loosed although the expiration of them fal in Antichrists raigne yet we are not to begin his raigne thereat as appeareth plainely Apoc. 20. v. 4. Neither is that letting loose of Sathan to be vnderstood of the persecution onely vnder Antichrist for it is manifest by the text that within those thousand yeares many martyrs were put to death by Antichrist for refusing to receiue his marke and that the greatest part la dead in Antichristian errours and superstition verse 4. 5. and by the 8. verse that Satan was let loose not onely to stirre vp persecution against the faithfull but also and that principally to stir vp vniuersall wars betwixt the nations of the world betwixt Gog and Magog that is as some expound the Papists and Mahometans Now I would gladly know of Bellarmine when these thousand yeeres began and when they expired for hereof there be diuers opinioÌ„s but I wil touch the principall 1. That these thousand yeeres begin with the incarnation of Christ and determine accordingly when as Siluester the second had obtained the
satis euidenter obscurely called God The Canonists call him DominuÌ„ Deum nostrum Papam Our Lord God the Pope But for further proofe of this point I referre you to the former booke chap. 5 § 6. c. where I intreated of the Antichristian pride of the Pope To which former testimonies I will adde one practise of the Pope in his great yeare of Iubile when as in solemne procession he is carried in a seate of gold vpon noble mens shoulders his god of bread being carried before him vpon an backeney as his attendant and at length commeth to the gates of Paradise which hee beateth open with a golden hammer at which time he is worshipped of all sorts present as a God from whoÌ„ they expect indulgence remission of sinnes and eternal life according to his large promises made to all those which shall come to Rome to celebrate the Iubiley In a word he is numen quoddam visibilem quendam Deum preâ—…se ferens a certaine diuine maiestie shewing himselfe to be a certaine visible God The premisses therefore considered together with my allegations in the place before named this argument may be returned vpon our aduersary after this manner whosoeuer sitteth Lib. 1. ca. 5 §. 6. 7. in the temple of God as God that is ruleth and raigneth ouer the church as if he were a God vpon earth and declareth himselfe either by word or deed that he is God for example if he shall challenge vnto himselfe those titles attributes and workes which are proper vnto God and shall be willing to be saluted acknowledged and adored as God he vndoubtedly is Antichrist But the Pope of Rome ruleth ouer the church as if he were a God vpon earth and declareth himselfe both by word and deed that he is God challenging vnto himself those titles attributes and workes which are peculiar vnto the Lord c. as hath bene proued therefore the Pope is Antichrist yea but the Pope saith Bellarmine doth not declare himselfe to be God for he acknowledgeth himselfe to be the seruant of the Lord. Hee might as well conclude that the Pope neuer calleth himselfe regem reguÌ„terrae ac DominuÌ„ Dominorum the king of the kings of the earth and Lord of Lordes because he acknowledgeth himself seruuÌ„ seruoruÌ„ Dei the seruant of gods seruants Neither doth his verball professioÌ„ ouersway his reall practise But he should haue remembred that the second beast which is Antichrist Apoc. 13. 11. as hee speaketh like the dragon belching out blasphemies against God so hee hath two hornes like the lambe as a dissembling hypocrite imitateth in some things the humilitie of Christ. And therefore that the Pope could not be such an Antichrist as is described in the scriptures vnlesse he were an hypocrite who doth by open profession pretend himselfe to be the seruant of God when as in truth he aduanceth himselfe against him And yet this is all that our aduersary alledgeth to proue his assumption that the Pope doth not shewe himselfe to be God 11 The fourth and last doctrine saith the Iesuite is this he shall not onely affirme that he is God but that he onely is God and shall oppugne all other Gods both true and false and shall suffer no Idols But this absurd conceit of the papists is not onely repugnant vnto the truth but also contradictory to their owne doctrines coÌ„cerning Antichrist For is it credible either that a mortall man shall affirme himselfe alone to be the true God and none but he or if he shall so affirme of himselfe that Christians and Iewes and all the world almost will acknowledge and worship him as the onely true God Againe the Antichristian seate is figured by the whore of Babylon which because of her owne idolatrie is called a whore and because she infecteth all nations that adhere vnto her with her idolatries Apoc. 17. 2. 5. and superstitions she is said to make them drunke with the cup of her fornications and also to be the mother of all the fornications that is idolatries of the earth Yea the Papists themselues expound Deut. 11. 38. where Antiochus Epiphanes is described as an Idolater as properly spoken of Antichrist And do not themselues teach that Antichrist shall professe himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes and consequently that he is sent and annointed of God Now if he shall professe himselfe sent from God shall we thinke that he wil say there is no God besides himselfe Or if hee being but a mortall man shall say there is no God besides himselfe may we not well thinke that either they will hisse at him as a foole or stone him to death as a blasphemer Nay do not themselues teach that he shall be in religion a Iew an obseruer of the Sabboth and other Iewish ceremonies And do they not alledge Ierome to proue that Antichrist shall faigne himselfe to be the chiefe of the couenant and a In Dan. 11 chiefe maintainer of the lawe and testament of God And are not his two hornes like the Lambe expounded by some approued In Apo. 13 Authors among them of the two testaments which hee shall seeme to professe 12 But let vs see how this wise conceit is proued Forsooth by testimonies of the scriptures and the Fathers Out of the scripture hee alledgeth two places the former 2. Thess. 2. 4. Who is extolled aboue all that is called God or worshipped As if hee should say Antichrist shall bee aduanced aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped therefore hee shall auouch that hee alone is God and will suffer no other God either true or false to bee worshipped besides himselfe I denie the consequence For first Antichrist may aduance himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped and yet suffer yea require them to bee worshipped Iupiter was supposed among the Heathen to aduance himself aboue all other Gods and yet suffered them to be worshipped as Gods Antichrist the second beast aduanceth himselfe aboue the Image of the Apoc. 13. former beast which is the Empire renewed whereon he sitteth as the rider death vpon a beast and yet requireth the same to be worshipped The Pope aduanceth himselfe aboue Angels Apoc. 17. Kings and Princes who are called Gods aboue the Saints the Host the Crosse and whatsoeuer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the church of Rome and yet requireth them all to be worshipped Secondly Antichrist may aduance himself aboue or against al that is called God or is worshipped and yet not professe himselfe to be the only God For so Antiochus Epiphanes aduanced himselfe against euery God yea against the God of Gods Dan. 11. 36. and yet he was neuer so mad as to professe himselfe the only God Thirdly seeing Antichristianisme is not open Atheisme but a mystery of iniquity Antichrist is described in the scriptures as an hypocrite pretended ChristiaÌ„ we may be assured that although in deed in truth