consent Benedictus 3. was created by which words he sheweth that there was no Iohn a woman for all that admit this Iohn do say that he â—ate after Leo the 4. and before Benedictus 3. and that he liued in the Popedome two yeares and 15. moneths They will say perhaps that Anastasius omitteth this Ioln 8. in fauour of the Popes But against this at the leastwise he should haue said that the Sea was vacant after Leo 4. two yeares and a halfe least he should admit a manifest errour in his Chronology and an errour which might be refuted by eye witnesses who liued then They answere that there is no errour in the Chronology because these two yeares of Iohn are added to Leo 4. for Leo 4. is said by Anastasius to haue sitten 8. yeares which are so to be taken that 6. yeares are of Leo himselfe and other two are added out of the yeares of Iohn the woman But against this is that not only Anastasius but also Martinus Polonus and Platina and the Magdeburgians and Bibliander and others who will haue Io. 8. to haue sitten two yeares giue 8. yeares to Leo. Wherefore there wil be perforce an errour in the Chronology of Anastasius if this Iohn be put Pope after Leo. Besides not only Anastasius but also Aâ—o Bishop of Vâ—enâ—a who liued at the same tyme and of whome there is no suspition that he would lye in fauour of the Popes teacheth that there was no Iohn betwixt Leo 4. and Benedictus 3. for thus he speaketh in the Cronicle of the yeare 865. Gregory the Bishop of Rome dieth and Sergius is ordayned in his place he being dead Leo succeedeth who dying Benedictus is substituted in the Apostolicall Sea And in the like sort speake Rhegino Lambertus Hermanus Contractus Abbâ—s Vâ—spergensis Otho Friâ—â—gensis and all other Historiographers which are very many vntill Martinus Polonus who was 400. yeares after this feygned Io. 8. and he first mentioned this Iohn 8. against the testimony of all the ancient and from him did Platina and the other later take it And not only the Latins but also the Greekes who wrote before Martinus Polonus as Zâ—naras Cedrenâ—s Ioannes Curopalates and others make no mention of this prodigious history among the thinges of that tyme whereas notwithstanding they fauour not the Bishop of Rome and would willingly haue taken an occasion to scoffe at the Latines in this respect if they might Now how is it credible that Martinus Polonus who liued in the yeare 1250. knew better what passed about the yeare 850. then all other Historiographers who liued in the yeare 800. or 900. or 1000 And that which the Magdeburgians say that Sigebert and Marianus Scotus who are more ancient then Martinus Polonus did put Iohn the Woman in their Chronicles is false Although in the printed Sigebert and Marianus Scotus Iohn the Woman is found yet in the most ancient manuscripts she is not found and it is sufficiently knowne that those authors are corrupted There is yet extant in the Monastery of Gemblacum where Sigebert was monke a most ancient manuscript copy which is thought to be Sigeberts owne and in it there is no mention of Iohn the Woman which manuscript copy Iohn Molanus a Doctor of Louayne who is yet aliue witnesseth that he hath seene Likewise that in the most ancient copyes of Marianus Scotus Iohn the Woman is not to be found he witnesseth who put forth the Metropolis of Albertus Krantzius at Colen in the yeare 1574. Secondly that this narration of Martinus concerning Iohn the VVoman is a fable is proued out of the narration it selfe for first he saith that this Iohn was an English Woman of Mentz but Mentz is not in England but in Germany And others to amend this errour are strangly repugnant one to the other for Platina saith that she was an English Woman but come out of Mentz The Magdeburgians contrary wise say that she was of Mentz but come out of England But Theodorus Bibliander in his chronicle saith that she was neither borne nor come out of England but brought vp and instructed in England Secondly Martin and those which follow him say that she studied at Athens But it is manifest that in that tyme there were no Schooles neither at Athens nor in any other place of Greece for Synesius writeth in epist vlt. ad FratreÌ„ suum that in his tyme there was nothing but the name of an Academie at Athens And Synesius was a little after the tymes of S. Basil and S. Nazianzen Cedrenuâ— also and Zonaras do write in vita Michaelis Theodorae Impp. that about the end of Michaels raigne viz. when he raigned alone his mother Theodora being remoued the Schooles of learning and Philosophy were restored by Bardas Caesar whereas vntill that tyme for many yeares all studies of wisdome were so extinguished in Greece that there was not so much as any step or signe of them extant Now it is manifest that the Empyre of Michael alone Theodora being remoued fell in the tyme of Nicolas the 1. who succeeded Benedictus 3. who had succeeded as these men seigne Iohn 8. the Woman yea all Chronologies and Billiander himselfe put the beginning of the Empire of Michael alone in the yeare 856. and the Popedome of Iohn the Woman in the yeare 854. By which it followeth that the studies of wisdome began to be reuiued in Greece after the death of this Iohn Thirdly the Magdeburgians say that this Io. 8. was deliuered in his iourney when he would haue visited the Lateran Church from the Vatican But it is most certaine as Onuphrius demonstrateth lib. de 7. Eccl. that the B. of Rome did not dwell in the Vatican but in the Lateran Pallace vntill the time of Bonifacius the 9. that is vntill the yeare 1309. how then if she dwelt in the Lateran would she go from the Vatican to visit the Lateran Certainly if one should wryte now that the Pope came from the Lateran to visit the Vatican Church he would be ridiculous since all know that the Pope dwelleth in the Vatican Fourthly Martin and all the rest say that this Iohn was deliuered in a solemne and publike Procession But certainly there is no probability that a woman gone with child so many moneths would then chiefly goe in Procession when she was in most danger to be discouered Thirdly this is proued out of the epist of Leo 9. a most graue pope to Michael Bishop of Constantinople cap. 23. where Pope Leo writeth that it is a constant fame that many Eunuches had sitten in the Patriarchate of Constantinople that among them there had crept in and bene Patriarch a Woman which certainly Leo would neuer haue obiected to the Grecians if any such thing had happened a little before to the Roman Sea yea perhaps from hence arose this fable of Iohn the Woman for wheras there was a rumour that a certaine woman had bene Bishop of Constantinople and after by little and little
we see that this little horne is said to be after the 10. and the 10. before it but the 3. are set downe without any particuler order because they were to be of the 10. among which there is no order described Now that which he addeth of Antiochus being Downam belieth Pope Gregory the 7. and the Cardinalls a Type c. is a meere fabling and already confuted besides that Antiochus can be no type in this place where he is not spoken of at all as hath ben shewed Likewise that loud lye which he telleth of Gregory the 7. affirming that it is well knowne that he made away 6. of his predecessors by poyson argueth so shameles an impudency as nothing more Like vnto which is that câ—lumniation of the Cardinalls among whome he affirmeth that it is an ordinary practice to minister â—â— Italian â—â—ggâ— to their Popes In proofe wherof he alleageth Vrbanus 7. Innocent â— that there haue bene 9. Popes in the tyme of Queene Elizabeths raigne and that Vrbanus 7. Gregory 14. and Innocentius the 9. were so suddainly plucked vp that he supposeth their names haue bene heard of to few in England And is not this a great wonder that 9. old men should dy in more then 40. yeares Or that a yong Woman liuing in all pleasure should outline them all These are M. Downams myracles and as for the 3. Popes whome he nameth they were all most vertuous and holy men but extreme old and therfore no meruaile though their being so close in the conclaue caused the one if not two of them to dy so soone Gregory lay sicke or the stone aboue 3. weeks and Gregory 14. the other two had bene Popes so little a tyme and giuen so little offence to any that there could be no suspicion of any poyson but this is the Ministers charity 13. To the place which Bellarmine alleageth out of Dan. 11. 19 this purpose M. Downam answereth 1. that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist to which I need not reply any more 2. that though Antiochus were a type in this yet the same 〈◊〉 were not to be applied to Antichrist But M. Downam mistaketh them 〈◊〉 much for this is one of the places which canot be applyed to Antiochus and therfore is litterally to be vnderstood of Antichrist 3. M. Downam boldly affirmeâ—h that this place is only to be expounded of Antiochus his spoyling of Egipt hauing in his company the Lybians and the Aethyopians And to this purpose he proposeth his new reading according to the Hebrew the Lubine and Cuâ—him that is the Lybians and Ethiopiam shal be in his passages or voyages and least we should with Bellarmine obiect the authority of S. Hierome and the other Fathers against him he preuenteth vs by writing â—hâ—s Now if Hierome or any of the Fathers haue let fall any such thing as Bellarmine faith we are to esteeme it at an extremeur of theirs which we are to passe by rather then with the Cacanorae the Papists to gather it vp as fit food for their soules Downam opprobriously reiecteth the Fathers and then he hath this note in the margent Cacanorae auis quaedam est apud Indor quae alterius auis assecla est â—uiâ—s vescatur excrementis Sâ—â—lig de subtil What should a man say to this filthy Companion that dareth open his foule mouth to such opprobrious words against the Fathers Are not those fooles in a 〈◊〉 taking that follow such a foâ—le But his blasphemous 〈◊〉 against God and his Saiâ—â—â—â— in which he imitatâ—â— in his Maister Antichrist must 〈…〉 from cleauing to the Fathers giuen vnto the Church by Christ for her Pastors Guides and Doctours and therfore we nothing doubt but that S. Hieromes interpretation and exposition S. Hierso translatioÌ„ defended of this place approued and imbraced by all Ecclesiasticall Wryters both before and after him is to be preferred before M. Downams new deuise and the Hebrew text which hath ad gressus eius if we belieue Tremelius and Iunius iâ— as capable of S. Hieromes translation â—â— of M. Dowmans and the words immediately going before plainly shew that S. Hieromes interpretation is the right which are Et meâ—tiâ— manum suam in terras and after nameth only these three two of which M. Downam would cut off by his new translation and consequently must also change that terras into terram and yet euen then also the coherence would shew that the Prophet spake rather of inuasion then assisting of enemyes then friends But besides this we must put M. Downam to a little more trouble vrgâ—â—g him to tell vs in what History he â—uer read that Antiochus inuaded the land of Egypt any oftener Antiochê° Epiphanes inuaded not Egypt oftener theÌ„ twice then twice or both which Daniel speaketh from the 22. to the â—â— v. declaring how he was put back the second tyme by the Romans after which he neuer returned into Egypt and consequently this inuasion of that CouÌ„trey which Daniel speaketh oâ— in this place caÌ„not in any sort be vnderstood of Antiochus but must be wholy referred to Antichrist Finally it M. Downam will stand to his owne rule of conferring one place of Scripture with another what can be more pâ—aineâ—â—â—n this that Daniel speaketh now of the same 3. Kinges which cap. 7. he said should be plucked vp and humiliated by the little borne Wherfore whether M. Downams excrements for so he calleth farre better mens expositions then his owne be worth the taking vp or no I leaue to the Readers iudgment but in my conceipt they sauour very strongly of heresy and folly 14. To Bellarmines Minor M. Downam is dumbe as likewise to his consutation of the obiections which some other make against it And to his third argument he only answereth that Lactantius S. Irenaus and S. Hierome are â—â— Antichrist shall subdue the 7. Kings which remaine after the â— and so he shal be Monarch of the whole world Scriptures aâ— though Bellarmine had affirmed that they were because in the beginning he saith that these 4. things are read of Antichrist in the Scriptures But M. Downam might easily haue conceyned that Bellarmine could not proue better that this doctrine is conteyned in the Scripture then by alleadging the authority of the Fathers who gather it out of the Scripture and yet to satisfy M. Downam in all points he alleadgeth also a place of Scripture whereall the 10. Kinges Apoc. 17. are said to giue their power to the Beast that is the Diuell which the 7. cannot do without yielding themselues to Antichrist after that the other three be slaine To which M. Downam hath nothing to reply but only asketh whether S. Iohn speaketh of Antichrist his either kiâ—â—ing 3. â—â— Apoc. 17. subduing 7 To which I answere that S. Iohn plainely foretelleth that all the 10. shall giue their power to the beast and consequently that the 7. which remaine after the death of the other 3. will concurre
with Antichrist which they cannot do without yielding themselues vnto him since it is certayne that he shal be the Moâ—â—â—ch of the whole world and because the Scripture is not so expresse Bellarmine only saith that it may be inferred out of that place as it may likewise out of the 12. and 13. Apoc. as in part hath ben touched And is it not euident inough of it selfe that the little horne which presumed to encounter if not all the 10. yet Apoc. 12. 13. at least three of them while he was so little will not stay there when he is growne great but cause the other 7. to subiect themselues vnto him The other questions and assertions which M. Downam hath are already confuted and therefore not to be repeated now againe Wherefore let vs see what he saith to the testimonies of S. Chrysostome and S. Cyril I answere saith he that for substance these Fathers held the truth for what Monarch hath there byn in the VVest these 5. or 6. hundreth yeares besides the Pope c where I beseech the Reader to Why M. Downam admitteth any of the Fathers marke attentiuely M. Downams reason why he alloweth the testimony of the Fathers which is no other but because they are against the Pope in some sort according to his conceipt for otherwise we may see by that which he answeteth to the 3. former and that which he saith of them all in generall a little before how little he setteth by their authority Now for the Monarchy of the West it is euident The Pope no temporall Monarch that it remaineth in the Emperours and that which he attributeth to the Pope euery child will see how different it is from the Monarchy of the Romans and how small a thing it is if you take away his spirituall authoritie which no doubt is the greatest vpon earth But what is that to the temporall power of which these Fathers speake Now how the Pope is Lord of the whole earth and how he disposeth of the new found world we shall examine at large in the second part and how the gouernment of Rome belongeth not to Antichrist in whose time it shal be destroyed as neither the 2. beast Apoc. 13. nor the 7. head Apoc. 17. to the Pope hath bin already sufficiently declared 15. To the 4. argument M. Downam answereth nothing Antichrist shall persecute the Christians through the whole world with an innumerable army which Bellarmine himself hath not confuted at large in his discourse of Gog and Magog which M. Downam wholy omitteth vnder pretext of not troubling his Reader but indeed because he would not discouer his owne shame for otherwise at least he might haue answered to so much of it as made against himself The like deceipt he vseth in passing ouer Bellarmines answers to the Protestants obiections or arguments wherby they indeauour to proue the Pope Antichrist because he saw that they contayned in effect an answere to his former booke But I may not omit either that so the Reader may iudge how well M. Downam hath cleared them in his former booke of which he seemeth himself to make some doubt by telling vs that the controuersie betwixt vs is not whether euery argument that hath bin produced by euery one doth necessarily conclude the Pope to be Antichrist and that that discourse is rather personall then reall and therfore he letteth it passe THE SEAVENTENTH CHAPTER Of Gog and Magog WHERFORE the first opinion or rather errour saith Bellarmine is of the Iews who teach that Gog is Antichrist Magog innumerable Scythian Nations which lurke within the Caspian Mountaynes and that Antichrist shall come with Magog that is with an Army of Scythians at the same tyme that the Messias shall first appeare in Hierusalem and that there shal be a battaile fought in Palestine and such an ouerthrow in the Army of Gog that for 7. yeares the Iewes shall not cut any wood from trees to make fire withall but shall burne the speares bucklers and other weapons which shal be found with the dead bodyes and that afterward there shall be a golden world c. S. Hierome relateth this opinion in cap. 38. Ezech. and Petrus Galatinus lib. 5. cap. 12. cont Iudaeos and Rabbi Dauid Kimhi in his CoÌ„mentary vpon the Psalmes in many places but the Iewes erre in two things First that they think the battaile of Gog Magog shal be in the first comming of Christ confouÌ„ding the first with the second Wheras notwithstanding the Scriptures plainly teach that Christ in his first coÌ„ming was to come in humility and as a meeke sheep to be sacrificed as it is manifest Isa 53. and in other places Secondly in that they thinke that Antichrist shall come against them and fight with their Messias wheras indeed Antichrist shall be their Messias and shall fight with the Iewes against our Sauiour the true Christ The second opinion is of Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 24. 25. 26. who thinketh that the battaile of Gog and Magog shall be a thousand yeares after the death of Antichrist for he teacheth that after 6000. yeares from the beginning of the world Antichrist shall come and raygne three yeares a halfe and that then Antichrist shal be slayne Christ shall appeare the Resurrection shall be and the Saints shall raign heere with Christ vpon earth for a thousand yeares in great peace and tranquillity the Infidels not being wholy rooted out but seruing peaceably Which ended the Diuell shal be loosed againe and a most fierce warre of all Nations be raysed against the same Saints which they serued for a thousand yeares and this is the battaile of Gog and Magog of which Ezechiel and S. Iohn do speake But that a little after all the wicked shal be slayne by God and that then the second Resurrection shall be and the world be wholy renewed This opinion was also of many of the ancient Fathers as Papias S. Iustine S. Irenaeus Tertullian Apollinaris and some others as S. Hierome relateth in cap. 36. Ezech. and Eusebius lib. 3. hist cap. vlt. But it is long since exploded as a manifest errour for our Lord Matth. 24 and â—5 plainly teacheth that after the persecution of Antichrist the last iudgment shall follow forthwith and that all the good shall go into euerlasting life and all the euill into euerlasting fire and therfore that afterward there shall not be another thousand yeares nor euer after any more battailes The third opinion is of Eusebius who lib 9. demonst Euang. cap. 3. thinketh that Gog is the Roman Emperour and Magog his Empire But he buildeth vpon a false Foundation for he deduceth this opinion ouâ— of Numb 24. where according to the translation of the 70. we read the kingdome of Gog shal be extolled and his Kingdome shal be increased God hath brought him out of Egypt c. where the Scripture seemeth to say thaâ— when Christ shall returne out oâ— Egypt in his infancy