the second comming of Christ then it followeth necessarily that euen this head of the Antichristian body cannot be any one singular man but is continued by a succession of many from the time of his reuelation vntill the end of the world of which time there is almost a thousand yeares expired But both in this argument and in the former Bellarmine sophistically beggeth the question For in his arguments there is no consequence vnlesse this be taken for granted that Antichrist is but one man Antichrist came in the Heretiques in the Apostles time therfore he came not in his owne person A good argument if Antichrist were but one man which is the question If Antichrist were in the Apostles time and if Antichrist must sit at Rome then he that was then Bishop of Rome was Antichrist a good argument if Antichrist were but one man which is the question 13. Now whereas S. Iohn saith that Antichrist in his time was come Bellarmine faineth him to speake of Antichrist as he saith Our Sauiour spake of Elias Mat. 17. 11. Elias indeed shall come namely in his own person but I say vnto you Elias is already come in suo simili in his like that is Iohn Baptist. So S. Iohn speaketh of Antichrist that he was indeed to come in his owne person but now he was come in his type You see to what silly shifts this worthy chaÌ„pion of the Pope is driuen For first he fathereth vpon Christ that Iewish fable which with the Iewes the Papists holde against Christ himselfe For whereas Malachie had prophecied of the comming of Elias before the day of the Malac. 4. 5 Lord meaning the first comming of Christ our Sauiour Christ plainlie anoucheth Mat. 11. 14. that Iohn Baptist was that Elias who according to the Prophecie of Malachie was to come Now Iohn Baptist was called Elias because he came in the spirit and power of Elias to turne the hearts of the fathers c. as the Angell also applyeth that prophesie Luk. 1. 17. But suppose that Christ had spoken of Elias Malac. 4. 6. according to Bellarmines conceit yet how dooth it follow that Luke 1. 17. therefore Iohn speaketh of Antichrist after the same manner No more then it followeth that Dauid should long after his death be sent againe to gouerne the people of God because it was prophesied by Ezechiel that the Lord would raise vp a Pastor for his people euen Dauid his seruant c. But as by the name of Dauid in Ezechiel Eze. 34. 23 24. 37. 35. is meant not Dauid himselfe but Christ of whom Dauid was a type so by the name of Elias in Malachie is not meant Elias himselfe Iere. 30. 9. but Iohn Baptist who resembled Elias in spirit and power in reforming the Church of God 14. Our second argument is this That which in the Prophecies of the Scriptures especially in the 7. and 11. of Daniel and in Apoc. the 13. and 17. is described vnder the name and figure of a beast is not one singuler thing or person but a whole state or succession Antichrist is described in the Apocatypse 13. vnder the name and figure of a Beast therfore Antichrist is not one singuler person but a whole state and succession The proposition is prooued by induction of particular examples As in the 7. of Daniel by the Lion is figured the Kingdome of the Assyrians and Babylonians by the Beare the Medes and Persians by the Leopard the Greekes and Macedonians by the beast with ten hornes the Seleucidae and Lagidae and so Chapt. 8. In the 13. of the Apocalypse there are two Beasts described the former signifying the state of the Romane Emperours the second signifying the state of Antichrist Bellarmine answereth that Daniel as sometimes by the beasts he signifieth whole kingdomes so sometimes also particular persons As in the eight Chapter by the Ramme â—…he vnderstandeth Darius the last King of the Persians by the Goate Alexander the great In which answer the vpright dealing of Bellarmine with the Scriptures appeareth For in the 20. verse of the 8. Chapter where that vision is expounded Dan. 8. 20. the Angels words are these The Ramme which thou sawest hauing two hornes are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Kings of the Medes and Persians And the Goate is the King of Iauan or Grecia meaning as before the Kings or Kingly estate as appeareth plainly by the words that follow and not as Bellarmine saith Alexander and the great horne betweene his eyes is the first King namely Alexander which being broken foure other stand vp in the steed thereof As Daniel therefore by seuerall beasts Dan. 8. 22. meaneth not so many particular men but whole states and orders of men and as Iohn in the 13. of the Apocalyps by the former beasts meaneth not any one Emperour but the whole state and succession of Emperours at the least so the holy Ghost in the same Chapter by the second beast describing Antichrist meaneth not any one particular Apo. 13. 11 person but the whole state and succession of Antichristian Popes to whom as heretofore hath beene shewed that description wholy agreeth And whereas Bellarmine addeth that Paul when he entreateth of Antichrist speaketh not of any one of the foure beasts in Daniel but of the little horne mentioned in the 7. of Daniel vers 8 I answer that the Apostle speaketh neither of the one nor of the other and therefore the former part of Bellarmines speech is vaine for no man saith so and the latter is false For the little horne is not Antichrist but Antiochus Epiphanes who liued aboue 200. yeares before the incarnation of Christ who although he were but one man might not vnsitly be called a type of Antichrist who is a state or succession of men 15. Our third argument is taken from that Apostasie which the Apostle foretelleth 2. Thes. 2. For where he speaketh of a defection whereof Antichrist is the head without addition we vnderstand a 2. Thes. 2. 3. generall defection of the visible Church which as it began to worke in the Apostles time so was it to increase vntill the reuelation of Antichrist and to continue more or lesse vntill his destruction This Apostasie because it cannot be the worke of one man or of a fewe 2. Thes. 2. 7. yeares euidently prooueth that Antichrist is not one singuler man but rather a state and succession of men To this Bellarmine for want of one good answer maketh many First saith he by that Apostasie wee may very well nay he saith rectissimè vnderstand Antichrist himselfe as diuers of the fathers teach and what will he inferre thereupon that therefore Antichrist is but one man Nay rather the contrary is to be inferred For if Apostasie be put by a metonymy of the adiunct for the subiect or rather of the effect for the cause that is for the parties which doe reuolt then it followeth that Antichrist who according to
Epiphanes was that he shall make three expeditions into Egypt and in his returne homeward euery time shall hee afflict the land of Iury especially in the second expedition when being hindred by the shippes of Chittim Ioseph antiq lib. 12. cap. 6. that is the Romans he wreaked his malice vpō the Iewes chap. 11. 30. and all the rest of the particulars which properly belong to the person of Antiochus all which Daniel doth so fully and particularly describe that hee hath seemed to some which knew not with what spirit he did write to haue written a story rather then a prophecie of him Chap. 7. 8. 11. 12. 4 But now let vs examine seuerally the particular instances from whence Bellarmine wold proue that the Pope is not Antichrist From the first he argueth thus Antichrist arising from most base estate ex humilimo loco shall by fraud deceit obtaine the kingdome of the Iewes The Pope of Rome ariseth not from base estate neither obtaineth the kingdome by fraude and deceit therfore the Pope is not Antichrist The proposition is after his manner proued out of Dan. 11. 21. And in his place shall stand a vile person and they shall not giue vnto him the honor of a king but he shall come secretly and obtaine the kingdome by fraude I answere first that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist and secondly that this proposition is not true of him of whom Daniel speaketh and therfore that this allegatiō is both impertinent vntrue That Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist it shall appeare out of Daniel himselfe For Daniel speaketh of him that immediately in the kingdome of Syria succeeded Seleucus Philopater For so he saith in his place who was described vers 20 shall stand vp a vile person meaning thereby Antiochus who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but properly as Polybius calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto whom that which is cited out of the 21. verse and all the rest of the chapter vnto the end doth wholy and properly agree 5 For the better vnderstanding of this place the rest of Daniel we are to know that excepting one propheticall comfort of the resurrection cha 12. his whole prophecie is of those things which happened within lesse then 700. yeares that is to say from the taking of Ierusalem by the Chaldeans vnto the finall destructiō thereof by the Romanes and his prophecie concerneth those kingdomes which should in the meane time be in the worlde And those are either such terrestriall kingdomes vnto whose tyrannie the Iewes were subiect before the comming of the Messias or else the spirituall kingdome of Christ the Messias king of the Iewes before which all the former kingdoms were to haue an end Da. 2. 4. 〈◊〉 7. 11. 26 27. The time wherof as also of the desolatiō of Ierusalē is foretold cap. 9. 25. 26. 27. according to which time this Messias and king is by the wise men acknowledged to be born Mat. 2 and his kingdom by Iohn Baptist the forerunner of Christ was said to be at hand Mat. 3. 2. and in like sort preached our Sauiour Christ Mat. 1. 15. his apostles Ma. 10. 7. Christ also a litle before his death confessed that he was a king and in his death his title was the king of the Iewes After his death resurrection he professeth that all power was giuen him in heauen and in earth and therevpon ascendeth into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of God which is noted in Daniel chap. 7. 13. that after Christ the son of man was come into the worlde he went vnto the auncient of dayes and to him was giuen power glory and kingdome that all people nations and tongues should serue him Of both these sorts of kingdomes Daniel intreateth chap. 2. and 7. And as touching the terrestriall kingdomes which tyrannized ouer the Iewes before the comming of Christ in the flesh they are noted to be foure the first of the Babylonians the second of the Medes and Persians the third of the Macedonians the fourth of the Seleucidae and Lagidae And of these foure Daniel prophecieth either ioyntly of all together or seuerally of some of them In the second seuenth chapters of them all together resembling them in the second chapter by an Image the golden head whereof figureth the Babylonians the breast and armes of siluer the Medes and Persians the belly and sides of brasse represent the Macedonians his legges of yron and his feete part of yron and part of clay resemble the Seleucidae Lagidae and in the seuenth chapter the same foure kingdomes are figured by 4. beastes the Babylonians by a Lyon the Medes and Persians by a Beare the Macedonians by a Leoparde the Seleucidae and Lagidae by the beast with tenne hornes 6 Seuerally he prophecieth either of the Babylonian Monarchy or of the rest His prophecies concerning the Babylonian Monarchy which also were fulfilled in his time are set downe chap. 4. and 5. Of the three other and especially of the last because that especially was to afflict the people of the Iewes he prophecieth againe in the 8. and 11. chapters In the 11. chapter to omit the rest the Angell promiseth vers 2. Dan. 11. 2. to declare the truth that is the true and proper sense meaning of the aforesaid visions concerning the three kingdomes which yet remained recorded chap. 2. 7. 8. And first as touching the kingdome of the Medes Persians he mentioneth but foure Kings because the rest did nothing memorable against Iuda verse 2. In the third verse he prophecieth of Alexander Verse 3. the great the mightie Monarch of the Graecians and of the diuision of that Empire into soure principall parts vers 4. Verse 4. which before was foretold chap. 8. 22. Of which diuision Ierome writeth thus Quo sc. Alexandro tricesimo secundo aetatis In Dan. 8. suae anno mortuo in Babylone surrexerunt pro eo quatuor duces eius qui sibi imperium diuiserunt Aegyptum enim Ptolemeus Lagi filius tenuit c. Alexander being dead in Babylon in the 32. yeare of his age there arose in his stead foure of his captaines who diuided the Empire among them For Ptolemy Lagides held Egypt Philip who also is called Arideus the brother of Alexander held Macedonia Seleucus Nicanor held Syria and Babylon and all the kingdomes of the East Antigonus ruled ouer Asia minor These foure kingdomes were by mutuall conflicts reduced to two vnder Seleucus Nicanor Ptolemy Lagides from whom did spring the kingdom of the Lagidae kings of Egypt on the South and of the Seleucidae or kings of Syria Babylon in the North. These two vsed to contend for Iudaea which lying in the midst betwixt them became a prey to the conquerers and was greeuously afflicted by them These two are the two legges and feete of the Image chap. 2. and also the fourth beast with tenne hornes chap. 7.
sort be applied to the tenth Prince of the Romanes 5. By conference of that which is written of the little horne chap. 7. with those thinges which are more plainly recorded of Antiochus chap. 8. 23. c. and chap. 11. 21. c. to the end of the chapter it appeareth euidently that he no other is that litle horne For wheras Daniel in the 7. chap had described 3. kingdomes besides the Babylonian which should tyrannize ouer the Iewes by three beasts in the 8. chap. he figureth the same 3. kingdomes by 2. beasts For the kingdome of the Medes Persians which before was resembled by a Beare is here signified by the Ramme with 2. hornes the kingdome of the Macedonians Seleucidae which before were represented by two seuerall beasts are heere figured by the Goate Bucke containing them both for both the Macedonians and Seleucid◅ were Iauan that is the Greekes Daniel 8. 21. And as in the 7. chapter the kingdome of the Macedonians was signified by a Leopard which had foure heads so here it is saide that after the great horne signifying Alexander the great was broken off there grewe foure hornes in stead thereof meaning the foure Princes among whom the Macedonian Monarchy was diuided The fourth kingdom figured chap. 7. by the beast with 10. hornes is here signified to be that kingdome which was chiefly erected by one of those foure hornes namely Seleucus that is the kingdome of the Seleucidae and from him namely in the end of their kingdome ouer the Iewes came forth a little horne that is the king with the impudent face chap. 8. verse 9. 23. which is Antiochus Epiphanes who was the tenth horne of the fourth beast And in the eleuenth chapter without figures of beastes the same three kingdomes are described the same tenne hornes reckned vp the same tenth horne more particularly deciphred 6. The people pusht at and oppressed by these hornes is Daniels people the people of the Iewes yet remaining and inhabiting in Tzeby that is in Iury and Ierusalem not onely before the desolation of Ierusalem but also before the reformation vnder Iudas Macchabaeus But Antichrist if we will beleeue the Papists shall be the counterfeit Messias of the Iewes neither shall hee afflict the Iewes but by them the Christians and that in the ende of the worlde c. 7. The times of afflicting the people of God assigned to the little horne doe precisely agree to the persecution vnder Antiochus But these times are diuersly to be reckened in respect either of the beginning or the end of the account For as touching the beginning we recken either from the defection and reuolt of the people wrought by Menelaus the priest in the yeare 142. the sixt moneth and sixt day vnto the restitution of Religion in the yeare 148. and 25. day of the ninth moneth and this space is 2300. dayes that is 6. moneths 3. yeares 18. dayes foretold Dan. 8. 14. or else we recken from the pollutiō of the temple and erection of the new altar abolishing of the daily sacrifice to wit in the 145. yeare of the Seleucidae on the 15. of Casleu diuersly in respect of the ende viz. either to the restitution begunne by Iudas Machabaeus Ioseph antiq lib. 12. cap 6. in the 25. of the same moneth Casleu in the year 148. which space is called a time and times and parcell of time that is three yeares and tenne daies or if we reade a time and times 1. Mac. 1. 57. and halfe a time we may recken vnto the time of that victorie which Macchabaeus and the Iewes had against the Armies 1. Mac. 14 52. of Antiochus whereby his instauration of Religion was secured and confirmed and Antiochus his Armies were expelled Dan 7. 25. Dan. 127. De bello Iud. lib. 1. cap. 1. out of Iury which as Iosephus noteth was done after three yeares and sixe moneths or if we recken to the time that Antiochus hauing heard of these and some other ouerthrowes of his Armies after his owne discomsiture and slight from Persepolis was striken by the hand of God and promised all good things to the Iewes it is 1290. dayes if Dan. 12. 11. 12. to his death 1335. By all which considerations it appeareth that Daniel by the fourth beast vnderstandeth not the Romane Monarchy but the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae nor by the tenth horne Antichrist properly but Antiochus Epiphanes 11 Thus much therefore may suffice to haue spoken of his proposition now let vs briefly consider of the assumption The Pope saith he ariseth not from base estate neither by deceit obtaineth his kingdome As touching the former I answere that although it were false of Antiochus yet is it true of the Pope whether you consider the meane estate of the first Bishops of Rome or the base birth and obscure parentage of diuers Popes For that which Bellarmine alledgeth in commendation of the Primitiue religion and auncient church of Rome is but a vaine flourish nothing appertaining to this purpose 2. That the Pope hath not attained to his kingdome by fraude and deceit Bellarmine had rather it should be taken for graunted then once called in question and therefore cunningly passeth it ouer with silence But if this were set downe in the scriptures as a badge of Antichrist to attain to his greatnes by fraude deceit I would make it manifest that neuer in any estate more deep policy and diuellish deceit hath bene vsed then in the See of Rome wherby they haue obtained their supremacy and maintained their soueraigntie ouer the Christian world Yea their whole religion of Popery and mystery of iniquitie seemeth to be nought else but a packe of policy deuised by worldly men to deisie the Pope and to enrich the popish cleargy For wherevnto else I beseech you tended their Indulgences and Pardons their Iubelies their doctrines of merits supererogation their purgatory their trentalls of Masses and praier for the dead their pilgrimages and adoration of Saints Images and reliques their licences and dispensations their thunderboults of excommunication their oathe of allegeance and fealtie imposed on Princes and potentates subiection to the Pope enforced vpon all sorts as absolutely necessary to saluation their wilfull deprauations of scriptures forgeries of Canons counterfeit donations of Constantine and others to proue the double supremacy of the Pope Whervnto tended his often maintaining of quarelles among Christian Princes his warres inioyned them for the recouery of the holy lande but that they being by these meanes weakened might be the more easily subdued vnto himselfe his Croisades and promises of heauen to all those that sight such battailes as like him Haue not their cleargy come to their riches and the Pope to his greatnes by these and such like meanes But because the comming to his greatnes by fraude and deceit is not set downe in the scriptures as a note of Antichrist vnlesse it be by way of type and
allegory in Antiochus I will therefore let it passe onely let me put you in minde that the prophecie of Peter in the former respects is performed in the Pope and cleargy of Rome who by fained words make merchandise of mens soules through couetousnesse And this was Bellarmine his first instance 12 His seconde argument is thus to be framed Antichrist shall warre with three Kings to wit of Egypt Libya and Aethiopia and hauing ouercome them shall possesse their kingdomes But the Pope of Rome hath not warred at any time he should say shall not warre and that is more then hee is able to proue with the Kings of Egypt Libya and Aethiopia neither hauing vanquished them hath possessed their kingdomes therefore the Pope of Rome is not Antichrist And in this argument Belarmine doth so greatly please himselfe that after an insulting manner hee breaketh foorth into these bragges Hoc autem maximè refellit insaniam haereticorum c. This especially refuteth the madnesse of heretikes who make the Pope Antichrist For let them say if they can when the Pope hath killed the Kings of Egypt Libya and Aethiopia c. What would this Thraso do thinke you if hee had any good argument against vs that thus insulteth vpon a meere dotage For where doth the scripture say that Antichrist shall sight with the Kings of Egypt Libya and Aethiopia and that hauing vanquished them he shall possesse their kingdomes Forsooth in the 7. and 11. of Daniel In the 7. chapter Daniel speaking of the tenne hornes of the fourth beast he saith verse 8. I considered the hornes and loe the last horne came vp a little one among them and three of the former hornes were pluckt vp before it And after verse 24. expounding the same words hee saith And the tenne hornes are tenne Kings of that kingdome after whom shall arise the last namely of the tenne diuerse from the rest and he shall abase three Kings But this allegation is impertinent For I haue shewed that this fourth beast is the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae that the tenne hornes are those tenne Kings of that kingdome which tyrannized or ruled ouer Iewry that the tenth or last of them that tyrannized ouer the Iewes was Antiochus Epiphanes who is therefore called little before his comming to the crowne because of his vnlikenesse to be King First because hee was the third and youngest sonne of Antiochus Magnus his elder brother Seleucus hauing also a sonne called Demetrius Secondly because he was to be a perpetuall hostage at Rome For when as other hostages which Antiochus the great gaue to the Romanes were to be changed euery third yeare he was to be a perpetuall hostage And thirdly because of his vile and base conditions Now whereas it is saide that three hornes were to be plucked vp before him wee are by those three hornes to vnderstand three kings not of others those also diuers kingdomes as of Egypt Libya and Aethiopia but three kings that successiuely had ruled before him in the same kingdome vsurped ouer the Iewes as being expresly called three former hornes viz. of the tenne verse 8. Yea but Antiochus was a type of Antichrist It cannot be proued that he was a type in this point or if he were a type in this we may not inferre the same particular as Bellarmine doth for then those three kings mentioned in Daniel must be reuiued againe that Antichrist may make them away but the like might be inferred viz. that as Antiochus Epiphanes to make himselfe a way to the kingdome did make away his brother and two others that went before him so it is not vnlike but that this should be an Antichristian practise It is well knowne that Gregory the seuenth who resembled Antiochus in many things to make himselfe a way to the Papacy made away sixe of his predecessors by poyson And it is an ordinary practise among the Cardinalles of Rome that aspire to the Papacy now and then to minister an Italian Figge to their Popes that you may not maruell that there haue bene nine Popes in the time of Queene Elizabeths raigne of whom the three next predecessors of the present Pope Clement 8. were so suddainly pluckt vp before him namely Urbanus 7. Gregory 14. and Innocent 9. that I suppose their names haue bene heard of fewe among vs. 13 But the 11. of Daniel perhaps will proue Bellarmines assertion That allegation will proue nothing but Bellarmines wilfull blindnesse Hee saith that in the 11. chapter vers 43. Daniel explaneth who those three Kings are Hee shall stretch out his hand ouer countries and the land of Egypt shall not escape and he shall passe through Libya and Aethiopia as Bellarmine readeth but according to the Hebrew the Lubim and Cushim that is the Libyans and Aethiopians shall be in his passages or voyages Whence Bellarmine inferreth that Antichrist shall kill three kings viz. of Egypt Libya and Aethiopia Answere 1. Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist but of Antiochus as I haue manifestly prooued 2. although Antiochus were graunted to haue bene a type of Antichrist herein yet the same particular which is proper to the person of Antiochus may not be applied to Antichrist For then we must dreame that the world and the kingdomes thereof must be brought againe iust to the same passe wherein they were when Antiochus raigned and the same kings to be reuiued but something like might be applied that as Antiochus in Bellarmines conceit suppressed three kings so Antichrist should be a suppressor of kings which is true of the Pope who besides diuers kings deposed by his meanes hath also depressed foure Emperours at the least as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth 3. Daniel in this place is so farre from mentioning three kings slaine by Antichrist according to Bellarmines conceit that he neither speaketh of Antichrist nor of three kings nor of the killing of any one king but onely of Antiochus his spoyling of Egypt hauing in his company the Libyans and Aethiopians Whether therefore this argument of Bellarmine doth reproue our madnesse or rather proue his folly let any indifferent arbiter be Iudge Now if Ierome or any other of the Fathers haue let fall any such thing we are to esteeme it as an excrement of theirs which we are to passe by rather then with the Cacouorae the Papists to gather it vp as Cacouora auis quaedam est apud Indos quae alterius auis asseâ—… cla est cuius vescatur excremeÌ„tis Scalig de subtil fit foode for their soules 14 And the like answere we frame vnto his third argument which is not grounded vpon the scriptures but vpon the bare coniectures of some of the Fathers For where is there in all the scriptures any word of this which Bellarmine saith he readeth in the scriptures that Antichrist shall subdue seuen other kings and by that meanes shall become the Monarch of the whole worlde Forsooth Lactantius and Ireneus say so But I neuer tooke their
personall The 4. Chapter maintaining against Bellarmine his first demonstration that Antichrist is come 1. TO prooue that Antichrist is not yet come and consequently that the Pope is not Antichrist he bringeth sixe slender conjectures from sixe signes which as shall be shewed are neither proper nor necessarie And these by a strange kinde of Logicke he calleth forsooth sixe demonstrations For so haue I read of some troubled with melancholie who haue thought euery Strawe or small Reed in their hands to haue beene so many Speares We must know saith he that the holy Ghost in the Scriptures hath giuen vs sixe certaine signes of the comming of Antichrist Whereof two goe before viz. the preaching of the Gospell throughout the whole world and the desolation of the Romane Empire Two accompanie Antichrist to wit the preaching of Enoch and Elias and the most grieuous persecution of the church insomuch that the publicke seruice of God must wholy cease Two come after namely the ruâ—…e of Antichrist after three yeares and a halfe and the end of the world Of which signes none saith he is yet fulfilled We hold the contrary namely that all those signes which the holy Ghost hath giuen concerning the comming of Antichrist are fulfilled and that those which are not yet fulfilled are none of those signes which the holy Ghost hath assigned For I will not stand now to tell you how fitlie he maketh the death of Antichrist and the end of the world which according to Bellarmines conceit followeth after his death to be two signes of his comming 2. The first signe which goeth before the comming of Antichrist is the Preaching of the Gospell throughout the world From whence he reasoneth thus If the Gospell hath not as yet beene preached throughout the world then is not Antichrist as yet come But the Gospell hath not as yet beene preached throughout the world therefore Antichrist is not yet come But in this argument nothing is sound no necessitie of consequence in the proposition nor truth in the assumption The proposition notwithstanding he would prooue because our Sauiour Christ maketh this vniuersall preaching of the Gospell a fore-runner of Antichrist Mat. 24. 14. This Gospell of the kingdome shal be preached in all the world for atestiâ—…onie to all nations But our Sauiour Christ doth not say that the Gospell shall be preached throughout the world before the comming of Antichrist but before the end as it followeth in the very same verse and then the end shall come Whereby we are to vnderstand either the destruction of Jerusalem which is most like or the end and consummation of the world as Bellarmine expoundeth it And therefore vnlesse he take it for granted that the comming of Antichrist shall not be before the very end of the world which we do constantly denie as being the matter in question betwixt vs there is not so much as any shew of reason in this allegation being vnderstood according to his owne exposition which also is false Neither is it the purpose of our Sauiour Christ to signifie vnto his Disciples the time of Antichrists comming but by way of answer to the question propounded by his Disciples verse 3. to shew them when Ierusalem should be destroyed as also to giue them some signes of his comming and of the end of the world But because the former part of this Chapter is diuershe abused by the Papists in this matter concerning Antichrist I thinke it needfull by way of a short analysis to giue you the true meaning thereof that by one labour all their cauils may be refuted 3. Whereas therefore our Sauiour Christ had foretolde his Disciples the vtter desolation of Ierusalem and destruction of the temple they being perswaded that the temple and citie of Ierusalem should not haue an end before the end of the world demand therfore of our Sauiour Christ when should be the end of both Tell vs say they vers 3. when these things shal be that is when the temple shall be destroyed what shal be the signe of thy coÌ„ming of the end of the world Which questioÌ„ hauing two parts receiueth an answer to both To the former concerning the destruction of Ierusalem from the 4. vers to the 23. To the latter concerning the comming of Christ and the end of the world from thence to the 42. As touching the former our Sauiour prophecieth first of the calamities and troubles which should go before the destruction of Ierusalem vnto the 15. verse And secondly of the destruction it selfe and the greeuousnesse thereof vnto the 23. The troubles and calamities which were the forerunners of the destruction of Ierusalem were either temporall or spirituall The temporal either publique and common or peculiar to the disciples of Christ among the Iewes The publique warres and rumors of warres famine pestilence earthquakes which were but the beginning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of sorrowes in the land of Iewry being about to be deliuered of her inhabitaÌ„ts verse 6. 7. 8. The peculiar troubles to the Christians persecution and hatred for Christs sake and the effects thereof in the vnsound falling away and betraying and hating one another verse 9. 10. The spirituall in the teachers spirits of errour and heresie vers 5. 11. In the heaters seduction by false Prophets and falling away verse 11. 12. Now vnto this Prophesie are admixed both admonitions and consolations Admonitions that they should take heed of false Prophets verse 4. that they should not be troubled or dismaide with rumors of warres verse 6. Consolations grounded vpon a two-folde promise first of saluation to those who notwithstanding these temptations shall perseuere to the end verse 13. Secondly of the successe of their Ministery that before the desolation of Ierusalem the Gospell should be preached throughout the world for a testimonie to all nations verse 14. And therefore that they should not feare least together with Ierusalem his Church should bee ouerthrowne For before the destruction of Ierusalem he would by their Preaching to all nations both Iewes and Gentiles plant his Church in many nations of the world And for asmuch as the Temple and Citie of Ierusalem were types and figures of the Church of Christ which were to be abolished when the church of Christ should be established therefore he addeth that vpon the planting of his church by their ministery should the end and destruction of Ierusalem come And these were the calamities which went before the destruction of Ierusalem The destructioÌ„ it selfe is described partly by the efficient foretold by Daniel chap. 9. 27. that is to say the Romane armies besieging Ierusalem Luke 21. 20. which because they were Idolators are called Sic Augustine ad HesychiuÌ„ et Chrysost homil 49. in Mat. oper imperfect abominable and because of the desolation which they were to bring vpon Ierusalem are called desolators and by a metonymy Mat. 24. 15. the abomination of desolation and by a Synecdeche Dan. 9. 27. abominable wings that
for of these two kingdomes there are tenne kings reckened which tyrannized ouer the people of the Iewes especially the tenth horne that is Antiochus Epiphanes who arose in the ende of the kingdome of this beast namely ouer the Iewes chap. 8. 23. For in his time the people of God were freed from the tyrannie of the Seleucidae by Iudas Macchabaeus 7 These tenne hornes which successiuely tyrannized ouer Iewry are mentioned in order in this 11. chapter First Ptolemy Lagides the first horne who is called verse 5. the king of Verse 5. Ioseph antiq lib. 12. cap. 1. the South that is of Egypt who shortly after he had gotten Egypt inuaded Iudea and surprized the citie of Ierusalem on a Sabboth Secondly Seleucus Nicanor the second horne the mightiest of the Princes of Alexander as he is described in the same fift verse For although Ptolemy for a time helde Iudaea yet after it was agreed vpon that Seleucus should haue Syria and therein Iudaea Him succeeded Antiochus Soter the third horne so called because he expelled the French-men out of Asia whose sonne Antiochus Theos the fourth horne to confirme a league betwixt him and Ptolemy Philadelphus King of Egypt tooke in marriage Bernice the daughter of Ptolemy Vers 6. Philadelphus according to that prophecie of the two legges consisting of yron and claie mingled together that they should mingle themselues together in the seede of man but they should not cleaue together euen as yron cannot be mixed with claie chap. 2. 43. for euen so it followeth vers 6. For howsoeuer they had combined themselues together by mariage yet this coniunction helde not and they which had any hande in it shortly after died For Antiochus Theos had a former wife yet liuing named Laodice by whom he had Seleucus Callinicus and Antiochus Hierax This Laodice to reuenge this despite poisoned her husband Antiochus Theos her sonne Seleucus Callinicus the fift horne slewe Bernice her childe and her traine and Ptolemy Philadelphus shortly after this mariage ended his life But in his place verse 7. did arise his sonne Ptolemy Euergetes the sixt Vers. 7. horne proceeding from the same rootes with Bernice that is her brother who to auenge the death of his sister made warre with Seleucus Callinicus and ouercame him and hauing caused himselfe to be crowned king of Syria returned with much spoile and many captiues into Egypt and Ver. 8. 9 Polyb. li. 5. Appian in Syria Ioseph l. contr Appian Vers. 10. being stronger then Seleucus Callinicus hee held the dominion of Syria for many yeares But the sonnes of Seleucus Callinicus to wit Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus Magnus raised warre verse 5. 10. First Seleucus Ceraunus against Ptolemy Euergetes and they both beeing dead about the same time Antiochus Magnus against Ptolemy Philopater the sonne of Euergetes Of him I meane Antiochus Magnus the Angell prophecieth vnto the 20. verse to wit of his battailes first with Ptolemy Philopator and those sometimes prosperous whereby hee recouered Syria verse 10. sometime aduerse wherby he lost the same again vers 11. 12. Wherevpon Ptolemy being list vp becommeth the 7. horne and killeth many of the Iewes for which hee shall not prosper verse 12. After of his battailes and victories against Ptolemy Epiphanes sonne of Philopater verse 13. 14. 15. Of Vers. 13. 14. 15. Vers. 16. his afflicting the lande thereby that is Iewry verse 16. as being the eight houre of his giuing his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy Epiphanes to mingle the yron and the clay according to the prophecie chapter 2. therein pretending peace and friendship but intending by her his destruction although in vaine she ioyning with her husband against her father verse Vers. 17. 17. Of his expeditions into the Ilandes of Greece and conquering them Of his warres with the Romaines which brought shame vpon him they making him to sit downe with dishonourable conditions verse 18. Of his ignominious Vers. 18. Vers. 19. ende namely in a Barbarian tumult for sacriledge verse 19. In his place succeedeth his sonne Seleucus Philopater the ninth horne one who did pill and poll his subiects by great tributes and exactions and sent to emptie and exhaust the treasury and temple of Ierusalem and hauing set free his brother Antiochus Epiphanes who was an hostage at Rome and in stead of him sent his owne sonne Demetrius is shortly after poysoned by Heliodorus suborned by Antiochus Epiphanes vers 20. Vers. 20. Ver. 21. 8 Now in his place saith the Angel vers 21. shall stand a vile person c. that is in the kingdome of Syria a vile person shall succeed Seleucus Philopator as the tenth horn which cannot be vnderstood properly of any other but of Antiochus Epiphanes who in the rest of the chapt to the end is most fully plainly described For first he intreateth of his cōming vnto the kingdome secōdly of his affaires afterwards and lastly of his end Of his comming vnto the kingdome he saith that hauing no right of succession for Demetrius was the heire nor lawfull election by flattery fraude attained to the kingdome pretending himselfe as Richard the third did to be the tutor protector of the young Prince Demetrius and Administrator of the kingdome during the minoritie and absence of Demetrius who had bene sent in his stead as an hostage to Rome Wherefore Daniel in this place speaketh not of Antichrist vnlesse we may say that Antichrist was to be the immediate successor of Seleucus Philopater which is ridiculous yea and Bellarmine himselfe confesseth else-where that in this latter part of the chapter Daniel speaketh of Antiochus literally who was a figure of Antichrist This place therefore doth not proue Lib. 3. cap. 21. Bellarmines proposition namely that Antichrist arising from most base estate should by fraud obtaine the kingdome of the Iewes Neither doth this proposition sit Antiochus who is here described neither is it agreeable to the description itselfe For neither did Antiochus arise from most base estate for hee was sonne to Antiochus the great and brother to Seleucus Philopater Neither doth Daniel say so but onely that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a vile or despised person should succeede Seleucus Philopator which is to be vnderstood not in respect of his base estate and condition but of his base maners and vile conditions in regard whereof the holy Ghost calleth him although a great Kings sonne vile and contemptible And so is euery wicked man though mightie in the world a vile and despised person in the eyes of the godly Psal. 15. 4. The wicked man is vile in his eyes And as Salomon saith The wicked man is an abhomination vnto the righteous Such an one was Haman in the eyes of Mardoche and Iehoram Pro. 21. 27. Hest. 3. 2. King 3. 13. 14. the wicked king of Israel in the eyes of Elizeus So that it was not the base condition but the vices and base conditions of Antiochus that made
writings before to be the scriptures Why then Ierome saith so vpon Daniel 11. 24. where Daniel speaketh of Antiochus his dealings in Egypt that he did that which his forefathers neuer did Nullus Iudaeorum absque Antichristo in tot◅ vnquam or be regnauit These be Bellarmines scriptures But where do the scriptures indeede say that Antichrist shall subdue seuen of the tenne Kings Nay the contrary may rather bee gathered out of the scriptures The tenne hornes whereof Daniel speaketh were tenne Kings which successiuely raigned ouer Iudaea as hath bene shewed And although Antiochus Epiphanes might helpe away three of his next predecessors yet hee could not hurt the other sixe for there were but nine besides himselfe which were all dead and gone before he came to yeares Yea but this opinion of the Fathers is plainely enough deduced out of Apoc. 17. 12. where we reade and the tenne hornes which thou sawest are tenne Kings these haue one minde and they shall giue their power and authoritie to the beast No maruell though some of the Papists call the scripture a nose of waxe seeing they can frame and fashion it at their pleasure and giue vnto it what sense they list Doth Iohn speake of Antichrist his either killing three or subduing seuen Or doth Iohn speake of the same tenne hornes wherof Daniel doth Daniel speaketh of tenne Kings which were to bee dead and gone before the comming of the Messias Iohn speaketh of such as in his time had not yet attained to their kingdome verse 12. Daniel speaketh of tenne Kings of the Seleucidae and Lagidae which succeeded one an other Iohn of tenne Kings among whom the Romane Empire was to be diuided who also were to haue their kingdome together with the beast Daniel telleth vs what the little horne which was one of the tenne should doo to three of the other nine without mention of the rest Iohn sheweth what all the tenne hornes should doo to Antichrist which is none of the tenne hornes but one of the heades of the beast If therefore Bellarmine can proue from hence that these are the same tenne hornes spoken of in Daniel and that Antichrist shall kill three of them subdue the other seuen he may hope to proue any thing But what other scriptures hath hee forsooth Chrysostome and Cyrill For Chrysostome on 2. Thess. 2. saith that Antichrist shall bee a Monarch and shall succeede the Romanes in the Monarchy as the Romanes succeeded the Greekes the Greekes succeeded the Persians and they the Assyrians And Cyrill saith that Antichrist shall obtaine the Monarchy Catech. 15 which was the Romanes I answere that for substance these Fathers held the truth For what Monarch hath there bene in the West these fiue or sixe hundred yeares besides the Pope who calleth himselfe King of Kings and Lorde of Lords to whom all power is giuen in heauen and in earth who hath as they say the double Monarchy both of spirituall and temporal power who forsooth is Lord of the whole earth in so much that he taketh vpon him authoritie to dispose of the new found world And that he succedeth the Emperors in the Alexand. 6. gouernment of Rome as it becommeth Antichrist who is the second beast Apoc. 13. and the 7. head of the beast Apoc. 17. whereof the Emperour was the sixt I shall not neede to proue 15 There remaineth the fourth argument Antichrist shall persecute with an innumerable army the Christians throughout the world and this is the battell of God and Magog but this agreeth not to the Pope therefore the Pope is not Antichrist I answere to the proposition that no such thing can be proued out of the scripture Hee alledgeth Ezech. 38. 39. Apoc. 20. 7. 8. 9. 10. But Ezechiel speaketh not of Antichrist nor of the persecution of the Christian Church by him But hauing foretold chapter 37. the restitution of the Iewes from the Babylonian captiuitie and also prophesied of the comming of Christ in those chapters hee foretelleth of the afflictions and troubles which the people of the Iewes should sustaine in the meane time to wit after their returne out of captiuitie before the comming of the Messias and withall denounceth the iudgemēts of God against the Seleucidae who were the kings of Syria and Asia minor and their adherents who should be the chiefe enemies of the church and people of the Iewes after their returne For Gog signifieth Asia minor hauing that name from Gyges the King thereof Magog is Hierapolis the chiefe seate of Idolatry in Syria built by the Scythians and frō them hath that name So that by the land of Magog wee are to vnderstand Syria and by Gog Asia minor And the rest of the peoples that Plin. lib. 5. cap. 23. are named in Ezechiel were such as assisted the Seleucidae who were the kings of Syria and Asia minor in their warres either as their subiects or as their friends or as their mercenary souldiers And for as much as the princes and people of Syria and Asia minor were the most grieuous enemies of the Iewes by Ad Tremell Iun. in Ezech 38. 39. whom they sustained the chiefest calamities after their returne before the comming of Christ therefore by an vsuall speech in the Iewish language the mortall and deadly enemies of the church are called Gog and Magog And in this sense Iohn the Diuine vseth these names Gog and Magog to signifie the enemies of the church meaning not the same enemies whereof Ezechiel speaketh but the like enemies of the Church which should afflict the true Christians as Gog and Magog afflicted the Iewes Neither doth Iohn in this place speake of the persecution of Antichrist properly but of Sathan after he was loosed his inciting the enemies of the Church to battell and of Gods iudgements against them signified by fire And so much shall suffice to haue answered to this argument For after so long a Treatise I will not trouble the Reader with the tenne seuerall opinions which Bellarmine reciteth cōcerning Gog and Magog neither yet with any further answere to his cauillations and exceptions against some of the arguments of diuers Protestants which he thought were more easie to answere seeing in the former booke I haue sufficiently cleared those arguments whereby the Pope is more euidently proued to be Antichrist neither is the controuersie betwixt vs whether euery argument that hath bene produced by euery one doth necessarily conclude the Pope to be Antichrist That discourse therefore being rather personall then reall I let it passe Chap. 17. Being the conclusion of the whole Treatise HAuing therefore both by sufficient arguments manifestly proued that the Pope is 1. Antichrist and by euidence of truth maintained the same assertion against the arguments of the Papists let vs now consider in the last place what conclusions may vpon this doctrine be necessarily inferred for our further vse For first if this be true that the Pope is Antichrist as
against Christ the Lambe so they in oppugning the Pope and Church of Apo. 19. 19 Rome doe fight the battailes of Christ against Antichrist And consequently are to promise to themselues vndoubted victorie they fighting vnder the banner of the Lambe who shall be sure to ouercome seeing he is the Lord of Lords and King of Kings Apo. 17. 14. and those also that are with him though esteemed of Antichrist Qui monet vt facias quod iam facis ipse monendo Laudat â—…atu comprobat acta suâ—… and his adherents as Schismaticks and Heretiques yet are they called elect and faithfull Encourage therefore your selfe most Christian King as we doubt not but you doe to maintaine for euer the truth of Christ against the falshood of Antichrist And doubt you not both of happy successe and victorie in this life and of an immortall crowne of glory in the life to come The God of all mercy and power who in his vnspeakeable bountie towards vs hath placed your Highnesse ouer vs in peace make both you and vs truely thankfull to his maiestie for this inestimable benefit and establish your Highnesse and your Royall posteritie in the throne of this Kingdome to the glory of his great name aduancement of his Kingdome propagation of the Gospell confusion of Popery consolation of all true Christians and your owne euerlasting comfort Amen Your Maiesties most humble and dutifull subiect GEORGE DOVVNAME Faults escaped in the Printing are thus to be corrected In the first Booke Pag. 7 lin vlt. read the Apoc. Pag. 1â—… l. 9 Apocal. 13 In margine li. 6. ad Mareclâ—… P. 14 l. 4. atq 〈◊〉 l. 9. vvhich vvith l. â—…0 vvhich vvord l. 12. superst â—…ous p. 15. l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 17. l 18. Pannonia P. 21. marg l. 3. Algasiam P. 24 l. 1 for as marg lin vlt hist. â—…otor p. 28. l vlt P 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 29. l. 10. vvould p. 31 l. 3. as 〈◊〉 l. 25. hinder d then pag. 35 l 9. donation l. 16. Exarch p. 36. l. 23. Luttpâ—…dus p. 40 marg l. 16. â—…aleu p. â—…2 l. 16. Seleucidae p. 47. l. 22. blot out the one vvhiles p. 50. marg l. 6. Mat. 4. 9 p 59. marg l. 2. Lubb p. 69. l. a fine 5. Cookes vvith p. 70 l. 9. Monstrance in marg l. a fine 4. arcu pag. 71. ad lin 2. in marg scribe 〈◊〉 can sub sinem extravag loan 22. Tat. 14. 〈◊〉 significatione C. cuÌ„ inter p. 74. marg l. 16. Electi potest p. 77 l. 6. ipsissimum p. 78. l. 7. eight p. 80 marg l. 7. Naâ—…r p. 83 l. 16. blot out 〈◊〉 in marg l. vlt. refer subtiliss ad lin a f. 7 p. 86. l. 7. Tecetius p. 90. l penult Donation p. â—…1 l. a. f. 8. first and second p. 92. l. vlt. Lando p. 94 l 2 vnto l. a. f. 5. 4. Benedict p. 100. l. a. f. 10. Impleuâ—…ris p. 104. marg l. vlt. Non nos p. 106. l. 6. vve are p. 110. l 23. Babylons p. 123. l. 5. This l. a. f. 11. receiued p. 128. l. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 129. l. 19. other names p. â—…38 l. 18. There In the second Booke Pag 6. l. 13. that he is p. 10. l penult another p. 11. l. 11. prefixed p. 13. l. 27. the King is supreme p. 16. l. a f. 4. reuealed as p. 20. l. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 21. l. a f. 5 prefixed p. 25. l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l 11. beast p 27. marg l 3. for § 2. read lib. 1. cap. 4. § 2 p. 28. l. 21. he seeth p. 30. l. 6. reuolted p. 32 l. 19. ovvne p. 37. marg l 5 Annal Boior p. 41. l. 14. vvomen vvith child p. 46. l. 8. come sor p. 48. set chap. 16. against line 12 p. 60. l. 1. of the 13 I marg l. penult can p 70. l. 11. Neuerthe esse p. 72 l. a. f. 13. time vnto p. 73. l. a f. 5. adornc pag. 77 l. 10. seemeth p. 80 l. 1. blot out of p. 82 l. 24. men l. 26. out p. 85 l. 24 in marg dele 3. p. 89. l. a f. 8. lizen sse p. 97 l. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 20 Diclâ—… l. 23. Luthers l. 24. Lulter p. 98 l. 15 be come p. 102. l. 18. pronounce p. 106 l. a f. 14. saith he p 109 l. 3. vvere p. 110 l a f. 4. bload shed p. 114 l. 21. or altogether p. 124 l. 19. spiritually p. 125 l. 18 Apoc. 17. 16. p. 133 l. 7. desolatours p. 135 l. 1. Monarches p. 137 l. 2. a meere sable p. 139 l. 15 141 l. 11. 12 depraue p. 144 l. 13. aequè ac p. 151 l. a f. 5. and therefore p. 152. l. 17. 18. glorifie p. 156. l. 21 blot out ad l. 23. d scribe p. 157 l. 14. of Babylons p. 161. l. a f. 4. first of p. 162. l. 6. 7. Omnes p. 163. l. penult fiue p. 168. l. 7. 22. Lagidae p. 169. l. 1. vidâ—…atur l. 3 to Porphyry l. 7. Daniel The p. 175. l. 5. the land Tzebi l. 6. eight horne p. 181. l. 1. 〈◊〉 Casleu p. 188. Marg. l. 3. vid. Tremell The first Booke prouing that the Pope is Antichrist The first Chapter propounding the state of the controuersie and the grounds of our proofes 1. WHeras the holy Ghost 2. Thess. 2. Thess. 2. 8. 2. 8. hath foreshewed that Christ our Sauiour shall consume Antichrist with the spirit of his mouth that is by the ministerie of his worde which Esay 11. 4. is called the rodde or Esay 11. 4. scepter of his mouth the spirite of his lips it caÌ„not therfore be denied but that it is the dutie of all faithfull ministers who are as it were the mouth of christ vnto his people to set themselues against Antichrist that by their ministery his kingdome may be weakned and the kingdome of Christ Iesus more and more aduaunced For which cause I tooke vpon me in my publicke readings not long since to intreat of this maine controuersie betwixt vs and the church of Rome concerning Antichrist But because my speech could prosite onely those that heard me I haue for diuerse causes thought good by writing to make the benefit of my labours coÌ„mon First that by this means the Papists which be tractable may be reclaimed Secondly that those which bee obstinate among them may bee confounded Thirdly that Protestants and professours of the trueth which be found resolute may be more more coÌ„firmed lastly especially that those which be weake wauering may be stayed and preserued from falling into that fearfull iudgement which as the Lord hath threatned 2. Thess. 2. against vnsound professours in these latter times so hath it within these few years fallen vpon very many who hauing by the great mercy of God beene deliuered out of the more then Egyptian bondage of Antichrist and
the testimonie of S. Paule 2. Thess. 2. 8. And then that outlaw meaning Antichrist shal be reuealed And wheÌ„ 2. Thess. 2. 8. is that When he that hindereth shal be taken out of the way And who is that which hindereth the reuelation of Antichrist for a time that he might be reuealed in his due time Who this was 2. Thess. 2. 6. 7. the Apostle had told the Thessal by word of mouth and therfore forbare for iust causes to tell them by writing which they knew already to wit that he might not incurre the needlesse 2. Thess. 2. 5. 6. hatred of the Romanes But that which he had told them in all likelyhood was continued in the church For although this place in it selfe be most difficult yet generally it is vnderstood of the Empire and Emperours of Rome by most of the auncient writers of the Church Tertullian who shall be takeÌ„ out of the way but the Romane state whose departure being diuided De resurrect carn among ten Kinges shall bring in Antichrist Ambrose After the decay of the Romane Empire Paule saith that Antichrist In 2. Thess. 2. shall appeare Chrysostome on these wordes Onely hee that holdeth that is as hee expoundeth hindereth now vntill he In 2. Thess. 2. be taken out of the way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith hee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Empire of Rome when it shall bee taken out of the way then he meaning Antichrist shall come and worthily For whiles men shall be in awe of the Empire none will hastily be brought in subiection to Antichrist But when the Empire shall be dissolued he shall seize vpon the vacancie and shall challenge to himselfe the Empire or rule both humane and diuine Hierome speaking of these words And now what hindereth you know that he Ad Algas quaest 11. might be reuealed in his time that is saith he what the cause is why Antichrist commeth not yet you know very well Neither could he plainelie say that the Romane Empire is to be destroyed which the Emperours thinke is aternall Wherefore according to the Apocalypse of Iohn there is written in the forehead of the harlot cloathed with purple a name of blasphemy that is Romae aeternae to Rome aternal And afterwards these words onelie he which holdeth now must hold vntill hee bee taken out of the way and then that out law shall be reuealed hee expoundeth thus onelie that the Romane Empire which now holdeth that is gouerneth all nations depart and be taken out of the way and then Antichrist shall come Cyrill Antichrist shall come when the Catech. 15. times of the Romane Empire shall be fulfilled Primasius The kingdome of the Romanes shall bee taken out of the way before in 2. Thess. 2. Antichrist be reuealed Theophylact when the Romane Empire shall be taken out of the way then shall Antichrist come The in 2. Thess. 2. greeke scholiast on those words that which holdeth c. hee in 2. Thess. 2. 6. meaneth saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which letteth and hindereth And what is that Many vnderstand the holy ghost others the Romane Empire whose iudgement is the better For vntill that be dissolued Antichrist shall not come And for this cause blessed Paul spake so obscurelie because he would not incur vnseasonable enmitie with the Romans For when they should heare that the Empire of the Romanes shall be dissolued they would persecute him and al the faithful as being such as looked for the dissolution of the Empire But if he had spoken of the holy ghost what letted him to haue said plainelie that the grace of the holie ghost did hinder him that he should not appeare To which we may adde that in the sixt verse the Apostle speaketh in the newter gender and in the seauenth in the masculine the former whereof may signifie the Empire the latter the Emperour of whom the holy ghost speaketh as of one man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he vseth to speak sometimes of Antichrist and wee of the Pope although both by the one and the other is signified not one man but a state or succession Augustine in deede saith of De ciuit Dei lib. 20. c. 19. these words but he that hindereth shall hinder I do confesse that I am vtterly ignorant what he saith Some think that this is spoken of the Romane Empire and that Paul the Apostle would not therefore write it plainelie least he should incur this slaunder that he was an ill willer to the Romane Empire which men hoped to be aternall Notwithstanding this seemeth to haue bin his iudgement also for afterwards he thinketh those words may thus be expouÌ„ded of the Empire of Rome tanâ—…uÌ„ qui modò imperat imperet c. only he which reigneth must raigne for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also may signify to the same purpose Primasius expouÌ„deth those words tantuÌ„ vt qui tenet nunc sc. imperiuÌ„ only he which holdeth now to wit the Empire vntil he be done that is taken out of the way and then that outlaw shall be reuealed whome no man doubteth to signifie Antichrist 2 But what need I to be so diligent in gathering testimonies for the coÌ„firmation of this truth seeing it is not only confirmed by the former assertioÌ„ for how could Antichrist raign in Rome while the Roman Emperors remaind or raignd there but also is confessed by Bellarmine himself namely that by this let is to be vnderstood the Empire of Rome Rather let vs coÌ„sider whe ther the Empire that hindred be taken out of the way or not Beliarmine vnderstandeth this taking away of an vtter abolishing Cap. 5. of the Romane Empire so that there should not remaine so much as the name of the Emperor or King of the Romanes FroÌ„ wheÌ„ce he would proue that Antichrist is not yet come because the Romane Empire is not yet abolished Wee confesse that the Romane Empire which hindred the reuelatioÌ„ of Antichrist was to be dissolued and also diuided among ten that is many kings for so this number of ten is ofteÌ„ vsed indefinitly Num. 14. 22. Iob. 19. 3. Nehem. 4. 12. which is all that can be gathered either out of the scriptures or fathers But that there should be such an vtter abolishment of the Romane Empire as that there should not remain so much as the name or title of the Emperor or King of the Romanes we do vtterly deny It is sufficient that the Emperor was so far See a. book chap. 5. forth taken out of the way as it hindred the Reuelation or dominion of Antichrist And so much the phrase of the Apostle seemeth to import 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vntil hee be done out of the way or as the Rhemists themselues do read vntill he be taken out of the way as may appeare by conference of like places Let vs then consider in what sence the Romane Empire did Mat. 13. 49.
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
possessions when he had at the intreaty of Adrian the Pope ouerthrown the kingdome Anno. 773. of the Lombards in Italie For which cause as also for that hee assisted the Pope Leo the third against the insurrections of the people of Rome punished his aduersaries and caused the people of Rome to sweare alleagiance to the Pope The Pope namely Leo the third crowned him Emperour of Rome translating Anno. 800. that title from the Emperour of the East to him and in him renewing the Empire of the west which had beene voide since the time of Augustulus And as he made him Emperour so to him was committed by Adrian and Leo the confirmation of those which were elected to the Papacy Which yoke as the Popes following oft strugled against so at the last they shooke it off And whereas in former times the Pope was subiect to the Emperour being elected was confirmed by him Adrian 3. an 883. afterwards it came to passe that as the Empire was renewed in Charlemaigne and after reuiued in Otto the great and that to this end that it might support the Papacy so the Pope namely Anno. 960. Iohn the 12 aliâs 13. causeth the Emperour to sweare vnto him to that end taketh order for the election of the Emperour Gregory 5. appointing 7 electors reseruing the coronatioÌ„ of the Emperor Anno. 995. and confirmation of the election vnto himselfe and at the length subiecteth the Emperour vnto him as his vassall challenging both swords and vsurping an vniuersal dominion and soueraignty ouer all the christian world not onely ouer ecclesiasticall persons as Bishops and Priests but also ciuil as princes Kings Emperours whome he esteemeth as his vassals and maketh them kisse his feete as we shall shew more fully when we come to speake of his Antichristian pride Vnto this Monarchy C. Fundamenta de elect in sexto as they call it not onely of spirituall but also of temporall power they long aspired but neuer fully attained vntill the time of Gregory the seauenth in whom Antichrist was Anno. 1073. come to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or full growth wherein hee flourished vntill our Sauiour Christ the king of kings and Lord of Lords began to waste and consume him with the breath of his mouth This is that which Auentine saith Hildebrand who also is called Lib. 5. annal Boior Gregory the seauenth first established the Pontificall Empire which his successours for the space of 450. yeares that is to Auentine and also Luthers time so held in spite of the world and maugre the Emperours that they haue brought all both in heauen hel into boÌ„dage c. at their pleasure they cast men headlong from heauen to hel and again from hel aduance to heauen The Emperour from henceforth is nothing but a bare title without body or shew 7 But no sooner was Antichrist come to his full growth wherby he plainly reuealed discouerd himself but straightwaies he began to be acknowledged which is the 2. part of his reuelation wherof also there are degrees For first hee was acknowledged particularly dy diuerse learned godly men in the time of Gregory the 7. and in euery age since vntil the time of Luther As for example the Bishops of Germany affirme Gregory the 7. to be Antichrist AntichristuÌ„ esse praedicaÌ„t Vnder the name title of Christ say they he coÌ„triueth the businesse of Antichrist he sitteth in Babylon in the temple of God he extolleth AueÌ„tin annal Boior lib. 5. himselfe aboue all that is worshipped as if he were a God he boasteth that he caÌ„not erre And afterward Auentin either in his owne name or in the persoÌ„ of Sigeberius speaking of the times Lib. 5. annal Boior of Gregory the 7 All men almost saith he that were good open-hearted iust ingenuous and single hearted haue left in writing that the Empire of Antichrist did then begin because they saw those things which our Sauiour Christ so many yeares before had prophecied vnto vs to happen in that time The Bishop of Florence in the time of Paschalis the second preached that Antichrist was come meaning the Pope Anno. 1119. Catalog test Anno. 1120. Catalog test Magde centur 12. Honorius Augustudonensis applieth the prophecies in the Apocalypse concerning Antichrist to the Pope and church of Rome Dialog de lib. arb praedest Bernard in his time acknowledgeth a general apostasie and complaineth of the state of the church as Antichristian Anno. 1140. Serm. 33. in Cant. in conuers Pauli serm 1. Ioannes Sarisburiensis taught that the pope is Antichrist and the city of Rome the whore of Babylon About the same time Petrus Blesensis wrote that Rome is that very Babylon whereof Iohn speaketh in the Apocalypse Anno. 1157. Polan in Dan. Anno. 1158. Gerhardus and Dulcinus Nauarrensis preach that the Pope is Antichrist and that the cleargy and prelates of Rome were the very whore of Babylon prefigured in the Apocalypse Ex I Fox In the time of Alexander the third the Waldenses teach that Anno. 1170. Ex I. Fox catal test Roger Houeden in Ricardi 1. Bal. centur 3. c. 35. in appeÌ„d Anno. 1189. Catalog test the Pope is Antichrist and Rome Babylon Ioachim the abbot beeing demaunded of Richard the first king of England now going towards the holie land concerning Antichrist aunswered thus Antichrist is alreadie borne in the citie of Rome and is aduaunced in the See Apostolicke And in certaine Germane verses also published at Francofurt he affirmeth that the Pope and his priests are Antichrists Eberhardus archiepiscopus Iuuacensis Hyldebrand saith he about an hundred and 70. yeares ago did first vnder the shewe Anno. 1241. Auentin annal Boior lib. 7. of religion lay the foundation of Antichrists kingdome And straightwaies after those priests of Babylon saith he couet to reigne alone they cannot endure an aequall Neither will they ceasse vntill they haue troden all vnder their feet and do sit te in the temple of God and be extolled about all that is worshipped Their hunger afterwealth and thirst for honour is insatiable c. he that is the seruant of seruants desireth to bee the Lord of Lords as if he were a God And againe hee wasteth and spotleth he deceiueth and killeth I meane that man of perdition whome they call Antichrist in whose forehead a name of blasphemie is written I am God I cannot erre he sitteth in the temple of God he ruleth farre and wide Robert Grosthead the worthie Bishoppe of Lincolne on his deathbed complaining of the Pope and bewailing the losse of Anno. 1253. Mat. Paris in Henr. 3. soules which happened through the auarice of the Popes court with sighs he said Christ came into the world to gaine soules therefore if any feare not to destroy soules is not he worthily to be called Antichrist Guilieâ—…s de sancto amore a master of Paris and chiefe ruler
Anno. 1260. of that vniuersitie called the monks and priests the subiects of Antichrist One Lawrence also an Englishman master of Paris proued the Pope to be Antichrist the synagogue of Rome the great Anno. 1290. I. Fox BabyloÌ„ About the same time Maenardus Tyrolius in a publick edict calleth the Popes effeminate Antichrists And againe if they be not Antichrists I pray you what are they Auentin annal boior li. 7. Michael Cesenas principall of the gray fryers wrote against the pride tyranny and primacy of the Pope accusing him to be Anno. 1322. 1. Fox Antichrist and the church of Rome the whore of Babylon drunken with the bloud of Saints Hayabalus a fryer in the time of Clement the sixt preached and that as he saide by Anno. 1345. Henrie de Herford in Chronic. Catalog test 1. Fox commaundement from God that the church of Rome is the whore of Babylon and that the Pope with his Cardinalles is the very Antichrist Wilhâ—…lmus Occomensis as Auentine calleth him wrote a booke against Charles and Clement the sixte wherein he calleth the Pope Antichrist Auentin annal Boior li. 7. Briget whom the Papists worship as a canonized Saint calleth the Pope a murtherer of soules more cruell then Iudas Anno. 1370. more vniust then Pilate worse then Lucifer himselfe She prophecieth 1. Fox that the See of Rome shall bee throwne downe into the deepe like a milstone according to the prophecie of Saint Iohn Apocalypse 18. 21 About the same yeere Matthias Parifiensis a Bohemian writing a booke of Antichrist proueth that he is already come and noateth him to be the Pope Franciscus Petrarch in many places of his writings calleth Anno. 1374. the court of Rome the whore of Babylon the mother of the fornications and abominations of the earth Vrhanus the sixt and Clement the seauenth two Popes at once call one the other Antichrist As Bernard before had called Baldus de vit pontif Anacletus against whom Innocentius the second was chosen as Antipope That beast saith hee in the Apocalypse to Anno 1378. Anno. 1130. Epist. 125. whom is giuen a mouth speaking blasphemies to war with the Saints meaning Antichrist occupieth the chaire of Peter as a Lyon ready for the pray But most effectually doth our godly and learned countryman Iohn Wicleffe discouer the enormities and heresyes of the Anno. 1383. Bellar. de pont Rom. lib. 3. c. 1. Pope whom he pronounced to be Antichrist Artic. 30. His iudgement as in other things so also in this that worthy Martyr of Christ Iohn Husse followed Who affirmeth in his Anno. 1405. booke de ecclesia that hee was troubled because he preached Christ and discouered Antichrist That the Censures of the Romish church were Antichristian and proceeding froÌ„ Antichrist as Gerson the Parisians obiect against him Art 16 that in those times many ages before there had bin no true Pope nor true Romane church but the Popes were Antichrists the church of Rome the synagogue of Satan Whose iudgement many in Bohemia followed Sir Iohn Oldâ—…astell the Lord Anno 1413. 1. Foxe Cobham that famous noble martyr of Christ prosessed to K. Henry the 5. that by the Scriptures he knew the Pope to be the great Antichrist the son of perdition c. Hieronimus Sauanarola taught that the Pope is Antichrist because he did attribute Anno. 1500. 1. Foxe more to his owne indulgeÌ„ces pardoÌ„s then to Christs merits About the yeare of our Lord 1517. Luther began to preach against the Popes indulgences and afterwards against other Anno. 1517. errours and abominations of the Pope and church of Rome discouering more plainely then any had done before him that Rome is Babylon and the Pope Antichrist Since whose times this truth hath beene almost generally acknowledged by the true and reformed Churches of Christ. Seing therefore we haue proued that Antichrist was to sitte in Rome professing her selfe the church of God and that after the taking away of the Romane Emperour whom hee was to succeed in the gouernment of Rome and there to be reuealed both by his owne shewing himself in his colours also by the acknowledgement of others it cannot be auoided but that the Pope is Antichrist For he and none but he sitteth that is reigneth in Rome professing her selfe the church of God and that after the taking away of the Romane Emperour not onely by the remouing of the imperiall seat but also by the dissolutioÌ„ of the Empire in the West whom hee succeedeth in the gouernment of Rome where he hath bene reuealed not onely by his owne shewing himselfe in his colours but also by the acknowledgement of others 8. Vnto the former place of the Epistle to the Thessal we will adde two other places out of th'apocalyps from whence both the place and time of Antichrist may be iointly gathered The former place is in the 13. of th'apocalips where two beasts are described signifying two estates of the Romane gouernment 2. as they are opposed vnto Christ the former representeth the persecuting Emperours the latter Antichrist Of the former he saith thus I saw a beast arising out of 〈◊〉 sea that is of many diuers peoples which it had vanquished Now the description of this beast containeth in it the resemblances of those 4. kingdoms which are described in Daniel the Romane Empire farre surpassing theÌ„ al. The first of the beasts in Daniel signifying the kingdome of the Babylonians is coÌ„pared to a Lion The 2. resembling the kingdome of the Medes and Persians to a Beare The 3. representing the monarchy of the MacedoniaÌ„s to a Leopard The 4. figuring the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae to a beast with 10. hornes resembling so many of their kings who should tyrannize ouer Iewry The Empire of Rome therfore as if it were compounded of them all is resembled to a beast hauing ten hornes with so many diademes vpon them both in respect of the ten persecuting Emperors answering the 10. Seleucedae Lagidae as also in regard of the 10. kingdoms or prouinces wherinto the Romane Empire in those times was diuided being also like a Leopard hauing the feet or pawes as it were of a Beare the rauening mouth of a LioÌ„ And besides all this is said to haue seueÌ„ heads which afterwards chapt 17. are expounded to be 7. hilles also 7. heads of gouernmeÌ„t c. to this beast was giuen authority or power ouer euery tribe Verse 7. language and nation c. al which are proper to the Empire of Rome The former beast therefore signifieth the Romane state especially as it was vnder the persecuting Emperours as Bellarmine Lib. 3. de pont R. cap. 15. confesseth The second beast described vers 11. and so forward to the end of the chapter is as Bellarmine saith all men do confesse Antichrist who also is by the coÌ„fession of the said
Bellarmine De pont Rom. lib. 3. c. 10. 15. one of the heads of the former beast By the description of this beast that we may now note that which serueth for the present purpose reseruing the residue vntil their due time place it is apparant that there is one the same principall seate of both the beasts that in that seat the second beast succeedeth the former practising al the power or authority of the former beast Verse 12. that before him that is to say euen at Rome and that his chiefe endeuors teÌ„de to magnifie the beast that is the Romane state as in making meÌ„ to worship it in causing meÌ„ to make an image of to the beast wherunto he giueth spirit speach enforcing men to worship the same finally in compelling men to take vpon theÌ„ the marke of the beast his name nuÌ„ber of his name All which as they argue Antichrist to be a Romane succeeding the Emperors in the gouernmeÌ„t of Rome so also they fitly properly agree to the Pope who succeedeth the Emperours in the gouernmeÌ„t of Rome where he vsurpeth all more then al the power of the Emperours chaleÌ„ging a more vniuersal soueraigne or rather diuine authority then belonged to theÌ„ whose maine endeuors are to aduaunce the Romane state which he calleth the See Apostolik which he maketh al meÌ„ to worship causing them also to make an image of the Empire which was the head that had receiued the deadly wouÌ„d to in behoofe of the Romane state an image I say partly in the Emperour of Almaine reseÌ„bling the title ornameÌ„ts shew of the former Emperours partly in his owne courts not onely in Rome but in all other couÌ„tries represeÌ„ting the former imperial authority tyraÌ„ny both in Rome it selfe and in the prouinces thereunto beloÌ„ging This image both in the Empire popish courts he animateth authorizeth For as there is no question to be made hereof in respect of his courts so is it as true in respect of the Empire if that be true which themselues professe Namely that what the Emperor hath he hath it wholy froÌ„ theÌ„ that the Empire in the West was renewed by the Pope who traÌ„slated the title of the Emperor of Rome froÌ„ the Emperor of the East first to the FreÌ„ch after to the GermaÌ„s that the Pope caused this new Emperor to be made that he crowned authorized him that he appointed 7. Electors in Germany reseruing the coÌ„firmation of the electioÌ„ coronatioÌ„ of the Emperour to himself of which points we shal hereafter speake more at large Further he causeth al meÌ„ to worship the image by him Chap. 7. erected coÌ„pelleth all men to receiue the marke of the beast as also the name of the beast which caÌ„ be no other but either Romane or Latine the nuÌ„ber of his name i. to liue insubiectioÌ„ to the See of Rome to professe theÌ„selues to be Romanes Latines in respect of their religioÌ„ as herafter shal be shewed Chap. 8. 9. The same is proued out of the 17. chap. of th'apocalyps 3. where be reckened 7. heads that is 7. kinds of principall rulers as it were heads of gouernment whereby Rome hath bene gouerned euery one succeeding another The sixt head being the Emperours the seueÌ„th Antichrist which is the Pope For Antichrist is one of the 7. heads of the beast which hath 7. heads 10. hornes And this beast signifieth the Romane state therfore Antichrist is a head of the Romane state All which Bellarmine after a sort coÌ„fesseth Now it is most certaine that Antichrist is Lib. 3. de pont R. c. 15. none of the first 5. heads for they were past in th'apostles time neither is he the sixt head which was of the Emperours that then was for that was to be done out of the way as the Papists theÌ„selues do teach before the reuelatioÌ„ of Antichrist It remaineth therfore that the seuenth head which is the Pope is Antichrist The eight head which also is one of the seuen is the Empire renewed by the Pope is said to be the beast which was is not though it be wheron the whore of BabyloÌ„ sitteth If it be obiected that the seuenth head wherby Antichrist is signified was to continue but a short time as it is said vers 10 and that this therfore cannot agree to the Pope who hath raigned already in Rome many 100. yeares I answere that this is spokeÌ„ of purpose to arme the faithfull with patience who otherwise would thinke the reigne of Antichrist very long our Sauiour Christ also to be slowe in coÌ„ming Whereas in truth neither is our Sauiour Christ slow in coÌ„ming as Peter sheweth neither is 2. Peter 3. the kingdome of Antichrist long But in respect of God with whom a 1000. yeares are as one day in coÌ„patison of the eternal kingdome of Christ with whoÌ„ the faithful are to raigne after they haue suffered vnder Antichrist it is to be accompted very short And surely if the whole time from the Ascension of of our Sauiour vntil his returne vnto iudgement is noted in the Scriptures to be very short and that to this end that we should not thinke it long then is the raigne of Antichrist which is but part of this time much more short The holy Ghost in the beginning of the Reuelation signifieth that the time of fulfilling Apoc 1. 3. the prophecies therein mâ—…tioned was at haÌ„d And our Sauiour Heb. 10. 37. Christ promiseth by the Apostle that after a very litle while he would come in the last chapt of the reuelatioÌ„ he saith yea I Apoc. 22. 20. come quickly And Iohn likewise in his Epistle noteth that the 〈◊〉 Iohn 2. 18. whole time of Antichrist was but a part of the last howre 10. And further whereas the Papists obiect in respect of the time that Antichrist is not yet come because the Romane Empire is not yet dissolued and consequently that the Pope is not Antichrist it may notwithstanding euidently be shewed out of the same chapter of the Apocalypse compared with the Apoc. 17. euent both that the Empire is dissolued and that Antichrist is already come For the Empire is then knowen to be dissolued when it is diuided among ten who shall haue receiued power as kings as Iohn noteth the fathers teach the Papists themselues confesse But it is most certaine that the old Empire of of Rome is diuided among ten kings at the least who before the dissolution had not soueraigne authority and that the Empire which now is being but a title and contayning no such kingdomes is not capable of such a partition And that Antichrist also is come it is as euident For those ten hornes which in the Apostles time had not receiuèd the kingdome nor soueraigne authority but were gouernours of the prouinces by deputation froÌ„ the Emperour were after the
dissolution of the Empire to receiue powèr as kings with the beast or as the Papists reade after the beast that is Antichrist If therefore the gouernours Ap. 17. 12. of the kingdomes whereinto the Romane Empire was diuided haue receiued power as kings then it is certaine that Antichrist is already come For oither after him or at least with him they were to receiue their soueraignty It is as certaine therefore that Antichrist is come as it is sure that the gouernours of the prouinces which once belonged to the Empire are soueraigne princes and not liefetenants vnder the Emperour And that this Antichrist which is already come is the Pope it is plaine enough by the same chapter For whosoeuer succeedeth the Emperours who were the sixt head in the gouernment of Rome as the seauenth head of the Romane state he is Antichrist But the Pope as the seauenth head of the Romane state succeedeth the Emperors who were the sixt head in the gouernement of Rome therefore he is Antichrist If you say the seauenth head was not come in the Apostles time verse 10. and yet there were Bishops of Rome then I answere that the Bishops of Rome in the first three hundred yeares were meane men in respect of their owtward estate nothing lesse then heads of the Romane state And that howsoeuer afterwards they obtained great authority more more aspired vnto the soueraignty notwithstanding vntill the sixt head was taken out of the way the 7. was not reuealed But after the sixt head was gone the 7. succeeded in the gouernment of Rome Cupers de eccl p. 37. n. 9. vrbem Romanam ad papam pleno iure spectare constat pag. 258. n. 7. Romana vrbsita Papae dominio cessit vt Caesari nil iuris in â—…areseruelur Insomuch that now for a long time the city of Rome hath so wholy belonged to the Pope as that the Emperour hath no manner of right therein To conclude therefore If Antichrist was to sitte in Rome professing her selfe the church of God that after the taking away of the Romane Emperor whom he was to succeed in the gouernmeÌ„t of Rome as hath bin proued it followeth necessarily seeing these notes agree to the Popes of Rome and to none but them that therfore the Pope is Antichrist Chap. 4. Of the conditions of Antichrist and his opposition vnto Christ. 1. NOw if to those former notes of place and time we shal ad the rest find them al properly to fit the Popes of Rome then may it not be doubted but that the Pope is Antichrist In the next place therfore let vs coÌ„sider his coÌ„ditioÌ„ qualities in respect wherof he is called the man of sin For first Antichrist in respect of his oppositioÌ„ to Christ he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an aduersary in respect of his pride ambitioÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lifted vp aboue al that is called god c. FroÌ„ these 2. notes therefore we may argue thus He that is such an aduersary as the scriptures desoribe opposed vnto Christ in aemulation of like honour he is Antichrist The Pope is such an aduersaie as the scriptures describe opposed vnto Christ in 2. Thess. 2. 4. aemulation of like honour Therefore the Pope is Antichrist The truth of the proposition is testified by the Apostle implyed in the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth hostem aemulum Christi and confessed by the aduersaries The assumption Bellarmine would disproue by this slender argument because the Pope forsooth professeth himselfe the seruant of Christ. For euen as he professeth himselfe to be Christs seruaÌ„t so he termeth himselfe Of this see more in the 2. book 1. chap. Gen. 9. 25. the seruant of seruants which is Chams title when as in truth he would be esteemed Lord of Lords But this is so farre from disprouing the assumption as that the Pope could not be such an aduersary as is described in the scriptures and consequently not Antichrist vnlesse he professed himselfe to be the seruant of Christ. Let vs therefore consider what maner of enemy Antichrist is according to the scriptures First he is an Apostate or reuolter 2. a disguised enemy or hypocrite that is one that is fallen indeed froÌ„ god his truth as it werea star froÌ„ heauen yet retaineth the name profession of Christ vnder which name professioÌ„ he oppugneth christ his truth EueÌ„ as a rebellious subiect when he presumeth without commission to leuy a power of men against his Soueraigne that he may deceiue the rest of the subiects abuseth the name and authority of his prince to colour his rebellious practises And that this is the property of Antichrist Hilary hath well obserued It is Ad AuxentiuÌ„ the property of Antichrists name to be contrary to Christ. This is now practised vnder the opinion of counterfeit piety this vnder a shewe of preaching the Gospell is preached that our Lord Iesus Christ may be denied whiles whiles he is thought to be preached Tract 3. in Iâ—…an Epistol Augustine saith we haue found many Antichrists which confesse Christ with their mouth 2. First I say he is an apostate yea the head of that Apostasy 2. Thess. 2. 3. or falling away froÌ„ the truth mentioned 2. Tâ—…hess 2. insomuch as some of the learned as Chrysostome Augustine Theodoret Theophylact Oecumenius by that Apostasy vnderstand Antichrist Lib. 3. de pont R. chap. 2. himself Yea Bellar. himselfe affirmeth that by Apostasy in that place Antichrist himself may be most fitly vnderstood But the Papists which falsly hold that the visible church of Christ cannot er much lesse fall away expouÌ„d this Apostasy or defection to be a reuolt or falling away froÌ„ the Roman Empire Neither do we deny but that also there hath bin a defectioÌ„ froÌ„ the Romane Empire but yet we deny that it is vnderstood in this place Ambrose saith then shall desolution draw neere because In 2. Thess. 2. De ciuit Dei lib. 20. c. 19. many falling by error shall reuolt from the true religioÌ„ He calleth him a reuolter saith Augustine namly froÌ„ the Lord God Cyrill Now is the Apostasie for men are reuolted from the true Catech. 11. faith Chrysostome and Oecumenius the Apostasie hee calleth Antichrist himselfe because hee shall cause many to reuolt from In 2. Thess. 2. Christ. Or else he calleth apostasie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the departure from God and the thing it selfe The same hath Theophylact in effect And likewise Theodoret on this place The defection saith he he calleth Antichrist himselfe giuing In 2. Thess. 2. him a name from the thing it selfe For his endeauour is to withdraw men from the truth and to cause them to reuolt Primasius by Apostasy vnderstandeth the forsaking of the truth and Lyra the departure from the Catholicke faith But to omit In 2. Thess 2. humane testimonies the holy ghost who is the best expounder
10. ratified approued Likewise Boniface 8. caused the body of Hermannus of Ferrara who before had bene canonized for a Saint after 30. yeares to be pluckt out of his graue to be burnt Vrbanus the 6. cast seuen Cardinals into prison because they fauoured Clement the 7. and in spite of him put fiue of them into sackes and drowned thē And this is some part of their behauiour among themselues For of their cruelty toward the Saints and Martyrs of Iesus who is able sufficiently to intreat 3. To their cruelty I wil adde their perfidious treachery traiterous practises especially towards the Emperours Princes of Christendome For first the Emperors of Greece by the Popes rebellious opposition against their soueraigne Lords in the vngodly defence of images were bereaued of their dominions in the West By which meanes the Empire being rent asunder weakened way was made for the Turke And howsoeuer at the first they seemed to honour their newly erected Emperors in the West whom they created for their owne defence yet afterward they neuer ceassed vntill they had gotten superiority ouer them And euer since it hath bene their practise to strengthen and aduaunce thēselues and their owne See by weakening and deiecting the Emperour and all other Christiā princes And this they had effected by diuerse diuelish pollicies As first they haue vsed to picke quarels against them vpō any pretext or colour of a iust quarell to excōmunicate them to absolue their subiects from their obedience And if by these meanes they would not be brought into subiection then to depose thē if they could to set vp others against thē And if other means failed to raise vp warres against them to send forth Croisades into all Christendome with large indulgences promises of heauen to all that would fight their battels And besides this they haue also forbiddē al other chris◅iās to vse any trafficke with them their subiects and not onely that but they haue exposed the princes themselues sometimes their subiects also to the violēce of murderers their coūtries kingdoms as a prey to spoilers warrāting any to bereaue the prince or the subiect of their liues to take their kingdome as a prey Thus besides many others was Hēry the 4. Emperour vsed by Gregory 7. Paschalis the 2. who not onely excōmunicated the worthy Emperor absolued his subiects frō obedience but also both vnder hād suborned such as should murder him openly set vp against him in the Empire first Rodolphus the duke of Sueuia and then his owne sonne in the end the good Emperour being deposed imprisoned dead in prison his body might not for 5. yeares be vouchsafed christian burial Thus was Otho 4 vsed by Innocentius 3. Lewis the 4. by Iohn 22. Benedict 12. Clement the 6. by whose meanes also he was poisoned Thus diuerse kings of France besides him that now is haue ben intreated But especially Lewis 12 a good king by Iulius the 2. a notable Antichrist For he not only excōmunicated Lewis interdicted his land but also stirred vp al Christians against him promising great indulgence and pardon of all sinnes to euery one that should by any meanes whatsoeuer kil any French man In his owne person also hee went to warre against him as he being armed brought forth his army on the bridge ouer Tiber he cast his keies into the riuer and drew his sword vsing this speach in the hearing of many thousāds seing Peters keyes doe nought auaile vs I will therefore vse Paules sword And to conclude thus also haue our Kings beene dealt with as king Iohn Henry the 8. our gratious Q. Elizabeth whom to omit the other the Popes haue excōmunicated absolued her subiects frō obediēce as much as in thē lieth deposed her from her crowne exposed her to the violence of her secret opē enemies raised rebellions against her suborned cut-throats to murder her sent forces into Irelād to win that kingdome frō her stirred vp the Spaniard aided him against her lastly by an Antichristian deuotion giuen her realme of Ireland to the Spaniard But whō Antichrist cursed Christ blessed insomuch that hauing through the Lords goodnesse ouerliued 8. Popes since she came to the crowne in the end after a long and happy reigne she died in peace Another practise of Antichrist hath beene this to bereaue the right owners of their crownes kingdomes to set vp others which had no right that they being aduāced by his meanes should be obliged as vassals feed men vnto his See And to this end when cōtentions haue risen betwixt Christian princes he hath not only nourished the same but also taken part with the one against the other that the one being by his means vāquished ouercome the other may acknowledge the Pope for his good Lorde To this end was the title of the Romane Empire translated frō the Greeks to the French in Charlemaigne from the French to the Almaines in Otto whom the Pope caused to sweare homage fealty to him To this end was Pipin crowned king of Fraunce Childerick deposed shorne a Monke But I shall not need to insist in the enumeration of examples for scarcely is there any kingdome in Europe if any at all which the Pope Vide Fulm brutum pag. 74. hath not in former times by these and other meanes made subiect tributary to his See vsing the kings as his vassals making thē sweare homage vnto him A third stratageme which the Popes haue vsed to weaken the Emperours and princes of christendome strengthen themselues hath bene this to perswade them to goe with their forces chiefe of their strength into Palestine for the recouery of the Holy lād from the Turks and Saracens that in their absence he might worke his will in any part of Europe not fearing their strength if they should returne being weakened by those warres but rather hoping they should not returne to make resistaunce And to this purpose consider onely the dealing of Alexander the 3. and Gregory the ninth with the one and two Frederickes the Emperours For Alexander the third fearing the power of Fredericke Barbarossa by Hartmannus the Bishop of Brixia perswadeth him to goe with his armie into Palestine for the recouery of the holy Lande the Pope in the meane time sendeth a picture of the Emperour to the Soldan perswading him that by some secret ambushment hee would apprehend him which happened accordingly The Emperour being released by the Soldan after his returne commeth to Venice where the Pope as you heard before treadeth on his necke c. The other Frederick being first excōmunicated by Gregory 9. Bal. ex Mario Matth. Paris because he went not to Palaestine according to his appointmēt at the length to satisfie the Popes pleasure he tooke his voiage and hauing recouered Ierusalē other places from the Soldan and made
consider the acceptation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antichrist in the place alledged and elsewhere 1. Ioh. 2. 18 in the Epistles of Iohn in which onely it is vsed and not elsewhere in the scriptures In the place which Bellarmine citeth th'apostle seemeth to reason thus When the Antichrist is come it is the last houre Now Antichrists are come therefore now is the last houre 1. Ioh. 2. 28 Where either the Antichrist and Antichrists signifie the same or else there be foure termes in the Apostles argument which Bellarmine dareth not auouch And afterwards v. 22. he plainly sheweth that euery one that denieth Iesus to be the Christ as many Antichrists 1. Ioh. 4. 3. 4 or heretickes did of which he spake verse 18. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antichrist In the same Epistle Chapter 4. he biddeth them try the spirits that is their teachers because many false prophets were come into the world and giueth them this note whereby to try them Euery spirit saith he which confesseth Iesus Christ to be come in the flesh is of God and euery spirit which doth not confesse that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God And this is the spirit of the Antichrist which you heard was to come and euen now 2. Iohn 7. already is in the world Likewise in the second Epistle Many decâ—…iuers are come into the world which dâ—… not confesse that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh this is the deceiuer and the Antichrist By which testimonies it is euident that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not only signifie the head of the Antichristian body which is not one singuler man but is continued in a succession of many but also sometimes any hereticke that oppugneth the natures or offices of Christ and sometimes the whole body or company of heretickes opposed vnto Christ. For Iohn 1. Ioh. 2. 22. plainely affirmeth that those many heretickes and deceiuers of his time are the Antichrist And whereas Paul prophecieth of Antichrist that he should come into the world and should be destroyed at the second comming of Christ Iohn affirmeth that Antichrist of whom they had heard that he should come was then already come into the world From which places I argue thus If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antichrist in the Epistles of Iohn and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man of sinne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the outlaw in the Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians doe signifie one certaine and singuler man as the Papists affirme then it will follow necessarily that one and the same man who was come into the world in Saint Iohns time shall be in the world at the second comming of Christ for Iohn saith that the Antichrist was come in his time and Paul saith that the out-law shall be consumed with the spirit of Christs mouth and destroyed at his glorious appearing But the latter is incredible for since the time of Saint Iohn there are already 1500. yeeres expired and therefore the former which is the assertion of the Papists is absurde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore signifieth sometimes the whole body of Heretickes from the ascension of Christ vntill his second comming sometimes any heretickes which are lims of that body somtimes the graund antichrist who is the head of that body is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antichrist Wherfore in respect of those heretickes and lims of Antichrist in the Apostles times Antichrist is then said to haue entred and as it were to haue set his foote into the world And accordingly the Apostle Paul saith 2. Thes. 2. 7 that euen in his time the mystery of iniquity that is Antichristianisme was working namely by those which belonged to the body of Antichrist although couertly and vnderhand vntill the head of that body was reuealed as he was after the Empire in the West was dissolued and the Emperour which hindred was done out of the way according to the prophecie of the Apostle 2. Thessalonians 2. 7 8. And thus you see what a slender argument this is taken from the article although it be vsed as one of the principall demonstrations generally of all the Papists that write of this argument but more especially of Bellarmine who thinking it too good to goe for one argument hath deuided it into two 7 His fourth testimonie is taken out of Daniel chap. 7. 11. 12. Where Antichrist is called a King and not a Kingdome who of the ten Kings which he shall finde in the worlde shall take away three and shall make the other seauen subject to himselfe But I answer that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist at all but of Antiochus Epiphanes and therefore this allegation is impertinent For the learned of our times haue made it euident that the foure kingdomes whereof Daniel speaketh were ended before the incarnation of Christ and that the fourth kingdome which many haue taken to be the monarchie of the Romanes was the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae in Syria and Egypt so farre forth as the people of Iewrie was subject thereunto and is therefore described as the most terrible of all the foure because it was most trouble some to the Iewes And that the ten hornes were ten Kings of Syria and Egypt which successiuely tyrannized ouer the people of the Iewes Antiochus Epiphanes being the tenth and the last of those Kings which tyrannized ouer Iewrie But because in outragious cruelty and cursed hostility not onely against the people but also against the religion of the Iewes he surpassed all that went before him of him therefore Daniel speaketh so plainely and distinctly that he hath seemed to some rather to write an Historie of him then a Prophesie as shall hereafter more fully be shewed when as Chap. 16. we shall also manifestly declare that this which Bellarmine addeth concerning Antichrists killing of three Kings and subduing of the other seauen is but a dreame which is indeed so farre from all probability of truth as that it cannot be verified of that party whom Daniel describeth Daniel describeth him as the tenth Bellarmine maketh him the eleuenth as if it were a beast of eleuen hornes Daniel speaketh of ten Kings which successiuely ruled ouer the Iewes Bellarmine maketh him speake of ten who together with the eleuenth should be at one time in the world Of those ten Daniel saith that three were pluckt vp before the teÌ„th as it may seeme by his means but of the other sixe either all or the most were dead before he was borne Bellarmine maketh him to kill three and subdue the other seauen which indeed liued not in his time as shall be shewed hereafter out of the eleuenth of Daniel where the succession of these ten Kings and the affaires of the tenth who can be no other but Antiochus Epiphanes are particularly and fully described This argument drawne from the misconstruing of Daniel Bellarmine although he knew it to be nothing
worth yet he was content to make a flourish with it because he had some of the Fathers to father it vpon Afterwards he commeth nearer to the purpose and saith that Caluin as some of the Fathers before him to wit Cyprian and Ierome affirmeth and so doth Bellarmine himselfe else where that Daniel speaketh of Antiochus Epiphanes who was a type of Antichrist Therefore leauing his former hold he reasoneth thus Such as is the type or figure such is the thing figured Antiochus the type was but one singular person therfore Antichrist that is figured is but one The proposition is to be vnderstood of the proportion and likenesse onely in those things in respect whereof the type is a figure and not generally in all things As for example the High-priest was a type or figure of Christ but therefore it doth not follow that there was but one High-priest because Christ is one The Papists holde that Melchisedec who was but one was a type of their Masse Priests which are many Iosuah Dakid and Salomon were types of Christ but therefore not like vnto him in all things So Antiochur may not vnfitly be said to haue beene a type of Antichrist because as Pharaoh was a type of other tyrants which oppressed the Church of God so he in falshood deceit pride idolatry cruelty and persecuting of the Church of God resembled Antichrist the man of sinne which is an enemie and is listed vp about all that is called God or that is worshipped In which respects Antiochus was so fit a type of Antichrist that R. Leui Gerson alledged by Bellarmine in the end of the 12. chap. applieth whatsoeuer is spoken of him Dan. 7. 11. to the Pope of Rome If therefore you vnderstand the proposition generally it is false if particularly the whole argumentation is a fallacion 8. His fift testimonie is Apoc. 13. 17. For these places are to be vnderstood of Antichrist as Irenaeus teacheth and as it is plaine by the likenesse of the words in Daniel and Iohn c. His reason is thus framed If Daniel spake of one King then also Iohn but the former is true therefore the later The proposition wherin there is indeed no coherence he prooueth by the similitude of their words First because both make mention of ten Kings which shal be in the earth when Antichrist shall come It is true that both make mention of ten hornes but with such difference as that otherwise there is no likenesse Antiochus in Daniel by whom Bellarmine would haue vs to vnderstand Antichrist is the last of the ten not one besides the ten otherwise the fourth beast were a beast of eleuē hornes Antichrist is one besides the ten hornes in the Reuelation and of Bellarmine somtimes is called the eleuenth Bellarmines Antichrist in Daniel is the little horne signifying indeed but one man but the true Antichrist in the Reuelation is called not an horne but the beast whereby not one man but a state is signified The ten hornes in Daniel are so many kings which succeed one another in the kingdome vsurped ouer the Iewes before the cōming of the Messias the ten hornes in the Reuelation are so many rulers ouer diuers kingdomes which receiue their kingdome together not only after the incarnatiō of Christiō but also after the dissolutiō of the Roman Empire So that in truth nothing is here alike saue that in both there is mention of ten hornes Secondly saith Bellarmine both of them foretel that the kingdome of Antichrist shall continue three yeares and an halfe But I answer that neither of both assigne that time to Antichrist For first Daniel assigneth a time and times and parcell of time that is three yeers and ten daies to the persecution vnder Antiochus wherby the publick worship of God was for that time interrupted viz. from the 15. day of the month Casleu in the 145. yeare of the kingdome of the Seleucidae See Chap. 16. 1. Mac. 1. 57. vnto the 25. of the month Casleu in the yeare 148. 1. Mac. 4. 52. But of this more hereafter Neither doth Iohn any where assigne three yeers an halfe to the raigne of Antichrist but to the beast with seuē heads ten hornes which signifieth the Roman state either generally as it is opposed vnto Christ or particularly as it was gouerned by the sixt head that is the emperors he assigneth fortytwo Apoc. 11. 2. 7. and 13. 1 5. months which are not literally to be vnderstood Now Antichrist is not the beast with seuē heads but one head of the seuē is described vnder the second beast as our aduersaries also confesse which in plaine terms is called another beast For how can he be that beast if he be another Apoc. 13. 11. And of this also I shal haue better occasiō to speake more fully hereafter Lastly he flieth to the authority of the fathers as his last refuge but neither do these fathers expresly say that Antichrist shal be See Chap. 8. but one man neither if they did can any sound argument be drawne from their testimonies vnlesse Bellarmine be able to prooue that whatsoeuer these fathers haue written concerning Antichrist is true And againe diuers of the Fathers as Irenaeus Origen Chrysostome Ierome Ruffinus Primasius Augustine expounding that place Math 24. 24. which speaketh of more then one as spoken of Antichrist they could not vnderstand Antichrist to be but one Yea but the Fathers say that Antichrist shall be a most choise instrument of the Diuell that in him shall dwell all the fulnesse of diuellish malice bodily euen as in the man Christ dwelleth the fulnesse of the diuinitie corporally But although this allegation were true as I will not thereof dispute yet is it impertinent for the Pope meaning the whole succession of Antichristian Popes may be a notable instrument of the diuell c. and yet hereof it followeth not that there hath beene but one Pope As touching the other assertion of Antichrists raigne three yeares and a Chap. 8. halfe we are hereafter to intreate 9. Now that Antichrist is not one singuler man but a whole state and succession of men it may appeare by these arguments First by conference of 2. Thes. 2. with the Epistles of Iohn for Iohn plainely 1. Ioh. 4 3. 2. Iohn 7. 1. Ioh. 2. 18 saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antichrist of whom they had hard that he should come was in his time And of whom had they heard it but of Paul in the 2. Thes 2. where in like sort the Apostle saith that euen in his time the mysterie of iniquitie that is Antichristianisme was working noting that Antichrist in some of his members was already come although he were not reuealed vntill that which hindered was taken out of the way Now as Paul and Iohn doe both testifie that the Antichrist was in their time so Paul also sheweth that Antichrist shall remaine vnto the second comming of Christ
this interpretatioÌ„ is signified by Apostasie doth not signifie one man but the whole body and company of those that doe reuolt that is the whole body and kingdome of Antichrist which we haue prooued to be the Apostaticall Church of Rome And so Augustine whom Bellarmine alledgeth in the very same place which he citeth reading in the concrete nisi venerit refuga primum vnlesse the Apostate first come and expounding what is meant by De ciuit Dei lib. 20. cap. 19. the temple not the temple at Ierusalem but rather the Church of God because the Apostle would not call the temple of the diuell the temple of God propoundeth the opinion of some which hee doth not mislike Vnde nonnulli non ipsum principem c. Whereupon some vnderstand in this place not the Prince himselfe but his whole body as it were that is the company of men pertaining vnto him together with their Prince to be Antichrist and they thinke that it might more rightly be said in Latine as it is in the Greeke that he sitteth non in templo dei sed in templum dei not in the Temple of God but as the Temple of God as though he were the Temple of God which is the Church Which as hath beene shewed notably sitteth the Pope and Church of Rome And here we are by the way to note whereas Bellarmine saith that Antichrist shall be such a notable Apostate as that he may be called the Apostasie it selfe that seeing none can be an Apostate which hath not beene a Christian by this assertion therefore of Bellarmine Antichrist shall not be a Iew but a backslyding and reuolted Christian 16. Secondly he saith by Apostasie we may vnderstand a reuolt from the Romane Empire as many of the Latin fathers doe expound To omit the dissension of the fathers which prooueth that their exposition can be no good rule of interpreting the Scriptures we doe confesse that before the manifest reuelation of Antichrist there was to go noâ—… onely a defection from the faith but also a reuolt from the Romane Empire But as the reuolting from earthly kingdomes is neuer in the Scriptures termed Apostasie so is it not here signified but as the word elsewhere is vsed and by the most and best writers here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a falling away from God a defection or departure from the true faith as heretofore I haue shewed Augustme saith quem refugam vocat vtique a domino Deo whom he calleth a Lib. 20. cap. 19. §. 2. runnagate namely from the Lord God Neither can it be denied but that this Apostasie is that which afterward the Apostle calleth the mystery of iniquity which was working in and by the heretiques of those times whom also Bellarmine calleth the forerunners of Antichrist because they peruerted the faith and therefore the defection caused by Antichrist is an Apostasie from the faith according to the prophesies of the Apostle that in these latter times diuers should make an Apostasie 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. Tim. 4. 4. from the faith and should turne away their hearing from the truth and shal be turned vnto fables 17. Thirdly although we should grant saith he that by Apostasie is to be vnderstood a defection or reuolt from the true faith and religion of Christ yet it is not necessary that it should be an Apostasie of many yeares For it may be that the Apostle speaketh of one great Apostasie which shal be onely in that most short time of Antichrists raigne that is of three yeares and a halfe But this bare ghesse of Bellarmine ought not to be of so great waight with vs as the plaine speech of the Apostle compared with the euent And therefore it is but vaine to tell vs what might be seeing we haue seene the contrary to be which the Apostle foretold should be For as the Apostle tolde vs that there should be an Apostasie so he saith that the mysterie of iniquity whereby many were seduced did worke already euen in his time and insinuateth that it should worke vntill the full reuelation of Antichrist And the euent hath shewed how by degrees this Apostasie hath bin wrought euen from the primitiue Church vntill it came to that height wherein it continued vntill Antichrist began to be acknowledged And surely as this generall Apostasie could not grow at once but by degrees so can it not be abolished at once but by degrees and therefore was not like to be an Apostasie of three yeares and an halfe onely Neither is it credible that by one man the greatest part not onely of Christians but also of the Iewes should be seduced in three yeares and an halfe seeing Christ in the like space of time could not as he was a man and minister of the circumcision conuert many of the Iewes notwithstanding that his doctrine was more effectuall and his miracles more admirable then those of Antichrist can be yea the Apostlès some other of the disciples who for so long time scarce went out of Iewry were able to preuaile but with a few of the Iewes in coparison of those which reiected their doctrine And shall wee thinke that Antichrist who as the Papists hold shal be but one man shall in three yeers an halfe seduce the remnant of the Iewes and al the visible Church of God dispersed into so many parts of the world And wheras he alledgeth Augustine as a fauourer of this ghesse therein he abuseth the authority of that learned father to seduce the ignoraÌ„t who onely deliuereth the Iudgement of others concerning the mysterie of iniquity that to this effect That the mystery of iniquity worketh in De ciuit Dei lib. 20. cap. 19. euill men in the Church and counterseit Christians when as they reuolt from the truth and that vnto this mystery belongeth the reuolting of those of whom S. Iohn speaketh They went out from vs but 1. Ioh. 2. 19 were not of vs c. And that this mystery should stil worke that is that vnsound men in the Church should more and more reuolt vntill they make a sufficient number for Antichrist But there is neuer a word of this defection caused either by one man or in so short a time but rather the contrary as hath beene shewed 18. Fourthly he answereth that although it should be granted that this Apostasie is of many ages which he saith cannot well be denied seeing th'apostle saith it began to worke in his time yet it is not necessary that it should appertaine to one body vnder one head neither that it appertaineth to the kingdome of Antichrist but rather is a disposition thereunto happening in diuers dominions vpon undry occasions c. But this fourth answer is ouerthrowne by the first wherein this Apostasie was made so proper to Antichrist as that by it Bellarmine thought we might most fitly vnderstand Antichrist himselfe or rather as we shewed the whole body
and kingdome of Antichrist And further we haue shewed heretofore that the whole body of Apostates and heretiques professing the name of Christ is Antichrist and after a more speciall maner the head of this body Apostasie And therfore it followeth that all of this Apostasie professing the name of Christ belong to this body and kingdome of Antichrist And whereas hee saith that this Apostasie is onelie a disposition so the kingdome of Antichrist c. I answere that all the degrees of this Apostasie going before the reuelation of Antichrist were a disposition not to the being but to the reuealing of Antichrist For in the Apostasie Antichrist was as Iohn plainely sheweth neither could he be reuealed vnlesse first he were Wherupon Theodoret saith Defectionem appellat Antichristi praesentiam he calleth Apostasie the presence or comming of Antichrist But is it not very likely thinke you that there hath bene a disposition or preparation already of more then 1500. yeares in most parts of the world for the raigne of one man three yeres and an halfe 19. Fiftly and lastly although we should grant saith he that a generall Apostasie from the faith hauing now continued many yeares is the kingdome of Antichrist yet it would not follow that therefore the Pope is Antichrist For it is not yet decided who haue made this defection they or we And iâ—… were more easie to proouâ—… that they haue made this defection for they haue reuolted from that Church and religion whereof their forefathers were which we haue not done c. In the foure former answers Bellarmine turned backe vpon vs hoping therby to repell the force of our argument but those being spent in this he turneth his backe vpon vs betaketh himselfe to his feete and leauing the defence of the question in hand runneth to his chiefe hold For whereas we proue that Antichrist is not one man contrary to their assertion by this argument among others because that generall Apostacie of the visible Church continuing for many ages whereof Antichrist is the head cannot be the worke of one man or of a few yeares Bellarmine answereth thus in effect that although your argument be very good to prooue that Antichrist is not one man yet notwithstanding here of it followeth not that the Pope is Antichrist Why neuer any of vs vsed this argument Antichrist is not one man therefore the Pope is Antichrist But in this assertion of ours we answere your chiefe demonstration whereby you would prooue that the Pope is not Antichrist and where in especially you please your selues reasoning as hath beene hard after this manner Antichrist is but one man therefore the Pope is not Antichrist And after you haue prooued this by many worshipfull demonstrations and stoutly denied our contrary arguments now in the end you make this cowardes bragge Although this should be granted which you say to prooue that Antichrist is not one man yet it doth not follow that the Pope is Antichrist 20. But let vs pursue the Iesuite in his flight Although this should be granted saith he c. Yet it followeth not that therfore the Pope is Antichrist For the question yet is who hath made this Apostasie we or you Well then let vs ioyne in this issue If the Apostasie be on our side let vs be thought to belong to Antichrist if this Apostasie be in the Church of Rome whereof the Pope is head then let it be acknowledged that the Pope is the head of this Apostasie and consequently Antichrist But you saith the Iesuite haue reuoltd from the Church and religion of your forefathers that is from the Church of Rome and Latin religion And therefore when you read vnlesse there come areuolt c. it is a wonder that you doe not apply that prophesie to your selues The Apostasie whereof the Apostle speaketh is not a separation from the Church of Rome that now is nor a forsaking of Romish or Popish religion but a reuolting from God a departure from the true faith and religion of Christ vnto Antichristianisme and idolatry We in forsaking the Church of Rome haue come out of Babylon Apoc. 18. 4. according to Gods commaundement and in reuolting from the Pope haue returned to God and therefore this Apostasie toucheth not vs. But you say I to the Papists haue reuolted from the true faith and religion of Christ vnto Antichristianisme and Idolatry as besides the infinite particulars wherein your Apostasie doeth consist may briefely appeare by these notes First the Apostle speaking of the same Apostasie in another place hath these words The spirit speaketh plaincly that in the latter times some shall make an Apostasie from the faith attending to erroneous spirits and doctrines of 1. Tim. 4. 1. diuels speaking lyes in hypocrisie and hauing their owne conscience seared Now who these are that make this Apostasie the Apostle further describeth by specifying two of those doctrines of diuels as certaine notes whereby to know them Forbidding to marry and commaunding to abstainâ—… from meates which God hath created to be receiued with thankesgiuing c. But as I haue shewed heretofore these notes touch not vs and properly agree to the Papists therefore Lib. 1. Chap. 4. 3. this Apostasie is among them Secondlie this Apostasie is among those who are fallen from the true religion and worship of God into idolatry and superstition For the Apostaticall Church is the Idolatrous Church signified by the whore of Babylon the mother of fornications But the Church of Roome is strangelie addicted to idolatry and superstition and for the same deserueth to be called the whore of Babylon where as we through the mercie of God are free from idolatry and therefore the Apostásie is with them and not with vs. For the Apostasie is of them that are made drunke with the cuppe of the whore of Babylous fornications as the Papists are and wee are not who haue come out of Babylon Thirdlie the Apostasie is of those that receiue the name and marke of the beast as the Papists doe and not of those that refuse it as wee doe The fourth note or touchstone as it were to trie who haue made this Apostasie iâ—… the word of God For that is the true faith and the true religion which is contayned and prescribed in the written word of God Now our desire is that the Scriptures may be acknowledged the onelie rule of faith and manners vnto the Scriptures we appeale in all controuersies and desire to be iudged by them vnto the reading of the Scriptúres we exhort our people that they may be further edified and confirmed in that trueth which we doe teach and prosesse The Papists contrarywise not daring to stand to the Scriptures slie to their vnwritten verities traditions decretals doctrines and authorities of men both besides and against the Scriptures and in a word that the prophecie of the Apostle foretelling this Apostasie might be verified in them they haue asserted their hearing from the
cap. 3. §. 3. 2. But let vs come to his arguments The first whereof is this If before Antichrists comming the Romane Empire is to be diuided into ten kings whereof none shal be called king of the Romanes then is not Antichrist yet come for yet there is a king of the Romanes but the first is true therefore the last The proposition he taketh for granted although it cannot be denyed but that vpon the desolation of the empire in the West it was deuided among ten kings at the least who although they had the prouinces of the Empire yet none of them was called the king of the Romanes The proposition therefore is false and the reason may be returned vpon our aduersary For seeing these ten kings had not receiued their kingly power in the Apostles time but were to receiue it either after the beast which is Antichrist as some reade or with the Apo. 17. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beast as others it is euident therefore that when the ten rulers of the prouinces had receiued authority as kings then Antichrist was come But many huÌ„dred yeers since the rulers of the prouinces ceased to be deputies vnder the Emperor obtained power as soueraigne kings diuiding among them the westerne Empire therfore many hundred yeres since was Antichrist come The assumption he prooueth out of Daniel chap. 2. Where saith he is described the successioÌ„ of the chiefe kingdomes vnto the end of the world by a certaine image the golden head wherof signifieth the kingdome of the Assyrians the Breast of siluer the kingdom of the Persians the Bellie of Brasse the kingdome of the Grecians the Legs of Iron the kingdom of the Romans diuided into two parts c. And in the 7. chap. the same kingdomes are signified the last which hath ten hornes being the kingdome of the Romanes Now saith he as the two Legs haue ten toes Subtiliss which are not legs as the ten hornes are not the beast so the Roman Empire shall be diuided into ten kings whereof none is the king of the Romanes Answere 1. This argumentation of Bellarmine implieth a contradiction For if there be in Daniel described a succession of kingdomes which shall continue to the end of the world whereof the Romane is the last then the Romane Empire shall not vtterly be destroyed before the coÌ„ming of Antichtist which goeth before the end of the world But howsoeuer the coÌ„mon opinion hath bin that the fourth kingdom mentioned in those chapters is the Romane Empire yet by the learned especially of these latter times it hath beene most clearely prooued that by it is vnderstood that kingdome of the Seleucida Lagidae which tyrannized ouer the people of Iewry For the Seleucida who were Kings of Syria and the Lagidae who were Kings of Egypt were the two legs of the image were also the fourth beast the ten kings of these two kingdomes which successiuely Chap. 16. vsurped dominion ouer the Iewes were the ten hornes of the beast which being most true as hereafter also shal be shewed it appeareth euidently that this whole argumentation is impertinent But suppose that Daniel had spoken in those places of the Romane Empire yet would not that follow which Bellarmine would inferre thereof For by the beast is signified the kingdome it selfe and by the hornes the seuerall kings who although they be not the kingdome it selfe signified by the beast no more then the hornes are the beast yet are they so many kings of that kingdome which is signified by the beast As for example Seleucus Antiochus and the rest of the ten kings signified by the ten hornes and as Bellarmine speaketh by the ten toes though they were not the kingdome of Syria Egypt it selfe yet were they kings of that kingdome and therefore this argument of Bellarmine is very friuolous 3. His second proofe is out of Apocal. 17. Where Iohn describeth a beast with seauen heads and ten hornes vpon which beast a certaine woman sitteth which he expouÌ„deth to be the great citie sitting on seuen hils that is to say Rome The seauen heads as they signifie seuen hils so also seauen kings by which number saith he al the Romane Emperors are vnderstood the ten hornes are ten kings which shal raigne together And least we should thinke that these shal be Romane kings he addeth that these kings shall hate the harlot and make her desolate because they shall so deuide the Romane Empire among them that they shall vtterly destroy it Here Bellarmine as you see confesseth that Rome is the whore of Babylon and consequently the seate of Antichrist and not Rome vnder the olde Emperors but Rome after the dissolution of the Empire And that the ten hornes are so many kings among whom the Romane Empire should be deuided and that these ten Kings were to receiue their kingdome together and consequently that these are not the same ten hornes whereof Daniel speaketh which reigned successiuely Dan. 11. And wheras Bellarmine saith the 7. heads signifie all the Emperours it is vntrue For the holy Ghost nameth seauen because they were seauen indeed and therfore numbreth them Fiue are fallen the sixt is and the seauenth is not yet come But all this is besides the present purpose How then doth he prooue that before Antichrist commeth the Romane Empire shall be so vtterly destroyed as that not the name of a Romane Emperour or king of the Romanes should remaine because the Empire shall be deuided among ten kings which are not Romane kings But that proueth not that the name shall not remaine for he that is none of those ten kings may haue the name of the Emperour or king of the Romanes as namely the beast which was and is not though it be which is the eight head and is one of the seauen that is to say the Emperour erected by the Pope And why may none of these be called the king of the Romanes First forsooth because they shall hate Rome and make her desolateâ—… As though he that hath the title of the King of the Romanes may not hate Rome notwithstanding that title as indeed some of the Emperours haue done Secondly because they shall so diuide among them the Romane Empire as that they shall vtterly destroy it Where you see by a circular disputation the question brought to prooue his argument yet experience sheweth that although the Empire is dissolued and also diuided among the beast that is Antichrist ten kings there doth notwithstanding remaine the name and title of the Emperor or king of the RomaÌ„s And so much now shall suffice to haue spoken of that place froÌ„ whence I haue heretofore proued both that antichrist is already come that the Pope is antichrist 4. His third proofe is out of 2. Thes. 2. And now what hindereth you know that he may be reuealed in due time onely he which holdeth must holde vntill he be done out of the way and then that
spoken of is to be vnderstoode of the calamities of the Iewes in the siege of Ierusalem as I haue manifestly proued And secondly that we are to distinguish betwixt the time of Antichrists continuance and the time of his hotest persecution which Bellarmine confoundeth the latter notwithstanding beeing much shorter then the former Fourthly saith he Christ preached onely three yeeres and a halfe therefore decet etiam it is also fit that Antichrist be suffered to preach no longer Answere 1. In this argument Bellarmine presupposeth that Antichrist is but one man as Christ is which we haue proued to be most false 2. he taketh vpon him to be the Lords counsailour auouching that it is not fit that Antichrist should preachlonger then Christ did he might haue added that it was not fit or to speake more fitly not like that Antichrist in the same time should be able to preuaile with more then Christ did much lesse to peruert almost the whole world in three yeeres and a halfe whereas Christ as he was man could conuert but a few of the Iewes c. 3. Although Christ in his owne person preached but a few yeres yet he being the eternall word and wisdome of his father hath euer since the beginning spoken by the mouth of his Prophets ministers by whose ministerie also as it were the breath of his mouth he shall waste and consume Antichrist 4. Neither can it be prooued by any shew of reason that Antichrist is to preach just so many yeeres as Christ our Sauiour did Or that he shall in three yeeres and an halfe subdue by force I know not how many kingdomes conuert by preaching gather to himselfe the remnāt of the Iewes and all counterfeit Christians dispersed through so many nations as a man cannot trauell through in three yeeres and a halfe not to speake of his repairing Ierusalem erecting the temple and many good morrowes which by many poëticall fictions the Papists assigne to their deuised Antichrist His fift and sixt reasons are not worth the mentioning For the time and times and halfe a time as hath bin shewed belong not to Antchrists raigne and therby we vnderstand 3 yeeres a halfe as also by the 7. times Dan. 4. 19. in the 4. of Daniel 7. yeeres according to the interpretatiō of the holy Ghost expoūding as it seemeth times by yeres Dan. 11. 13. 7. In the last place he laboureth to take away the exceptions which some particular man as namely Chytraeus Bullinger the authors of the Centuries make against his former allegatiōs out of Daniel the Apocalypse but scarsly toucheth any one of the 6 exceptions before mentioned For whereas Chytraus answereth §. 3. 4. that the 42. moneths in the 11. and 13. of the Apoc. may not be vnderstood literally for three yeres and a halfe because it is contrary to experience and besides the Apostle affirmeth that Antichrist shall continue vntill Christs comming Bellarmine replieth that he beggeth the question But I answer againe as before that experience sheweth that the persecutions vnder the beast with 7 heads continued longer then three yeeres and a halfe when as Iohn affirmeth that the Antichrist was come in his time Paul foretelleth that he should after a sort continue though at the last in a kind of consumption vnto the second comming of Christ surely their meaning was that he should continue aboue three yeeres and a halfe 2. He findeth fault with him Bullinger who thought that the holy ghost mentioning 42. moneths 1260. dayes by a certaine time meant an vncertaine replying that the nūber which is meant is certaine when it consisteth of great small nūbers mixed But they speake of the time and he of the number and therfore his reprehension is vnjust For although the holy ghost do meane no other number then 42 and 1260 yet by the certaine time mentioned that is moneths dayes he meaneth an vncertaine which may be as some thinke 42. sabbothes of yeeres and 1260 yeeres And thirdly whereas Illyricus and the other authors of the Centuries by 1260. daies vnderstand so many yeeres Bellarmine denieth that daies are put for yeeres any where in the scripture and yet cannot deny but that by 390. dayes in Ezechiel is Ezec. 4. 5. 6 meant 390. yeeres and by 40. dayes so many yeares a day for a yeere as the holy ghost speaketh And likewise Apoc. 2. 10. by ten Vid. Iun. in Apoc. 2. daies is meant 10. yeeres as some of the learned thinke Indeed if any shall by 1260 dayes vnderstand as Bellarmine doth the just time of Antichrists reigne and withall expound them either by 1260. yeeres as Bellarmine chargeth some or by three yeeres and Cap. 3. a halfe as the Papists do they may be refuted by the reason before alledged because after the reuelation of Antichrist the speciall time of Christs comming may according to this exposition be foretold which notwithstanding shall not come by obseruation but suddenly neither shall precisely be foreknowne as being knowne onely to the Lord. The 9. Chapter answering his sixt demonstration concerning the end of the world 1. THe sixt and last demonstration to proue that Antichrist is not yet come is taken frō the end of the world But because Bellarmine saw that this could not be made a signe of Antichrists comming without absurdity for it is absurd thus to reason the world hath not yet an end therefore Antichrist is not yet come therefore he changeth the question For whereas he propounded this question to be concluded that Antichrist is not yet come he concludeth that he came not long since So that for all this demonstration Antichrist may alreadie be come although perhaps not so long since as some doe imagine But let vs see how he proueth that he was not come long since If Antichrist were come long since then also the world long since should haue had an end but the world hath not yet an end therefore Antichrist was not come long since The proposition he proueth because Antichrist commeth a very little while before the ende of the world and as it were immediately before the second comming of Christ. But this whole demonstration may easily be refuted by this one distinction for we must distinguish betwixt the comming of Antichrist and his death betwixt his beginning and his ende Antichrist indeed is not vtterly to be destroied before the second comming of Christ but this doth not proue that therefore he was not come long since The Apostle Paul doth tell vs that Antichrist is to be destroied at the second comming of Christ notwithstanding both he doth insinuate and Iohn plainely professeth that the Antichrist which they had heard was to come in the last houre was alreadie come in his time and thereupon inferreth that euen then was the last houre or age of the world which the holy ghost calleth an houre that we should not thinke it long 2. Now al the
Bellarmine would prooue by the authority of Irenaeus as if he should haue said This name was not certainely knowne in Irenaeus his time therefore not in our time I deny the consequence Irenaeus liued before the fulfilling of this prophecie as himselfe professeth as the truth is for he liued aboue 1400. Non ante mul'um temporis pene sub nostro saeculo Iren. Lib. 5. yeeres agoe and as himselfe saith the reuelation was giuen to Iohn but a little before his age For it was giuen in the end of the first Century and he liued in the second and therefore it is more safe saith he to waite for the fulfilling of this prophecie then before hand to determine any thing For if the Lord would haue had this name knowne in Irenaeus his time he would haue made it knowne by Iohn himselfe to whom the reuelation was giuen But as before the fulfilling of this prophecie he saith this name was very obscure so he signifieth that after the fulfilling it should be more plaine And therefore that which he could but ghesse at in his time we may now define time hauing reuealed that trueth which vntill the prophecie was cleared by the euent lay hidde otherwise it shall be lawfull for men to reason from the authority of Irenaeus as Bellarmine doth euen vnto the end of the world But may we then reason thus this name was not knowne in Irenaeus his time therefore it shall neuer be knowne to what end was this prophecie giuen if it shall neuer be vnderstood Whereas therefore he vseth the arguments whereby Irenaeus prooueth that this name could not be knowne in his time to prooue that it cannot be knowne in our time he is ridiculous There are many names saith Irenaeus that haue this number therefore it is heard before hand to tell which is this name Againe if in Irenaeus his time God would haue this knowne he would haue reuealed it by Iohn 3. It is dangerous to define before hand his name for missing of his name we shall not know him when he commeth and therefore shall be in the more danger to be decoiued by him All this we grant But will Bellarmine needs be so ridiculous as to conclude In Irenaeus his time men were not able to tell which of those names that containe the number 666 is the name of the beast therefore 1400. yeeres after none shall be able to tell God would not have it knowne in Irenaeus his time therefore he will not haue it knowne now It was dangerous then before the fulfilling of the prephecie to define what this name should be therefore it is dangerous now when the prophecie is expounded by the euent to apply the one to the other And what doth he inferre hereuppon Therefore no doubt the Protestants who thinke the Pope to be Antichrist shal be deceiued of the true Antichrist when he commeth But blessed be God that hath already reuealed vnto vs the true Antichrist that knowing him we might auoyde him whereas vpon the Papists he hath sent strong illusions that they may beleeue lyes because they loued not the truth that they might be saued 2. Thes. 2. 11. 6. Againe he prooueth this name not to be knowne because there is great controuersie about it what it should be But by the same reason he may conclude that few points of religion are yet knowne because there be few concerning which there is no controuersie Notwithstanding as in other controuersies the trueth is knowne of those which are Orthodoxall howsoeuer others will not acknowledge it so I doubt not but that the trueth in this matter is knowne although some cannot and others will not as yet see it For seeing the hardest matter in this mystery is knowne it is not to be thought that the easier is hid or vnknowne especially seeing the knowledge of the one maketh the other euident The chiefe thing here to be considered is what this beast is For if the beast be knowne it will not be hard to tell what his name is especially if the number of the name be 666. The beast as appeareth by the whole context is as I haue shewed the former beast which without doubt figureth the Romane or Latine state The name of this beast is Romane or Latine If therefore this name in the learned tongues containe the number 666. and be such a name as he to whom all other notes of Antichrist doe agree shall enforce men to take vpon them then without doubt this is the name where of the holy Ghost speaketh but these properties agree to the name Latine or Romane For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew signifying Romane 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke signifying Latine and Romanus in Hebrew Characters doe containe the iust number 666. and are besides such names as Antichrist compelleth all men to take vpon them as hath beene shewed heretofore See Lib. 1. Chap. 8. 7. But let vs see what Bellarmine obiecteth against this truth Of those many reasons which we doe vse Bellarmine maketh choise of two as being the easiest to answer as his maner is and against them he argueth namely the conjecture of Irenaeus and the agreement of the number But besides these we produce three other arguments as you haue heard which together with Lib. 1. c. 〈◊〉 these make the matter euident It is true indeede that Irenaeus besides Latinus produceth two other names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and seemeth to prefer the latter of these before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But we build not vpon Irenaeus his authority but vpon those reasons whereon his conjecture is groūded which are two the one because it is the name of that kingdome which is figured vnder the former beast Apoc. 13. 7. whose authority Antichrist was to vsurpe the other because it containeth 666 his words be these But the name Lateinos also comprehendeth the number 666. et valde verisimile est and it is very likely For it is the name of that which most truely is called the kingdome For they are the Latines that now raigne Which in effect is as much as if he had said this name is very likely because it is a name containing 666. and is the name of the former beast spoken of Apoc. 13. 1. which figureth verissimum regnum that kingdome which most truely is called a kingdome that is the Latine or Roman state Yea but this coniecture saith Bellarmine which in Irenaeus his time was of some force now it is nothing worth for then the Latines bare the sway now they doe not For Antichrist as he shall be Potentissimus Rex 〈◊〉 most mighty king so without doubt he shal seize vpon the most mighty kingdoms Whereas therfore the kingdome of the Latines was in those times most mighty but now otherwise there was some likelyhood then that he might by subduing them be called Latinus but now there is no such probability I answere the name whereof Iohn speaketh
is not the name of Antichrist properly the second beast but the name of the former beast which name of the former beast Antichrist the second beast causeth men to take vpon them And so Latinus is not the name of Antichrist properly but of the beast that is the Latine or Romane state Neither was it Irenaeus his meaning that the name of the beast is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because Antichrist was to subdue the Latines but because the Latines then had Verissimum regnum the most true and soueraigne kingdome and therefore most truely were the beast described Apoc. 13. 7. If therefore the Latines then had the greatest kingdome and were the beast whose authority the second beast that is Antichrist was to take vpon him Apoc. 13. 12. this coniecture that the name of the beaâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was probable before the prophecie was fulfilled Apo. 13. 12 is now more then probable the prophecie being verified in the euent And the decay or rather dissolution of the Latine or Romane Empire before which Antichrist was not to be reuealed is so farre from making this coniecture lesse probable that it rather confirmeth it Neither doe we read in the Scriptures that Antichrist should be a most mighty King or should sease vpon the most mighty kingdomes only this we read that he should exercise the power of the former beast which most fitly agreeth to the Pope 2 As touching the agreement of the number 666. Bellarmine obiecteth first that the number agreeth not with the names propounded and secondly although it did yet it followeth not that any of these is the name of the beast That the number agreeth not he sheweth because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be written with a simple Iota as it ought to be it wanteth fiue of that number I answere that the ancient Latines vsed to write and pronounce i long by ei diphthong and the Graecians vsually expresse i long by ei And it is to be obserued that Irenaeus setting downe these two names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as containing the number 666 taketh it for granted that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may so be writteÌ„ wheras of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith that it maketh that number if it be written writh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diphthong Against the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Romane he objecteth that it is not masculine vnlesse the last letter signifiyng 400. be taken away I answere that collectiue names in Hebrew are indifferently expressed in either gender And suppose the name were feminine yet that hindereth not but that it may be the name here spoken of For the Holy-ghost speaketh of the name of the beast that is the Romane state which else-where is called the whore of Babylon and foemina a woman And therefore well may the name be feminine But although the number agreed saith Bellarmine yet iâ—… followeth not that either Romane or Latine should be the name First because neither of them is his proper name but commune Neither ought it seeing it is the name of the beast which signifieth a whole state Secondly because many other â—…es make this number And therefore it followeth not that any of these is the name here spoken of because they containe the number 666. For diuers Authours haue noted diuers other names as Hippolytus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which indeed maketh not that number but rather prooueth the authour alledging 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be counterfeit neither is it a Nowne and much lesse a name Aretas seauen others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which maketh not that number but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 barbarous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rupertus and Haymo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Picâ—…x Vnto these he addeth out of lying Lindanus Martin Lauer for Luther in Latin letters taken as they neuer were for numbers after the maner of the Greeke out of Gâ—…ebrard Lithers name in Hebrew viz Lultor to which Bellarmine in his wisdome addeth Dabid Chitreiu for Dauid Chytreus and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Saxon to signifie Luther Which latter names shew the Papists to be fraught with malice and voide of judgement forcing these mens names as they might their owne to this purpose But we answer that although there are many names which containe 666. yet notwithstanding none can be the name here spoken of vnlesse also it be the name of the beast that is the Latine or Romane state and vnlesse it be such a name as he to whom all other notes of Antichrist doe agree causeth men to take vpon them Consider therefore with what conscience Bellarmine would perswade vs that any of these may bee the name here spoken of as well as Latine or Romane Seeing first either of these is the name of the beast whereas none of those is or can be Secondly seeing those are such names as Antichrist will not cause men to take vpon them whereas the Pope whom we haue prooued to be Antichrist inforceth either of these names vpon men suffering none to buy or sell or to liue among them vnlesse he professe himselfe to be a Romane or Latine in respect of his religion And thirdly whereas these names agree fitly to him to whom all other markes of Antichrist agree many of those doe not and those which doe as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an euill guide which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agreeth to the Pope 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. yet cannot be this name for the reasons before alledged And thus I hope this Gordian knot is vntied and this vnanswerable argument answered by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The name of the beast is not yet knowne therefore saith he Antichrist is not yet come I answer although the name were vnknowne yet might Antichrist become But now the name of the beast is knowne how farre then is Billarmine from proouing by this argument that Antichrist is not yet come The 11. Chapter Concerning the marke which Antichrist shall impose vpon men 1. COncerning the marke of Antichrist Bellarmnine reciteth three opinions vnto which he addeth a fourth of his owne coyning The first of the Protestants who teach that the marke of Antichrist is some â—…ne of obedience and conjunction with the Pope The second opinion is of some Catholicke Papists who thinke this marke to be the letters of Antichrists name The third of Hippolytus and some others who imagine that this marke of the beast is not to vse the signe of the crosse but rather to detest and 〈◊〉 it The first opinion viz of the Protestants he detesteth as râ—…sh and â—…irde The second of the Catholicks he rejecteth as false which he signifieth when he saith they were deceiued The third he would willingly embrace because it seemeth to make against vs but the authour is counterfeit and his testimonie falsified by Bellarmine And although indeed he do reject it
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
three first hee would faine father vpon Daniel as though hee in the 7. and 11. Chapters had prophesied such things concerning Antichrist But I answere that these prophesies had and according to Daniel were to haue their complement before the comming of the Messias and therfore that the Papists may as wel with the Iewes expect the comming of their Messias as still to expect the fulfilling of these thinges in their imaginary Antichrist the counterfeit Messias of the Iewes Seeing as I said these prophesies were to be fulfilled before the comming of Christ and seeing the Iewes do stil waite for their Messias because with the Papists they will not acknowledge these prophesies which were to haue their complement before the comming of the Messias to haue bene fulfilled before the incarnation of Christ. The occasion of which errour of the Papists whereat the Iewes also do stumble hath bene an erronious interpretation of some of the Fathers who vnderstand whatsoeuer is spoken of the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagedae that is the kingdome of Syria and Egypt so farre forth as it tyrannized ouer the people of God the Iewes figured by the two legges of the Image chap. 2. and the fourth beast with tenne hornes chap. 7. they vnderstand I say as spoken of the Romane Monarchy And consequently whatsoeuer is spoken of the little horne chap. 7. 8. 11. whereby Antiochus Epiphanes is most plainely described they expound it of Antichrist 2 But the learned of our times haue made it cleare although the Papists shut their eyes against the truth that by the two legges of the Image and by the fourth beast is not to be vnderstood the Romane Empire and by the little horne not Antichrist properly but Antiochus Epiphanes For these thinges which are recorded of the two legges chap. 2. and of the fourth beast chap. 7. do not onely sitly but also properly and onely agree to the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagedae And those things which are written of the little horne do wholy properly belong to Antiochus Epiphanes as the Papists themselues cannot deny Porphyry that learned though malicious enemie of Christianitie perceiued Daniels prophesies in the 7. 8. 11. 12. chapters which the Papists vnderstand of Antichrist so fully and perfectly to agree to Antiochus Epiphanes that he cauelled against the prophesies of Daniel affirming that they were written not before hand of Daniel but after the fulfilling of them by some one that liued in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes For so Ierome writeth of him Contre prophetam Danielem doudetimum librum scribit Porphyrius notans eum ab ipso cuius Praefatione in Daniel inscriptus est nomine esse compositum sed à quodam qui temporibus Antiochi qui appellatus est Epiphanes fuerit in Iudaea non tam Danielem ventura dixisse quam illum narrasse praeterita And after tanta enim dictorum fides fuit vt propheta incredulis hominibus non videatur futura dixisse sed narrasse praterita So fully and plainly is Antiochus deciphred in the prophecie of Daniel that the authour of that booke seemed to Porphyrie to haue written a story of Antiochus Epiphanes rather then a prophecie 3 As for Antichrist he is not once mentioned or meant in all the prophecie of Daniel the which I deliuer not as though I thought that those things which the papists expound concerning Antichrist could not for the most part be fitly applied to the Pope for not onely diuers protestants arguing from the papists owne groundes haue out of Daniel prooued the Pope to be Antichrist but also the Iewes and namely R. Leui Gerson whom Bellarmine citeth chap. 12. expoundeth all those things in Daniel chap. 7. and 11. which the papists vnderstand of Antichrist as spoken of the Pope of Rome whom he calleth another Pharao And most true it is that excepting Antiochus Epiphanes these prophecies doe best fit the Pope of Rome And therefore I willingly graunt that which both olde and new writers haue aâ—…med that Antiochus Epiphanes may be saide to haue bene a type of Antichrist A type I say not in all and euery particular as though whatsoeuer can be said of Antiochus the like may be said of Antichrist but in some principall matters in respect whereof he is a type Salomon the King of peace Dauid the kingly Prophet the high priests which by offering sacrifices made attonement for their bretheren Iosuae the deliuerer of the people were types of Christ. And yet it were a ridiculous if not a blasphemous course to apply to Christ whatsoeuer is recorded of Salomon Dauid the high Priests or Iosuah Neither is this without cause set downe by the Schoolemen as a rule of Diuinitie that theologia symbolica non est argumentutina For those things which properly are spoken of Antiochus cannot properly be vnderstood of Antichrist if at all but onely allegorically and allegories proue not and that force which they seeme to haue in prouing is not to proue the same particular but the like for allegories are similitudes without notes of likenes If therefore it were scarce a good argument in diuinitie from a type or allegory to proue the like because similia claudicant then must it needs be a sencelesse argumentation from a similitude to conclude not the like but the same particular seeing nullum fimile est idem no like is the selfe-same The principall matters which are recorded of Antiochus are these that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an enemy to God and a persecuter of his church an aduancer of himselfe aboue or against euery God or as the Apostle speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ruled by no lawe but his owne wil hauing a mouth speaking Dan. 7. 8. presumptuous things and such like which as they are recorded of Antiochus so are they by the Apostles applied to Antichrist 2. Thess. 2. and do most fitly and properly agree to the Pope But if we shall apply to Antichrist those things which were proper to the person of Antiochus and in respect whereof he was not a type of Antichrist and from thence shall inferre not the like which were too much for like things are not like in all things but the same particular which was proper to his persoÌ„ we shall be ridiculously absurd As for example if we shall say that Antichrist shall by craft attaine not to his kingdome but to the same kingdome of Syria because Antiochus did so that Antichrist shal fight with the kings of Egypt Libya Aethiopia because in Bellarmines conceit Antiochus did so and such like particulars then may we by as good right affirme that Antichrist shall immediatly succeed in the kingdome of Syria his brother Seleucus Philopater for that is expresly noted Dan 11. 21. and in his place c. and consequently that he shall be the sonne of Antiochus Magnus that he shall be an hostage at Rome before he be king as
him vile in respect where of Polybius calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So is Seleucus Philopater verse 20. in the vulgar translation called Uilissimus because of his base polling of his people and not because hee did arise from base estate Wherefore it is euident that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist in this place and that he of whom he speaketh did not arise from moste base estate as Bellarmine woulde beare vs in hand vnlesse it be a most base estate to bee the sonne of a mightie King who for his greatnesse was called Antiochus the great 9 But will you see with one view the absurditie of this Popish argument Hee proueth from this place that Antichrist shall arise from most base estate and shall by deceit obtaine the kingdome of the Iewes But say I Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist but of Antiochus Epiphanes Yea but Antiochus was a type of Antichrist Be it that hee was a type not onely in some other things but also in this particular yet from hence we must inferre not the selfe same particular which is proper to the person of Antiochus but the like and that by way of allegory onely which were but a sleight argument to proue so weightie a controuersie in diuinitie Whereas therefore he inferreth from hence not the like viz. as Antiochus obtained his kingdome by fraude so shall Antichrist obtaine his but the verie same particular viz. as Antiochus obtained the kingdome of the Iewes so shall Antichrist obtaine the same kingdome of the Iewes his argument is ridiculous and yet this is not all the absurditie of this argument for when as from the likenesse of Antichrist to his type he would proue that Antichrist shall arise from base estate this assertion is not true of the type it selfe Yea but Ierome saith that this place may better be vnderstood of Antichrist Qui consurgere habet de moâ—…ica gente id est de populo Iudaeorum c. Who is to arise of a small nation that is the people of the Iewes c. and Daniel compareth Antichrist because of his base beginning to the little horne chap. 7. I doe not denie but that Antichristes beginning might be base but yet neither can the testimony of Ierome neither doth that allegation out of Daniel proue it For Ieromes testimony in this case if it ought to be of weight with vs it must be taken either as a prophecie or else as a sit exposition of Daniels prophecie as I haue said heretofore But Ierome was no Prophet neither doth hee sitly expound Daniel who speaketh plainly not of Antichrist but of the successour of Seleucus Philopator And it is a wonder that Ierome one of the most learned of the Fathers should in so easie a matter be ouerseene For seeing hee confesseth that the former part of the chapter is to be expounded of the Seleucidae and that in the 20. verse is described Seleucus Philopator for so hee saith on those wordes Et stabit in loco eius vilissimus Seleucum dicit cognomento Philopatorem filium magni Antiochi he speaketh of Seleucus surnamed Philopator the sonne of Antiochus the great It is therefore most plaine that when Daniel saith and in his place shall stand a vile person he speaketh of the next successour of Seleucus Philopator meaning Antiochus euen as in the 20. verse after he had spoken of Antiochus Magnus he saith and in his place shall stand vp a sender forth of an extortioner meaning Seleucus Neither doth Daniel say any where that Anchrist or he of whom he speaketh shall arise of a small nation meaning thereby the Iewes that which he speaketh de modico populo vers 23. is to be vnderstood properly as Ierome himselfe expoundeth it according to the literal that is the proper sense of the small company wherwith Antiochus surprised Egypt neither can there be any such allegorical sense as he seemeth to frame Neither doth Daniel by the litle horne meane any other but Antiochus Epiphanes who may not vnfitly in diuers things be said to haue bene a type of Antichrist For the terrible beast with ten hornes doth not signifie the Romane state as the Papists would haue it but the kingdome of the Seleucidae and Lagidae and by the ten hornes not the ten Kings whereof Iohn speaketh Apoc. 17. among whom the Romane Empire was to be diuided but ten of these Kings viz. three Lagidae and seuen Seleucidae which tyrannized or ruled ouer the people of God The tenth that is to say the last of them that had dominion ouer Iudaea was not Antichrist but Antiochus Epiphanes who in crueltie towards the people of God surpassed all that went before him 10 Which I speake not as though this expositioÌ„ did much hinder our assertioÌ„ for others which haue held the same haue applied those things which are spoken of the litle horne vnto the Pope And surely if this fourth beast were the Romane state and the hornes the rulers thereof and the tenth or last horne Antichrist then is it hereby very likely that the Pope is Antichrist seeing hitherto hee is the last that hath ruled in Rome and shall according to the Papists owne conceit continue to the end But the truth is that the descriptioÌ„ of the fourth beast doth not agree to the Romanes but to the kingdome of the Seleucidae For this fourth beast was a kingdome which was to haue an end before the coÌ„ming of the Messias his kingdome chap. 7. vers 11. 26. 27. So had the kingdome of the Seleucidae so had not the Romanes 2. This fourth beast warred with the Iewes tyrannized ouer them and hindred their religioÌ„ worship of God at Ierusalem not only before the comming of Christ but also before the purging of the temple and restitution of religioÌ„ by Iudas Macchabaeus cha 7. ver 25. 26. 27. So did the Seleucidae so did not the Romanes 3 Of the fourth beast there were but ten hornes that is Princes that ruled ouer Iudaea which is most true of the Seleucidae Lagidae but of the Romanes after they had once obtained the dominion of Iury there were many more then ten that ruled ouer the holy land If any say the Romane Empire is figured Apoc. 17. by a beast with ten horns I answer that the ten hornes wherof Iohn speaketh Apo. 17. 12. are ten kings amoÌ„g whom the Romane Empire was to be diuided who succeeded not one another in the same kingdome but were rulers of so many seueral prouinces or kingdoms at the same time but these ten horns tyrannized ouer the same kingdome of the Iewes successiuely as they are particularly described chap. 11. And further he that in Daniel is supposed by the Papists to be Antichrist is one of the tenne hornes but in Iohn not 4. that which is spoken in Daniel of the tenth horne doth fitly wholy agree to Antiochus Epiphanes who was the tenth and last king of that kingdome that ruled ouer Iudaea but the same things cannot in like