some other heretickes who notwithstanding haue not openly denied Christ. Gregorie in the same place which Bellarmine alledgeth doth affirme Lib. 11. Epist. 3. that Antichrist shall haue in reuerence not onely the Sabboth day but also the Lords day which cannot stand with such an open deniall of Christ as Bellarmine imagineth His words be these Qui veniens diem Sabbati atq dominicum ab omni faciet opere custoderi Who when he commeth speaking of Antichrist shall cause the Sabboth day and the Lords day to be kept from all worke And of this there may better reason be giuen then of the other because as hath bene proued Antichrist was to be a pretended Christian. 5 These were his authorities now let vs weigh his reason which is thus concluded In whose time the publike seruice of God and diuine sacrifices shal cease by reason of the vehement persecutioÌ„ he shall openly deny Christ and shall abolish all his ordinances and in stead of them bring in Iewish ceremonies But in Antichrists time by reason of the vehement persecution the publike seruice of God and diuine sacrifices shall cease therefore c. I answere by distinction If by the seruice of God he meane the true worship of God the proposition is vntrue For in the Papacie the true publike worship of God by reason of the vehemencie of persecution hath ceased and yet the Pope doth not openly deny Christ and abolish his ordinances although he do vilely depriue them and mingle them not onely with Iewish but also Heathenish ceremonies If by the publike seruice and diuine sacrifices he meaneth generally any seruice of God although superstitious any sacrifices although idolatrous such as is the sacrifice of the Masse then the assumption is false for such superstitions and will-worshippes do best beseeme Antichrist But of this argument concerning the persecution of Antichrist we haue spoken before chap. 7. 6 This may suffice for answere to his proposition and the proofes thereof Whereas therefore he assumeth that the Pope doth not deny Christ c. I answere if he meaneth a direct deniall in open profession that the Pope may be Antichrist although he do not so denie Christ If he meaneth a deniall of Christ in deed and in truth although couertly indirectly and by consequent I haue heretofore proued that he doth so denie Christ not onely in word and doctrine as he is a false Prophet but also in deed and fact as he is a man of sinne denying him in his life and as he is an aduersary not onely denying but also oppugning Christ and his truth See the first Booke chap. 4. § 6. 7. 8. 7 The second doctrine of Antichrist saith Bellarmine is to affirme himselfe to be the true Christ. From whence he gathereth his second argument Antichrist shal affirme himselfe to be Christ. The Pope doth not affirme himselfe to be Christ therfore the Pope iâ—… not Antichrist That Antichrist being hostis amulus Christi that is an enemy of Christ opposed vnto him in emulation of like honour shall indeed challenge vnto himselfe those offices prerogatiues and authoritie which properly belong to Christ which in effect is as much as if he should say I am Christ we denie not and withall auouch that the Pope of Rome doth so affirme himselfe to be Christ. But that Antichrist shall openly and in so many words expresly affirme that he is the Christ or Messias of the world that we deny to be agreeable to that Antichrist who is described in the word of God For Antichrist was to be a dissembling hypocrite as hath bene proued and his religion is a mysterie of iniquitie cloaked vnder the profession of Christianity Neither could he seduce so many Christians if hee should plainely and openly professe himselfe to be the true Christ. But let vs see how Bellarmine proueth that Antichrist shall openly and expresly name himselfe Christ. Forsooth out of Ioh 5. 43. If an other come in his owne name him will you receiue Where saith he our Lord seemeth of purpose to haue added these words in his owne name foreseeing that the Lutherans and Caluinists would say that Antichrist shall not come in his owne name but in the name of Christ as being his Vicar But I haue heretofore proued that Christ in this place doth not speake absolutely an other shall come but conditionally if an other shall come nor definitely of Antichrist but indefinitely of any false Prophet that should come in his owne name not sent of God Neither doth it follow that if Antichrist shal come in his owne name that therefore he will professe himselfe to be Christ. For all false Prophets come in their owne name because they are not sent of God and yet the most of them haue not professed themselues to be Christ. And it is plaine that our Sauiour Christ in this place maketh an opposition betwixt himselfe and euery false Prophet in this respect that he came vnto them in the name of his Father that is not taking vpon himselfe this honour to be our Prophet and Priest without authoritie and commission from God but sent from the bosome of his Father and yet was not receiued of the Iewes but if an other meaning any other false Prophet should come vnto them not in the name of the Father but in his owne name that is hauing no commission or authoritie from God such a one should be embraced of them And further we are to consider that Christ professing himself to be the Messias seemeth to deny that he came in his owne name for hee signifieth that false Prophets come in their owne name but hee came in the name of the Father therfore to come in his owne name signifieth to come of himselfe without any calling or commission froÌ„ God And therfore our aduersaries cannot with any shewe of reason conclude out of this place that Antichrist shall professe himselfe to be Christ. And yet this is all the proofe which he can bring out of the scriptures Yea but though the scriptures teach no such matter Yet some of the Fathers affirme that Antichrist shall professe himselfe to be Christ yea but Bellarmine hath told vs that we are not to giue credit to such coniectures of theirs as haue no ground in the word of God For how could they being no Prophets certainly foretell such things of Antichrist without booke that is to say without warrant of the scriptures And whereas he addeth that these Fathers affirme that he shall be receiued of the Iewes for their Messias and therfore shal professe himselfe to be the Messias I answer that in like sort a dozen of them affirmed that Antichrist should come of the Tribe of Dan wherof notwithstanding there is no probabilitie 8 To the proposition therfore I answer that Antichrist was not plainely and openly to professe himselfe to be Christ but to challenge the office and authoritie of Christ which is in effect although indirectly by consequent as much as
argument is there in this worthy demonstration This therefore Bellarmine maketh the question which he goeth about to prooue First by testimonies of Scripture Secondly by consent of the fathers Thirdly by reason 2. There be foure Scriptures saith Bellarmine to prooue that Enoch and Elias in their owne persons shall come against Antichrist Howbeit this is a manifest vntrueth for no place of Scripture speaketh of Enoch his returne The first Malach. 4. 5. Behold I will send vnto you Elias the Prophet before the great and fearefull day of the Lord come and he shall turne the hearts of the fathers vnto the children and the hearts of the children vnto their fathers This place maketh no mention of Enoch but onely of Elias and by Elias is meant not Elias the Thesbite but Iohn the Baptist who as the Luke 1. 17. Angel applying to him this prophecy saith should go before the Lord Iesus in the spirit and power of Elias that he may turne the hearts of the fathers vnto the children c. And our sauior Christ Mat. 11. 14 most plainely affirmeth that Iohn Baptist is that Elias who was to come and if you will receiue saith he that is if you will giue credit to my speech this is that Elias who was to come And addeth he that hath eares to heare let him heare Which sheweth that the Papists neither haue harts to beleeue Christ nor eares to heare him but haue opē both hearts to receiue and eares to heare the fables of the Iewes who as they yet looke for their Messias so they looke also for Elias to be his forerunner For as Ierome writeth vpon this place of Malachy the Iewes and Iudaizing heretickes thinke that before their Messias Elias shal come and restore all things Hence it is that vnto Christ this question is propounded in the Gospell what is that which the Pharisies say that Elias shall come to whom he answered Elias indeed shal come and if you will beleeue he is already come by Elias meaning Iohn And therefore in Ieromes iudgement it is but the opinion of a Iudaizing hereticke to expect the comming againe of Elias in his owne person Yea but saith Bellarmine this place cannot be vnderstood of Iohn Baptist but of Elias onely For Malachy speaketh of the second comming of Christ which shal be vnto iudgement For so he saith before the great terrible day of the Lord come for his first comming is not called great and terrible but the acceptable time day of saluation Whereupon it is also added least when I come I strike the earth with a curse But Christ in his first comming came not to judge but to be judged 3. Answ. Bellarmine must giue vs leaue to beleeue the Angell Luke 1. 17 Mat. 11. 14 Math. 17. of God and our Sauiour Christ rather then himselfe who is not affraid as it seemeth to giue the lie to the spirit of God speaking in both Neither can he prooue that Malachie speaketh of the second comming of Christ for therin the Papists erre worse then the Iewes For both the text it selfe also the application therof by the Angell and our Sauiour Christ do prooue that Elias was to come before the first comming of Christ which is great to the godly and terrible to the wicked And therfore in the beginning of the third Chapter the Prophet speaking most plainly of the first comming of Christ before which the Lord promiseth to send his messenger that is Iohn Baptist to prepare the way before Mat. 11. 10. Mark 1. 2. him signifieth that this comming is great and fearefull verse 2. But who may abide the day of his comming and who shall endure when he appeareth for he is like a purging fire and like Pullers Sope and he shall sit downe to trie and fine the siluer Of the same comming he speaketh in the beginning of the fourth Chapter Behold the day commeth that shall burne as an Ouen c. shewing how terrible it shall be to the wicked But vnto you that feare my name saith the Lord verse 2. shall the sunne of righteousnesse arise and health shall be vnder his wings c. And before this great day commeth he promiseth them to send them Elias that is Iohn Baptist to whom our Sauiour applieth the Prophesie of Malachie both Chapter 3. 1. and Chapter 4. 5. In like sort Iohn Baptist himselfe describeth the first comming of Christ as terrible in respect of the wicked Now saith he is the Axe laide to the roote of the trees c. Math. 3. 10. and verse 11. and 12. He that commeth after me is mightier then I he will Baptize you with the holy Ghost and with fire which hath his Fanne in his hand vsing the like similitude that Malachie did and will purge his Floore and gather his Wheate into his Garner but will burne vp the Chaffe with vnquenchable fire Symeon also saith of our Sauiour that he was appointed both for the fall of the wicked and Luke 2. 34. rising of the godly And elsewhere he is called a stumbling stone and a Rocke of offence vpon which stone whosoeuer falleth Rom. 9. 33. he shall be broken in peeces but on whomsoeuer it shall fall it shall all Mat. 21. 44. to grind him If notwithstanding all this which hath beene alledged any man shall thinke the first comming of the Lord not so fitly to be called terrible I further answer that the Hebrew word Norah signifieth also reuerend to be feared or had in reuerence as Gen. 28. 17. Deut. 7. 21. and so is translated by Tremelius and Iunius in this place of Malachie And thus both that word and others of the same roote are vsed in the signification Psal. 130. 4 of reuerence or filiall feare And whereas it is added that Elias should be sent to conuert the people Least when I come saith the Lord I should strike the earth with a curse the meaning is that the Lord would send his messenger to prepare the way before him that some of the people at the least might be ready to receiue our Sauiour Christ least if all should reject him he should be prouoked to strike the land for at his second comming he shall without peraduenture strike the earth And in this exposition of Malachie besides others Arias Montanus the most learned writer among the Papists doth wholy agree with In Malach. vs expounding this Prophesie of Iohn Baptist whom he calleth another Elias and of the first comming of Christ. Thus therefore I answer First that Malachie speaketh not of Enoch but of Elias onely and secondly of Elias his comming not with Antichrist but before Christ thirdly that before the first comming of Christ fourthly and consequently not of Elias literally but of Iohn Baptist who came in the spirit and power of Elias 4. The second place is Ecclesiastic 48. 10. 44. 16. In the former place it is said of Elias That he was appointed to
concerning the proposition For we doe grant that the Popes haue raigned and tyrannized in the Church almost a thousand yeeres and therfore aboue three yeers and a halfe Let vs therfore consider how he proueth that Antichrist shall raigne 3. yeers and a halfe precisely He proueth it by diuers prophecies of the Scriptures ghesses of the fathers which were no prophecies And first he alleageth these places Dan. 7. 25. and 12. 7. Apoc. 12. 14. Where we read saith he that the raign of Antichrist shal continus a time and times halfe a time that is a yeere and two yeeres and halfe a yeere and so he saith S. Iohn expoundeth it Apoc. 11. and 13. by 42. moneths and 1260 daies I answer that none of these places defineth the time or terme of Antichrists raigne Daniel speaketh not of the time of Antichrists raigne but of that time wherin the Iewes were to be afflicted the temple seruice of God in Ierusalem was to be profaned by Antiochus Epiphanes which time the Angell diuersly reckoneth Chap. 16. as was in part shewed in the last chapter shal hereafter be more fully declared For of their deliuerance from the tyrannie of Antiochus there are foure degrees obtained at 4. seueral times all which seeme to be noted by Daniel The first is the restitution of Gods worship renouation of the temple by Iudas Maccabeus 1. Mac. 1. 57. From the profanatioÌ„ therfore which was on the 15. of Casteu 1. Mac. 4. 52. in the yeere 145. vnto this restitutioÌ„ made on the 25. of Casteu in the 148. yeere were 3. yeers 10. daies which Daniel calleth a time times parcel of time Dan. 7. 25. as some thinke Dan 12. 7. The second degree was the victory of the Iewes against § De bello Iudaico lib. 1. Cap. 1. the forces of Antiochus Epiphanes wherby they were expelled out of Iewry the testitutioÌ„ begun confirmed which hapned after 3. yeers and a halfe as Iosephus noteth who also affirmeth that for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioseph de bell long Antiochus had caused the daily sacrifice to cease his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The terme as some thinke Daniel Chapter 12. vers 7. calleth a time and times 〈◊〉 â—…fe a time The third degree is the deadly sicknesse of Antiochus after his flight from Persâ—…pons at what time he promised all good things to the people of the Iewes From the profanation to this Dan. 12. 11 time Daniel reckoneth 1290. dayes to his death which hapned 45. dayes after to wit in the beginning of the yeere â—…49 he reckoneth 1335. dayes Now whereas Bellarmine saith that the terme of antichrists raigne shal be 3. yeers a halfe precisely saith that this terme is expressed in the Apocalypse by 1260. dayes and in Daniel by 1290. he seemed not to haue beene well aduised for 1290. are not 1260. nor 3. yeeres and a halfe precisely And therein he contradicteth himselfe and maketh Iohn in the same matter to be repugnant to Daniel 3. As touching the places in the Apocalypse it is hard to prooue that the times mentioned in the 11. 12. and 13. chapters be the same which he must prooue or else by conference of these places he prooueth nothing and if they be the same as indeed they are not it will be as hard to define where we are to begin the account But these two things may be affirmed First that all these times are not to be vnderstood literally And secondly that none of theÌ„ defineth the time of Antichrists raigne The 42. moneths in the 11. and 13. chapters signifie the time of the persecution vnder the Romane Emperours either only or especially for Chap. 11. v. 2. it is said that the Gentiles shal tread vpon the holy city 42. moneths But antichrist as the Papists hold shal be the Prince of the Iewes and counterfeit Christians And v. 7. it is said that the beast which ariseth out of the deepe which being the same with that which is described chap. 13. 1. is the Romane state especially as it was vnder the persecuting emperours that this beast I say shall persecute the two witnesses of God and their bodies shall lie in the streetes of the great Cities whereby in the Apocalypse is meant Rome or the R. empire And hereby also it appeareth that this terme of 42. moneths mentioned in both places is not literally to be vnderstood For the persecution vnder the Romane Emperours alone endured so many Sabboths of yeeres as there are moneths mentioned in those places that is 294. yeers as Master Fox expoundeth it Now if the other termes mentioned chap. 11. and 12. of time and times and halfe a time and of dayes 1260. be the same with the 42. moneths as Bellarmine will needes haue it then by them is not signified Anchrists raigne neither are they to be vnderstood literally no more then the 42. moneths but in the 11. chap. the time of the two witnesses preaching during the time of the afore said persecution and chap 12. the womans that is the Churches liuing in the desert during the said time Howbeit the speech of time and times and halfe a time may rather be vnderstood according to Daniels phrase of three yeeres and a halfe wherin the Church of Vid. Iunium in Apo. 12. Christ which was at IerusaleÌ„ after it was admonished by a voyce out of the sanctuary to depart accordingly remoued to Pella was sustained there For in that place it is plaine that the holy Ghost speaketh not of Antichrist nor yet of the beast but of the Serpent the diuell who seeketh the ouerthrow of the Church of Christ among the Iewes afterwards turneth his anger towards the rest of her seed that is the faithful among the Gentiles and to that end standeth on the sea shore from whence he raiseth the beast with seauen heads c. 4. And further I ad that if these times meÌ„tioned in those places which Bellarmine alledgeth did signifie the terme of Antichrists 2 raign precisely were to be vnderstood literally theÌ„ it wold follow that after antichrist is once reuealed al meÌ„ that be acquainted with the Scriptures may precisely define before haÌ„d the very day of Christs coÌ„ming vnto iudgemeÌ„t which the Lord notwithstanding wil not haue known Mar. 13. 32. as Bellarmine himself Cap. 3. lib. 3. must needs grant seeing he vseth this as the chiefe argument against those which by 1260. dayes vnderstand so many yeeres Againe it is incredible if not impossible that so many so great 3. things as they assigne to Antichrist should be effected brought to passe in so short a time as Hentenius a learned Papist doth confesse and as hath bin shewed heretofore For this is an errour depending In praesat translat Arcthâ—… vpon the former concerning the person of Antichrist presupposing that Antichrist is but one man And therfore
prophets come in the name of another not in their owne name But Christ here speaketh of one that should come in his owne name therefore he speaketh not of false prophets He might as well haue concluded against the Scriptures that Antichrist is not a false prophet For false prophets saith Bellarmine come not in their owne name Antichrist commeth in his owne name therefore if Bellarmines argument be good Antichrist is not a false Prophet But I answere that Antichrist and all other false Prophets may be said to come both in their owne name and also in the name of God In their owne name because they are not sent of God in which sense our Sauiour Christ here speaketh I am come saith he in my fathers name sent from the bosome of my father who hath sealed and sent me to this worke of mediation and you receiue me not If another shall come in his owne name not sent from God or as Lyra expoundeth those words in nomine suo in his owne name that is not hauing the aforesaid testimonies from God whereby to warrant his calling from him such will you receiue They are said also to come in the name of God and of Christ because they pretend although falsely a calling and commission from God Ierem. 14. 14. 15. Mat. 24. 5. For whereas Bellarmine expoundeth these words thus in his owne name that is shall not acknowledge any God but aduance himselfe aboue all that is called God and assigneth such a comming to the expected Messias of the Iewes it is absurde For the Iewes expect a Messias to be sent them from God And therefore if any shall take vpon him to be their Messias and be receiued of them he will without doubt professe himselfe to be sent of God And such a one may be said to come in his owne name because he is not sent of God and in Gods name because he pretendeth a calling and commission from him Fourthly saith he if Christ had spoken of false Prophets whereof many were to come he would not haue said if another come but many come but the second is false therefore the first I answere if Christ had spoken simply and definitely one other shall come there had beene some shew of reason in the argumentation of the aduersary But seeing he doth not so speake as Bellarmine dreameth but conditionally and indefinitely if another shall come there is not so much as any shew of reason in this argument 3. The second place which Bellarmine produceth is 2. Thes. 2. 3. 8. Where the Apostle intreating of Antichrist speaketh of one certaine and particular person as appeareth by the Greeke article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man of sinne the sonne of perdition the outlaw His reason is thus to be framed Vnto whatsoeuer the Greeke article is prefixed it is signified to be one certaine and singuler thing or person vnto the Antichrist that man of sinne the sonne of perdition the outlaw the Greeke article is profixed therefore the Antichrist is but one certaine and singuler person The proposition he prooueth by the authority of Epiphanius who saith that the Greeke articles restraine the signification to one certaine thing so Haeresi 9. qâ—… est S maritanrum that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth man in general but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one singuler man And therefore Bellarmine maruelleth greatly that none of vs who would seeme to haue skill in the tongues hath obserued so much But it were more to bee maruelled that Bellarmine should in this waighty cause affirme that which he knoweth to be false but that he hath Epiphanius vpoÌ„ whom to the father this vntruth and yet Epiphanius doth not say that the addition of the article doth alwaies restraine the signification to one certaine and singuler thing but that it signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the discretioÌ„ or difference of the name Howbeit that is not perpetual For many times the article is added for ornament only and fulnesse of speech when as in respect of the sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is redundant or superstuous And here of there be more examples then there be leaues euen in the new testament And therefore both in the same and like sentences the article sometimes is vsed sometimes omitted without any alteration of the sense As Lu. 4. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But in Mathew 4. 4. where the same speech is recorded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And againe where the article is vsed for difference sake it doth not alwayes point out one certaine and singuler thing but onely when it is vsed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a demonstratiue particle as Iohn 1. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beholde the Lambe of God Iohn 4. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not this that Christ For more vsually it is vsed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is for difference when as it serueth not to signifie one speciall but to distinguish the whole kinde In which sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one as Philosophers say As Marke 2. 27. the Sabboth was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the man not the man for the Sabboth Iohn 2 25. he needed not that any should beare witnesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the man meaning any man for himselfe knew what was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the man So Num. 19. 11. which is the law that Epiphanius misalledgeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that toucheth that is whosoeuer toucheth the dead body that is any dead body of any man he shal be vncleane seuen dayes Whereas Epiphanius therefore alledgeth it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any man touch the dead he remaineth vncleane vntill the euening and he shall be washed with water and shall be clensed and from the force of the article which is not in the text as he alledgeth it if there be not a fault in the print prooueth that by the dead is to be meant not any dead man but onely Christ it is euident that his memory failed him For the law which pronounceth a man vncleane vntill the euening for touching a dead body is vnderstood of the dead bodies of beasts but that which speaketh of the Leuit. 11. dead body of a man pronounceth him vncleane seuen dayes and is as euen now you heard vnderstood of the dead body of any man whatsoeuer And the reason of this law is first because a dead man is a spectacle both of our sinne and of Gods curse for the same and secondly because the Lord would by the detestation of the bodily death teach the Israelites to abhorre the spirituall death of the soule in sinne And there fore Epiphanius not vnworthily reprooueth the hypocrisie of the Samaritans who vnder pretence of this law abhorred the dead bodies of men when as themselues were dead in sinne So when we say the Pope the Emperour the king the priest the minister the eye the hand we meane not one particular but the whole
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
whence they professe 4. Vnctio sacerdotalis they haue receiued this Iewish ceremony which together with the sacrifices Priesthood and ceremonies of the law are abrogated by the sacrifice death of our Sauior Christ. And why then do they not as well retaine circumcision the sacrifices of Buls and Goats other ceremonies of the Leuiticall Priesthood that they might more plainely shew themselues whiles they seeke to be the Apes of the Iewes to be as indeede they are according to the censure of Paul in the Epistle to the Galathians Apostates from Christ. But as their priesthood it selfe is Antichristian wherby the Leuitical priesthood and many Iewish ceremonies are retained as though Christ had not put an end to them whereby Christ is denyed to be our onely Priest whereby Christ himselfe as they say is daily offered to the disgrace of his owne sacrifice as though that once performed had not beene sufficient to the ouerthrow of his humaine nature which they hold to be in many places at once inuisible and incircumscriptible without quantity and dimension and consequently no body to the disparagement of his diuine excellencie whiles euery shaueling Priest taketh vpon him by breathing out a few words after a magical maner to create his maker and when he hath done to offer him as a sacrifice to the father euery sacrifice being inferiour to the sacrificer to the deifying of a piece of bread consecrated to most sacrilegious Idolatry as I say their priesthood it selfe is Antichristian so their vnction whetherof Bishops on the head or of Priests on the hand vndoubtedly belongeth to the marke of Antichrist And although they were able to shew some practise hereof in the Church before the yeere 606. yet this hindreth not but that this Priestly Vnction may belong to the marke because as I said some corruptions were before the reuelation of Antichrist crept into the Church which by him were to be retained with increase and maintained as also because this ceremony is vsed not by authority of their example but as receiued from Moses by the authority of the ceremoniall law as though it were not abrogated by Christ and as imposed vpon the Church by the law of the Pope And lastly because it is a ceremony belonging to such a sacrificing Priesthood as was not known in the primitiue Church But as I suppose they are not able to produce any sufficient testimony or authenticke proofe to declare the vse of this ceremony in the primitiue Church which some of them impute to the rudenes and vnsetled estate of that time For whereas he alledgeth two testimonies of Nazianzene both places are to be vnderstood ◅ighius figuratiuely of consecration to the ministerie For as appeareth De sacra vnctione C. cum venisset by the testimony of Innocentius 3. this ceremony of annointing was not vsed in the Greeke Church whereof Nazianzene was but reiected as Iewish vntill he imposed the same vpon them about the yeere 1200. 10. As touching the fift Sacrifices of praise we offered for 5. Missa pro defunelis those that dyed in the Lord but no propitiatory sacrifices such as their masses be were offered for them The oblations for the dead whereof Augustine speaketh prooue not that masse Lib. de hares C. 53. See D. Fu◅ke in Apoc. 14. 13. s. 5. contra Rhem. were vsed as propitiatory sacrifices for the quicke and the dead Vnlesse therefore he can prooue that they had before the yeere 607. masses as superstitious and Idolatrous as since the frequenting of Masses may now belong to the marke of the beast which before did not 11. Adoration of images and of the Eucharist may most fitly be said to belong to the marke of the beast For those 6. Adoratio imaginum et Eucharistiae that are made drunke with the cup of the whore of Babylons fornications that is which are besotted with the Idolatries of the Church of Rome are the same with those that receiue the marke of the beast But the adoration of Images and of the Eucharist is notorious Idolatry or spirituall fornication and therefore those that are besotted with these Idolatries haue receiued the marke of the beast And as touching the worshipping of Images it is most plainely forbidden and condemned in the Scriptures and Councels and writings of the fathers who liued in the first 600. yeeres The Wine of this fornication wherewith all sortes haue beene made drunke was first set abroach to the world in the second Councell of Nice about the yeere 789. For further proofe whereof read B. Iewell in his 14. article against M. Harding And the like may be said of the adoration of the Eucharist which is a consequent of the eleuation of the sacrament and transubstantiation neither of which were vsed or heard of in the first 600. yeeres as the same Iewell prooueth Artic. 75. 10. And Artic. 8. he sheweth that the adoration of the sacrament cānot be warranted by any commandement of Christ nor by any word or example of th'apostles or ancient fathers but that it is a thing lately deuised by Pope Honorius about the yeere 1226. But let vs weigh his proofes That Images were worshipped he prooueth by the testimony of Ierome who in the life of Paula speaking of her zeale and deuotion in visiting those places where our Lord Iesus had beene conuersant he sheweth how at length she commeth to the sepulcher and kisseth the stone which the Angell had rouled away frō the mouth of the sepulcher and licked the place where Christs body lay and seeing that very Crosse as was supposed whereon Christ was crucified Prostrata ante crucem quasi pendentem Dominum cerneret adorabat Falling downe before the crosse she worshipped the Lord as if she had now seene him hanging on the Crosse. I answere that this practise was not common but peculiar to her and to her not vsuall but onely at that time and in that place neither did she worship the Crosse as the Papists doe the images of that Crosse cult◅ latriae with diuine worship but seeing the Crosse whereon Christ was crucified and being rauished with the memory of his death she falling before that Crosse worshipped Christ. Now that the adoration of the Eucharist was also in vse before the yeere 606. he prooueth by the testimonies of Ambrose and Augustine Ambrose his words are these Itaque per scabellam terra intelligatur per terram caro Lib. 3. de spiritu S. chap. 12. Christi quam hodie quoque in mysterijs adoramus et quam Apostoli in Domino Iesu vt supra diximus adorarunt Therefore by the footestoole let vs vnderstand the earth and by the earth the flesh of Christ which at this day also we adore in the mysteries and which the Apostles adored in the Lord Iesus as we said before But it is one thing to adore and honour Christ in his sacraments as the ancient Christians and we doe and another thing to