the Cittie of Constantinople haue as wee wish her glorie and Gods right hand protecting her let her enioy a long reigne of your Clemencie Alia tamen ratio est rerum saecularium alia diuinarum c. Yet worldly and diuine thinges haue different reasons neither will any other building be firme and stable besides that rock which our Lord hath put in the foundation He looseth his owne who desireth those thinges which are not his due Let it suffice that by the foresaid help of your Pietie and by the consent of my sauour he hath obteyned the Bishoprick of so great a Cittie non dedignetur Regiam Ciuitatem quam Apostolicā non potest facere Sedem let him not disdaine a Kinglie Cittie which he cannot make an Apostolicall Sea So that M. Downam in S. Leo his iudgment confoundeth worldlie and diuine thinges by going about to make vs belieue that Rome had the preheminēce of an Apostolicall Sea because it was the chiefe Citty which as you see S. Leo saith by no meanes can be Likwise Bellarmine bringeth the authoritie of Gelasius Epistola ad Episcopos Dardaniae who likewise reasoneth thus Millan Rauenna Syrmiū Treuers and Nicomedia were the Seates of the Empire many tymes and yet the Fathers neuer gaue any preheminence or Primacy to those Bishops as neither they would haue done to Rome only for that respect And as for the authority of the two Councells M. Downam must know if he be ignorant of it that the first of Chalcedon was not confirmed by S. Leo but only in matters of The Coūcell of Chalcedō See Paralelus Tortiac Tortoris cap. 4. The Canons of the 6. generall Councell Fayth and in this poynt was by him expresly reiected as may be seene in the Epistle already recited in diuers others ad Anatolium ad Pulcheriam ad Maximum ad Iuuenalē In which likewise as also in the 16. Act of the Councell it selfe it appeareth that this Decree was made in the absence of the Popes Legates who had the chiefe place in that Councell and that they did afterward openly gainesay and resist it And if by the Councell of Constantinople he meaneth the Canons commonly called the Canons of the sixt Generall Councell as it seemes he doth he must likwise be tould that those Canons are of no accompt as not made by that Councell but by certaine Bishops which afterward met priuately togeather as appeareth by the beginning of the Canons thēselues and by the confession of Tharasius Bishop of Constantinople in the 7. generall Councell Act. 4. and Bede calleth them Erraticam Synodum an erring Synode moreouer writeth that Sergius then Pope reiected them lib. 6. de sex atatibus in Iustiniano Iuniore And all this and much more to the purpose might Downam seemeth not to haue read so much of Bellarm. as he impugneth M. Downam haue learned out of Bellarmine himselfe if he would haue taken the paines to haue read him ouer or at least so much as he meant to impugne as it was good reasō he should haue done before he had gone about to answere him Neither shall I need to spend any more tyme in this matter since his chiefest authorities are out of these two Councels For what he meaneth by that which happened tempore Mauritij I cannot yet coniecture for it were too absurd for him to defend Iohn of Cōstantinople against S. Gregory as likewise the Bishops of Rauenna whose arrogancy ambition is condēned cōtemned also by the whole world But it is no meruaile though in so bad a cause M. Downam can find no better Patrons 5. Concerning the comming of Antichrist with the temporall sword which is the second degree M. Downam goeth about to iuggle with vs after a strange manner For wheras Bellarmine in the confutation of Luther confuteth three groundes which Luther built his opinion vpon I. the deposition of the Emperour Henry the 4. II. the hauing temporall dominion III the making of warre by shewing that all these three Actes had bene exercised by the Pope before this tyme putting Downams seely iugling particuler examples of euery one M. Downam very cunningly as he thought but indeed very seelily as it will appeare now that he is taken with the manner answereth that true it is that the Popes had a temporall dominion before but not generall and so with granting one part he thinkes he may safely deny the other without euer troubling himselfe to examine Bellarmines instance any further But we must put him in mind that when Gregory the second depriued Leo the Emperour of the Kingdome of Italy he did not only shew himselfe to haue right to the patrimony of S. Peter which could only haue warranted him to haue kept that from the Emperour but The pope hath power to depose Princes for the spirituall good of Christs Church likewise to haue a generall authority to depriue Princes of their owne dominions in some cases and for some causes which he could not do but by a generall power though we will not much stand with M. Downam about the name of Temporall power for that we rather thinke it to be spirituall therfore cānot be exercised by the Pope but for the spirituall good of Christs Church as M. Downam may see largely explicated by Bellarm. in his 5. booke where also he shall find diuers other examples to this purpose to which it will not be inough for him to oppose his hereticall author Auentinus Of Auentine See part 2. Chap. 3. n. 6. for we will at any tyme take M. Downams owne word so soone as any other of his mind except they bring better profs then he doth And this is all which M. Downam hath to saie against Bellarmine wherfore he concludeth in these wordes And thus haue I answered whatsoeuer is in his 3. Chapter pertinent to the matter in hand omitting as my manner is his other wranglings as being altogeather either impertinēt or merely personal Where I wil only craue the Iudicious Reader to looke ouer Bellarmines whole discourse and if he findeth nothing in it but which directly impugneth the opinions and not the persons which he alleageth and withall that he doth it so inuincibly that there can be no euasion as I verily perswade my selfe any Downams māner to omit that which he cannot answere indifferēt man will easily see then let him know that whatsoeuer M. Downam hath omitted was because he could by no meanes make so much as any shew of answering it as he hath gone about to doe in this which we haue examined and withall let him know also that this is M. Downams manner as he himselfe affirmeth and make accompt of the Man accordingly THE FOVRTH CHAPTER In which is explicated the first demonstration that Antichrist is not yet come WHEREFORE the true opinion is saith Bellarmine that Antichrist hath neither begun to raigne nor is yet come but is to come and to raigne about the end of
Empire as M. Downam rashelie auoucheth only because he would exceed Bellarmine in wordes since he cannot come neere him in proofes THE SIXT CHAPTER Conteyning the third Demonstration THE third demonstration saith Bellarmine is taken from the comming of Henoch and Helias who liue still and to this end that they may oppose themselues to Antichrist when he commeth conserue the elect in the Faith of Christ and at length conuert the Iewes which notwithstanding without doubt is not yet fulfilled There be foure places of Scripture concerning this matter the first Malac. 4. Behould I will send Elias the Prophet vnto you before the great daie of the Lord commeth and he will conuert the hartes of the Fathers to the Children and the hartes of the children to their Fathers The second Eccle. 48. where we read of Helias VVho wert receaued in a whirle-wynd of fire in a whirle-wynd of fyery horses who art written in the iudgments of tymes to asswage the Lordes anger to reconcile the hart of the Father to the sonne and to restore the Tribes of Israel And cap. 44. Henoch pleased God and was translated into Paradise to giue to Nations pennance The third Matth. 17. Helias indeed is to come shall restore all thinges The fourth Apoc. 11. I will giue to my two witnesses and they shall prophesie 1260. dayes Theodorus Bibliander alleadgeth also all these places in his Chronicle tab 14. but he saith that by Henoch and Helias are vnderstood all faithfull Ministers which God rayseth in the tyme of Antichrist of which sort were Luther Zuinglius and the rest and at length he concludeth VVherfore saith he it is a childish imaginatiō or a Iewish dream to expect either Helias or Henoch as persōs described by their particuler proprieties And the same teacheth Chytraeusin Comment Apoc. 11. and they prooue it because those thinges which are said of Helias by Malachie our Lord taught vs to be vnderstood of S. Iohn Baptish Matth. 11. He is Helias who is to come And S. Hierom in cap. 4. Malach. expoundeth it of all the quire of Prophets that is to say of the doctrine of all the Prophets But to vs it seemeth not a childish imagination but a most true opinion that Henoch and Elias shall come in their persons and that the contrary is eyther an heresie or an errour next doore to heresy It is proued first out of those foure Scriptures for that the wordes of Malachie cannot be vnderstood of any Doctors whatsoeuer as of Luther Zuinglius the like it is manifest for Malachie saith that the Iewes are to be conuerted by Helias and that he is chieflie to be sent for the Iewes as is manifest by that I will send vnto you And in Ecclesiasticus to restore the Tribes of Iacob But Luther and Zuinglius haue conuerted none of the Iewes That also they cannot be vnderstood litterallie of S. Iohn Baptist but only of Helias it is manifest because Malachie speaketh of the second comming of our Lord which shal be to iudge for so he saith Before the great and horrible day of the Lord commeth for the first comming is not called a great and horrible daie but an acceptable tyme and the day of saluation For which cause it is also added Least perhappes comming I strike the earth with anathema and curse that is to say least comming to iudgment and finding all wicked I condemne all the earth therfore I will send Helias that I may haue some to saue But in the first comming our Lord came not to iudge but to be iudged not to destroy but to saue To the wordes of our Lord Matth. 11. we wil answere a little after To S. Hierome Isay that though in Comment Malach he did not thinke that Malachie did speake of the true Helias yet in comment Matth. 11. 17. he thinketh teacheth the contrary Finallie S. Augustine lib. 20. Ciu. cap. 29. witnesseth that this is the common interpretation of the faithfull That likewise Ecclesiasticus speaketh of the persons of Henoch Helias and not of some other it is prooued for Ecclesiasticus saith that Henoch shall come to giue the Nations pennance who is translated into Paradise and that Helias shall come to restore the tribes of Israel who was taken away in a chariot of fiery horses which certainely agree not but to those particuler persons In which place I cannot sufficientlie meruaile what came into Bishop Iansenius his mind that expounding this place he should write Although it be the opinion of all the Ancients that Helias shall come yet it is not conuinced out of this place for it may be said that Ecclesiasticus wrote that according to the opinion receaued in his tyme by which it was belieued out of the wordes of Malachie that Helias shall trulie come before the Messias in his owne person whereas it was not to be fulfilled in his owne person but in him who was to come in the spirit and vertue of Helias For if it be so as Iansenius saith it followeth that Ecclesiasticus erred and wrote false thinges But if I be not deceaued Iansenius changed his opinion for writing in Cap. 17. Matth. he teacheth that the place of Malachie cannot be litterallie vnderstood but of the true Helias which he is likewise compelled to say of the place of Ecclesiasticus who without doubt expoundeth Malachy Now that the wordes of our Lord Matth. 17. are vnderstood of the true Helias yt is plaine because S. Iohn was alreadie come and had absolued his course and yet our Lord saith Helias shall come and that they are not vnderstood of all doctors but of one true Helias it may be proued first because the Apostles who moued the question of Helias where S. Peter S. Iames and S. Iohn and they tooke occasion by the Transfiguration of our Lord where they saw Moyses Helias wherefore when they aske why therefore doe the Scribes say that Helias must come first they speake of that Helias whome they had seene in the mountayne with Christ Therefore Christ answering Helias indeed shall come restore all thinges speaketh also of that particuler Helias who had appeared in the Transfiguration Secondly the same is manifest out of those wordes and he shall restore all thinges for S. Io. Baptist nor any other hath don that for torestore all thinges is to recall all Iewes and heretikes and perhappes many Catholikes deceaued by Antichrist to the true Faith But Bibliander vrgeth because our Lord Matth. 11. saith of S. Io. Baptist He is Helias who is to come as if he had said He is the Helias promised by Malachy I answere Our Lordes meaning is that S. Iohn was the Helias promised not litterally but allegoricallie for therefore he said first and if you will receaue him as if he said Helias indeed promised in his owne person is to come in the last comming yet if you will haue also some Helias in the first comming receaue Iohn Therefore also he addeth
yet then they shall be Gentiles and Idolaters since they shall acknowledg no other God but Antichrist himselfe Besides this doubt whether S. Iohn speaketh in this place of Antichrist or no M. Downam saith that he hath proued two other points more certainely First that Henoch and Elias be not heere spoken of and that See c. â— the holy Ghost doth not meane Hierusalem But these proofs of his are all confuted in their due places to which I remit the Reader for now I will only examine that which he bringeth in this place where he is content to suppose that S. Iohn speaketh both of Antichrist and of Ierusalem and yet saith M. Downams iugling that it followeth not that whersoeuer the witnesses of Christ are put to death by him or by his authority that there should be his principall seate and then he putteth Bellarmines argument in forme for him making the proposition thus VVhere the two witnesses are put to death there is the seate of Antichrist to which he also answereth with this distinction that being generally vnderstood it is false if particulerly then Bellarmines argument is not a Syllogisme but a Paralogisme where you see how he tosseth and turneth Bellarmines argument to auoid the force of it and yet it will not be for first he would make vs belieue that Bellarmine spake of witnesses without determination of number then hauing added the number yet he saith that it may be vnderstood generally which I cannot conceaue how he meaneth except it be that Bellarmine should speake of any two witnesses whatsoeuer which notwithstanding is very ridiculous since it is manifest that he speaketh of those two only which S. Iohn speaketh of But saith M. Downam if it be vnderstood particulerly of two determinate and particuler witnesses then Bellarmines argument is a Paralogisme And why so I pray you Syr What deceipt is there here Yea were it not great deceipt to speake vniuersally since the Scripture speaketh determinately and particulerly of only two which Bellarmine hath also euidently conuinced to be Helias and Enoch and consequently M. Downam cannot deny but that it is a perfect Syllogisme and an euident See part â— c. 2. §. 17. demonstration except he can find some fault in the Assumption for which he remitteth vs to his former proofes by which he telleth vs that he hath made good that the Citty which is here spoken of is Ciuitas Romana the Citty and Empire of Rome which no doubt will proue a great Citty indeed comprehendeth Ierusalem many great Citties besides and consquently Antichrist may very well sit in Hierusalem M. Downam foolishly contradicteth himselfe and yet be sayd in this sense to sit in Ciuitate Romana in the Citty and Empire of Rome as we see that M. Downam auoucheth that our Lord was crucified in this great Citty and yet all men know that he was crucifyed at Hierusalem by which the Reader may take a scantling of M. Downams proofes till we examine them in particuler for it is manifest that they will only proue that Antichrists seate shall be some where within the Roman Empire which neuer any man doubted of yet but this is no proofe at all that it shall not be in Hierusalem since that also is within M. Downams great Citty and so I cannot see but that Bellarmine and M. Downam will agree well inough in this point since he granteth that it is as true that Antichrist shall sit at Hierusalem as that our Sauiour was crucified at Hierusalem which all men know to be most true 2. To the second place Apoc. 17. M. Downam remitteth himselfe to his answere in another place whither I will See part 2. cap. 2. §. 18. also refer the Reader for the confutation Likewise to Bellarmines proofe from his former argument in which he proued that Antichrist shall be a Iew c. he only saith that he hath disproued this position in his former Chapter Wherfore I must also desire the Reader to take a view of his disproofes and my confutatioÌ„ in the precedent argument Thirdly M. Downam obiecteth to himselfe the authority of 4. Fathers and presently M. Downam reiecteth the Fathers reiecteth them because their assertions cannot be proued out of Scriptures and will needs father this his impudency vpon Bellarmine himselfe but I would willingly know who shall be iudge whether the Fathers or M. Downam vnderstand the Scriptures aright Bellarmine sometimes when the Fathers are different among themselues may very well cleaue to those that seeme to him to bring better proofes for that they say and likewise when they affirme a thing as probable he needeth not auouch it for certaine Bu M. Downam hath none of them of his side and flatly denyâ—th that which they affirme without any doubt at all And his cauils against the authorities in particuler are impertinent and ridiculous for Lactantius plainly speaketh of the chiefest kingdome in Antichrists time which neither he nor any other doubteth but that it shall belong to Antichrist himselfe and consequently M. Downam is exceeding ridiculous if not worse to tell vs that Lanctantius speaketh not of Antichrist M. Downams folly since it is manifest that he speaketh of his Kingdome Now as for S. Hierome and Theodoret they affirme both the one and the other viz. that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple at Ierusalem and in the Churches of Christ as Bellarmine proueth and sheweth that there is no opposition at all betwixt those two assertions whatsoeuer M. Downam sayth to the contrary but bringeth no proofes at all for that he saith so that he should seeme to thinke his credit very good and that he shall be belieued vpon his bare word in which he is mightily deceaued Lastly in this place I must desire the Reader to note M. Downams subtilty for to discredit the Fathers M. Downams iugling which Bellarmine alleadgeth he telleth vs that they are foure and yet to make some shew of an answere to them he confoundeth the sitting of Antichrist as in his Kingdome and his sitting in the Temple of God wherof Bellarmin speaketh in his next proofe and for which he alleageth not only foure Fathers but almost foureteene for if you add Lactantius and S. Hierome whome he bringeth heere they are in all thirteene 3. In the third place 2. Thess 2. M. Downam first endeauoreth to apply the three former expositions to the Pope 2. Thess 2. whome he affirmeth only to sit as it were a God in the minds of men prescribing lawes to binde the Conscience and that with guilt of mortall sinne as we speake But in this he is at least deceaued for we Both spirituall temporal Superiours may prescribe lawes to binde the conscieÌ„ce vnder mortall sinne affirme that not only the Pope but all other both spirituall and temporall Superiours may prescribe lawes to bind the conscience and that with guilt of mortall sinne and this we may gather euidently out of the
shew vs in what this answere is either false or ridiculous for is it probable that Illyricus would be so mad as to affirme that Christ was subiect to the preceptes of the law of Moyses conteyned in the Scripture and abrogated by Christ as Bellarmine sheweth and consequently when Illyricus in his Maior or proposition affirmeth that Christ subiected himselfe to the Scriptures must it not needes be vnderstood only of the Prophesies of which notwithstanding it is also false as Bellarmine proueth when in his minor or assumption he saith that the Pope affirmeth that he can dispense against an Apostle or Euangelist make those things which are right to be wicked is it not also euident that he speaketh only of precepts Wherefore to me it seemeth also euident that M. Downam is ridiculous at least if not a false fellow to answere in this sort and that he most impudently called that not worth the answerering which in his owne cōscience M Downam Impudency he knew to be vnanswerable But yet I am cōtent that the Reader shall iudg how far he deserueth this censure that he may mitigate it if it seeme too sharp rigorous THE FIFTENTH CHAPTER Of Antichrists Myracles OF the Myracles of Antichrist sayth Bellarmine there are three things in the Scriptures first that he shall do many Myracles Secondly what manner of Myracles they shall be Thirdly there are three examples set downe That Antichrist shall worke myracles the Apostle teacheth 2. Thess 2. VVhose cōming is according to the operation of Sathan in signes and wonders and our Lord in the Ghospell Matth. 24. They shall giue signes and great wōders so that the very elect shall be led into errour if it be possible They shall giue sayth he not he shall giue because not only Antichrist but also his Mynisters shall worke signes In so much that S. Gregory sayth lib. 32. moral cap. 12. that the very tortures of the holy Martyrs shall then worke wonders and signes Finally Apoc. 13. And he did many signes in the sight of men What manner of signes they shall be S. Paul explicateth 2. Thess 2. saying in one word that they shall be lying In all power and lying signes and wonders Now they shal be lying signes in respect of all causes the finall efficient matter and forme for the end of those myracles shal be to shew that Antichrist is God and the Messias which will be a most pernicious lye S. Chrysostome vpon this place teacheth that those myracles are called lying because they shall induce to a lye And S. Ambrose also vpon this place teacheth that the end of Antichrists myracles shal be to proue himselfe God as our Christ demonstrated his Diuinity with true myracles Secondly they are called lying signes from the efficient for the principall efficient cause shal be the Father of lyes that is the Diuell for so the Apostle saith whose comming is according to the operation of Sathan And all the Fathers affirme that Antichrist shall be a notable Sorcerer yea that the Diuell from his conceptiō or at least from his Infancy shall dwell in Antichrist worke signes by him S. Cyril cateches 15. hauing said that Antichrist shal be a Sorcerer and furnished with Witchcrafts Inchauntments and euill Arts sheweth that his myracles are called lying because they shall proceed from the Father of lyes Many of thē shal be also lying in respect of the matter because they shal be phantasticall and vayne illusions as S. Cyril in the place alleaged and Theodoret vpon this place do teach for he shall seeme to rayse the dead and heale the sicke but they shall be the illusions of the Diuell not true resurrections or recoueryes for which cause Apoc. 13. Antichrist is said to do myracles in the sight of Men that is apparent and deluding the sight of Men not solide and true as Arethas noted vpon that place Finally some of them shal be lying in respect of the forme although true in respect of the matter for sometyme he shall worke true things but which shall not exceed the strength of all nature and therfore they shall not be true myracles formally for they are only called true myracles which can be done by God alone that is which haue not naturall causes neyther hidden nor manifest and therfore are not only wonderfull in the sight of Men but also in the sight of Diuells and Angells But all Antichrists myracles shall haue naturall causes but vnknowne to Men. There are three examples of Antichrists myracles put Apoc. 13. one that he shall make fire come downe from Heauen The second that he shall make the Image of the Beast to speake The third that he shall faigne himselfe to dye and rise againe For which miracle chiefly almost all the world shall haue him in admiration Of which miracles the two former shal be true in respect of the matter not in respect of the forme but the third in no manner But it may be obiected against this that all these Miracles cannot be attributed to Antichrist for S. Iohn in that place bringeth in two beastes one which hath 7. heades and one of whose heads seemed to dye and to rise againe The other lesse who made fier to come downe from Heauen and the Image to speake If therefore Antichrist shal be the former Beast the two myracles of the fire and Image are not attributed to him If he shal be the latter beast the myracle of the Resurrection cannot be attributed to him I answere that the former beast signifieth either the Roman Empire or the multitude of the wicked as we said before and one that is the chiefest of his heads which seemed to die and rise againe is Antichrist for Antichrist shal be the supreme and last head of the wicked and he is the last King who shall hold the Roman Empire yet without name of Roman Emperour And that this faigned myracle of the Resurrection is doubtlesse to be atributed to Antichrist Primasius Beda Haymo Richardus Rupertus and Anselmus vpon this place doe teach and S. Gregory lib. 11. ep 3. which is to be noted against Lyranus who expoundeth this of a certaine Sonne of Cosdroas whom he faigneth to haue bene wounded in a battaile and not killed for no approued history reporteth any such thing of the Sonne of Cosdroas neither can that agree to the Sonne of Cosdroas which followeth in the Apocalyps and the whole earth wondred after the Beast saying who is like the beast Now the latter Beast in the Apocalyps according to Rupertus signifieth the same Antichrist for the same Antichrist is expressed by two beasts by one in respect of his Kingly Power and tyranny by which he shall compel men violently by the other by reason of his art magick with which he shall seduce men crastily But according to Richardus Anselmus and others the latter beast signifieth the preachers of Antichrist who shall endeauour to shew by miracles that Antichrist is the
with Antichrist which they cannot do without yielding themselues vnto him since it is certayne that he shal be the Moâ—â—â—ch of the whole world and because the Scripture is not so expresse Bellarmine only saith that it may be inferred out of that place as it may likewise out of the 12. and 13. Apoc. as in part hath ben touched And is it not euident inough of it selfe that the little horne which presumed to encounter if not all the 10. yet Apoc. 12. 13. at least three of them while he was so little will not stay there when he is growne great but cause the other 7. to subiect themselues vnto him The other questions and assertions which M. Downam hath are already confuted and therefore not to be repeated now againe Wherefore let vs see what he saith to the testimonies of S. Chrysostome and S. Cyril I answere saith he that for substance these Fathers held the truth for what Monarch hath there byn in the VVest these 5. or 6. hundreth yeares besides the Pope c where I beseech the Reader to Why M. Downam admitteth any of the Fathers marke attentiuely M. Downams reason why he alloweth the testimony of the Fathers which is no other but because they are against the Pope in some sort according to his conceipt for otherwise we may see by that which he answeteth to the 3. former and that which he saith of them all in generall a little before how little he setteth by their authority Now for the Monarchy of the West it is euident The Pope no temporall Monarch that it remaineth in the Emperours and that which he attributeth to the Pope euery child will see how different it is from the Monarchy of the Romans and how small a thing it is if you take away his spirituall authoritie which no doubt is the greatest vpon earth But what is that to the temporall power of which these Fathers speake Now how the Pope is Lord of the whole earth and how he disposeth of the new found world we shall examine at large in the second part and how the gouernment of Rome belongeth not to Antichrist in whose time it shal be destroyed as neither the 2. beast Apoc. 13. nor the 7. head Apoc. 17. to the Pope hath bin already sufficiently declared 15. To the 4. argument M. Downam answereth nothing Antichrist shall persecute the Christians through the whole world with an innumerable army which Bellarmine himself hath not confuted at large in his discourse of Gog and Magog which M. Downam wholy omitteth vnder pretext of not troubling his Reader but indeed because he would not discouer his owne shame for otherwise at least he might haue answered to so much of it as made against himself The like deceipt he vseth in passing ouer Bellarmines answers to the Protestants obiections or arguments wherby they indeauour to proue the Pope Antichrist because he saw that they contayned in effect an answere to his former booke But I may not omit either that so the Reader may iudge how well M. Downam hath cleared them in his former booke of which he seemeth himself to make some doubt by telling vs that the controuersie betwixt vs is not whether euery argument that hath bin produced by euery one doth necessarily conclude the Pope to be Antichrist and that that discourse is rather personall then reall and therfore he letteth it passe THE SEAVENTENTH CHAPTER Of Gog and Magog WHERFORE the first opinion or rather errour saith Bellarmine is of the Iews who teach that Gog is Antichrist Magog innumerable Scythian Nations which lurke within the Caspian Mountaynes and that Antichrist shall come with Magog that is with an Army of Scythians at the same tyme that the Messias shall first appeare in Hierusalem and that there shal be a battaile fought in Palestine and such an ouerthrow in the Army of Gog that for 7. yeares the Iewes shall not cut any wood from trees to make fire withall but shall burne the speares bucklers and other weapons which shal be found with the dead bodyes and that afterward there shall be a golden world c. S. Hierome relateth this opinion in cap. 38. Ezech. and Petrus Galatinus lib. 5. cap. 12. cont Iudaeos and Rabbi Dauid Kimhi in his CoÌ„mentary vpon the Psalmes in many places but the Iewes erre in two things First that they think the battaile of Gog Magog shal be in the first comming of Christ confouÌ„ding the first with the second Wheras notwithstanding the Scriptures plainly teach that Christ in his first coÌ„ming was to come in humility and as a meeke sheep to be sacrificed as it is manifest Isa 53. and in other places Secondly in that they thinke that Antichrist shall come against them and fight with their Messias wheras indeed Antichrist shall be their Messias and shall fight with the Iewes against our Sauiour the true Christ The second opinion is of Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 24. 25. 26. who thinketh that the battaile of Gog and Magog shall be a thousand yeares after the death of Antichrist for he teacheth that after 6000. yeares from the beginning of the world Antichrist shall come and raygne three yeares a halfe and that then Antichrist shal be slayne Christ shall appeare the Resurrection shall be and the Saints shall raign heere with Christ vpon earth for a thousand yeares in great peace and tranquillity the Infidels not being wholy rooted out but seruing peaceably Which ended the Diuell shal be loosed againe and a most fierce warre of all Nations be raysed against the same Saints which they serued for a thousand yeares and this is the battaile of Gog and Magog of which Ezechiel and S. Iohn do speake But that a little after all the wicked shal be slayne by God and that then the second Resurrection shall be and the world be wholy renewed This opinion was also of many of the ancient Fathers as Papias S. Iustine S. Irenaeus Tertullian Apollinaris and some others as S. Hierome relateth in cap. 36. Ezech. and Eusebius lib. 3. hist cap. vlt. But it is long since exploded as a manifest errour for our Lord Matth. 24 and â—5 plainly teacheth that after the persecution of Antichrist the last iudgment shall follow forthwith and that all the good shall go into euerlasting life and all the euill into euerlasting fire and therfore that afterward there shall not be another thousand yeares nor euer after any more battailes The third opinion is of Eusebius who lib 9. demonst Euang. cap. 3. thinketh that Gog is the Roman Emperour and Magog his Empire But he buildeth vpon a false Foundation for he deduceth this opinion ouâ— of Numb 24. where according to the translation of the 70. we read the kingdome of Gog shal be extolled and his Kingdome shal be increased God hath brought him out of Egypt c. where the Scripture seemeth to say thaâ— when Christ shall returne out oâ— Egypt in his infancy
many Prouinces of the people of Rome S. Hierome maketh mention of this opinion in quaest heb cap. 10. and saith VVhether it be true or no the end of the warre will shew And now doubtlesse the issue of the war hath taught vs that it was not true for neyther hath there followed any renewing of the Church after the warre of the Gothes neither haue all warres ceased The 8. is of S. Hierome himselfe in cap. 38. Ezech. who seeing the difficulty omitting the litterall sense did mystically expound it of the Heretikes for he will haue Gog which in Hebrew signifieth the House top to signify the Heresiarches who like to the toppe of an House are lifted vp and proud and Magog which is interpreted of the toppe of an House to signify them who belieue these Arch-heretikes and are subiect to them as the House to the roofe or toppe This opinion taken for the mysticall sense is most true but not in the litterall for Ezech. cap. 38. saith that Gog shall come in the last yeares and S. Iohn Apoc. 20. saith that the same Gog shal come after a thousand yeares and by the name of a thousand yeares all Catholickes vnderstand all the time which is from Christs cōming to Antichrist Since therfore Gog shall not come but about the end of the world and heresies began in the beginning of the Church while the Apostles liued it is manifest that properly and litterally Gog doth not signifie the Hereticks We must also know that S. Hierome when he saith that Gog is interpreted an house roofe and Magog of an house roofe meaneth not that Gog and Magog in Hebrew are altogeather the same that an house roofe or of an house roofe with vs but he meaneth that it is in a manner the same for properly an house roofe is not Gog but Gog and of an house roofe is not Magog but Miggag The 9. opinion is of S. Augustine lib. 20. de ciuitate Dei cap. 11. who by Gog vnderstandeth the Diuell who is like a great house roofe that is a great house roofe in which all the euill do dwell and by Magog he vnderstandeth the army of Antichrist gathered of the Nations of the whole world which opinion doutbles is most true and to be imbraced in that it referreth Gog and Magog to the tymes of Antichrist aswell because all Catholike Authors which write vpon the Apocalyps do follow it as Arethas Primasius Beda Haym◠Rupertus Richardus Anselmus and others as also because that all which is said by Ezechiel and S. Iohn of Gog and Magog do most rightly agree to Antichrist for then truly shal be the last and greatest persecution and after it shall Ierusalem be renewed that is the Church glorified neither shall there any battailes be heard of after But in that by Gog it vnderstandeth the Diuell it seemeth not true for S. Iohn saith that the Diuell being let loose shall call Gog and Magog to warres wherefore the Diuell is one thing and Gog another Wherefore our opinion which is the 10. conteyneth three thinges First we affirme that the battaile of Gog and Magog is the battaile of Antichrist against the Church as S. Augustine rightly taught Secondly we say that it is very probable that by Gog Antichrist himselfe is signified by Magog his army For Ezechiel alway calleth Gog a Prince and Magog a Land or Nation Thirdly we say that it is probable that Gog is so called of Magog and not contrarywise so that Antichrist is called Gog because he is Prince of that Nation which is called Magog and that the army of Antichrist is called Magog of the Scythian Nation not that it consisteth of those Scythians which the Iewes faygne to be beyond Cancasus and the Caspian Sea but either because a great part of Antichrists army shall consist of Barbarous people which came out of Scythta as Turkes Tartars and the rest or which I rather thinke because it shal be a very terrible and cruell army for we call them Scythians which we would call bloudy For that Magog signifieth the Scythian Nation it is manifest out of Genes 10. where we read that the second sonne of Iaphet was called Magog of whome the Country of Magog was denominated which his posterity inhabited which was Scythia as Iasephus teacheth lib. Amiq. cap. 11. and S. Hierome in quest hebr in Gen. cap. 10. For as from the three sonne of Cham that is Chus Myrami and Chanaham Aethiopia is called Chus Aegipt Myrami and Palestina Chanaham so doubtles Scythia is called Magog of Magog the sonne of Iaphet And that Ezechiel naming Magog had relation to the Nation denominated of Magog the sonne of Iaphet it is manifest because in the same place he addeth as companions to Gog other Nations denominated of other sonnes or nephews of Iaphet as Gomer Togorma Mosoch Tubal c. Wherefore let vs conclude that the battaile of Gog and Magog is the last persecution which Antichrist shall raise in the whole world against the Church Neither is it against vs that Ezech. cap. 38. saith that the weapons of Gog and Magog shal be burnt for the space of 7. yeares wheras notwithstanding it is manifest that after Antichrists death there shall not be past 45. daies to the end of the world as is gathered out of Daniel 12. for Ezechiel speaketh not properly but figuratiuely after the manner of Prophets neither meaneth he that indeed those weapons are to be burned for the space of 7. yeares but that it shal be so notable an ouerthrow that the Launces and Targets of the slaine might suffice a very long tyme to make fires if need were One doubt remaineth whether by reason of the most cruell persecution of Antichrist the Faith and Religion of Christ shal be altogeather extinguished For Dominicus Soto in lib. 4. sent dist 46. q. 1. art 1. thought surely that it would be so The departing saith he and defection from that Seae shal be a signe of the cōsummation of the world And after Faith being extinguished by the departure from that Sea Apostolike the whole world shal be vayne and should without cause continue any longer And after Let therefore men be astonished how pestilent self loue is for thence floweth pussing vp and pryde which vnder the conduct of Antichrist shall at length consume the Citty of God But this opinion in my iudgment cannot be defended for first it is repugnant to S. Augustine who lib. 20. de ciuit Dei cap 11. saith that the Church shall be euer inuincible against Antichrist Neyther shall she saith he forsake her warfare who is called by the name of Tents Secondly it seemeth to me also to be repugnant to the Ghospell for Matth. 16. we read Vpon this Book I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall nor preuayle against her But how shall they not preuaile if they shall wholy extinguish her Likewise Matth. 24. Our Lord saith of the Ministers of Antichrist They shall giue great
and our Ancestors haue proued 〈◊〉 belieue and â—â—â—st that we shall alway be helped by the prayers of our speciall 〈◊〉 among all the laboures of the life to obtayne the mercy of God that by hâ—w much we are depressed by our sinnes so much we may be erected by Apostolicall merits So he And although we are not wont to speake so as Illyricus saith that we are saued by the merits of spirituall men yeâ— if any did speake so and would only signify that we are in some sort helped by the merites of Saints to obtayne saluation by Christ he could not be more reprehended then the Apostle S. Paul who 1. Cor. 9. saith Iam made all things to all men that I might make all men saued and the Apostle S. Iudas who speaketh in like manner when he saith Do you reprehead these indeed being iudged and saue those taking them from the fier And thus much of the Priesthood of Christ Illyricus goeth forward Now he taketh away Christs Kingdome from him because in earth he will be the head of the Church and in Heauen he appointeth vs other helpers and Sauiours to whome he commaundeth vs to fly in our miseries wherefore the Pope denieth that Iesus is Christ Heere first I aske whether the Pope or any of the Catholikes call the Saints Sauiours Then I adde if to affirme that he is the head of the Church vnder Christ as his Vicar and Minister which the Pope doth be to deny that Iesus is Christ why by the same reason whosoeuer affirmeth that he is Vice-roy or Gouernour of some Prince is not forthwith censured to deny the King to be his Lord Finally if to fly to Saints as helpers in miseries is to deny that Iesus is Christ how I pray you did not S. Paul deny Iesus to be Christ when he saith Rom. 15. I besâ—ech you brethren by our Lord Iesus Christ and by the charity of the Holy Ghost that you helpe me in prayers for me to God that I may be deliuered from the infidalls which are in Iudea How did not Basil the Great deny Iesus to be Christ when in orat de 40. Mart. he spake thus He that is oppressed with any distresse let him fly to these Againe he that reioyceth let him pray to these he to be deliuered from miseries this other that he may continue in prosperity I omit the rest of the Fathers for feare least if we examine them we shall find none who hath not denieth Iesus to be Christ Illyricus goeth on Dan. 11. describeth Antichrist by many notes First saith he he shall do what he will surely the Pope doth what he listeth But holy Daniel when he saith of Antichrist he shall do what he will signifyeth that Antichrist shall acknowledge no superiour at all no not God himselfe for so it followeth And he shal be extelled against euery God wherefore Antichrist neglecting also the law and commaundement of God shall liue at his owne will which cetainely the Pope doth not who denieth not that he is bound by the law of God and acknowledgeth Christ his Iudg and Superiour He himselfe saith Illyricus confesseth it dist 40. If the Pope should draw with him infinite soâ—â—es into hell yet no man must say vnto him what dost thou And the glosse saith the Popes will standeth for reason The Canon which beginneth Si Papa is not as Illyricus falsly saith of any Bishop of Rome but of S. Boniface Bishop of Meâ—tz Apostle of the Germanes and a Martyr who donieth not that the chiefe Bishop if he liueth ill is to be rebuked and admonished by brotherly charity but he denieth that he can be reprehended by authority and iudged since that he is the iudge of all men which Boniface also in those words which go before that Canon as is to be seene in the new edition of the Decree expresly calleth the Church of Rome the head of all Churches and affirmeth that the prosperity of the whole Church doth depend of the safety of the Bishop of Rome after God Wherefore I demaund of Illyricus whether the sentence of S. Bonifacius Apostle of the Germans be true or no for if it be not true why is it obiected vnto vs if it be true why is it not receaued I will say the same more plainely If that sentence be not true then it is not true that it may not be said to the Pope drawing many soules with himselfe into hell What doest thou If it be true then is the Pope truly the head of all Churches and being to iudge all is to be iudged by none Wherefore let Illyricus leane alleadging the Canons which can profit him nothing As for the glosse let Illyricus know that it is either taken away by the Pope himselfe as false in the new edition of the Decree or cls was neuer in the decree certainely I could not find it Illyricus goeth forward Secondly Daniel saith that he will extol himselfe aboue God that the Pope did as is manifest by that which hath ben said Likewise because he will have himselfe heard more then God and blaspheming he crieth out that the Scripture is the Fountaine of all heresies and schismas doubtefull and obscure c. But thou shouldest haue rehearsed Daniels wordes faithfully for he saith not he will extell himselfe aboue God but he shal be extelled against euery God and after Neither shall he care for any of the Gods because he shall rise against all Which note most clearely sheweth that the Pope hath nothing common with Antichrist for Antichrist will care for none of the Gods but the Pope worshippeth the only true God the Father the Sonne and holy Ghost Neither doth he that alone but also if we belieue you he adoreth openly so many Gods as there be Saintes in Heauen Images on earth and reliques vnder the earth Now that which thou addest that the Pope crieth out that the Scripture is the fountaine of heresy and schismes Certainely I neuer read it in the writinges of any Pope but I heare that it is the word of thy freind Luther that the Scripture is the booke of heretikes Luth. praefat historia qua contigit in Strasfort anno 36. which word if it be rightly taken I see not why it should be deseruedly reprehended for S. Hilarie lib. de Synod extreâ—â—o sheweth that most heresies arose out of the Scriptures ill vnderstood and Tertullian in lib. de praescript more bouldly saith thus Neither am I afraid to say that the very Scriptures are so disposed by the will of God that they might minister matter to Heretikes since I read Heresies must be which cannot be without Scriptures And that the Scriptures are ambiguous and obscure in many places not only the Pope most truly teacheth but also all the old Fathers and euen Luther himselfe whether he would or no was constreyned to confesse it when praefat in Psal he wrote thus I would not haue that presumed of me by any which none of the most
repentance or conuersion to God is an earnest sorrow of hart of sinnes committed and a faith determining that sinnes are certaynely remitted to him for Christ c. The Papists contrariewise although they number contrition among the parts of repentance yet they feigne that it meriteth this remissâ—on of sinnes and they adde auricular confessâ—on not commaunded by God and satisfaction or workes not due with which they feygne that the eternall paines of sinnes may be satisfied and that these same works may be redeemed with money all which doctrine is blasphemous against the merit of the Sonne of God who alone hath satisfyed for our sinnes Bellarmine Heere I see nothing proued no testimonies of the Ghospell produced but only vayne words interlaced with lyes for thou mightest haue omitted that which thou sayest of conuersion and earnest sorrow of the hart for we truly require conuersion and earnest sorrow of the hart in Penitents wheras you only haue I know not what terrours insteed of contritioÌ„ That which thou addest of faith determining that our sinnes are forgiuen vs is refuted before That which thou saiest that among the Papists the contrition deserueth remission of sinnes is a lye before refuted also That also which thou affirmest that the Papists say that euerlasting paines are satisfyed by temporall satisfactions is likewise a lye for we thinke not that we satisfy for euerlasting paines which we doubt not to be remitted vs in our iustification but for temporall punishments which either heere or in Purgatory God exacteth of them who after Baptisme come to pennance and reconciliation The punishment saith S. Augustine tract 124. in Ioan. endureth longer then the fault least the fault should be thought small if the punishment were also ended with it Finally that which thou addest that auricular confession is not commaunded and that satisfaction is repugnant to the merit of Christ thou saist indeed but doest not proue it Read if thou please S. Cyprian ser 5. de lapsis and thou shalt find Confession and Satisfaction to be necessary and these very words often repeated Now that Satisfaction is to be redeemed with money least peraduenture thou shouldest suspect some vnlawfull negotiation is nothing else among Catholikes then that one kind of satisfaction may be changed into another by the Priests iudgment as fasting into almes Let vs go forward to the rest §. X. Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that marriage is graunted and free for all men Lay and Priests and expresly saith that the forbidding of marriage and meates is a diuellish doctrine Contrariwise the Papists forbid a great part of men Priests and Monkes marriage and commaund abstinence from certaine meates vpon certaine daies Bellarmine But where I pray thee doth the Ghospell teach that marriage is graunted to them who haue a vow of continency Peraduenture Hebr. 13. where we read Marriage is honorable in all But if in all comprehendeth all men whatsoeuer marriage shal be honorable in the Father the Daughter in the Mother and the Sonne in Brother and Sister or if this pleaseth you not let it not please you neither that marriage ought to be called honourable betwixt a Monke and a Nunne and other men for whome it it is not lawfull to marry by reason of their vow for the Apostles meaning only is that we honour Marriage in all who are duely and lawfully marryed and it remayneth that you proue that those are duely and lawfully marryed who haue vowed to God perpetuall continency Heare S. Chrysostome what he wryteth epist 6. to Theodore a Monke who meant to marry a wife or perhaps had already marryed one Marriage saith he is honourable but it is not fitting for thee now to keep the priviledges of marriage although thou often callest this Marriage yet I thinke it worse then adultery Concerning the place of the Apostle 1. Tim. 4. forbidding to marry c. see what we said before chap. 21. neere the end of it §. XI Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that there is one true and solide foundation vpon which the Church of God is built viz. our Lord Iesus Christ 1. Cor. 3. Act. 4. and Augustine so interpreteth the place of Matth. 16. Vpon this rock which thou hast knowne saying Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God that is vpon my selfe the Sonne of the liuing God I will build my Church I will build thee vpon me not me vpon thee The Pope contrary wise cryeth out that vpon the rock of the Roman Church and the ordinary succession of Popes all the rest of the Church in the Christian world is built Bellarmine But I belieue S. Paul is not repugnant to himselfe when he saith Ephes 2. we that are built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Neither is S. Iohn Apoc. 21. where he saith that the 12. Apostles are 12. foundations of the Church contrary to S. Paul 1. Cor. 3. affirming that there is no other Foundation of the Church but Christ for S. Paul 1. Cor. 3. speaketh of the principall foundation But both he Ephes 2. and S. Io. Apoc. 21. speake of secondary Foundations Of which manner of foundation S. Augustine also speaketh in psal contra part Donat. where he saith Number the Priests euen from the very seat of S. Peter that is the rock which the proude gate of hell do not ouercome But of this we haue spoken sufficiently before lib. x. de Pontifice cap. 10. §. XII Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that no Apostle or Bishop or other Minister of the Ghospell hath superiour and greater power and rule then another so farre as pertayneth to the Ministry but that all Ministers haue equall power to teach the Ghospell administer Sacraments bynd wicked and absolue those which do pennance as the Scriptures cleerly teach Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 3. v. 4. Ioan. 20. Matth. 18. the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen are giuen to all the Apostles togeather On the contrary side the Bishop of Rome boasteth that he hath by Gods law supreme power ouer all other Bishops and the whole Church and both swords the spirituall and politick c. Bllarmine I could not yet find where the Ghospell teacheth that one Bishop or Minister hath not greater power then another for the places which thou citest do plainely signify the contrary for Luc. 22. our Lord indeed exhorteth his disciples to humility and forbiddeth Kingly and tyrannicall dominatioÌ„ to them who ought to gouerne the Church In the meane time notwithstanding he affirmeth that among the Apostles one is greater then the rest yea and the guid or captayne of the rest For he saith let him that is greater among you become as the lesse and the precessour in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Dux the guide or captaine as a seruant or Mynister And the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. where he saith that he had planted and Apollo watred and againe that he as the Architect had laid the Foundation and that others do build vpon it doth he