in great part because he is supposed though falsly to arrogate more to himselfe in Temporall affayres then of right he ought how much more would the same imputation fall vpon such a Prince as did first vsurp spirituall Iurisdiction without eyther example or other probable pretense But I will not vrge these odious inferences any further your Maiesty will easily conceaue how far this proiect might be pursued And by perusing this small labour of myne which I now offer to your Maiesty it will manifestly appeare that we haue euident and inuincible Arguments taken out of Scripture and all Antiquity to free our chiefest Pastour the Popes Holynes from this most absurd and false calumniation and that whatsoeuer any Protestant can answere to these our proofes is without any difficulty ouerthrowne and confuted As likewise their rayling inuectiues and friuolous obiections are presently dissolued returned vpon themselues All which considered I account it no presumption to be an humble Suppliant to your most Excellent Maiesty for some release and mitigation in the pressures and persecutions which Catholicks endure vnder this pretence of the Popes being Antichrist For how can it possibly stand with iustice or reason that a lawfull Prince should punish his loyall subiects for performing their duty to their spirituall and lawfull Pastour That Rebells should vphold Hereticks who are Traytors against God and his Church it were no meruaile since they all agree in the impugnation of superiour powers And yet it is too notorious to the world what Catholicks suffer for their conscience in your Maiestyes Dominions what losse of lyuings liberty yea sometyme of life it selfe How busy are Purseuants in ransacking their houses abusing their seruants and apprehending their persons What insolencyes and vexations are they constrayned to endure And to omit the generality and seuerity of this persecution from which neither frailty of sex nor band of matrimony nor Nobility of birth can exempt any how many things lye hid and vnknowne which would astonish and amaze the world if they were laid open to the view therof What prying and inquiring into mens secret actions in somuch that euen ordinary prouision for the sustenance of nature cannot be made without suspition of Treason as appeared not long since by the pot of peares which were supposed to haue bene balls of wildfyre How many are beaten and tormented euen to death in priuate houses without any publick tryall Some Prentises in the Citty of London can giue good testimony heerof I might adde such other particulers as the rods kept in store by some of no small account for yong youths vnder twenty yeares whom they vse like schollers thinking it not to be against their grauity to whip them priuately with their owne hands But I will not offend your Maiestyes eares with the recitall of such base and vnworthy actions Only I will humbly beseech our Blessed Sauiour to moue your Maiestyes hart to take pitty and compassion of these abuses by giuing present Order for the redresse and reformation of so much as your Maiestie already misliketh which we hope to be the greatest part And for the rest we only craue this fauour that we may be spared vntill vve be heard for vve nothing doubt but that if your Maiesty vvould once resolue to informe your selfe thoroughly of the truth God vvould not be vvanting to our iust desires and to your Maiesties so Honourable and necessary endeauours GOD of his goodnes direct and protect your Maiesty AMEN Your Maiesties most faithfull Subiect and humble Oratour Michael Christopherson P. THE PREFACE to the Reader TO some I doubt not this my labour which I haue taken in discussing this question of Antichrist will seeme superfluous or at least not so well bestowed as it might haue bene in many other subiects And they will be much confirmed in this their opinion if they consider that among so many learned men as haue written in our language and euidently confuted the heresies of our tymes none of them haue vouchsafed to yield so far to our Aduersaries as to handle this question of set purpose which doubtles they omitted not without great consideration and weighty reasons the chiefest of which if I be not deceaued was for that they perswaded themselues that few or none especiallie of the prudent and moderate sort did indeed and in their hart hold this absurd paradox though they were content to let it passe because it serued for a motiue to withdraw the common people from the Catholike faith which in their conceipt conteyned other errors And for this cause those worthy and zealous writers endeauored chiefly to take away this false perswasion of the Churches erring partly by confirming and demonstrating the infallibility of her authority and partly by descending to particuler controuersies and most euidently conuincyng the Churches doctrine in euery one of them to be conformable to the diuine Scriptures and all antiquity For they did easily discouer that by this course they should not only confute this abhominable bâ—asphemy but also with one and the same labour confirme and establish the contrary truth viz. that the Catholike Church togeather with her supreme Pastour is the piller of Truth and the building of Christ against which no force of errors or heresies either hath or euer shall be able to preuayle Which course of theirs as most prudent in it selfe so likewise most profitable to others I am far from mysliking but doe altogeather approue and admyre it And yet notwithstanding I hope that this my labour may be in some sort profitable also For all are not so quick wytted as to make these necessary inferences but rather many are with-held from yielding to the manifest truth in other pointes by a preiudicate opinion which they haue conceaued in this and the iust and discreet silence which hath hitherto bene vsed ministreth to them some cause of suspition that the Protestants haue reason for that they say especially since they vrge this point so much both in their Writings and Sermons and the matter is of so great importance and consequence that whosoeuer hath the truth on his syde in this ought iustly to be belieued in the rest since that Antichrist can neither agree with Christ nor so great a calumniation as this is of the Pope if it be false can agree or stand with the spirit of truth Besides the Protestants out of this their doctrine make most odious inferences against Catholikes as to go no further we may see in M. Downams last Chapter where he deduceth out of it six conclusions First that out of this all other controuersies may be decided and that the doctrine of the Catholike Church is to be reiected as the errors of Antichrist Secondly that their separation from vs is warranted yea commaunded by the word of God and all returning forbidden Thirdly that all they which partake with vs are reprobates and to be damned Fourthly that the Recusant Papists but especialy Iesuites and Seminary Priests
tyme and were so addicted to this world that they would by no meanes vnderstand that their Messias was to come in that humility in which our Sauiour came which notwithstanding was plainly foretould in the Scriptures which we haue no reason to thinke but that Ecclesiasticus and those of his tyme did vnderstand aright and consequently knew well inough that Elias was not to come at our Sauiours first comming but at his second since it is manifest in this place that they expected his comming litterally and in person Now as for the authority of Iansenius who M. Downam prayseth as he did before Arias Montanus because he Iansenius maketh for him to be one of the best writers among the Papists there had byn no great cause of his commending him if M. Downam had bene disposed to haue dealt sincerely since Bellarmine shewed how he changed his opinion in Matth. 17. where he writeth that the Prophet Malachie cannot be vnderstood but of the true Elias and consequently must needes Downam dealeth not sincerely taking the obiection omitting the answere thinke that Ecclesiasticus was not deceaued in vnderstanding him so But this is another of M. Downams tricks to steale an obiection from Bellarmine and omit his answere where we might meruayle at his impudent folly but that it is no new nor strange thing in him as it was in Iansenius or any Catholike Writer to attribute an errour to Canonicall Scripture which was the cause of Bellarmines meruayling at Iansenius and of his changing so absurd an opinion or rather errour in his later writings in which he doth not only auouch and prooue this truth but also affirmeth that it is the doctrine of the Catholike Church which none but an Heretike will deny Concerning the other place which speaketh of Henoch M. Downam triumpheth saying that it is Ecclesiast 44. a wonder that Bellarmine would alleage it for this purpose But that hauing nothing to say to the purpose he is desirous to say something to bleare the eyes of the simple The originall text hath Henoch pleased the Lord God and was translated for an example of repentance to the generations that is that the generations present and to come might be moued by his example to turne vnto the Lord and to walke before him knowing by his example that there is a reward layd vp for those that turne vnto the Lord and walke before him as Henoch did But will Bellarmine hence conclude that therfore Henoch is to come agayne in the flesh to oppose himselfe to Antichrist Hitherto M. Downam And this is all he hath to say Where first we see that he cannot deny but that the latin text which Bellarmine cited made much for this purpose and there is no reason but that we should attribute as much at least to the latin interpretation as to M. Downams interpretation since it cannot be denyed but that there is The latin interpreter not to be reiected lesse suspition of partiality in him being so ancient who made no doubt of the sense and therfore translated it in that sorte as it were to exclude M. Downams deuise and since the latin Church hath all this tyme receaued this translation for Scripture we must not deny it now because it is contrary to some Protestant opinions especially since we see far greater difference in other partes of Scripture betwixt the originall text some interpretations allowed by the Church neither of which the Fathers durst reiect but rather imbraced and expounded them both as the word of God and indeed who knoweth not that the chiefest certainty that we haue of either dependeth vpon the approbation and authority of the Church which cannot erre in matters of this moment And I belieue M. Downam will hardly giue vs any other sufficient reason why he belieueth these bookes to be Scripture rather then others or this interpretation to be good and others bad But besides the authority of the latin text we thinke the Greeke to be for vs also at leastwise no man can deny but that our exposition is conformable to the Fathers doctrine who affirme our assertion of Henochs comming and consequently we are sure that we may safely expound it so without danger of errour and that M. Downam hath no reason to deny our sense so peremptorily M. Downams opinion of Henochs trāslation maketh as much for any other vertue as for repentance cōtrary to the Scripture though he thinke his owne better which we meruayle not at But further we cannot well see why Henochs translation should rather serue for an example of Repentance then of Hope Religion Iustice Innocency Faith Charity or any other vertue if we admitt M. Downams exposition and yet he is said particulerly to be an example of pennance which commeth very fitly for the latin interpreter and our explication and agreeth passing well with that which S. Iohn writeth Apoc. 11. that these two diuine witnesses shall preach amicti saceis in sack-cloth which wil be a good example of pennance indeed 5. About the third place Matth. 17. 11. his first answere is that by the Euangelist Marke who speaketh in the present tense Elias I. VIII indeed comming first restoreth all thinges the meaning of our Sauiour Christ appeareth to haue byn this Elias quidem venturus fuit primum restituturus omnia Elias indeed was to come first and was to restore Matth. 17. Mar. 9. M. Downam egregiously corrupteth S. Marke S. Matthews Text. all thinges And you must note that he putteth S. Markes wordes as he citeth them as also his owne interpretation in latin in a distinct character to bleare the eyes of the simple and make them belieue that they are both very Scripture And surely howsoeuer he may excuse the later the first is somewhat hard since that S. Markes words are Elias cùm venerit primò restituet omnia which the Protestant English Bible translateth Elias verily when he commeth first restoreth all thinges where we see a when which sufficiently sheweth that Elias was not yet come and besides both venerit restituet are the future and not the present tense and in the wordes following S. Marke hath an which cleareth this matter greatly Sed dico vobis quia Elias venit But I say vnto you that Elias is also come which sheweth plainely that in the former clause our Sauiour spake of a future comming as if he had said Elias shall come in person and also is come in spirit in S. Iohn Baptist which only was required at the first comming of our Sauiour But nothing will serue head-strong Heretikes therfore M. Downam corrupteth S. Matth. Matth. 11. 11. also making him say Iohn Baptist is that Elias who was to come putting it downe in a distinct letter as before whereas the wordes are Ipse est Elias qui venturus est where he could see the first est and translate it truly but not the second because it was against
yet expressing it in the conclusion which is a meere cauill for Bellarmine would not add any word in the premisses which he found not in Melancthon Caluin and Illyricus whose opinion he alleadged In the conclusion which was his owne he might very well expresse that which was necessarily to be vnderstood as Bellarmin explicateth out of Caluin himselfe for M. Downams deuise that the Church of Christ The Church comprehendeth not al that professe the name of Christ may be taken for the company of Christians that is of those that professe the name of Christ is too ridiculous since by this meanes he includeth all heretikes whatsouer who are indeed the Synagogue of the Diuell so confoundeth the Church of God and the Sinagogue of the Deuill wheras S. Paul saith that Antichrist shall sit in the TeÌ„ple of God he meaneth according to M. Downams interpretation the temple of the Diuell All which is so obsurd that the authors with whom Bellarmine disputeth would haue byn ashamed of so ridiculous an assertion and therfore they sought other cuasions as we shal see forthwith but now let vs go on with the other illation that the Protestants are out of the true Church for how the Temple of Hierusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of God we shall see afterward in the discussion of Bellarmines answeres to the arguments of the Protestants 5. Wherfore M. Downam to saue himselfe and his brethren from being out of the true Church of Christ is driuen to this exigent to deny that there is any one visible Catholike Church but only one invisible Catholike Church and many particuler visible Churches which is a most extrauagant and absurd paradox contrary both to Scriptures Fathers and Councells as Bellarmine sufficiently proueth lib. 4. de There is one visible Catholicke Church Ecclesia militant cap. 10. But now I will only oppose to this insolent madnes the authority of the Creed generally receaued of all where the Church is called One Holy Catholike and Apostolike and who seeth not that all which belong truly to Christ must agree in one faith and not to be deuided by schismes and heresies which in M. Downams conceipt can only happen in particuler Churches or at least in them only be acknowledged and rooted out So that if any particuler Church will wholy fall to either or rather if the chiefe head and pastour of any such Church shal become either schismaticall or hereticall there is not meanes left for his reduction since that he is not bound to be at vnity with other particuler Churches nor to subiect himselfe to any visible Catholike Church or to any visible head therof which is as much in effect as to say that Christ hath left no meanes vpon earth to decide controuersies concerning Faith or to take away schismes diuisions but that euery particuler Church or Pastor yea indeed euery particuler man may freely follow his owne fancies without contradiction or controlement of any so long as he can pretend any text of Scripture though neuer so much wrested and falsly vnderstood for that which he is resolued to hould And is it meruarle that heresies and schismes be so rife in our daies since these absurd paradoxes are so currant But what should heretikes and schismatikes do but defend schismes and diuisions and imâ—ugne vnity and concord which if they would admit they must of force returne to the Catholike Church whereit is only to be found Since therfore the visible Church of Christ is one and by the aduersaries confession it is the RomaÌ„ it followeth manifestly that they themselues are out of Christs Church since that they The ProtestaÌ„ts are out of the Church of Christ are out of the Roman For the other cauill which M. Downam maketh that the RomaÌ„ Church is a particuler Church is not worth the answering for euery child can tell him that the Roman Church is taken for all those which agree in faith and are vnited with the Bishop of Rome who is not only Bishop of that particuler Citty but also the head and Pastor of the whole Church which of him her Head is called the Roman Church which coÌ„tinueth the true Church of Christ as Bellarmine proueth and Melancthon Caluin and Illyricus dare not deny howsoeuer M. Downam is so impudent in his rayling consorting himselfe with a vaine Poet whose meaning notwithstanding was far better then M. Petrarcha Downams is 6. M. Downam hauing thus shufled vp the matter hitherto at length commeth to explicate himselfe more plainly and agreeth with Caluin that the Church of Rome vnder the Pope may be called the Church of God in respect both of some notes and signes of a visible Church as the administration of the Sacrament of Baptisme and the profession of the Name of Christ as also of some reliques and remainder as it were the gleanings of the inuisible Church for he doubteth not but that in the corruptest times of Popery the Lord hath reserued some who haue not receaued the marke of the beast And for explication he compareth the Church of Rome to the state of Israel vnder Ieroboam and Achab because they then retained the Sacrament of Circumcision and professed Iehoua to be their God although they worshipped him Idolatrously And euen vnder Achab the Lord had reserued 7000. who neuer bowed their knee to Baal In which comparison M. Downam insisteth wholy Downam his petitio principij vpon his wonted figure of Petitio principij and consequently all that he saith is but meere railing If he would haue said any thing to the purpose he should haue shewed two points in that example the first that the visible Church among the Iewes was altogeather ceased by that Idolatry of Israel The second that Israel departed not from the Religion which was generally houlden before but that the ancient Religion was by little and little changed to Idolatry and that those which came after separated themselues from the former and yet were the true Church With these two points M. Downam might haue made some comparison betwixt the people of Israel and the Church of Rome But since The Protestants like to Israel the Catholikes to Iuda neither of these are so but the quite contrary it will fall to M. Downam and his fellowes share to be like the people of Israel since they haue left the visible Church of which they once were as the other did and consequently the Church of Rome is like to the people of Iuda and the rest which ioyned with them since it continueth in the ancient faith generally holden throughout Christendome before there were any Protestants in the World Neither do we graunt that the Protestants haue any part of Christs Church no more then the Israelites had since they haue not any iote of true faith howsoeuer they make profession of some articles for the reason why they hould them is not the authority of God proposed by the Scriptures or the
Church but only their owne fancies because so it seemed necessary for their reputation and credit or some other human and priuate respect how much soeuer they pretend to be only moued by Scripture for of this they admit no more The Protestants haue no probable rule of faith nor any true faith at al. then they please and for the interpretation they haue no other rule then their owne pruate spirit or fancy which is far of from being any probable rule of truth much lesse so certaine as is necessary for the certainty of diuine and supernatural faith to be built vpon And this is the true reason why the Church of God is but one because there is but one rule of fayth from which whosoeuer falleth cannot haue any true faith at all nor belong to the true Church of God The other comparison which M. Downam vseth is much les to the purpose for it is not the Church but the Bishop of Sardis as he himselfe saith that it is agreed by In his Sermō at Lābeth pag. 2. Apoc. ◠1. Interpreters both new and old who had a name that he liued but indeed was dead neither was this death for want of faith but of charity and good workes as is manifest and though it were otherwise yet M. Downam could proue nothing by this comparison except we would belieue his bare word that the Church of Rome were in this case which is our chiefe question and M. Downams wonted figure to take it as granted Wherfore since he can argue no better let vs see how he can answere 7. To Bellarmines first reply vpon Caluins deuise that the Roman Church is not the true Church but that there VIII remaine in it only the ruines and reliques of a true Church M. Downam granteth that all visible Churches may faile and fall away but not the inuisible Church of Christ which he calleth the Catholike Church nor any one sound Christian that is of this inuisible Church In which answere he graunteth Bellarmine as much as he went about to proue that the gates of hell in his opinion haue preuailed against Christs visible Church so that in a whole thousand yeares Christ had not so much as one constant professor of his truth and though I might easily proue that Christ spake of his visible Church and that it The visible Church is to endure to the end of the world was to endure vntill the worlds end yet now I will not trouble my Reader with so needles a digression since the matter is so plaine and euident in it selfe that me thinks any man which maketh accompt of Christ his passion and glory or of his desire to saue soules and to prouide for their conuersion and faith should stop his eares not to heare so great a blasphemy vttered as M. Downam is not ashamed to affirme yet if any man haue any doubt or desire to be more fully satisfied in this point let him read Bellarmine him selfe lib. 3. de Ecclesia militant cap. 12. 13. To Bellarmines second reply M. Downam answereth that it proueth nothing except he suppose that the Church of Rome is the only true Church But he should haue answered it in forme admitted only that which Caluin auoucheth that the Papists hold the ruines of the Church and the foundations yea the buildings themselues halfe throwne downe for out of this only Bellarmine argueth and sheweth that the Protestants can neither haue the whole intire church since in their opinion it is fallen nor the part which remaineth of it since they grant The Protestants cannot haue the Church of Christ but only some new building of their own it to be amōg the Papists to which delēma M. Downā answereth not a word but only braggeth that the Church of Rome may fall yet the Catholicke Church of God may stand yea shall stand c. But he forgetteth himselfe marketh not what his Maister Caluin hath graunted that not only the Church of Rome but euen the very Church of Christ is fallen and that the Papists haue as much as is left of it cōsequētly the Protestāts can only haue some new hereticall building of their owne though M. Downam be neuer so loth to acknowledge it Neither will the example of the Church of Iuda vnder Iosias serue his turne for that was only a reformation of manners and a destruction of Idolatry without any departing from the ancient Church of God in which remained the true succession of Priests and Gods true religion after a visible manner no otherwise then if it should please his Maiesty to put downe heresie and aduance Catholike Religion in his Kingdome which were only to imbrace the true Church of Christ and not to erect any new building as the Protestants haue done as Bellarmine conuinceth 8. M. Downam hauing thus impugned Bellarmines arguments commeth to refute his solutions to their obiections and wheras Bellarmine gaue three solutions to the first See part 2. cap. 2. M. Downam passeth two of them ouer in silence telling vs that he hath taken thē away in another place which how true it is the Reader shall be iudge when we come to that encounter Now let vs see how he refuteth the second solution which Bellarmine giueth that the harlot of which S. Iohn speaketh is Rome Ethnick raigning worshiping Idols and persecuting Christians and not Rome Christian the Apoc. 17. contrary of which M. Downam neuer goeth about to proue with any new argument as he should haue done it being his turne now to argue but only contenteth himselfe to answere Bellarmines proofe which he doth also by halfes for Bellarmine proueth his exposition euidently by the authority of Tertullian S. Hierome and sheweth the impudency of heretikes that are not ashmed to alleadg those authours altogeather against their meaning to proue that S. Iohn speaketh of Rome Christian To all which M. Downam giueth him not a word but is very well content to be thus beaten so that it may not be spoken of but to the other proofe he thinketh himselfe able to say something therfore answereth two wayes 1. that though Popish Rome had not dominion ouer the Kings of the earth and were not drunke with the blould of the Saints and martyrs of Iesus yet we might vnderstand the Apostle thus that that Citty which then had dominion ouer the Kings of the earth and then persecuted the Saints is called Babylon because it was to be the seate or sea of Antichrist So that as you see M. Downam will haue Rome to be called Babylon because it was to be the seate or sea of Antichrist which he supposeth as manifest though Bellarmine in this third solution and before also in one of his arguments both which M. Downam passeth ouer in silence sheweth manifestly that Antichrist shall hate this Babylon and not make it the seat of his kingdome So that this first solution is nothing but M. Downams wonted
that word vntill for it importeth no such matter but only signifieth what is done till then but whether it continued at that time or after that time or no must be gathered by other coniectures or proofes As to exemplify in one of M. Downams authorities there was neuer any so foolish yet as to bring that place of Matth. 1. to proue our Blessed Ladies perpetuall Virginity but S. Hieroms and other Fathers haue byn inforced to answere it and to shew that the word vntill she weth only what hath byn done or not done vntill then but leaueth the rest of the time altogeather vncertaine whether things continued in the same state still or no. To Bellarmines second answere M. Downam hauing corrupted his words as the Reader may see if he please replieth first that the Primitiue Church belieued that the Temple should neuer be built againe held this assertion of the Papists as a Iewish fable But he bringeth not any one authority to proue Downam belyeth the Primitiue Church against the testimony of the Fathers this withall and therfore we must needes tell him that we do not belieue him for if we did we should do the Fathers great iniury which Bellarmine alleadgeth to reiect their authority without any ground and to thinke that M. Downam knew the beliefe of the Primitiue Church better then all they who liued so long before him For the other part of his answere we will not contend but that our Sauiour might meane the Army of the Romans by the Abhomination of Desolation but that he meant only that M. Downam neither hath proued The temple of Ierusalem shal alway be prophane though it be built againe nor euer will be able to proue and therfore Bellarmines solution is very good that Daniel when he affirmeth that the desolation shall perseuere to the consummation and end might very wel meane that though the Temple were built againe in the end of the world yet it should alway be prophaned after the ouerthrow made by Titus because the chiefest prophanation and abhomination of desolation shall be in Antichrists time At Bellarmines third solution M. Downam is much offended and telleth vs that in this place Daniel speaketh not a word of Antichrist nor yet of Antiochus his Type And for Antiochus we belieue him neither did Bellarmine euer dreame of any such matter of Antichrist the matter is not cleare though now it skilleth not whether he did or no for Bellarmine is only to shew that Antichrist sitting in the Temple of Hierusalem is not against this place of Daniel and not to proue out of this place that he shall sit there Wherfore let M. Downam begin his reply anew and so he doth arguing that it is not probable that Antichrist being so great a Monarch will suffer the temple which he chooseth for his chiefe seate to be vnbuilt or that he will sit in a temple without a roose or vnfinished To which it is easy to answere that this is not probable indeed if he may haue tyme inough and there fall no other hinderance But now M. Downam may remember that his raigne is to endure in that greatnes but only three yeares a halfe which is very little for the finishing of so sumptuous a building yet we thinke he may haue the roofe vp also at least in some part in which he shall sit till he may get the rest finished as he will hope he shall but yet he shall be hindred either The tēple of Ierusalem shall not be finished by Antichrist Socrat. l. 3. cap. 20. Theodoret. l. 3. c. 20. Sozom. l. 5. cap. vlt. Luc. 21. by the shortnes of time or by some accidents not vnlike to those that fell out in Iulians time though it be very likely that God wil permit much more in Antichrists daies without working myracles especially since it is certaine that the Temple was not to be built againe vntill the end of the world as Daniel foretould Which M. Downam will needes haue confirmed by that place of Luc. 21. where our Sauiour foretelleth that Hierusalem should be troden vnder the foote of the Gentiles vntill the tymes of the Gentiles be fulfilled Which words if they might haue that sense were a good explication of that which Daniel called the consummation and end for it is certaine that the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled before the end of the world be fully accomplished 10. To Bellarmines answere to the Fathers M. Downam replieth not a word and yet it contained matter of no smal importance but that which ouerthroweth the whole Protestants deuise For Bellarmine affirmeth proueth that those Antichrist shall sit in materiall Churches and not in the Church of Christ as a Bishop Fathers which they alleadg are no way against vs but manifestly against them since they speake of materiall Churches in which Antichrist will commaund himselfe to be placed and worshipped for God and not that he shall sit in the Church of Christ as a Bishop which is only the fond conceipt of M. Downam and his like without any authority either of Scriptures or Fathers or shew of reason Neither must the reader thinke that M. Downam omitted this reply because he maketh little accompt of the Fathers when they seeme to be on his side for of this we shal see the contrary in that he laboureth so earnestly to make S. Gregory seeme to say something in his fauour For to Bellarmines answere concerning his authority he replieth that the pride and ambition of Iohn of Constantinople though very great and Antichristian was not to be compared with the incredible insolency and pride of the Antichrist of Rome because Iohn of Constantinople challenged not that height of authority The Pope hath not so much soueraignty as Iohn of Constātinople challēged See part ◠cap. 1. soueraignty which Popes since haue vsurped not only ouer Bishops and Ecclesiasticall persons but also ouer the Kings and Monarches of the Earth VVhere to omit that Bibliander made his illation against the Pope precisely because he maketh himselfe the vniuersall Bishop and sitteth in the Church as head of all and consequently all other charges are from the purpose you see the Pope charged first with taking more soueraignty vpon him then Iohn of Constantinople did which is a loud lye by M. Downams leaue for Iohn of Constantinople would haue bene the Vniuersall Bishop in that sense that there should be no other properly Bishops besides himselfe but al others should be his Vicars and Vicegerents which was more then euer the Pope challenged or pretended The second charge seemeth to be that Iohn of Constantinople sought only a superiority ouer all Bishops but the Pope hath vsurped the same ouer all Kings and Monarches also But this is so ridiculous that M. Downam may well be ashamed therof for what doubt can there be but only in a flattering parasites conceipt that he who hath superiority ouer all Bishops must needes
there be betwixt Dioscorus Patriarch of the second Sea presiding in a generall Councell and Luther a simple Monke writing in his chamber But now leauing Luther let vs come to Melancthon THE NINTEENTH CHAPTER The trifles of the Smalchaldicall Synod of the Lutherans are confuted THERE is a booke of the Power Primacy of the Pope or of the Kingdome of Antichrist put forth in the name of the Smalchaldicall Synod which to me seemeth to be Melancthons but whosoeuers it be it hath nothing but words vayne bragging It is well knowne saith the Author of the booke that the Bishops of Rome with their members defend impious doctrine and impious worships and plainly the notes of Antichrist agree to the kingdome of the Pope and his members Hitherto the Proposition Now let vs heare the proofes for Paul ad Thessal describing Antichrist calleth him the aduersary of Christ extolling himselfe aboue all that is said or worshipped for God suting in the Temple as God wherfore he speaketh of some that raigneth in the Church not of Heathen Kings and him he calleth the aduersary of Christ because he shall inuent doctrine repugnant to the Ghospell and he will vsurpe to himselfe diuine authority Although all this if it were true would hurt vs very little yet I aske vpon what foundation this exposition is built S. Paul plainly saith that Antichrist shall extoll himselfe aboue euery God and that he shall sit in the Temple not as a King not as a Bishop but plainely as a God and this same expresly affirme S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose and the rest of the ancient Fathers interpreters of this place With what right do you then without witnesse and without reason affirme that he is Antichist who sitteth in the Temple not as a God but as a Bishop And is so far from extolling himselfe aboue euery God that he doth not only adore God the Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost but also in the presence of all the people prostrateth himselfe before the Sacrament of the Eucharist before the Tombes of the Apostles and Martyrs before the Crosse and Images of Christ and his Saintes which you your selues though impiously are wont to call strange Gods and Idolls But let vs see how you apply this same to the Pope The Synode And first it is manifest that the Pope reigneth in the Church and vnder the pretext of Ecclesiasticall authority and Ministry hath made himselfe this Kingdome for he pretended these wordes I will giue vnto thee the Keyes Bellarmine You say indeed that the Pope reigneth in the Church but you proue it not But we can easily shew the contrary for he that reigneth acknowledgeth not any superiour in his Kingdome but the Pope professeth himselfe to be the Vicar and Seruant of Christ his King And although he vseth most ample power in the whole House of God and in the vniuersail Kingdome of Christ notwithstanding that power exceedeth not the condition of an administrator and seruant for Moyses also as S. Paul saith Hebr. 3. was faithfull in the whole house of God but as a seruant and Christ as a Sonne in his owne But to go forward The Synode Besides the doctrine of the Pope is many wayes repugnant to the Ghospell and vsurpeth to himselfe diuyne authority in three manners First in that he taketh to himselfe authority to change the doctrine of Christ and the worships instituted by God and he will haue his doctrine and his worships obserued as if they were diuine Bellarmine This likewise you say but proue it not and it seemeth to vs not only false but also a most impudent lye for you are not ignorant that in the Catholike Church it is taught by all that the doctrine of Christ and worships cannot be changed by any man no nor by any Angell neither Was there euer any question betwixt you and vs whether that which Christ taught or commaunded ought to be belieued and done but whether you or we interprete better the doctrine and procepts of Christ In which question you in a manner are wont to bring nothing els but your owne interpretation but we bring the consent of the Fathers and either the decrees or customes of the Catholike Church for we do not oppose as you falsely brag the consents of the Fathers and the decres and customes of the Church to the word of God but to your iudgement and interpretation But let vs heere the second proofe The Synode Secondly because he taketh to himselfe not only power to loose and bynd in this world but also power ouer soules after this life Bellarmine This also is said but not proued for the Pope doth not take to himselfe authority ouer the soules of the departed since that he doth not absolue them from their sinnes and punishments by his authority but only communicate with them the prayers and the good workes of the faithfull which lyue by manner of suffrage And all the ancient Fathers do teach that the prayers and almes of the liuing and chiefly the Sacrifice of the Masse do profit the dead of which since we haue largely disputed els where it shal be sufficient to haue noted one testimony of S. Augustine in this place wherefore serm 34. de verb. Apost S. Augustine speaketh thus It is not to be doubted that the dead are holpen by the prayers of the holy Church and the wholsome Sacrifice and the almes which are giuen for their soules But let vs go on The Synode Thirdly because the Pope will not be iudged by the Church or any other and taketh away their authority from the iudgment of Councells and of the whole Church But this is to make himselfe God to refuse to be iudged by the Church or by any other Bellarmine Heere also two things are said which are not proued for first by what Scriptures by what Councells by what reason do you proue that the Pope ought to be iudged by the Councells or the Church For we read to omit other things which are sufficiently disputed in the former booke that it was said to S. Peter by Christ Iohn 21. Feed my sheep and we thinke that there can be no doubt that the sheep are to be ruled and iudged by the Sheepheard and not the Sheephard by the sheep We also read Luc. 12. that it was said to the same Peter VVho thinkest thou is a faithfull and prudent Dispenser whom the Lord appointeth ouer his family In which place we see a certain Steward put ouer the whole family of Christ certainly to gouerne it and not to be gouerned by it And least perhaps some should obiect what if he were a naughty Steward by whom shall he be iudged if he be aboue all and subiect to none Therfore our Lord addeth forth with And if that seruant shall say in his hart my Lord delayeth to come and shall begin to strike the Men and Maid-seruants and to eate and drinke and be drunke the Lord of that seruant will come in
application which he saith is contradictory to 1. Io. 4. 3. 2. Io. 7. who saith that Antichrist with the article prefixed and whome they heard was to come was already come which you heard Bellarmine graunt with a distinction not in his owne person but in his forerunners and now M. Downam proueth it very substantially by repeating the former argument for want of another and so he standeth at a non plus only he confirmeth it by the argument which S. Iohn maketh 1. Io. 2. 18. which I haue put Nu. 6. downe coÌ„futed in the answere to the third place of Scripture whither I remit the Reader not to weary him with so many idle repetitions of the same thing as M. Downam maketh which also I meane God willing to obserue hereafter 11. To the first proofe of Bellarmines answere he reiecteth the former interpretation of those 3. Fathers S. Ambrose Downam reiecteth the Fathers S. Chrysostome and S. Hierome by his owne absolute authority For when he began to thinke how he might deceaue some of the simple sort by making a shew that the Pope is Antichrist he did put this downe for a chiefe Principle that Antichrist should be no open but a disguised enemy and a pretended Christian and this he wil defend against all the Fathers yea against the Apostles Christ himselfe though with this difference that against the Fathers who without all doubt were the members of Christ he opposeth himselfe manifestlie but against Christ and his Apostles onlie couertlie by false expositions of his owne head with which he conuinceth that he is only a member of that great Antichrist and not the great Antichrist himselfe But I hope well that both M. Downam himselfe and all that follow him or ioyne with him against those ancient Fathers the true members of Christ will at length ioyne with them against those disguised enemies and pretended Christians of which number they themselues are for the present And in the meane tyme till they amend themselues they must giue vs leaue to thinke with the holy Fathers that both Antichrists members as also himselfe haue bene and shal be not only disguised but also open enemies of Christ as you see those holy Fathers affirme of Nero and the other of the Heretikes who deceaue secretly which both M. Downam and we also Antichrists members sometimes open enemyes to Christ admit And yet we may note that this secrecy of the Heretikes is not so great but that many times it contayneth manifest opposition against Christ as we see in Simon Magus who named himselfe Christ and in Montanus who would needes be the Holy Ghost And if M. Downam had rather haue new examples he may remember George Dauid and M. Hackeâ— with his two Prophets But now I would aske M. Downam what it maketh against Bellarmine whether the members and forerunners of Antichrist be disguised or open enemies so that it be graunted that then there were some such and yet the great Antichrist was not yet come as M Downam himselfe confesseth that the Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not reueled vntill 606. yeares after so that till then Antichrist was come only after a sort that is as after he explicateth in some of his members which is all that Belarmine pretended But perhappes M Downam will say that he knew well inough what he said when he only affirmed that Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not then reuealed though be were come But then I would aske him how he was otherwise come then in the Heretikes his members which is that which Bellarmine answereth And if he caÌ„ shew vs no other manner then we may see how easie a matter it is to vnderstand that Antichrist might be so said to be come in S. Pauls and S. Iohns tyme and yet that the chiefe proper Antichrist or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not yet come in person but shal be one man in the end of the world 12. To the second proofe First M. Downam answereth that it cannot be proued out of Scripture or by any sound argument that Downam reiecteth all ancient writers Peteâ— and Paul were Bishops of Rome For you must vnerstaÌ„d that the authority of S. Irenam or of all ancient writers is of no force at all with M. Downam and besidâ—s he knoweth well inough that S. Paul is said to haue byn in Rome in the Scripture and S. Peter also if he will stand to his owne exposition of the wold Babylon and supposing they were there I hope he will as soone graunt them the Bishoprick as any other But to let this passe M. Downam will be twyce aduised before he graunt that the Bishop of Rome at that tyme whosoeuer he was was Antichrist which is as much as Bellarmine would haue denied at this present and M. Downam doth him that courtesy yea and to agre with him in the exposition of S. Paul and S. Iohn For thus he writeth VVhen we say that Antichrist was come in the Apostles tyme we speake of the bodie of Antichrist with S. Iohn when we say that Antichrist hath his seate in Rome we speake of the head of this body soe that now you see heer be distinct persons part of which were come and part not come in S. Iohns tyme. But M. Downam goeth about to deceaue the Reader by telling him a loÌ„g tale of the Pope without Downam speaketh from the purpose any proofe and from the purpose But he must be put in mind to answer Cathegoricè whether Antichrist that S. Paul and S. Ihon saith was come in their tyme were the same that was to haue his seat in Rome or noe If he saith yes then he must also graunt that S. Peter and S. Paul or whosoeuer had the seate at that tyme was Antichrist If he will stick to his noe then it is playne that there is no consequence in Bezaâ— argument Some manner of Antichrist was come in the Apostles tyme Ergo no other that shal be only one man can come after vnlesse he were aliue at that tyme. Yet for all this M. Downam maketh the best shift he can saying that in Bellarmines argument there is no consequence vulesthis be taken for graÌ„ted that Antichrist is but one man which is the question after he frameth arguments as it pleaseth him But M. Downam should haue considered that Bellarmine supposed not that Antichrist was but one man neither was it much materiall in this place if we speake only of the chiefe and proper Antichrist whome Bellarmine only affirmeth to be one but he supposeth that which M. Downam and his Maister Beza put in their probation if they will conclude any thing that Antichrist of whom S. Iohn speaketh is the same that is to haue his seat at Rome for then it followeth very well that he in person had his seate in Rome in the Apostles tyme not only in the heretikes his members For if this second were inough it
earth By which meanes the litle horne which he had betwixt his eyes that is the Kingdome which he gouerned came to be very great strong in a short space at his death was deuided into foure little ones in respect of his great Monarchie which contayned all those 4. After this M. Downam commeth to Bellarmines second answere to which he graunteth that S. Paul speaketh not of any of the 4. beastes spoken of by Daniel which in effect is to graunt that Bezas consequence was nothing worth and poore M. Downam had no other shift but to say that noe man said so because he meant not to say so himselfe And yet to set the better face on it he denieth also that Antichrist is the little horne as Bellarmine affirmeth But he should haue considered that the other was that which was necessary that the argumēt might stand in force and that now Bellarmine is the defendant and therfore it is not inough for M. Downam to deny what he saith but he must also proue the contrary Thus much for Bezas argumēt which as you see Bellarmine hath solued euen by M. Downams owne confession and therfore he hath added otherplaces of Scripture to hould it vp from falling or rather he hath let Bezas argument fall for that it was past recouery and hath patched vp another of his owne To which I āswere that in all the places which he citeth only in the 7. of Daniel by the beastes be signified Kingdomes for in the 11. of Daniel there is not once any Beast named and Apoc. 13. there be two Beastes but the former signifyeth only one man Antichrist the latter his chiefe false Prophet and Apoc. 17. the Beast signifieth the Diuel All which M. Downam must not put me to proue now till it be my turne and then he shall see I shal be better stored both with arugments authority thē he is who bringeth neither And as for the assumption that in the 13. of Apoc. Antichrist is the secōd Beast I haue already denied it for M. Downam was in some need of Scripture so he was inforced to vse one place both in his propositiō assūptiō and to thrust in other which made nothing to his purpose 15. About the third obiection M. Downam had little to adde only he explaneth what a substantiall ground they haue for the exposition of that word Apostasy which is no other but because it pleaseth them to vnderstand it so And to Bellarmines first answere he saith that it doth rather make against himselfe then otherwise for that he cannot inferr thence that Antichrist is but one Man As though he that answereth were to inferre any thing and not only to shew how his aduersary inferreth nothing VVherfore M. Downam addeth that rather the contrary is to be inferred for if Apostasy be put by a Metonymie 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 signifieth the whole body and Kingdome of Antichrist In which Downam mistaketh Bellarmine reply of his I can see no other reason but want of consideration of that which Bellarmine hath said for the interpretation which is giuen by him in his first answere of the word Apostasie is onely this that Antichrist is called the Apostasie for that he shal be the cause that many forsake God so that not those which forsake God but he that is the cause therof is called the Apostasie And so though those that forsake God be many yet he that is the cause may be only one If M. Downam hath any thing to reply against this eyther he must shew that the cause of the Apostasie may not be called the Apostasie or else that one man may not be the cause that many forsake God and not speake so confusedly and darkly as he doth least he make Downam speaketh from the purpose men thinke that he vseth that art to seeme to say somthing when he hath nothing to say indeed which may be also suspected by that which he addeth out of S. Augustine of an opinion which he misliketh not and which Bellarmine alleadgeth in his third answere as also of Antichrists sitting in the Church all which he knoweth well inough to make nothing to the force of this argument nor to be against this first answere of Bellarmine and therfore is but an idle addition for want of matter to the purpose About the second reason that Bellarmine giueth why Antichrist may be called the Apostasy M. Downam hath nothing to say against it but Antichrist shal be an Apostata only noteth that seeing none can be an Apostata which hath not bene a Christian Antichrist shal not be a Iew but a back sliding and reuolted Christian which if we take the name properly as it signifieth one that falleth from Christ is a probable argument that Antichrist shal be baptized but yet he may be a Iew both by birth as also by profession as Iulian was a Gentile in profession and yet a notable Apostata But this name may also be vnderstood of those which fall from God though they were no Christians And in this sēse it is more ample and therfore more fit for Antichrist who shall not only oppose himselfe to Christ but also extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God And this is all that M. Downam replyeth to Bellarmines first answere for he hath not soe much as gone about to proue that Antichrist may not be vnderstood by the Apostasy because he shal be the cause that many forsake God or because he shal be a most notable Apostata nor that one man may not be called soe for these two reasons which be only the points that could make against Bellarmines answere 16. To the second answere M. Downam replieth first that the dissention of the Fathers proueth that their exposition can be noe good rule of interpreting the Scriptures Which note I would he would applie to himselfe and his fellow-Ministers for no doubt The Protestants expositiō of Scripture not much worth he would find that their expositions are not much worth since they agree so little and if when the Fathers doe diuersly expound the same place it is a signe that it is not certaine which interpretation is to be followed but that either may be admitted so far as they swarue not from any point of Faith how much lesse certainty can we haue of M. Downam and his fellowes who many tymes doe not only differ from all others but also among themselues and that in matters which belong to Faith in which one houldeth against the other and both against all the world besides After this M. Downam goeth about to prooue that the Apostasie cannot signifie the reuolt from the Roman Empire because in other places of Scripture it signifieth a falling away from God and for that afterward it is called the mystery of iniquitie which was working in
with fire because they shall so deuide the Roman Empire amongst them that they shall vtterlie destroy it Where by the way M. Downam may vnderstād The Roman Empire destroied by the 10 Kings that by Rome is not onlie vnderstood the particuler Citty but also the whole Roman Empire of which in S. Iohns tyme Rome was the head and so denominated the whole as that which the Logicians would call principale Analogatum Now how can the vtter destruction of this Romā Empire be more significantlie declared then by being hated made desolate and naked haue her flesh eaten and finallie be burnt with fire And how can anie man imagine but that the 10. Kinges which shall bring all this to passe shal be vtter enemies aswell of the Emperours so long as there are any as likewise of the Empire And by this tyme I imagine M. Downam will be perswaded that Bellarmine vsed no circular disputation but confirmed his doctrine by an expresse place of Scripture But least there should want a circular disputation M. Downam bringeth in an experience approoued onlie Downams petitio principij by his owne opinion but altogeather denied by Bellarmine all Catholikes of the Roman Empire alreadie dissolued deuided betwixt Antichrist ten Kinges the title name of Emperour still remayning by which to anie iudicious Reader hee maketh himself so ridiculous that his bragging of his former proofs out of this place that Antichrist is come and that the Pope is Antichrist will hardlie be belieued and at leastwise I doubt not but men will staie their censure till they see those proofes examined 4. M. Downam comming to the third proofe verie courteously admitteth it because it is so manifest that he could not deny it that 2. Thess 2. is to bee vnderstood of 2. Thess 2. the Roman Empire but then he manfully denieth that either the Apostle or anie of the Fathers excepting Lactantius whose prophecie saith M. Downā in this point the Papists themselues do think to be erroneou◠do say that the Empire of Rome shall so vtterly be abolished as that not so much as the name of the Emperour or King of the Romans shall remaine Where first wee haue the authoritie of Lactantius so plaine as no euasion can be found to shift it of and therefore M. Downam is inforced to call his prophesie erroneous and is not ashamed to affirme that it is held so by Catholikes euen in this point For cofirmation of which he is alleadged by Bellarmine which no doubt is a point of egregious impudency But wee see noe cause why wee Downās impudencie should not more esteeme the authority of Lactantius so ancient and learned a writer then of a thousand M. Downams especiallie since both the Scripture and Fathers fauour his opinion so greatly For what is de medio fieri but to be quite taken away and I belieue M. Downam would bee loath to stand to the hazard if there were order giuen by some in authoritie vt ipse de medio fieret And this the Fathers tooke to be so plaine that they thought it needed no exposition though sometime they vse other words which signifie the same vtter desolation as S. Cyril when the tymes of the Roman Empire are expired Tertull. when the Empire is ouerthrowne S. Ambrose after the defectiō abolitiō S. Hierom except all Nations which are subiect to the Roman Empire reuolt from them and vnles How many waves the Fathers affirme the vtter destructiō of the Romā Empire why they spake sparingly of this point the Roman Empire be first desolate passe and bee takē away And S. Augustine opposeth to be takē out of the way to raigning So that when the Emperour is taken out of the way hee shall raigne no longer which is all one as to saie he shal be no longer Emperour Surelie it is hard to expresse the vtter desolatiō of any Kingdome with more significant wordes And yet Bellarmine tould M. Downam a verie good reason why both the Apostle and the Fathers would speake somewhat sparinglie in this point to wit least it might be offensiue to the Roman Emperours in whose tymes they liued and therefore wee see how fearefullie Lactantius speaketh how Tertullian bringeth it in without offence saying that Christians praie for the continuance of the Roman Empire And M. Downam might haue done well to haue found vs out some one Father that had fauoured his exposition which he neglected not for want of good will as wee see plainelie by his citing of S. Hierome Qui tenebat de medio sit c. which hee translateth He which held is taken away c. putting the preter-perfect Downam translateth not well for the present tense and so he should haue said He which held is in taking away or haue added some other signe which might haue signified that it was in doing but not done which is most true both in S Hieroms tyme and euer since before too and the neerer we see the Roman Empire to draw to an end the neerer we may likewise thinke that Antichrist draweth as S. Hierome affirmeth but till that fit be made factus est that is till the Roman Empire be vtterlie ouerthrowne indeed Antichrist shall not come how neere soeuer he be which S. Hierome and all the Fathers plainely affirme as we haue seene Neither can M. Downam himselfe think that the Empire was taken away in such sort in S. Hieromes time as was necessary before Antichrists comming and reuealing since that he himself dareth not affirme that he came then in such sort as S. Paul describeth 2. Thess 2. Wherfore he must either reiect S. Hierom in this also or els expound him as I haue done And it is a prettie matter that the Apostle and the Fathers telling vs that the Roman Empire hindereth Antichrists comming M. Downam should still beare vs downe that the Empire as it is now hindereth not Antichrist but rather furthereth But I hope men will rather haue the Apostle and the Fathers to stand by them in the day of iudgment when they shall giue accompt of their fayth in this point then M. Downam who will haue more then he can doe to answere for himselfe The Holy Ghost wel foresaw that the Roman Empire should be in these tymes as we now see it and no doubt would not haue affirmed so absolutely that it hindereth Antichrists comming if at any tyme it could haue bene togeather with him or haue furthered him otherwise we might haue a iust excuse for our mistaking Neither is the Empire now so greatly diminished as M. Downam There now a Roman Emperour indeed not in name or title only would giue vs to vnderstand for there is now an Emperour of the Romans indeed and not only in title without the thing it selfe as we see the whole world acknowledgeth euen the Protestants themselues and who but M. Downam would affirme that the Emperour that now is
vsuallie it signifieth terrour particulerlie in this place by the cōsent of all ancient interpreters Fathers we see no reason why we should imbrace this new particuler opinion but rather take the same sense in this place which is manifest that the same words haue Ioel 2. except M. Doumā can shew vs that the Sun was turned into darkenes and the Moone into bloud before the first comming of our Sauiour Finally there is no doubt but that the second comming is as full of reuerence and filiall feare as the first and consequently euen in this sense also were to be called horible and terrible Thus much for the 1. proofe that Malac. spake of the secōd cōming Cardinall Bellarmine his second proofe is because it is added least perhapps I come and strike the earth with a curse which M. Downam applyeth to the first comming because our Sauiour at his second comming shall without peraduēture strike the earth But he might easily haue bethought himselfe that at his first comming without peraduenture our Sauiour was resolued not to strike the earth with curses but to replenish it with blessings this resolution arose not from any merits or good disposition of any that liued eyther then or before or after but from his owne infinite mercy and goodnes by which he vouchsafed to make vs his friends being of our selues his enemies so vniuersally that there was not one that could appease his wrath and I meruayle much that M. Downam should vpon the suddaine only to auoide an argument attribute more to merits then euer any Downam attributeth more to merits thē euer any Catholike did Catholike did wherfore we may well hope that he wil admit free will also without which there is no merit and which indeed that peraduenture signifyeth in this place for in respect of Gods decre and knowledg there could be no doubt what he was to do at either comming but only how we would dispose our selues which by al probability those which shal liue at our Sauiours second comming and aboue others the Iewes would not do in any good sort especially hauing then more hinderances by reason of Antichrists persecution then euer before had they not the assistāce of these two holy Prophets Henoch and Helias Finally the authority of Arias Montanus will stand M. Downam in very little stead though he accounteth him the most learned writer among the Papists for how learned soeuer he was his priuate exposition plainely both against Arias Montanus the exposition of the Fathers and the text it selfe as Bellarmine hath proued can haue no great force and indeed this was the fault of that man that he trusted more to his owne iudgment then to the authority of others which must needes please M. Downam well and we are content to let it passe so long as he was content to submit all his priuate opinions to the Churches censure which M. Downam will not doe and therfore where the other was sometime rash he is still headlong that is an heretike and so we admit that Arias in a rashnes fauoured to much some of M. Downās heresies And this shall suffice for the first place of the Prophet Malachy 4. Bellarmines second Scripture is the booke of Ecclesiasticus out of which he alleadgeth two places the one for Helias and the other for Henoch to which M. Downam answereth Ecclesiasticus Canonicall Scripture First that although this booke be very commendable yet it is not of Canonicall authority being but an humane writing as appeareth not only by the former place alleadged but also by that erroneous conceipt concerning Samuel Chap. 46. 23. But that this booke is canonicall he may see manifestly proued in Bellarmine l. 1. de yerbo Dei cap. 10. 14. by the authority of Councells and Fathers Neither could Caluin D. Downams good Maister find any obiection against this booke in particuler though he censured it more hardely then M. Downam doth By which we imagine that it will be an easy matter to answere to these two obiections which M. Downam maketh in this place and indeed they are plaine fooleries and therfore no meruaile though Caluin had wit inough to omit them for what can be more foolish then to deny the authority of Scripture only Downās petitio principij because it fauoureth his aduersary in some questiōs in cōtrouersy Did euer any Heretike deny any part of Scripture with lesse reason then this And for the present question I hope the Reader will remayne satisfied with that which shal be said in this Chapter and for the other of Samuel cap. 46. 13. I remit him to that which Bellarmine writeth lib. 2. de Purgatorio cap. 6. Only I will oppose to M. Downam the authority of S. Augustine who as Bellarmine well noteth hauing bene doubtfull lib. 2. ad Simplicianū q. 3. whether Samuel himselfe appeared to Saul or no affirmed without doubt that it was Samuel lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 15. citing the place of Ecclesiasticus which before he had omitted M. Downams second answere is that in neither place it is said that either of them should come to oppose himselfe against Antichrist But what then at least wise it is said that they shall come to appease Gods wrath and to reconcile the hart of the father to the sonne and to restore the Tribes of Israel and of Henoch to giue pennance to Nations all which we learne out of the other places of Scripture by the exposition of the Fathers that it shal be in the tyme of Antichrist not long before our Sauiours second comming and consequently that they shall oppose themselues to Antichrist since he shall striue to drawe both Iewes and Gentills from Christ and they will labour to conuert them to Christ And heere I would haue my Reader note one of M. Downams ordinary shiftes to tell vs what the argument Downās ordinary shifte doth not proue omitting directly to answere to that which it proueth for which it is brought Thirdly he answereth seuerally that Ecclesiasticus in the first place wrote according to the receaued opinion of his tyme which in M. Downams opinion was Eccles 48. false But surely we haue no reason to belieue him better then Ecclesiasticus and the Iewes of his tyme who were no doubt the true people of God which whatsoeuer M. Downam may perswade himselfe by his speciall Faith others will greatly doubt of him and as for our Sauiours and the Prophet Malachies wordes we haue and shall sufficiently proue that they were not against Ecclesiasticus nor the receaued opinion of his tyme as neither against vs who all agree that Elias in person and litterally is to come before Downam condemneth Ecclesiasticus the Iewes of his tyme. the second comming of our Sauiour And surely M. Downam is to bould with Ecclesiasticus and those of his tyme to attribute vnto them the errours of those Iewes which liued in our Sauiours
forsake all worldly thinges yea imbrace death it selfe not to haue this happines differed for very few so long as they liue in this world haue their spirituall eyes so cleere as to haue so great and effectuall a conceyt of Caluin thinketh that only Christ is in Heauen that others stay without Heauen and those which haue are of those perfect who easilie conforme themselues to Gods blessed will in this all other things And heere likewise I might put M. Downam in mind that his great Maister Caluin l. â— Instit cap. 20. § 20. affirmeth that only Christ is entred into the Sanctuarie of Heauen and all other stay without in the Court and there expect vntill the end of the world And § 24. he saith that the soules of the Saintes haue faith still as we haue which being soe no doubt he must needes thinke that they enioy not the visioÌ„ of God in which our essentiall happines consisteth So that in this mans opinion there is no great difference betwixt Henoch and Elias and other Saintes But I am glad to see M. Downam leaue his Maister in this would to God he would do so in the rest also that my ioy for him might be complete Another trifling obiection of M. Downam is that S. Iohn mentioneth neither Enoch nor Elias As though it were not sufficient that the holie Fathers expound it so and that the circumstances are such as that they cannot with anie shew of probability be applied to anie other which is the reason that he himselfe onlie goeth about to impugne but dares Downam dareth not defend his fellowes not take vpon him to defeÌ„d his fellow heretikes expositioÌ„s which Bellarmine coÌ„futeth nor bring any other of his owne And surelie it is a great wonder that in the Apocalyps S. Iohn should be so ouerseene as to speake so darkelie that he would leaue out the names of these two witnesses Fir allie he threatneth Bellarmine with another answere saying But if I should adde that Bellarmine cannot prooue that this place treateth of Antichrist but rather of the Beast with seauen heades arising out of the sea that is the Romayne State either generallie or speciallie vnder the Emperours as may be gathered by comparing verse 2. 7. of the 11. Chap. with the 1. and 5. of the 13. I would then know to what purpose he alleadgeth this text to prooue that Enoch and Elias shall come against Antichrist if neither the one nor the other be heere meant Well Syt put Bellarmine to prooue this when you will and you shall see how many Authors he will bring you to prooue that both these places are to be vnderstood of Antichrist for the later which you thinke most hard you may take a view of those which he cited in the former Chapter where I also added a few more And this proofe shall suffice for this tyme for before you and I part I doubt not wee shall discusse this matter more fully 7. After that M. DownaÌ„ hath thus substantiallie answered Bellarmines first argument out of the Scripture he commeth to the Fathers whom he will soone dispatch and send theÌ„ Downam reiecteth the Fathers packing for first seeing that they all consent about the coÌ„ming of Elias his aÌ„swere is in plaine wordes to tell theÌ„ that they were all deceaued but yet he doth them so much fauour as to confesse that they had reason to be so because they followed the corrupt translation of the 72. who Malach. 4. v. 5. reade Elias the Thesâ—ite so that now all the fault is layd by M. Downam vpon these Interpreters at which the latin Interpreter of Ecclesiasticus hath good cause to reioyce since by this meanes Downam reiecteth the 72. Interpreters his case is no worse then that of these 72. Interpreters who yet were approued by our Sauiour himselfe and his Apostles who were wont to cite the Scripture as they translated it and all the holy Fathers to expound it also as vndoubted Scripture and this place in particuler was approued by S. Hierome in his traslation of the 70. as also in his Commentaries and by S. Cyril and Theodoretus ibidem S. Augustine l. 20. de ciuit cap. 22. where he also saith that the 70. Interpreters prophetice interpretati sunt did interprete as Prophets and not as bare Interpreters And lib. 18. cap. 42. he acknowledgeth in them vniuersally mirabilem ac stupendum planéque diuinum in eorum verbis fuisse consensum that there was an admirabley wonderfull yea manifestly a diuine consent in their The 72. Interpreters not to be reiected wordes And a little after reuerà spiritus erat vnus in omnibus verily they had all one spirit to wit the spirit of truth and of prophesy with which the Scriptures were first written conformably to which S. Hierome praesat in Paralip acknowledgeth that the 70. did adde some thinges vel ob decoris gratiam velob Spiritus sancti authoritateÌ„ either for ornament or for the authoritate of the Holy Ghost But this place in particuler is likewise approued by Euthymius in Matth. 17. Arethas in Apoc. 11. and finally by S. Chrysostom hom 58. in Matth. where he also saith Vides exactam c. Thou seest the exact diligence of the Prophets prediction for because S. Iohn might also be called Elias for the likenes of the mystery to auoyde confusion he added the Countrey calling him Elias the Thesbite for S Iohn was no Thesbite Secondly he saith that some Author disagre about Enochs comming in whose place they put either Elizaeus or Moyses or Hieremy But what is this to the purpose since Bellarmines argument hath still the same force For all consent that Elias is to come and as yet he is not come and besides the common opinion is that Enoch shall come with him though perhaps it bee not altogeather so certaine of him as of Elias Lastly he would make vs belieue that among all the ancient which Bellarmine citeth only S. Gregory is alleadged to the purpose whose authority he reiecteth with a scoffe But this is to shew himselfe in his colours that is a ridiculous scoffing Minister For any man that hath but morall honesty Downam scoffeth at S. Gregory cannot choose but much condemne this his prophane spirit to contemne this Saintes auctority because he morally expouÌ„deth a place of Scripture with the receaued doctrine of the Church not prouing it out of that place but only affirming that by a morall application those wordes might haue that sense which the very title of that whole booke might haue giuen this Minister to vnderstand if he had either wit in his head or honesty in his hart VVell he is content to graunt that S. Gregory was flat for Bellarmine But why doth he deny it of the rest Surely it is hard to imagine since their wordes are so plaine and therfore till he giueth vs a reason we may iustly thinke that he hath none but was willing
opinion is that Antichrist shal be borne of the Tribe of Dan so affirme S. Irenaeus l. 5. S. Hippolytus Martyr orat de mundi consummat S. Ambrose l. de benedict Patriarch c. 7. S. Aug. quaest 22. in Iosue S. Prosper de promission praedict Dei part 4. Theodoret. quaest 109. in Gen. S. Greg. l. 31. moral c. 18. Beda Rupertus Arethas Richardus Ansel in Apoc. c. 7. They proue it out of Genesis 49. Fiat Dan coluber in via cerastes in semita c. and ex Hier. 8. Ex Dan audiuimus fremitum equorum eius c. Finally because Apoc. 7. where 12000. are signed by the Angel out of euery Tribe of the children of Israel the Tribe of Dan is omitted which seemeth to be done in hatred to Antichrist This opinion is very probable for the authority of so many Fathers and yet not altogeather certayne both because many of these Fathers do not say that they know it but insinuate it to be probable as also for that none of those Scriptures do conuynce For first Gen. 49. Iacob seemeth to speake litterally of Sampson when he saith Let Dan be made a Snake in the way an horned Serpent in the path and let him byte the heeles of the horse that the ryder may fall backeward For Sampson was of the Tribe of Dan and he was truly like a snake in the way to the Philistians for he met them in euery place and vexed them So S. Hierome expoundeth it in quaest Hebr. and surely Iacob seemeth to wish well to his Sonne when he saith these wordes and therefore not to foretell euill but good And if it be allegorically applyed to Antichrist it can be but a probable argument such as is drawne out of mysticall senses And without doubt Hieremie cap. 8. speaketh not of Antichrist nor of the Tribe of Dan but of Nabuchodonosor who was to come to ouerthrow Hierusalem through the Country which was called Dan as S. Hierome rightely expoundeth it vpon that place Now why Dan is omitted Apoc. 7. is vnknowne especially since Ephraim also is omitted whose Tribe is one of the greatest Besides these two probable assertions there are other two most certaine the one that Antichrist shall chiefly come for the Iewes and shal be receaued by them as the Messias The other that he shal be borne of the Nation of the Iewes and be circumcised and obserue the Sabboth at least for a tyme. This is proued first out of the Ghospell Ioan. 5. where our Lord saith to the Iewes I came in the name of my Father and you haue not receaued me if another come in his owne name him you will receaue Which place that it ought to be vnderstood of Antichrist we haue proued before cap. 2. Likewise out of the Apostle 2. Thessal 2. Because they haue not receaued the charity of Truth that they may be saued therefore God shall send them the operation of Errour that they may belieue a lye c. Caluin and other Heretikes in their Commentaries vpon these words expound this place of vs who because we haue not receaued their Ghospell are suffered to be seduced by the Antichrist of Rome But first they bring forth no witnesses but we haue all the Interpreters of our side who expound it of the Iewes See S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome Theodoretus Theophilactus Oecumenius Besides these S. Hierome quaest 11. ad Algasiam saith thus Antichrist shall doe all these thinges not with power but by the permission of God for the Iewes that because they would not receaue the charity of Truth that is the spirit of God by Christ that receauing our Sauiour they may be saued God shall send them not the worker but the worke or operation that is the fountayne of Errour that they may belieue a lye c. And also without the Commentaries of so many Fathers the thing it selfe speaketh that the Apostle speaketh of the Iewes for he saith that Antichrist is to be sent to those who would not receaue Christ Now who ought more and would not receaue Christ then the Iewes Where it is also to be noted that the Apostle sayd not because they will not receaue the Truth but because they haue not receaued Wherfore he speaketh of them who would not belieue when Christ and the Apostles preached Now it is manifest that in the Apostles tyme the Gentills receaued the Ghospell with exceeding great desire and the Iewes would not receaue it Moreouer besides S. Hierome the others already alleaged all the other Fathers teach the same as S. Irenaeus lib. 5 S. Hippolytus Mart. orat de cōsummatione mundi Theodoret in epit diuin decret cap. de Antichristo Sulpit. ex B. Martino l. 2. dial S. Cyril catech 15. S. Hilar. can 25. in Matth. S. Ambros l. 10. in Luc. in cap. 21. S. Chrysost S. August S. Cyril Alex. in cap. 5. Ioan. S. Gregor lib. 31. moral cap. 10. S. Damascen lib. 4. c. 28. And reason also perswadeth the same For without doubt Antichrist shall first ioyne himselfe to those who are ready to receaue him But the Iewes are of this sort who expect their Messias a temporall King as Antichrist shal be But the Christians expect indeed Antichrist but with feare and terrour not with ioy and desire Wherefore as Christ came first to the Iewes to whome he was promised and of whome he was expected and afterward drew the Gentills also vnto him So also Antichrist shall come first to the Iewes of whome he is expected and after by little and little shall subiect all Nations vnto him Now that Antichrist shal be a Iew and circumcised it is certaine and deduced out of that which hath ben sayd for the Iewes would neuer receaue one that were no Iew or that were vncircumcised for their Messias Yea because the Iewes expect their Messias of the family of Dauid and the Tribe of Iuda without doubt Antichrist although he be truly of the Tribe of Dan will faigne himselfe to be of the family of Dauid Secondly all the Ancients teach most cleerly that Antichrist shal be a Iew as those 12. alleadged a little before who say that he shal be of the Tribe of Dan and besides S. Ambrose who in 2. Thess 2. affirmeth that he shal be circumcised and S. Hierome who in cap. 11. Dan. saith that he shal be borne of the people of the Iewes and S. Martin apud Sulpit. l. 2. dial that Antichrist shall commaund that all be circumcised according to the law of Moyses and S. Ciryl who Cateches 15. affirmeth that he shal be very carefull of the Temple of Hierusalem that he may shew himselfe to be of the progeny of Dauid Finally S. Gregory who lib. 11. ep 3. saith that Antichrist shal be a reuerencer of the Saboth and other Iewish Cerimonies Hence we haue a most euident demonstration that the Pope is not Antichrist For from the yeare 606. in which our Aduersaryes say that Antichrist came it is manifest
that no Pope was a Iew neither by Nation nor by Religion nor in any sort It is also manifest that the Pope was neuer yet receaued by the Iewes for the Mesias but contrary wise is accompted their enemy and chiefe perfecutor Wherefore they in their daily prayers aske of God that he will giue the Pope thē liuing a good mind towards the Iewes and that in his daies he will send the Messias viz. that he may deliuer them out of the Popes power and they call a Bishop as chiefly the Pope is in the Syrian language Zanbon which signifieth a Tayle and is opposite to an head for because we call the Bishop the Head of the people they contrary wise call him the Tayle in reproach so farre are they off from being ready to receaue the Pope for their Messias Finally Rab. Leui Gerson cap. 7. and 11. Dan. expoundeth all those thinges which are spoken of Antichrist of the Pope whom also he calleth another Pharao and opposeth him to the Messias which is to come See orationes Mahasor sol 26. M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted 1. TO this Argument first M. Downam obiecteth in generall that in all this dispuration Bellarmine presupposeth See cap. ◠that Antichrist is but one singular person which though it were trne yet he did presuppose nothing but what he had proued before which I remit to the Readers iudgement Downams absurdity But now indeed this argumēt presupposeth no such thing but is of much moreforce if we speake of many then if we speake only of one for it is most euident that neither all the Popes since 607. were Iewes not that the Iewes haue receaued them as their Messias both which thinges shal be verified in Antichrist be he one man or many as Bellarmine most certainely proueth Secondly M. Downam noteth briefely three pointes out of the errours which Bellarmine reiecteth First his cunning in that he imitateth crafty tradesmen who being desirous to vtter their bad wares at a good price first shew those that are worse that the naughtines of the worse may comnend and set forth those that be not so bad But where M. Downam learnt this cunning or of what tradesmen I know not except he meaneth those of his owne profession but sure I am that no tradesman can deale more plainely and sincerely then Bellarmine doth telling vs what wares are so bad that by no meanes they are to be delt withall Againe what wares are likely to be very good Bellarmines sincere dealing but yet some doubt may be made of them which he declareth and vrgeth to the vttermost Finally what they are also that are out of all question being generally warranted by all the most skilfull and honest Merchants This is Bellarmines proceding in this and all other difficulties as the Reader may easily perceaue by perusing his workes and in particuler this place Now how this can be disliked by any good and substantiall chapman I cannot imagine only some crafty and deceiptfull Merchant may be hindered thereby to vtter his broken trash and therefore out of enuy cauill at him as M. Downam doth His second note is that S. Hippolytus is the Father of one of these errors vpon whose counterfaite authority saith M. Downam the Papists in other points concerning this controuersy do so muchrely But it M. Downam had asmuch wit as he hath malice he might haue noted out of this place in what manner we esteeme the authority of any Father though neuer so ancient or graue viz. if he holdeth any thing against all the rest and against a plaine place of Scripture in the interpretation of which all the rest agree we altogeather reiect the authority of that Father If he affirmeth any thing without euident proofe How Catholikes esteeme of the Fathers in which the rest are silent and yet he hath probability for that he saith we admit of his authority as probable and this so much the more or lesse as we find more or fewer of his opinion or that they affirme it with more certainty and resolution or bring better proofes for that they say But yet so long as we find any controuersy among the Fathers or that they vary in their expositions of any place of Scripture we hould it not altogeather certayne that the greater part affirme except the matter be decided by the successours of S. Peter and the other Pastors of the Church to whome it doth belong to decyde and define such controuersies But when all the Fathers agree it were more then rashenes yea plaine madnesse to goe against the whole streame of all antiquity either in opinions belonging to faith or in the exposition of the Scripture And by this M. Downam may see that though we esteeme the authority of S. Hippolytus much yet it alone is no certayne ground of our Faith though we are farre from reiecting him altogeather or calling him counterfaite as M. Downam doth without any other reason then that he displeaseth him as commonly all other Fathers doe M. Downams third obseruation is that these opinions which Bellarmine calleth errours shew into what absurdities men doe fall when as they will needes be comparing Christ with Antichrist as the Papists in many things doe But he should haue added that these absurdityes fall out when these comparisons are made without any sound or sufficient ground which the Papists do not in any thing at all as appeareth plainely by this whole Treatise and may in part be gathered by this that Bellarmine reiecteth those conceipts that were only grounded vpon these similitudes because they were only builded vpon them and are repugnant to other former groundes 2. Thus M. Downam passeth ouer the errors and commeth to the two probable opinions about which he liketh Bellarmines iudgement well inough in that he thinketh M. Downams iugling neither of them certain but maketh no mention of the other part in which he affirmeth that the latter is very probable for the authority of the Fathers M. Downam liketh also so well of Bellarmines interpretation of the two first places of Scripture that he would challeng them to be his owne or at least to belong to his fellows For in the first he plainely saith that Bellarmine answereth with them and in Gen. 49. Ierem. 8. the second he relateth it so cunningly that if the Reader be not very wary he will easily thinke that Bellarmine were against S. Hierome and that M. Downam had found it out In the third place M. Downam goeth against Bellarmine affirming that the trybe of Ephraim is not left out but vnderstood by the Tribe of Ioseph in which I like his iudgement very well for indeed as Ribera and others vpon this The tribe of Ephraim not omitted Apoc. 7. place proue very well the Tribe of Ephraim is in other places called the Tribe of Ioseph as Psal 77. Ezech. 27. Amos 5. and the reason is because though Ephraim were the yonger brother yet he was preferred
the Tribe of Dan then of divers other Tribes whose Genealogyes were also omitted in that place and therefore no meruaile though the Fathers made no inference out of this as M. Downam and some of his friends not very wisely doe 3. M. Downam hauing thus agreed with Bellarmine in not admitting the Fathers opinion in this point though he differeth in this that Bellarmine thinketh it very probable for their authority which he doth not he would by this president prooue that they may lawfully reiect the Downam impugneth the Fathers authority Fathers authority in all other pointes cōcerning Antichrist when it seemeth to them the Fathers alleadge not the Scriptures in their true sense But first M. Downom must remember that an vniuersall is not to be inferred from a particuler Secondly Bellarmine reiecteth not the authority of these Fathers but admitteth their opinion as probable which is asmuch as they themselues for the most part affirmed and so indeed Bellarmine followed them so farre as they would haue him Thirdly Bellarmine had the authority of some Fathers for his exposition of the two first places and therefore he might well follow their opinion especially since most of the other did rather follow the mysticall then the litterall sense In the third place where he brought no authority for himselfe M. Downam did rightely correct him shewing his instance to be very probable though still there remayneth some question why Ephraim was not named as well as Manasses but comprehended vnder the name of Ioseph Fourthly therefore M. Downam hath no reason to reiect all the Fathers when they agree without contradiction or doubt nor to make himself wiser then he is to take vpon him to vnderstand the Scripture better then they all yea though their arguments out of the Scripture should be only from the mysticall sense yet he may well assure himselfe that they would neuer be so resolute except they had some other good ground of diuine or Apostolicall tradition known by them to haue ben taught by the Apostles and from their tyme from age to age conserued in the Church for which reason I also incline to thinke that it is in a manner certayne that Antichrist shal be of the Tribe of Dan since so many Fathers affirme it without contradiction of any 4. But let vs passe ouer this argument as Bellarmine doth making it only probable and not certayne and come to those others that are most euident and certayne Against which M. Downam first obiecteth that Antichrist shall not be one singular man which I haue already shewed to be both false and impertine◠Secondly he saith that these opinions may be num 1. disproued by Scripture because Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God that is shall raigne in the Church of Christ But of this we shall See Cap. 13. haue occasion to treat afterward Besides saith he Bellarmine confesseth that Antichrist shal be the head of the Apostasy that is backesliding Christians Ergo not of the Iewes But M. Downam might easily haue considered that Antichrist may be the head of both as Bellarmine affirmeth After this he noteth that Antichrist shal be head of the Roman State and haue his Seate in Rome which how true it is we shall see afterward Now I would See cap. 13. faine know why a Iew may not haue both these cōditions Lastly M. Downam would know when the Iewes shal be called to Christ To which I answere that some shal be called in Antichrists raigne but the most after his fall which shal be not long before the end of the world as we haue already seene in part 5. Thus hath this wise man shot his bolt and now he holdeth vp his buckler to beare off Bellarmines Artillery and first to the testimony of S. Iohn 5. 43. he saith that he hath proued before that our Sauiour speaketh not absolutely but conditionally Io. 5. not definitely but indefinitely and only of the Iewes present which Cap. 2. are dead long since but all these shiftes are confuted long since at large and therefore it were needeles to repeat them or confute them heere againe 6. The second testimony 2. Thess 2. troubleth him somewhat more and therefore his tongue runneth at randome 2. Thess 2. explicating the place at large after his owne fancy and railing against Catholikes but obiecteth nothing worth the answering the most that he hath to the purpose is that the Apostles wordes may be applyed to all others that follow Antichrist aswell as to the Iewes In which we will not stand with him but now our question is whether the Iewes be included in these wordes or no and Bellarmine saith they are and that chiefly and this he proueth out of the Scripture it selfe First because none ought more and would lesse receaue Christ then the Iewes 7. To which M. Downam answereth not a word but that the Rhemists confesse that others may be said not to receaue the loue of the Truth also But what is this to the purpose Doe the Rhemists or can any other deny that none refused more to receaue the loue of the Truth then the Iewes And yet this is all the answere that M. Downam giueth but falleth into a rage and railing againe like a man more then halfe beside himselfe yet after a while he commeth to himselfe againe and returneth to Bellarmines second proofe out of the Scripture where he noteth that the Apostle speake in the preter tense of the refusers to receaue the Truth and in the future tense of the comming receauing of Antichrist out of which he inferreth that he is to be vnderstood of the Iewes who were they that chiefly had refused to receaue Christ in the Apostles tyme. To which M. Downam answereth that this preter tense is not to be referred to the tyme of the Apostles writing but to the tyme of their punishment By which as you see he maketh the preter and future tense all one or at least ioyneth them togeather expounding the later part of the Apostles words in English thus That all may be condemned that shall not haue belieued the Truth but shall haue delighted in iniquity and willing vs to conferre this place with Mar. 16. 16. which he likewise expoundeth in the same manner He that shall haue belieued and shall haue ben baptized shal be saued but he that shall not haue belieued shal be condenmed though in both places he is inforced to confesse that the greeke is the preter tense and he dareth not translate it otherwise howsoeuer he expoundes it So that vnlesse we will stand to M. Downam◠exposition rather then to the wordes of the Scripture we are to vnderstand all this of the preter tense only as the condemnation and the receauing of Antichrist in the future tense only which is a plaine signe that all this is not to be vnderstood of the same tyme as is also euident by the thing it selfe for men refuse to belieue and
to be baptized in this life when they are preached vnto but they are condemned in the other life when all Sermons are at an end for them And this out Sauiours words signify most exactely if M. Downams commentary be taken away And yet the matter is more cleere in the words which Bellarmine vrgeth in which there is no Participle in the Greeke as in the places which M. Downam compareth but the Verbe it selfe which cannot well be vnderstood but of things truly past as neither the Verbe in the future tense but of thinges truly to come and since the Apostle limitteth not that preter tense to any other tyme as our Sauiour doth it must be vnderstood to signify that which was past before the tyme of his writing But M. Downam obiecteth further that if Bellarmine will needes vrge the preter tense as though the Apostle meant that Antichrist should be receaued only of those who before that tyme had reiected the truth he must withall hould that Antichrist shal be receaued in the end of the world of those who dyed aboue 1500. yeares since But this is both a false and friuolous obiection false because it addeth the word Downam falsifieth Bellarmines wordes only which Bellarmine hath nor for he neuer went about to prooue that only the Iewes should receaue Antichrist but that they should receaue him friuolous because the Apostle Bellarmine also speake of the Nation of the Iewes and not of any particuler men as is manifest to any that is not wilfully blinded with malice of which number it grieueth me that M. Downam will needes be one 8. To the authority of the Fathers M. Downam briefly answereth that there is no probability in their assertion or exposition no more then in the former that Antichrist should be of the Tribe of Dan or in their expositions of the places of Scripture which they brought to that effect which sayth he no man now vnles he wil be too ridiculous can vnderstand of Antichrist Where I desire the Reader to cōsider the little accompt that M. Downam maketh of al the Fathers when they make against Downam reiecteth the Fathers him and as for his similitude I haue already shewed how vnlike it is aswell because the Fathers speake not resolutly thēselues in that point as they do in this and also because all the Fathers do not agree in that assertion or exposition And yet M. Downam is very insolent in condemning all for ridiculous which follow the Fathers exposition of those places of Scripture for first there is no doubt but that the two former may be mystically so vnderstood and the last can haue no other probable sense as hath sufficiently appeared Neither is that obiection of his worth the answering by which he would prooue that the Fathers might aswell prooue that Antichrist shall be of the Tribe of Beniamin because of him it is said in the same place that he shall raigne as a wolfe for M. Downam might haue added the other clause which is to be taken in good num 2. part and therfore cannot be applied to Antichrist but to some other who shall change his condition and of a rauening wolfe become a glorious Preacher and Apostle of Christ as S. Paul did of whom some of the Fathers mistically expound those words Wherfore M. Downam must be content though much against his will that both these assertions and expositions haue that probability and certainty which the Fathers affirme that they haue as Bellarmine hath sufficiently declared 9. Lastly to Bellarmines reason M. Downam answereth that Antichrist shall ioyne himselfe not to any whatsoeuer but to those in the Church that are ready to receaue him For proofe wherof he alleadgeth S. Cyprian epist 1. lib. 1. where he affirmeth that the Diuell troubleth the seruants of God and Antichrist impugneth Christians and seeketh not those whome he hath already subdued or desireth to ouerthrow those whome he hath already made his owne c. Which in truth is a strange proofe if you marke it well for M. Downam ridiculously impugneth himselfe Bellarmine speaketh not a word of troubling impugning or ouerthrowing but only of ioyning with the Iewes as with friends and M. Downam to proue that Antichrist shall not ioyne with them so alleadgeth S. Cyprian who affirmeth that he shall impugne Christians Would any man take M. Downam for a Doctor or Reader of Diuinity that should heare him dispute thus grossely bringing quid pro quo and impugning himselfe insteed of his aduersary But let vs pitty his folly and affirme with S. Cyprian and Bellarmine that Antichrist shall impugne Christians and to that effect first ioyne himselfe to the Iewes To Bellarmines minor that the Iewes are ready to receaue Antichrist M. Downam hath nothing to answere directly but only repeateth certaine assertions of his owne that Antichrist shall not be one particuler man c. which haue and shall be confuted in their due places But now M. Downam should haue impugned Bellarmines proofe which is that the Iewes expect a temporall King as Antichrist shall be and not only affirme vpon his bare word that Antichrist shall not b◠such a one as the expected Messias of the Iewes and that there is no necessity that there should such a one come to the Iewes as they expect both which assertiōs are ouerthrown by Bellarmines reasons and other proofes And to the second part that Christians expect Antichrist with feare and terrour M. Downam only answereth that vnsound and back-sliding Christians are ready to receaue Antichrist By which if he meaneth The difference betwixt Christians and Iewes in expecting Antichrist that they are in great danger to be drawne to him by little and little it is very true and that which Bellarmine affirmeth but if he would say that they expect Antichrist with ioy and desire as the Iewes do he is farre wide for the Iewes will receaue him the sooner because he is against Christ which very few Christians though neuer so vnsound will yield to at the first but rather be terrified with the very mention therof as M. Downam may experience amongst Protestants whome we accompt vnsound Christians and the world will testify of all Catholikes whome he taketh to be such Now for his supposition that Antichrist is come and that the Pope is Antichrist we know this to be the question and maine controuersy and therfore cannot but acknowledg M. Downams ordinary fault which is petitio principij 10. M. Downam hauing thus worthily answered Bellarmines first certaine position he commeth to the second which is that Antichrist shall be a Iew which Bellarmine proueth out of his former assertion that the Iewes shall receaue Antichrist which they would neuer do except he Antichrist shall be a Iew. were a Iew. To which M. Downam answereth that he hath ouerthrowne that former assertion which how true it is I remit to the Readers iudgment Secondly he obiecteth that the Herodians receaued Herod
for their Messias but he doth well not The Herodians to stand vpon this for the solution is euident for these Herodians were a few flattering Courtiers now we speake of the whole Nation of the Iewes and chiefly of those great Rabbynes who professe so great knowledge in Scripture which teacheth most euidently that the Messias is to be of the Iewish nation and the Tribe of Iuda though for this second they cannot now much striue because their Genealogies are so confounded and so it will be no hard matter for Antichrist to be taken for one of the Tribe of Iuda though indeed he be of the Tribe of Dan. To the authority of the Fathers he answereth according Downam reiecteth the Fathers to his custome that they are not to be belieued in this point which hath no ground in the word of God and still he insisteth vpon Bellarmines reiecting the twelue Fathers which affirmed that Antichrist should be of the Tribe of Dan for the same reasons But he abuseth both Bellarmine and the Fathers as the Reader may easily see Bellarmine for he reiecteth not the Fathers authority but imbraceth it as very probable which was as much as the most of them affirmed The Fathers because he reiecteth them all in a thing wherin they agree as certaine which they would neuer do without some certaine ground either of Apostolicall tradition or Scripture and reason which Bellarmine hath sufficiently explicated in his former assertion Finally M. Downam briefly passeth ouer the opposition which Bellarmine sheweth that the Iewes haue against the Pope because he was ashamed to see what Iewes the Protestants are in this behalfe but yet he is content to take hold of their application of the Prophesies of Daniel against the Pope because they are no parties and therfore their authority The Iews opposite to the Pope may be some inducement to thinke indeed that the Pope is Antichrist where I could wish the Reader to marke attentiuely the great connexion betwixt Iewes and Protestants in this point of impugning the Pope though vpon different grounds For if you examine a Iew why he is so eager against the Pope he will tell you that it is because he hateth Christ himselfe and for his sake all Christians but chiefly the Pope who is the chiefe of them Againe if you How the Iewes and the Protestāts agree and differ in impugning the Pope pose M. Downam with the same question why he cannot abide the Pope He will tell you another tale that it is because he loueth Christ and all true Christians to whome he thinketh the Pope and his adherents to be most opposite And is it not strange that these men should ioyne in the expositions of Scripture Yea that M. Downam should take the Iew to be no party against the Pope but an indifferent man and therfore thinketh his exposition fit to be some inducement to make men belieue his doctrine Is it not too plaine that M. Downam is in the high way to deny Christ howsoeuer he protesteth the contrary since he hateth the Pope whome the Iewes only detest out of their malice to Christ himselfe True it is that the consequence is not so necessary from the hatred of the Pope to the hatred of Christ as contrariwise but yet he that is come so farre as to hate Christs most principal seruant in the highest degree and with vnplacable hatred may easily be carried a step further except God giue him grace to turne back in time which I most hartily wish for M. Downam himselfe and all others that are in that most miserable and dangerous estate THE THIRTENTH CHAPTER Of Antichrists Seate TOVCHING the sixt saith Bellarmine our Aduersaries bouldly affirme that the chiefe Seat of Antichrist is Rome or the Apostolike Chaire founded there for they say that Antichrist shall inuade the Sea of Peter and raise it vp to a certaine soueraigne height from the which it shall rule and tyranniclly gouerne the whole Church And that Rome is the Kingly Citty of Antichrist they proue out of Apoc. 17. where S. Iohn speaking of the Seate of Antichrist saith that it is the great Citty which is scituated vpon seauen hills and which hath the Kingdome ouer the Kings of the earth And that at Romè not in the pallace of Nero but in the very Church of Christ Antichrist shall haue his Seate they proue out of S. Paul who 2. Thess 2. saith that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God for since he saith absolutly in the Temple of God he meaneth the true Temple of the true God and there is none such but the Church of God For the Temples of the Gentiles are true Temples but of the Diuels not of God And the Temple of the Iewes was indeed of God but it ceased to be a Temple when the Iewish sacrifice and Priesthood ceased for these three are so ioyned that one cannot be without the other Besides the Temple of the Iewes within a while after was to be desolated and neuer to be bult againe as Dan. cap. 9. saith and the desolation shall perseuere till the consummation and the end Wherfore the Apostle cannot speake of it And this argument is confirmed out of the Fathers S. Hierome quaest 11. ad Algasiam He shall sit saith he in the Temple of God either at Hierusalem as some thinke or in the Church as we thinke more truly and Oecumenius He saith not saith he the Temple of Ierusalem but the Churches of Christ Theodorus Bibliander addeth the testmony of S. Greg. who l. 4. ep 38. ad Ioan. Constantinopolitanū saith The king of pride is nigh and which is impious to be spoken an army of Priests is prepared for him Out of which words a double argument is drawne one thus Iohn of Constantinople is sayd to forerun Antichrist because he will be called the vniuersall Bishop therfore he shall be Antichrist who in very deed shall make himselfe the Vniuersall Bishop and shall sit in the Church as the head of all The other thus The army of Antichrist shall be Priests therfore Antichrist shall be the head of Priests By which arguments the heretikes thinke that they euidently shew that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist since he ruleth at Rome sitteh in the Temple of God and is called the vniuersall Bishop and is the Prince of Priests Notwithstanding the true opinion is that Hierusalem and not Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist and the Temple of Salomon and Throne of Dauid not the Temple of S. Peter or the Sea Apostolike which we can proue in two sorts First with an argument ad hominem Secondly out of the Scripture and Fathers First then I make this argument Antichrist shall sit in the Church of Christ and shall be accompted the Prince head of his Church and shall haue Magistracy and offices in it as Philippus Melanctonin apologia art 6. confess Augustanae Caluinus lib. 4. Iustit cap. 2. § 12. cap. 7.
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
figure of Petitio principij not only without any proofe as commonly he vseth it but against euident proofe which also he is forced to do now and then His second solution is that these notes agree also to Popish Rome both in respect of dominion vsurped more insolently ouer the Kings of the earth by the Pope then by any Emperour and in regard of most cruell persecution of the Saintes of Christ To which impudent assertion of his I see not what The Pope hath only a spiritual power ouer Princes other answere can be giuen but to refer the matter to the Readers iudgment who will easily perceaue that the Pope hath now only a spirituall power ouer Kings aswell as ouer other Christians for the good of their soules without exacting or vsurping any temporall dominion ouer their persons or estates as the old Roman Emperours did to whome they were Tributary if not altogeather subiect and whatsoeuer the Pope doth in temporall affaires it proceedeth from his spirituall authority to which no doubt temporall things do so farre belong as they may hinder or help the good of soules and no further as is largely explicated by Cardinall Bellarmine and other Catholike Deuines And as for M. Downams Saints which the Pope doth persecute I am content to referre the decision of this question whether Christian Rome may be called Babylon or no till he hath shewed vs an authenticall canonization of these his Saints and in the meane time it shall be also as certane that Ethnick Rome is meant by Babylon as that those blessed Martyrs which died in those daies were truly the Martyrs of Christ and glorious Saints 9. Thus much M. Downam thought sufficient to reply to Bellarmines answeres of their first argument and comming to the second where they contend that Antichrist shall sit in the Church of Christ because S. Paul saith that he shal sit in the temple of God he is content to let passe Bellarmines solution to the first proofe that the Apostle vnderstood the Church of Christ by the Temple of God which was because when the Apostle wrote there was no other Temple of God but the Church of Christ since that the Temple of the Iewes was ceased to be a Temple when the Iewish Sacrifice and Priesthood ceased To which Bellarmine answered that though it had ceased to be the Iewish Temple yet it ceased not forth with to be the Temple of God but belonged to the Christians so long as it remained as he proueth Downam omitteth Bellarmin his answere out of the Scriptures To which as I said M. Downam hath not one word for which cause I might also haue passed it ouer in silence but that I promised a little before to shew in this place how the Temple of Ierusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of God which as you see is no hard matter to do since that he speaketh of it as it was in his time whē it was most truly the Temple of God and besides since Antichrist shall build it againe for the Iewes and pretend not to withdraw them from the true God but to professe himself to come from him at least before he discouereth himselfe further the temple erected by him may be called the Temple of God though when he shall sit in it and shew himselfe as God he will professe himselfe to be the true God and so either auouch that he is the God of the Iewes in whose Temple he shall sit or els extoll himselfe aboue him for so much the words of S. Paul do import as we shall see afterward Concerning the place of Daniel M Downam hath foūd his tongue againe and giueth words inough but indeed nothing but words Well he replieth to all Bellarmines answers and to the first he vrgeth our Translation vsque ad consummationem finem perseuerabit desolatio and S. Hierome who saith Dan. 9. vsque ad finem mundi and others whome he nameth not because as it seemeth they were not worth the naming vsque The tēple of Hierusalem shall be built againe in the end of the world ad consummationem eamque praecisam and then he alleadgeth three places of Scripture out of which he inferreth that the word vntill signifieth rather a perpetuity then cessation before the time which seemeth therby to be limited But first we must charge M. Downam with a manifest falsification of Bellarmines words for he alleadgeth them in a different letter thus Danyel would say that the Temple should not bee reedified vntill a little before the end of the world wheras Bellarmines words are these Adillud ex Daniele respondeo vel Daniclem voluisse dicere non esse reedificandum Tēplum Downam corrupteth Bellarmines words nisi in fine mundi To that of Daniel I answere that either Daniel would say that the Temple is not to built againe but in the end of the world and is not this a great shame for a Doctour of Diuinity to be taken in so grosse an absurdity that either he must confesse that he cannot conster two words of latin or els that he is a wilfull falsifier Well now that we haue Bellarmines true words let M. Downam vrge our text and S. Hierome and see if he can pick any more out of them then that the Temple is not to be built againe before the end of the world which Bellarmine affirmeth also and only addeth that it may be Daniel meant that it was to be built in the end of the world but not before But against this M. Downam vrgeth the authoritie of others who add the word pracisam by which we might coniecture that they were some Precisians but whatsoeuer they be if by the precise consummation they meane the indiuisible instant which the Philosophers call vltimum quod non they shew thēselues to be more precise then wise for the Scripture is not to be interpreted so precisely or metaphysically but after the manner of common and ordinary speach as when we say such a man made not his will till his death we meane that he made it then c. And as for the three authorities of Scripture it were no hard matter to find 300. for M. Downams three where it is otherwise taken but now one or two shall suffice as Gen. 49. when Iacob foretould that the Scepter should not be taken from Iuda vntill the comming of Gen. 46. 2. Reg. 1. The word Vntill signifieth neither continuance nor cessation but is indifferent to both the Messias the sense is plaine that it was to be taken from them then yea a little before also if M. Downam will needes vrge that point Likewise 2. Reg. 1. where Dauid and those which were with him are said to haue mourned for Saul and Ionathas c. vsque ad vesperam vntill the euening I hope M. Downam will giue vs leaue to thinke that they left mourning then wherfore it is a fond illation of M. Downam to inferre a perpetuity out of
Antichrist shall be a Sorcerer and after the manner of other Witches shall secretly adore the Diuell himselfe by whose help he shall do wonders and that he is called the God Maozim yea I do not thinke that Maozim is the name of a God but of a ceâ—aine most fortified and secret place in which shall be the chiefest treasures of Antichrist and in which as we said he shal adore the Diuell for it followeth in Daniel And he shall cause Maozim to be sortified with a stong God whome he hath knowne And truely Maoz signifieth both strength and a castle In this sort doth Lyranus expound it and that we must necessarily say that Antichrist is himselfe the God Maozim or if it be any other that he is not to be adored by Antichrist but in a most hidden place and secretly from the knowledge of all the very words of Daniel compel vs which otherwise should be contrary to themselues For if he shall care for none of the Gods how shall he openly worship Idolls Now the two arguments of Illyricus are of no importance for in the first he committeth three faults First in that he affirmeth that Christ explicateth the words of S. Paul wheras rather S. Paul ought to explicate the words of Christ Secondly in that he saith that Matth. 24. To come in the name of Christ doth signify the same as to be the Vicar of Christ For the explication of Christ himselfe is repugnant to this explication of Illyricus for when our Lord had sayd Many will come in my name forth with he addeth explicating saying I am Christ Wherfore to come in the name of Christ in that place is to vsurp to themselues the name of Christ which in old time Simon Magus did as witnesseth S. Iren. lib. 1. cap. 20. and in our time Dauid Georgius and at length Antichrist himselfe shall do But the Pope euen in that he nameth himselfe the Vicar of Christ doth make himselfe not to be Christ Illyricus his third fault is that he maketh Christ an vnfit interpreter of S. Paul for he doth not rightly expound that place of S. Paul He extolleth himselfe aboue all Gods by this many will come in my name that is will make themselues my Vicars for the Vicar of God is not aboue all Gods but vnder all Gods as the Vicar of a King is vnder all Kings for it cannot be imagined or deuised how he that professeth himselfe to be the Vicegerent of any King should boast that he is aboue all Kings by which the blindnesse and impudency of our Aduersaries is apparent who somtime vtter such things as are against common sense And to that argument of Illyricus by which he proued that the Pope did vsurpe greater authority then Christ hath I answere that the proposition and assumption of that argument are two lyes and besides that the consequence is nothing worth For first it is false that Christ subiected himselfe to the Scriptures since that it is manifest that he is the Author of the Scriptures and therfore aboue the Scriptures and when we read that Christ did those things which he did that the Scriptures might be fulfilled that vt or this signifyeth not the cause but the euent as S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine teach in cap. 12. Ioan. for Christ did not dye because Isay wrote so but Isay wrote it because it was to be Secondly it is also false that the Pope euer sayd in word or in dead that he can dispense against an Euangelist or Apostle for though he can dispense in the positiue precepts of the Apostles yet this is not against an Apostle but according to an Apostle who doubtles knew that the Apostolike power by which he ordained something in the Church for a time was to be in his successors by which they might moderate or change the same thinges as should be expedient for the Church But in the Euangelicall that is the diuine percepts no Catholike euer said that the Pope could any way dispense Finally the consequence is naught for in the Maior or Proposition Illyricus speaketh of the subiection of Christ vnder the Scriptures not concerning the precepts but concerning the Prophesies for Illyricus was not ignorant that Christ had taken away the Sabboath and abrogated the Ceremoniall Law in the Minor or Assumption he speaketh of precepts and so his argument hath foure termes and can conclude nothing This shall suffice for the doctrine of Antichrist in this place M. Dovvnams Ansvvere confuted 1. MAISTER Downam beginneth his answere telling vs that there are more Doctrines of Antichrist then foure which Bellarmine denieth not and therfore this is not to the purpose Secondly he sayth that those two doctrines of diuels 1. Tim. 4. of forbidding marriage and commanding abstinence frome meats belong also to Antichrist which Bellarmine will not stick to grant or at least to let passe as being nothing against him or the Pope as may easily be shewed vpon any good occasion But now we haue other foure Doctrines in hand of which M. Downam affirmeth two things First that they are not all the doctrines of Antichrist Secondly that those which be his Doctrines do not vnfitly agree to the Pope Wherfore let vs see how he can make either of these his assertions good or answere Bellarmines proofes to the contrary 2. First then concerning Antichrists deniall of Christ M. Downam denieth that it shall be openly directly and expresly and telleth vs that he hath prouided els where that Antichrist was only to deny Christ couertly indirectely and by Antichrist shall openly deny Iesus to be Christ consequent and that he hath likewise shewed that the Pope doth so Concerning which assertions of his I must craue thus much fauour at the Readers hands that he will not belieue M. Downam vpon his word vntill after the discussion of those proofes he find him to be an honest man for now this place requireth that we examine how he answereth Bellarmines arguments To the first of which M. Downam hath nothing See part 2. cap. 4. §. 6. 7. 8. See cap. 12. at all to say if Antichrist shall be by Nation and Religion a Iew. Which point hath byn already discussed and therfore now the reader is to giue iudgment whether he shall be so or no and consequently whether it be not also manifest by this argument that Antichrist shall deny Christ plainly and openly 3. For answere to the second argument M. Downam denieth that S. Iohn in that place speaketh either of the body of Antichrist 1. Ioan. 2. in generall or of the head of that body in particuler but of Cerinthus and others which denied the Diuinity of Christ as appeareth plainly by that which followeth in the text This is that Antichrist that denieth the Father the Sonne But M. Downam might haue remeÌ„bred how Bellarmine in his second argument obserued that in some places the article was put in and in some left out to signifie when
Antichrist himself was spoken of and when his forerūners or members Wherfore since the article is put heere it is euident that the chiefe Antichrist himself is spoken of Neither is it to the purpose that Cerinthus and other denied the Diuinity of Christ for S. Iohn denieth not but that others may deny it aswell as Antichrist but only affirmeth that he shall deny Iesus to be Christ and likewise the Diuinity both of Christ and his Father which others did indirectly and by consequence as M. Downam confesseth which seemeth not sufficient for that which S. Iohn sayth for he speaketh absolutly and affirmeth that Antichrist shall deny aswell the Diuinity of the Father as of Christ And by this M. Downam may see how he was at least deceaued §. 1. when he affirmed that Bellarmine vnderstood this place of denying of Christ couertly indirectly and by consequence Perhaps when Bellarmine added that all heretikes are called Antichrists Downam mistaketh Bellarmin who in some sort deny Iesus to be Christ M. Downam vnderstood that they were called so in this place But this is a great mistaking since in this place Antichrist is with an article by which Bellarmine gathereth that Antichrist himselfe is spoken of as before where the Apostle saith that many were become Antichrists there is no article and therfore the Apostle speaketh of heretikes Likewise M. Downam is much out of the way when he inferreth that because Antichrist shall come in all deceauablenesse of iniquity as S. Paul affirmeth 2. Thess 2. therefore he shall not deny Christ openly for that seduction or deceauablenesse is vnderstood of his How Antichrist shall seduce subtill and cunning perswasions and not for any moderation in his errours and blasphemies which the greater they shal be the more craft he wil vse to bring men to them and not only craft but also all power and lying signes and wonders as the Apostle testifieth in the same place and finally See cap. 7. most grieuous persecution as we haue seene before Wherfore no doubt besides the authority of S. Iohn Bellarmines inference is very good from the heretikes to Antichrist himselfe for he shall exceed them in opposition to Christ Antichrist shall exceed al heretikes by many degrees so that since they haue denied Christ couertly yea some of them openly also Antichrist shall go as farre and further then any of them in this deniall And though those other comparisons which M. Downam maketh of the parts and points of Christan Doctrine and likewise in respect of the parties which shall ioyne with him and finally in the greatnesse of ambition be also true if they be rightly vnderstood for no doubt Antichrist shall surpasse all heretikes in these also yet this is no proofe that he shall not exceed them likewise in the greatnes of his errours blasphemies which is that that Bellarmine now only affirmeth without the deniall of the rest hath proued both out of the plaine words of S. Iohn and likewise a minori ad maius and thirdly confirmeth it because the Diuell is said to worke the mystery of iniquity by heretikes but the comming of Antichrist is called a reuelation To which M. Downam replieth that the mystery of iniquity 2. Thess 2. 7. is Antichristianisme or that Antichristian Apostasie from Christ mentioned vers 3. But first M. See cap. 2. Downam might remember that Bellarmine in his answere to his third obiection against his second principall argument sheweth that the departure or Apostasy mentioned vers 3 hath diuers interpretations and therfore he should not haue taken this as the only Well we will not stand with him in this since the exposition is probable as Bellarmine declareth in that place but we can by no meanes grant that the mystery of iniquity and this Apostasy is all one since that as we haue shewed before S. Paul himselfe doth euidently See cap. 2. §. 6. The mystery of iniquity the reuelatiō of Antichrist the Apostasy be not alone distingish them affirming that the Apostasy was not come in his time but that the mystery of iniquity did thē worke And in like manner also he distinguisheth the reuelation of Antichrist for of that he likewise sayth that it was to be afterward wherfore I cannot see how M. Downam can affirme that the mystery of iniquity doth most truely belong to Antichrist himselfe vnlesse he would also graunt that Antichrist himselfe was come in S. Pauls time which I think he will be loth to do because if will euidently follow that either the Pope is not Antichrist himselfe or els that S. Peter and S. Paul or whosoeuer els he will make Bishop of Rome in S. Pauls time was Antichrist Wherfore since Antichrist himselfe was not come at that time it is also euident that S. Paul signified his coming by his reuealing because the iniquity which was couered with a mystery before his cōming shall be plainely reuealed and auouched by him which is all that Bellarmine needeth for the force of his argument for now we talke not of the time or manner of this reuelation hauing done that sufficiently in other places But M. Downam must needs say something though it be nothing at all to the purpose 4. M. Downam will needs deuide Bellarmines position into two parts of the former of which we haue treated hitherto the latter is that Antichrist shall impugne all the ordinances of Christ teach that Circumcision the Sabbaoth and the other cerimonies of the law are not ceased This is Bellarmines assertion and not as M. Downam setteth it downe changing a word or two which may seeme to import nothing but yet M. Downam had a meaning in it as we shall see afterward Now the latter dependeth so vpon the former part that Bellarmine bringeth no particuler proofes for it as indeed he need not since it was but an explication of the former yet M. Downam will needs haue him proue Downam his trifling the latter by the former and by the first argument with which he proued the former which is nothing but meere trifeling and to giue himselfe an occasion to make an idle repetition of part of that which he had said before Wherfore omitting this let vs see how he answereth the Fathers To which first in generall he giueth this censure that in this question they descrue no further credit then they conspire with the Prophesies of Scripture and agree with the euent Both which latter you must giue M. Downam liberty to interpret and declare as he thinketh good And besides I would faine know what questions those be in which M. Downam will giue the Fathers credit without this or the like limitations Well the censure presupposed M. Downam is content for this time to vouchsafe euery Father his particuler answere and first to S. Hilary he saith that he calleth those heretikes who deny Christ to Antichrist shall deny Christ to be so much as the adopted Sonne
because the most of them tooke it not to be so and besides they were deuided in the expositioÌ„ of those places of Scripture some of them following the litterall sense and some the mysticall But here is no such diuision all agreeing both in the exposition of Scripture and also in the assertion it selfe 8. And thus we are to passe to the third doctrine For that which M. Downam sayth concerning the assumption is nothing but a little tast of his gift in railing against the Pope in which he is so expert that he cannot hould his babling though it be nothing at all to the purpose as in this place he himselfe confesseth that it is not for he goeth only about to shew that the Pope indirectly and by consequent maketh himselfe Christ Which if it were true would only proue him to be an heretike or a false prophet but not Antichrist himselfe of whome only we speake in this place But how false all this impudent calumniation of our chiefe Pastour is shall appeare in due place to which See part 2. cap. â— also M. Downam remitteth himselfe for his proofes 9. Concerning the third doctrine M. Downam denieth that it is necessary that Antichrist should in word plainely and openly professe himselfe to be God to the place of S. Paul he sayth that the meaning is that Antichrist shall rule raigne in the Church 2. Thess 2. of God as if he were a God vpon earth shewing himselfe not so much by words aâ— by deeds that he is a God and to mantaine this his exposition Antichrist shall openly name himselfe God he is content to helpe himself with the translation of the Rhemish and of the Latin vulgar edition who read tamquam fit Deus as though he were God and likwise with the exposition of S. Chrysostome Theophilact and Oecumenius whose words he putteth downe first in Greeke and after in English thus He sayth shewing himselfe he sayd not saying buâ— endeauouring to shew for he shall worke great works and shall shew forth wonderfull signes Finally he bringeth the authority of Beza who obserueth that the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shewing is answerable to the Hebrew Mozeh faciensse apparere praese ferens or as we say saith M. Downam taking vpon him as if he were God All which maketh nothing at all against Bellarmine but addeth this more that he shall not only say that he is God by which he would not be able to seduce many but shall likewise giue great shews therof insomuch that if it were possible the very elect should be seduced by him But M. Downams deuice is by telling vs that he shall endeauour to shew himselfe to be God by works and wonders to make vs belieue that he shall not be so shameles as to say plainly that he is God which is a very strange conceipt if you marke it well for he confesseth that by his actions he shall come to be acknowledged saluted and called God that he shall cause or at least suffer himselfe to be worshipped as God and finally that he shall challenge vnto himselfe those titles attributes and workes which are proper and peculier vnto the Lord and yet hauing done all this M. Downam wil by no meanes grant that he shall name himself M. DownaÌ„s straÌ„ge paradox God Is not this a strange paradox yet M. Downam will de fend it though it be neuer so absurde only for this cause that he can make a florish amongst fooles as though the Pope did all this but that the Pope calleth himselfe God he can by no deuice make it carry any colour This is the cause why Bellarmine is constrained to stand so much vpon the name so that he may leaue his aduersaries no starting-hole at all And this he manifestly proueth out of the text it selfe for S. Paul expresseth that Antichrist shall sit in the Why and how Antichrist shall sit in the Temple Temple not as others do but as God for if he would not be accompted and adored as God he might as well sit in another place as in the Temple but because that is his end he choseth to sit in the temple as in a place proper to his dignity for as the Throne is proper to a King so is a Temple proper to God and this is plaine in the greeke which hath shewing himselfe that he is God Against this M. Downam taketh many exceptions 1. That the Temple signifieth not the materiall See cap. 13 Temple at Hierusalem of which we haue treated before 2. That by fitting is not meant the corporall gesture of sitting in Apoc. 17. that materiall Temple But how chance he did not answere Bellarmines proofes to the contrary for he shewed that all the Fathers without controuersy vnderstood it so the words themselues are plaine 3. That the Temple is not to be erected to Antichrists honour since it is called the Temple of God This Bellarmine affirmed not for the Temple shall be erected in the beginning when Antichrist shall only discouer himselfe to be the Messias which when he hath obtayned then he shall affirme that he is their God himselfe and consequently that it belongeth to him to sit in that Temple and to be adored as God wherfore the Temple may very well be called the Temple of God because it shall be erected to him yet afterward Antichrist may sit in it as God And besides S. Paul calleth it the Temple of God because it was so in Why the Temple that Antichrist shall sit in is called the TeÌ„ple of God his time 4. That the greeke text hath not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which he hurteth Bellarmine sorely for it is manifest that this maketh his assertion proofs much more plaine since that the same thing is affirmed heere and he speaketh only of the last words which by the latin might seeme to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but is indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Bellarmine affirmeth Wherefore none of those foure deuices will serue the turne and Bellarmines argument is inuincible that Antichrist shall plainely professe himselfe to be God 10. The authorities of the Fathers are so plaine that M. Downam could not deuise what to say to them for they Downam omitteth Bellarmines argument expound a place of Scripture and therfore he could not reiect them vnder pretence of want of Scripture wherfore â—e thought it his best neuer to make mention of them hoping perhaps that his reader would neuer misse them And thus he commeth to the Assumption which is that the Pope acknowledgeth himselfe to be the seruant of God and not God To which he answereth that Bellarmine might as well conclude that the Pope neuer calleth himselfe Regem Regum terrae ac Dominum Dominorum the King of the Kings of the earth and Lord of Lords because he acknowledgeth himselfe Seruum seruorum Dei the Seruant of
Gods seruants As though Bellarmine went about to conclude any thing now and did not only set downe his Assumption in plaine words which containe two things 1. That the Pope acknowledgeth himselfe to be the seruant of God 2. Nor God either of which M. Downam should haue proued to be otherwise if he would haue sayd any See part 2. cap. 5. Downam speaketh from the purpose thing to the purpose for whether the Pope may be called Rex Regum c. or no we shall see in another place where M. Downam will spit out all his venome at once Now it is sufficient that the Pope doth not plainely professe himselfe God as Antichrist shall do consequently he is not Antichrist which is al we go about to proue now In that other place we will also shew how falsly and slaunderously M. Downam affirmeth that the Pope taketh any authority vpon him that belongeth to God or that in practice deed or behauiour he vseth himselfe as if he were a God Now also his beast of the Apocalyps commeth so out of place that I will not stand to proue that by him not Antichrist See cap. 15. §. 10. but his false Prophet is described which I haue heretofore shewed in part and will heerafter declare more at large 11. M. Downam stormeth more at the fourth doctrine then at the rest calling it an absurd conceipt of the Papists and affirming that it is not only repugnant vnto the truth but also contradictory to their owne Doctrine in proofe wherof he asketh many Antichrist wil suffer no other God beside himselfe questions If it be credible either that a mortall man shall affirme himselfe alone to be the true God and none but he or if he shall so affirme of himselfe that Christians and Iewes and all the world almost will acknowledg and worship him as the only true God To which I answere that it is not only credible but also certaine And the difficulty which M. Downam putteth is none at all for there can be no doubt made but that a mortall man may A mortall man may be truely God be true God for so our Sauiour was while he liued vpon earth and now we see the whole Christian world perswaded of this truth though our Sauiours conuersation vpon earth was so contrary to flesh bloud that it was a scaÌ„dall to the Iewes and folly in eyes of the Gentiles wheras Antichrist will follow the humours of both seeming glorious in the eyes of world and wonderfull in lying and deceiptfull signes and myracles and with all giue such liberty to his followers that they will make no difficulty in belieuing any thing he sayth 2. He obiecteth that the Antichristian seate is figured by the whore of Babylon Apoc. 17. which togeather with Apoc. 17. her followers are giuen to Idolatry But M. Downam knoweth that Bellarmine denieth that Rome figured by that whore is the seate of Antichrist and likewise that those Idolatries are to be in Antichrists time but are long since post when Rome was Ethnike both which he proued before and M. See cap. 12. DownaÌ„ either would not or could not answere to either then and now he only affirmeth the contrary which is no sufficient proofe 3. The Papists themselues expound Deut. 11. 38. where Antiochus Epiphanes iâ— discribed as an Idolater as properly spoken of Antichrist where the Printer surely coÌ„mitted an errour though it be not noted amongst the falts escaped for in Deut. 11. there is nothing that can be applyed to Antiochus and only 32. verses wherfore no doubt M. Downam meaneth Dan. 11. Dan. 11. 38. where he speaketh of the God Maozim but this place Bellarmine handleth at large a little after wherfore I will intreat M. Downam and the Reader also to â—â—ay for a further answere till we come to examine M. Downams reply to Bellarmines answere concerning that place 4. He asketh this question Do not themselues teach that Antichrist shall professe himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes and consequently that he is sent and annoynted of God To which I answere that we teach indeed that he shall professe himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes but the consequent we teach not for he shall come in his owne name and not sent or annoynted by God and this he will professe also if not in the beginning yet at least after a while and by this M. Downams next question is also answered for since he shall professe himselfe not sent by God he may say that there is no God besides himselfe 5. Or if he being but a mortall man shall say that there is no God besides himselfe may we not well thinke saith M. Downam that they will either hisse at him as a foole or stone him to death as a blasphemer for answere of which I will spurre M. Downam another question Are you so simple Syr as to thinke that Antichrist will only say that there is no God besides himselfe or that he will discouer himselfe so farre till he see himselfe so applauded that he may say what he listeth without any feare at all of either being hissed or stoned and for that obiection of mortality it is already answered that it may stand with the Godhead and besides Antichrist will make a faire shew of either raising another or himself from death to life which will take away this obiection theÌ„ at heast if any stand vpon it at that time so much as M. Downam doth at this 6. Nay do not themselues teach that he shall be in religion â— Iew an obseruer of the Sabbaoth In Dan. â—â— and other Iewish Cerimonies And do they not alleadg Hierome to proue that Antichrist shall faigne himselfe to be the chiefe of the Couenant and a chiefe mantainer of the Law and Testament of God To all which I answere that we do so for he shall not professe himselfe to be any other God then the God of the Iewes and consequently shall approue their law 7. Lastly he poseth vs thus Are not his two hornes like the lambe expounded by some approued Authers among them of the two Testaments which he shall seeme to professe In Apoc. 13. To which I answere that M. Downam might haue done wel to haue named these approued authors for commonly Catholike authors thinke not that this beast with two horne like a lambe is to be vnderstood of Antichrist but of his precursor or false prophet whom S. Irenaeus calleth ArmigeruÌ„ by whose two hornes are signified his power in perswading and in working prodigious and strange things If any expound them of the two testaments they can haue no other true sense but that he shall professe great knowledg in both to establish the old and impugne the new that so he may preuaile with them the better which are lâ—ath to forsake Christ for the authority of the Scriptures 12. Now that M. Downam hath disgorged his owne proofes he is content to answere
the great which Appianus in Ciriaco and Clemens Alexandrinus in protreptico seeme to think to haue bene dedicated to Venus though the more probable opinion is that it was the temple of Diana but this is no proofe at all that he impugned Diana for religion or in Syria for he might haue pretended to haue brought that treasure from Persia where that temple was into his owne couÌ„try for certaine it is that he sought after the treasure not esteeming to whome it did belong wherefore we read of no such matter that he did in Syria it selfe though he had Daphne so neere him yea to omit the testimony of Polybius which M. Downam mentioned § 13. the Scripture speaketh of him still as of one that worshipped many Idolls but destroyed none for there is in diuers places mention of his Idolls 1. Mach. 1. 45. 50. besides that abhominable Idoll which was placed in the temple vpon the Altar v. 57. which seemeth to be the Idoll of Iupiter Olympius mentioned 2. Mach. Antiochus worshipped many Gods 6. v. 2. where also the Scripture speaketh of Iupiter Hospitalis placed in Garizim and v. 7. there is expresse mention made of the feasts of Bacchus which he caused the Iewes to celâ—brate and 2. Machab. 4. of Sacrifices to Hercules Finally there were other Idolls placed vpon the hill Modin as is plaine out of 1. Mach. 1. v. 23. which place M. Downams great frend Porphyry would needes haue had to be vnderstood by Maozim for which S. Hierome worthily laughed him to scorne as no doubt he would haue done M. Downam for his new and most absurd interpretation In which notwithstanding he proceedeth so far that he is not afraid altogeather to corrupt and alter the text to that end for thus he translateth the 38. v. And as touching the God Mahuzzim that is the God Almighty and there he pauseth in his place he will honour euen a God whome his Fathers knew not will he honour with gold and with siluer with precious stones and with Iewells and ver 39. he shall commit the munitions of Mahuzzim that is of the Almighty vnto a strang God where you see altogeather a new text quite contrary to that Downam corrupteth the text of S. Hierome for this is the pertinacy of heretikes that when they can by no meanes interprete the text according to their fancy they will rather alter the text it selfe then leaue their owne opinion or interpretations But any wise man will easily see that S. Hierome was both more learned and more indifferent then M. Downam and besides who knoweth not that the hebrew text may be altered by diuers pointings which M. Downam will no doubt vse to his owne aduantage And yet after all this he cannot frame his new text to his new interpretation except he suppose that Antiochus was the first in Syria which euer worshipped Iupiter Olympius which wil be very hard for him to do Neither is iâ— to the purpose to tell vs that the Syrians worshiped Apollo and Diana for this is no proofe that they worshiped not Iupiter and others also as we may plainly see by that which hath bene said that they did Bacchus and Hercules c. And Strabo whom he citeth doth not only tell vs of the temple and wood of Apollo and Diana in Daphne but also in the same 16. booke he maketh mention of the temple of Minerua and of the wood of Aesculapius and affirmeth that Hercules was greatly adored by them of Tyrus and all this long after Antiochus his tyme. And for his confirmation out of Dan. 7. 25. 8. 11. the former place is to be vnderstood of Antichrist and the later sheweth only how Antiochus was to spoile the temple of Ierusalem in which we graunt that he was a plaine figure of Antichrist but denie that he is spoken of in this other place 17. The application which M. Downam maketh of this prophesy interpreted by himselfe is ridiculous and without proofe and therefore not to be answered in this See part 2. c. 5. c. place but to be remitted to the second part of this Treatise where we shall examine not only these but also all other calumniations which he layeth vpon the Pope Now it is sufficient that it is plaine out of that which hath byn said that except M. Downam corrupteth the text either of Bellarmines solutions taketh away all obiections out of this place of Daniel 18. Wherefore now let vs see what M. Downam answereth to the Fathers to which he saith that Bellarmine faith or want of better proofes where I would willingly know what better proofes any man can bring after the Scripture then the Fathers especially in such a matter as this whereof there can no other reason be yielded but only Gods will in permitting and mans wickednes in attempting except we will add the Diuels mâ—lice also whom euery man knoweth to be ready inoâ—gh to tempt to any euill whatsoeuer well what answereth M. Downam to these Fathers that they either speake of the Idolls and Idolatry of the Gentils only or els if they speake of all Idolls in generall they deserue such an Antichrist as in this behalf is better then the Pope But who seeth not that the Fathers assertion is generall and withall M. Downams distinction foolish For who can worship Idolls but that he Downam reiecteth the Fathers with a scoffe shal commit Idolatry and conforme himselfe to the Gentils in that wherfore the Fathers are contrary to M. Downams in both points 1. that Antichrist shal be an Idolater 2. that the images of Saints are Idolls and therefore no meruaile though M. Downam is constrayned to reiect their authority with a scosse telling them that they deserued a better Antichrist then the Pope by which he confesseth that they would not haue taken the Pope to be Antichrist as he most impudently doth And as for M. Downams opposing the Scriptures to the Fathers it is his only refuge accompting nothing for Scripture but his owne fancyes and interpretations which how fond and foolish they are hath already sufficiently appeared 19. Lastly M. Downam commeth to Bellarmines answere to Illyricus his two arguments and first he is very angry with Bellarmine for saying that their doctrine is only built vpon the Scriptures falssy expounded by new glosses in token The Protestants doctrine built vpon new glosses of the Scripture whereof they alleadg not one interpreter or Doctor for them which he saith is a malicious slaunder witnes this place which Bellarmine mentioneth 2. Thess 2. where they proue by the consent of many of the Fathers that by the temple is meaÌ„t the Church of God and that in the Church of God Antichrist was to be reuealed after the Roman Empyre which hindred was taken out of the way c. which you see is but a very poore answere though it were all true but now it is also altogeather false for Bellarmine shewed before that those Fathers
we see that this little horne is said to be after the 10. and the 10. before it but the 3. are set downe without any particuler order because they were to be of the 10. among which there is no order described Now that which he addeth of Antiochus being Downam belieth Pope Gregory the 7. and the Cardinalls a Type c. is a meere fabling and already confuted besides that Antiochus can be no type in this place where he is not spoken of at all as hath ben shewed Likewise that loud lye which he telleth of Gregory the 7. affirming that it is well knowne that he made away 6. of his predecessors by poyson argueth so shameles an impudency as nothing more Like vnto which is that câ—lumniation of the Cardinalls among whome he affirmeth that it is an ordinary practice to minister â—â— Italian â—â—ggâ— to their Popes In proofe wherof he alleageth Vrbanus 7. Innocent â— that there haue bene 9. Popes in the tyme of Queene Elizabeths raigne and that Vrbanus 7. Gregory 14. and Innocentius the 9. were so suddainly plucked vp that he supposeth their names haue bene heard of to few in England And is not this a great wonder that 9. old men should dy in more then 40. yeares Or that a yong Woman liuing in all pleasure should outline them all These are M. Downams myracles and as for the 3. Popes whome he nameth they were all most vertuous and holy men but extreme old and therfore no meruaile though their being so close in the conclaue caused the one if not two of them to dy so soone Gregory lay sicke or the stone aboue 3. weeks and Gregory 14. the other two had bene Popes so little a tyme and giuen so little offence to any that there could be no suspicion of any poyson but this is the Ministers charity 13. To the place which Bellarmine alleageth out of Dan. 11. 19 this purpose M. Downam answereth 1. that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist to which I need not reply any more 2. that though Antiochus were a type in this yet the same 〈◊〉 were not to be applied to Antichrist But M. Downam mistaketh them 〈◊〉 much for this is one of the places which canot be applyed to Antiochus and therfore is litterally to be vnderstood of Antichrist 3. M. Downam boldly affirmeâ—h that this place is only to be expounded of Antiochus his spoyling of Egipt hauing in his company the Lybians and the Aethyopians And to this purpose he proposeth his new reading according to the Hebrew the Lubine and Cuâ—him that is the Lybians and Ethiopiam shal be in his passages or voyages and least we should with Bellarmine obiect the authority of S. Hierome and the other Fathers against him he preuenteth vs by writing â—hâ—s Now if Hierome or any of the Fathers haue let fall any such thing as Bellarmine faith we are to esteeme it at an extremeur of theirs which we are to passe by rather then with the Cacanorae the Papists to gather it vp as fit food for their soules Downam opprobriously reiecteth the Fathers and then he hath this note in the margent Cacanorae auis quaedam est apud Indor quae alterius auis assecla est â—uiâ—s vescatur excrementis Sâ—â—lig de subtil What should a man say to this filthy Companion that dareth open his foule mouth to such opprobrious words against the Fathers Are not those fooles in a 〈◊〉 taking that follow such a foâ—le But his blasphemous 〈◊〉 against God and his Saiâ—â—â—â— in which he imitatâ—â— in his Maister Antichrist must 〈…〉 from cleauing to the Fathers giuen vnto the Church by Christ for her Pastors Guides and Doctours and therfore we nothing doubt but that S. Hieromes interpretation and exposition S. Hierso translatioÌ„ defended of this place approued and imbraced by all Ecclesiasticall Wryters both before and after him is to be preferred before M. Downams new deuise and the Hebrew text which hath ad gressus eius if we belieue Tremelius and Iunius iâ— as capable of S. Hieromes translation â—â— of M. Dowmans and the words immediately going before plainly shew that S. Hieromes interpretation is the right which are Et meâ—tiâ— manum suam in terras and after nameth only these three two of which M. Downam would cut off by his new translation and consequently must also change that terras into terram and yet euen then also the coherence would shew that the Prophet spake rather of inuasion then assisting of enemyes then friends But besides this we must put M. Downam to a little more trouble vrgâ—â—g him to tell vs in what History he â—uer read that Antiochus inuaded the land of Egypt any oftener Antiochê° Epiphanes inuaded not Egypt oftener theÌ„ twice then twice or both which Daniel speaketh from the 22. to the â—â— v. declaring how he was put back the second tyme by the Romans after which he neuer returned into Egypt and consequently this inuasion of that CouÌ„trey which Daniel speaketh oâ— in this place caÌ„not in any sort be vnderstood of Antiochus but must be wholy referred to Antichrist Finally it M. Downam will stand to his owne rule of conferring one place of Scripture with another what can be more pâ—aineâ—â—â—n this that Daniel speaketh now of the same 3. Kinges which cap. 7. he said should be plucked vp and humiliated by the little borne Wherfore whether M. Downams excrements for so he calleth farre better mens expositions then his owne be worth the taking vp or no I leaue to the Readers iudgment but in my conceipt they sauour very strongly of heresy and folly 14. To Bellarmines Minor M. Downam is dumbe as likewise to his consutation of the obiections which some other make against it And to his third argument he only answereth that Lactantius S. Irenaus and S. Hierome are â—â— Antichrist shall subdue the 7. Kings which remaine after the â— and so he shal be Monarch of the whole world Scriptures aâ— though Bellarmine had affirmed that they were because in the beginning he saith that these 4. things are read of Antichrist in the Scriptures But M. Downam might easily haue conceyned that Bellarmine could not proue better that this doctrine is conteyned in the Scripture then by alleadging the authority of the Fathers who gather it out of the Scripture and yet to satisfy M. Downam in all points he alleadgeth also a place of Scripture whereall the 10. Kinges Apoc. 17. are said to giue their power to the Beast that is the Diuell which the 7. cannot do without yielding themselues to Antichrist after that the other three be slaine To which M. Downam hath nothing to reply but only asketh whether S. Iohn speaketh of Antichrist his either kiâ—â—ing 3. â—â— Apoc. 17. subduing 7 To which I answere that S. Iohn plainely foretelleth that all the 10. shall giue their power to the beast and consequently that the 7. which remaine after the death of the other 3. will concurre
soules of which sort is that which Eusebius writeth of the apparition of S. Potamiena lib. 6. hist Eccles cap. 5. and that which S. Augustine relateth of the apparition of S. Felix Nolanus lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 16. But for the confirmation of other doctrines I know not what Catholike euer alleaged the visions of soules but this is not your first lye That which thou bringest in the last place of the forbidding of meates and marriages is euidently inough confuted by S. Aug. lib. 30. cont Faust cap. 6. where he saith thus If you were exhorted to Virginity in such sort as the Apostles doctrine exhorteth He that giueth to marriage doth well and he that giueth not to marriage doth well so that you did say Marriage is good but Virginity better as the Church doth which truly is the Church of Christ the holy Ghost would not foretell you thus saying forbidding to marry for he forbiddeth who saith that this is euill not he who preferreth another thing better before this which is good And after You see therefore that there is a great difference betwixt those which exhort to virginity preferring a greater good before a lesse and those which forbidde to marry vehemently accusing the act of propagation which only properly belongeth to marriage And that there is a great difference betwixt those who absteyne from meates for the sacred signification or for the chastising of the flesh and those which absteyne from meates which God hath created saying that God hath not created them VVherefore that is the Prophets and Apostles doctrine this is the doctrine of lying Diuells Thus S. Augustine for himselfe and vs. Neither is it necessary to adde any thing Illyricus concludeth VVherefore it is manifest out of these signes that the Pope is that very true Antichrist himselfe of whome the Scriptures haue prophesied But perhaps he might haue concluded more fitly in this manner Wherefore it is manifest by these lyes that Illyricus is one of his forerunners whome holy Daniel long before foretould that he should haue an impudent face THE XXII CHAPTER The foolâ—ries of Tilemanus are refuted TILEMANVS Heshusius in the Booke which he intituled de sexcentis erroribus Pontificiorum whereas he should haue intituled it de sexcentis mendacijs Luther anorum made a peculiar title of Antichrist that is titul 33. and it comprehendeth foure errors Thus then he saith Tilemanus First the Papists say that Antichrist shall come out of Babylon of the Tribe of Dan. Compendium Theologia lib. 7. cap. 8. Bellarmine We thanke Tilemanus who teacheth that so ancient and so holy Fathers are Papists for if they be Papists who say that Antichrist shall come of the Tribe of Dan surely S. Irgnaeus S. Hippolrtur S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Prosper Theodorctus S. Gregory Beda Arethas Rupertus Anselmus and Richardus are Papists For all these as we shewed before cap. 12. with common consent do teach that Antichrist shal be borne of the Tribe of Dan. But go on Tilemanus Secondly the Papists deny that the Bishop of Rome with his Company is the true Antichrist whereas it is proued and demonstrated with most forcible and most plaine testimonies of Gods word Bellarmine But we haue not yet seene these testimonies neither are they in any place of our Hebrew Greeke or Latin Bibles for the testimonies which are alleadged by your brethren do not so much as name the Bishop of Rome Tilemanus Thirdly they teach that Antichrist shall raigne only 3. yeares and a halfe Compend Theologiae Bellarmine Heere we giue thee immortall thankes that thou confessest that not only all the ancient Fathers but also the Prophet Daniel and S. Iohn Euangelist are Papists and surely I haue compassion of thee and thine to whome thou only reseruest the dregges of writers hauing giuen all the learned approued Fathers to the Papists See if thou wilt what we taught before cap. 8. and thou shalt find that S. Irenaus S. Hippolytus S. Cyril S. Hierome S. Aug. Theodoretus Primasius drethas Bedâ— Anselmus Richardus Rupertus and also Daniel and S. Iohn did expresly teach that which thou affirmest the Papists to teach Tilemanus Fourthly they teach that Antichrist shal be slaine in the Mount Oliuet Compend Theol. lib. 7. cap. 4. Bellarmine But heere also thou makest great men Papists for that Antichrist was to be slaine in the Mount of Oliuet S. Hierome in comment cap. 11. Dan. gathereth out of Daniel himselfe and Isayas Theodoretus also writing vpon the same place although he nameth not the mount Oliuet yet he affirmeth that Antichrist is to be killed not far from Hierusalem But let vs see now with what arguments thou confutest the foresaid errours for thou addest a preseruatiue immediatly in these words Tilemanus The Papists trifles of Antichrist because they are grounded vpon no testimony of the holy Scripture are to be reiected and detested for as S. Hierome rightly speaketh that which hath no authority in the Scripture is contemned with the same facility with which it is affirmed And Paul admonisheth that we should take heed of the traditions of men Coloss 2. And this I say least any man deceaue you with false reasons c. Likewise see that no man prey vpon you by Philosophy we must seeke out of the word of God what is to be thought of Antichrist as 1. Ioan. 2. VVho is a lyer but he that denieth Iesus to be Christ This is Antichrist Likewise 2. Thess 2. the man of sinne and the sonne of perdition extolleth himselfe aboue euery God c. Likewise Matth. 24. There shall arise false Christs and false Prophets and they shall giue signes c. Likewise Dan. 11. and he shall make the munition of the God Maozim c Likewise Apoc. 17. And I saw a woman drinken with the bould of Saints and with the bloud of the Martyrs of Iesus Out of these testimonyes of the sacred Scripture it appeareth manifestly what the Christian saith is of Antichrist whome Christ and the Apostles foretould was to come And since it is cleerer then noone-day that euery one do most exactly agree to the Bishop of Rome it ought not to be doubted but that that most naughty Roman Tyrant is Antichrist Thus he Bellarmine It will not be offen fiue I trust if we reduce these thy arguments to the forme of syllogismes for the more ignorant sort and conclude thence most euidently the confutation of the aboue written errours Wherfore the first errour is refuted thus The Papists trifles because they are grounded vpon no Testimony of Scripture are to be reiected and detested But the word of God proclaimeth who denieth Iesus to be Christ this is Antichrist 1. Io. 2. Wherfore it is an errour to say that Antichrist shall come of the Tribe of Dan. The second errour is thus confuted as Hierome rightly saith that which hath not authority in the Scripture is contemned with the same facility with which it is affirmed but Paul