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
take vpon them to know that which Christ said was so hydden that without an euident reuelation as that of Daniel is after Antichrists death no man nor Angell can know it So that Bellarmine vseth that argument only to disprooue the tyme which Illyricus and others appoint of Antichrists comming and not absolutly to reproue that interpretation as M. Downam would haue his reader think Wherefore in all this Chapter in which he so largelie refuteth that interpretation he neuer vrgeth that illation But this is no iugling at all in M. DownaÌ„s conceipt Thirdly saith M. DownaÌ„ It is incredible if not impossible that so many and so great thinges as they assigne to Antichrist should be effected and brought to passe in so short a tyme as Hentenius a learned Papist doth confesse and as hath bene shewed heretofore If M. DownaÌ„ In praefat translat Areth. had set downe these many and great thinges wee might perhaps haue shewed him how many of them were not to be done in these 3. yeares and a halfe in which notwithstanding Antichrist may doe very many by himselfe and his Ministers hauing all the world at command and thus is Hentenius to be expounded who only thinketh it impossible for Antichrist to obtaine so many Kingdomes and Prouinces in so short a space which maketh nothing at all against vs who rather think that this short tyme is to begin after those victoryes be ended M. DownaÌ„s other proofes are to be examined in their due places Fourthlie saith M. DownaÌ„ VVhen wee proued that Antichrist is not any one man alone but a whole State and succession of man we proued this by consequence that his raigne was not to continue only three yeares and a halfe He saith well for when he can prooue the one he may proue the other but he will neuer be able to proue either as the Reader will easily see by conferring See chap. 2. his proofes and my answeres togeather which now it is no tyme nor place to do Fiftly saith M. Downam Antichrist according to the conceipt of the Papists is to raigne before the preaching of the two witnesses and as Enoch Elias shal-begin to preach in the beginning of Antichrists Raigne Bell saith is to coÌ„tinue one moneth after their death Seeing theÌ„ the two witnesses preach 1260. dayes which as Bellarmine also saith make three yeares a halfe precisely how can the terme of Antichrists raigne be three yeares a halfe precisely First M. DownaÌ„ might haue done well to haue named those Papists who coÌ„ceipt Antichrists raigne before the preaching of the two witnesses for we would haue byn so bould as to haue tould them that they were in a wrong conceipt vnles they meaÌ„t that he should be of great power before but yet not of so great as he shal be for the space of three yeares and a halfe in which these two glorious witnesses shall preach as neither in his last moneth after their death by which he shall receaue such a blow that his kingdome shal be so much diminished that the last moneth is not accompted to belong to the height of his raigne as before we also explicated out of Apoc. 11. and so there remayneth iust three yeares and a halfe for Antichrists reigne Supra nu 2. and these two holy witnesses preaching Lastly he remitteth himselfe to his proofes that Antichrist was come in the Apostles tyme and reuealed in the yeare 670. for answere of which bare assertion for heere he goeth not about to proue any thing I must likewise remit my Reader to the answers See Chap. 3. which I gaue to those his proofes in their due places and so leaue him to iudge how well M. Downam hath answered Bellarmines allegations and confuted his assertions 5. After Bellarmine had proposed his owne argument out of Scriptures he setteth downe three distinct answeres of the Protestants to those places which he refuteth first by the authority of the Fathers who with one accord expound Downam insolently reiecteth the Fathers those places in that sense to which M. Downam giueth no other answere but that they could not vnderstand those prophesies which is plaine dealing indeed and sufficiently manifesteth DownaÌ„s proud priuate spirit which dareth tell so many holy Fathers and pillars of Gods Church that he knoweth more then they all and that they sayd they knew not what when they interpreted those prophesies in that sort which I would thinke should be sufficieÌ„t for all soules to fly from such proud Luciferian spirites as this fellow and his Companions haue To Bellarmines secoÌ„d proofe M. Downam hath more to say for first he reprehendeth Bellarmine for saying that the Scriptures affirme the tyme of the diuels loosing Antichrists raigne to be breuissimum Bellarmin vniustly charged very short or most short they only saying that it is short or smal But his VVisdome should haue considered that Belarmine putteth that breuissimum for the sense and not for the wordes of the Scripture which afterward he alleadgeth as they ly so that if they import a very short or most short tyme Bellarm. is not to blame But M. DownaÌ„ denieth this also shewing at large that many tymes a thousaÌ„d yeares or more Apoc. 12. in Scripture are accoumpted but as a day or a very short tyme in respect of the Lord who speaketh in the Scripture which we willingly graunt but he should haue shewed vs that these places now in question are to be vnderstood in respect of the Lord and not rather in respect of the thousand yeares in which the Diuell was bound And cap. 17. it is yet more pâ—aine that Antichrist shall raigne a small tyme in respect of The tyme of Antichrists raigne verie short Apoc. 17. the 6. Kinges which went before him which howsoeuer M. Downam vnderstandeth them cannot be said to haue raigned much more then a thousand yeares a peece Neither is it true that Antichrist not only was but also persecuted those that refused his marke within the thousand yeares of Sathans imprisonment though S. Iohn Apoc. 20. saw the Martyrs in the tyme of Antichrist Apoc. 20. togeather with those which were before of which only he speaketh when he saith that they liued and raigned with Christ in the thousand yeares except some will say with S. Ambrose that the Martyrs in the tyme of Antichrist are said to raigne before they were in the former Martyrs because they were members of the same body or that the thousand yeares are diuersly taken And thus wee see plainly that the tyme of Antichristes raigne and the Diuells being loose is said to be a very short tyme. 6. To the third argument he answereth briefely that S. Augustine c. did mistake the place Matth. 24. 21. and that Matth. 24. Downam reiecteth S. Augustine S. Gregory it is to be vnderstood of the calamitie of the Iewâ—s as he hath manifestly prooued if you will belieue him but if you will
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
n. 17 he weakneth his fellowes arguments c. â— n. 9. his absurd folly c. 2 n. 10. He censureth the Fathers c 2. n 13. His vayne bragging c 2 n. 19 c. 6. n. 8. he addeth an head of his owne to the 7. of the beast Apoc. 17. c. 2. n 21. he is nothing scrupulous in his account c. 3. n. 3. his fond imagination c. 4. n. 10. his immodesty c. 4. n. 14. he is not moderate in his censure c. 5. n. 3. his impudency c 5. n. 3. c. 6. n. 3. c. 14. n. 4. He seemeth to thinke that the Diuel can do true myracles c. â— n. 5. c. â—5 n. 3. he attributeth more to merits then euer any Catholik did c. 6 n. 3. In his opinion Enochs translation maketh as much for any other vertue as for pennance contrary to the Scripture c. 6 n 4. 8. his Martyrs heretikes and rebells c. 7. n. 3. he maintayneth open rebellion and treason c. 7. n. 4. his shamlesselye c. 7. n. 3. his Porphiryes pertinacy c. 7. n. 7. his conferrence of Scripture ibid. his and Foxes exposition of Scripture c. 8. n. 3. his and his fellowes manner of disputing c. 7. n. 7. his childish cauill c 8 n 1. he maketh the ancient Church to be very corrupt c 11 n 5. his blasphemy ibid. He seemeth to haue bene a Puritan when he wrote of Antichrist c. 13. nu 3. 10. his trifling c. 14. n. 4. he belyeth Gregory the 7. cap. 16. n. 12. He belyeth the Cardinalls ibid. Why he admitteth any of the Fathers c. 16. n. 14. E THE Booke of Ecclesiasticus Canoricall Scripture cap 6. n 4. Elias and Enoch shall preach in a manner as long as Antichrist shall raigne cap. 6. n. 7. Elias shall come in person cap. 2. n 13 cap 6 per totum How Elias shall restore all things ibid. The necessity of the comming of Enoch and Elias cap 6 n 5 Enoch Elias are not in heauen cap 6. n 6 Enoch and Elias shall begin to preach in the beginning of Antichrists raigne cap. 8 n 4. The End of the world is not only the last instant c 9 n 4. Whether they which liue at Antichrists death may gather how long it is to the end of the world c. 8. n. 4. Only the iust and learned shall make this collection ibid. The Trybe of Ephraim not omitted Apoc. 7. cap. 12. n 2. When the proper Exposition is to be preferred cap. 4 n 12. How far diuers Expositions are to be admitted cap. 2. n 16. F RHE necessity of the Fathers expositions c. 10. n. 3. Their authority ibid how Catholikes esteeme of them cap. 12. n. 1. The Foolish dreame of the feele Fox c. 8. n. 3. G HOvv the Ghospell was in the whole world in the Apostles tyme cap 4 n 14. The Ghospell shal be preached to all Nations before Antichrists comming cap. 4. per â—oâ—â—m Greeke article when it signifieth a particuler thing c. 2 n 4 S. Gregory answereth Downams obiection cap c. n 8. Gregory the 14. c. 16. n. 12. Gog Magog c. 17. per totum H A Great Happinesse to be put to death by Antichrist cap. 6. n 8. The Herodians c. 12. n 10. Why Heretikes can worke no myracles cap. 15. n. 2. The 7. Heads of the beast Apoc. 13. are not the same with Apoc. 17. cap. 15. n. 4. The little Horne Dan. 7. is not the same with that of Dan. 8. c. 16. n. 1. S. Hippolytus cap. 11. n. 12. I IANSENIVS cap. 6. n. 4. S. Ierome confuteth Porphiry Downam c 7. n 7. The Importance of the controuersie c 1 n. 1. The Interruption of the Iewes sacrifice was only 3. yeares c. 7. n. 7. Iosephus corrupted c. 8. n 2 Iupiter cap 14 n 12 K THE Kingdomes wherof Daniel speaketh were not to be ended before Christ cap. 16. nu 5. WheÌ„ our Sauiour is to destroy theÌ„ ibid. When he began spiritually to ouerthrow them ibid. The â— Kingdomes into which that of Alexander was deuided belong to the beast described Dan. 7. and not to the 4. c. 16. n 6. 18. The Kingdomes of the Lagidae and Seleuâ—idae caÌ„not be signified by the 4 beast Dan. 7. c. 16. n. 6. Why theâ— Kings which Antichrist shall slay are called the 3. first â—â— former c. â—â— n. 1â— L THE Latin Interpreter is nor to be reiected cap. 6. n. 4. The name of Latin cannot be giuen to the Pope c. 10. n. 4. It contayneth not the number 666. ib. n. 7. How Latria is giuen to the Crosse by Catholikes c. 11. n. 1â— Why the Tribe of Leui is often omitted c. 1â— n. 2. M MARTINVS 5. his Bul against the Huffites cap 11. n. 4. A Mortall man may be truly called God cap 14. n. 1â— Maozim signifieth not the true God c. 14. n 14. It may signify Antichrist ibid. It signifieth a strong tower cap 14. n. 15 Myracles in generall belong both to good bad c. 15. n 2. Why the diuells help is necessary to worke counterfait Myracles c. 5. n. 5. c. 15. n. 3. N THE Name which contayneth the nuÌ„ber 666. shal be the proper vsual name of Antichrist c. 10. n. 7. Many Names contayne that number ibid. Nilas cap. 15 n. 2. O THE Oath of Obedience made to the B. of Rome before the yeare 606. cap. 11. n. 8. If the Oath be lawful the often exacting of it is not culpable ibid. One faith one Church c. 13. n 3. P PROTESTANTS put Catholikes to death for ReligioÌ„n c 7. n. 4. An inuisible Persecution of an inuisible congregation cap. 7. n. 6. Phoâ—as gaue not the title of vniuersall to the Pope c. n. 4. And that which he gaue the Pope had before ibid. The Pope hath power to depose Princes for the spirituall good of Christs Church cap. 3. n. 5. The Popes whom the Protestants account Antichrist arise not from base estate cap. 16. n. 11. The Pope no temporal Monarch cap. 16. n. 14. The Protestants expositioÌ„ of Scripture not much worth cap. â— n. 16. How much they agree with the Samosatens and all other heretikes c. 3. n 2. Their disagreement about Antichrists coÌ„ming c 3 n. 3. The Prophesies concerning the destruction of Ierusalem and the end of the world intermingled c 4. n. 9. The Persecution of Catholikes in England c. 7 n. 4. R THE reason of Romes preheminence is not because it is the chiefe Citty c. 3. n. 4. X. Kings shall diuide the Roman Empyre among them so that there shal be no Roman Emperour in their time cap 5. n. 2. The Roman Empyre signified by the 2. iroÌ„ Legs of Nabuchodonosors Statua and the 4. beast Dan 7. cap. 5. n. 2. By the 10. toes of Nabuchodonosors Statua and the 10. hornes of the 4. beast Dan. 7. are signified the 10. Kings which shall deuide the Roman Empyre among them cap. 5. n. 2. The Roman Empyre shal be vtterly destroyed by the 10. Kings c. 5. n. 3. per totum How many wayes the Fathers affirme the vtter destruction of the Roman Empire why they speake sparingly of this point c. 5. n. 3. There is now a Roman Emp. indeed and not in name or title only cap. 5. n. 3. The name Romanus contayneth not the number 666 c. 10. n. 7. To cleaue to the Roman Church was the signe of a true Catholike before the yeare 696. c. 11. n. 7. How the Church of Rome is vnited staÌ„deth with other Churches ibid. Those which belong not to the Church of Rome belong not to Christ but to Antichrist ibid. Not Christian but Heathen Rome is called Babylon and an Harlot Apoc 17. c. cap. 13. n. 8. S SACRIFICE for the dead vsed before the yeare 606. c 11. n. 10. The difficulty of Scripture and why many erre in the interpretation therof cap 7. n. 7. When the Scripture is litterally to be vnderstood of the figure and when of the thing figured c. 14. n. 13. How we may argue from the mysticall sense of Scripture c. 10. n. 3. The mysticall Sâ—nse intended by the holy Ghost ibid. Except the litterall Sense be certaine we caÌ„not argue from it ibid. The consent of the Fathers maketh both Senses certayne ibid. Why Seleucus Philopater is called Vilissimus c. 16. n. 8. The Seauenty two Interpreters not to be reiected c. 6. n. 7. The Sybils verses of Adrian are expounded c. 10. n. 2. Why Symeon is omitted in Moyses his blessing cap. 12. n. 2. How the Signes of Antichrist shal be lying c. 15 n. 1. T TEMPLE what it signifieth in the new Testament c. 13. n. 3. How the Temple of Ierusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of God c. 13. n 9. And it shal be built again in the end of the world ibid. But it shal be alway prophane ibid. It shall not be finished ibid. The thousand yeares Apoc. 2. are to be taken indefinitely cap. 7. n. 2. By the great Tribulation Matth. 24. is meant the persecution of Antichrist a little before the end of the world cap. 4. n. 5. 13. The Turks inferior to Antichrist c. 14. n. 7. V VNCTION of Priests vsed before the yeare 606 cap. 11. n. 9. The word vntill signifieth neither continuance nor cessation but is indifferent to both cap. 13. n. 9. Vrbanus 7. cap. 16. n. 12. FINIS Faultes escaped in the Printing Page Line Fault Correction â—8 29. is forerunner is forerunne 41. 39. in the Apostasy in the Apostles time 133. 33. beginning neither beginning neither ibid. 8. hatred of hatred out of 172. 15. deemeth denyeth 180. 34. graunteth groundeth 192. 12. 19. and last chapter 19. last chapters 229. 34. former grounds founder grounds 237. 38. them so them so 266. 39. Antichrist sitting Antichrist his sitting 272. 20. all Idols also Idols 275. 2. frame himselfe feigne himselfe 276. 7. shewing as shewing himselfe as 281. 7. prouided proued 298. 5. proue that proue but that 310. 18. tortures torturers 315. 29. Antichrists Antichrist 320. 36. one and one And 335. 23. as neither the 2. as neither the 3. 339. 34. exposition wherof exposition wherof 380. 1. Maozim Neither Maozim who seeth not that Christ is the God Maozim Neither c. 387 13. bould of bloud of 413. 24. aboue those about those Other faultes of lesse moment by reason of the obscure copy and absence of the Author haue likewise escaped which the Reader may easily find and correct of himselfe
vs see therfore how he answereth to Bellarmines reasons First to the Fathers he saith that none of them hath that word vno as though it were not sufficient that they haue others equiualent and yet S. Augustine lib. 2. contra Aduersar legis cap. 12. expresly distinguisheth the chiefe Antichrist froÌ„ others in that he is vnâ—â— maior ceteris and they multi And S. Hierom in Dan. 7. calleth him vnum de hominibus Secondly he sayth that the Fathers vnderstand that place also of S. Matth. 24. v. 24. Matth. 24. where our Sauiour speaketh in the plurall nuÌ„ber of Antichrist as though the chiefe proper Antichrist may not be one man because there will be others like vnto him though farre inferiour in malice Wherfore when our Sauiour speaketh generally of all false Prophets no doubt he excludeth not the chiefest of them but includeth him in the first place so that whatsoeuer is common to all doth most fitlie agree to him and therfore it is noe meruaile though the Fathers take it as spoken principally of him But on the other side when our Sauiour maketh mention only of one he is not to be vnderstood of all And this is the difference betweene the Fathers exposition and M. Downams that they obserue the first and he the second and therefore it is no meruaile though they do not agree Neither is it against the Fathers that the Iewes haue receaued more then one but it is against M. Downam that they haue not receaued all that came besides that it is hard to shew that so many of the Iewes receaued any one false Prophet as those were that receaued the true Christ whereas our Sauiour plainly affirmeth that they shall generally receaue him of whoÌ„ he speaketh Wherfore thirdly he telleth the Fathers roundly that they had no reason to restraine those words Downam reiecteth the Fathers vnto Antichrist alone against them all opposeth Nonius a Poet in his paraphrase who expoundeth it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but if any other come As though this Poets authority were equall to all the Fathers or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might not signify aliquu or quidaÌ„ aswell as â—llâ—â— or quis some or acertayne aswell as any especially in a Poet who is sometime constrained to straine the sense to make vp his verse Lastly he addeth if these answeres of his will not suffice theÌ„ yet he will not yield except he see first proued that whatsoeuer those Fathers wrote concerning Antichrist is true But I hope he will be better aduised and thinke it sufficient that whatsoeuer our Sauiour saith of Antichrist is true and that in vnderstanding his meaning we must rather belieue such learned men as haue the authority of the Fathers on their side theÌ„ those that trust only to their owne wits hauing neither more learning nor iudgment then the other For I perswade my selfe that M. Downam wil not preferre himselfe before Bellarmine in either 2. To the first confirmation he answereth that when alius is taken definitely as Io. 18. 16. 20. 2. 3. 4. then it is true but where it is vsed indefinitely as Iob 31. 8. 1. Cor. 3. 10. and in this place then it is not And by his citing of the Greeke word in the first sense with an article and in the second without it Downam mistaketh Bellarmine should seeme he would haue that to be the signe in whether sense it is to be taken But all this discourse proceedeth from want of vnderstanding Bellarmines confirmation for he goeth not about to proue that our Saniour speaketh of the cheife and proper Antichrist but this supposed gathereth that he shall be one particuler man for that he opposeth him as one person to himselfe who was one particuler person also To which M. Downam answereth not but onlie denieth the supposition as though Bellarmine had gone about to proue that with this confirmation neither doth that rule of the greeke article hould alway especially in M. Downams sense and opinion as we shall see a little after To the second confirmation he denieth that Christ foretel leth that Antichrist shal be receaued of the Iewes for their Messias First because his speach is conditionall and onlie sheweth them what in respect of their present disposition they were ready to doe As though this were not inough for Bellarmines confirmation for it is certayne they would not haue receaued him as their Messias if he were not a particuler man which is all that Bellarmine intendeth to proue Now besides in the Scripture the word if somtime signifieth when which the Fathers iudge also If for when Esay 4. 4. Ioan 14. 3. to be in this place Secondly M. Downam saith that the word alius is indefinite But that is onlie his owne interpretation against the Fathers Thirdly he saith that our Sauiour did not say that they would receaue him for their Messias but so he is to be vnderstood For that they were to receaue him as they were bound and refused to receaue our Sauiour for of this he speaketh Fourthly he saith that the Iewes to whome of whome our Sauiour speaketh shall not be aline at the comming of the great Antichrist according to the opinion of the Papists themselues But M. Downam should haue remembred that not a whole leafe before he himselfe said that Bellarmine and the rest of the Papists vnderstand Christ to speake of those Iewes which shal be in the end of the world To the third Confirmation first M. Downam saith that it would proue Antichrist to be us false Prophet which is true if he speake of the infeour sort of false Prophets After he giueth another exposition that he shall come vnsent of God or as Lyra sayth that he shall not haue testimonies from God as Christ had neither of which are contrary to Bellarmines exposition but rather both included in it But besides the negatiue he shall also haue the affirmatine as both our Sauiour S. Paul saith against whome M. Downams argument concludeth not which is thus The Iewes expect their Messias from God and consequently he shall professe himselfe to be sent from God for what knoweth M. Downam whether he will say that he is their God himselfe not sent by any other person for that he will deny the Trinity or though at the first he should deale otherwise it is certaine that at length he will extoll himself aboue all Gods as S. Paul saith and consequently then he will professe himselfe to come in his owne name for that he acknowledgeth no Superiour or equall in whose name he should come To the fourth CoÌ„firmation he answereth that because our Sauiour speaketh conditionally and indefinitelie there is not so much as any shew of reason in it But Bellarmine proued that our Sauiour spake definitely of the chiefe and proper Antichrist and though he speaketh conditionally his confirmation is in force for that hindereth not the particularity of him whom he speaketh
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
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
also haue it ouer all Christian Kings and Monarches since that these are also subiect in spirituall causes to their particuler Bishops and Pastors But M. Downam knew well inough where he wrote this in which respect he doubted not that it would be pleasing and then it made no matter Downam seemeth to haue byn a Puritan wheÌ„ he wrote this See part 2. cap. 5. for the truth though it went against his owne conscience for he seemeth by his writing to be of the Puritanicall sect and consequently to thinke himselfe a better man by his Ministery then euer a King in the world howsoeuer he is content rather to dissemble and flatter then to put his bennefice in icopardy Now for his bragges that he hath shewed els where that in some things the Pope matcheth himselfe with Christ in somethings he aduanceth himselfe aboue him and aboue all that is called God I must desire the Reader to haue patience till we come to that place and in the meane time to looke wishly vpon M. Downams forehead whether it be made of brasse or no for surely it is exceeding hard But now I would aske M. Downam in good earnest why he left out the chiefest part of Bellarmines answere for this other was but to shew that the obiection proued asmuch against the Protestants as for them which is not to solue an argument but to make another Wherefore Bellarmine answereth directly that the sense of S. Gregories words is that because Antichrist shall be most proud and the head of all the proud so that he will not suffer any equalls therfore whosoeuer vsurpeth to himselfe any thing otherwise then he ought Whosoeuer vsurpeth more dignity theÌ„ is due to him is Antichrist his foreruÌ„ner and will exceed and surpasse others is his forerunner and such were the Bishops of Constantinople who being in the beginning but Archbishops first vsurped to be Patriarches and after the title of Vniuersall How chance M. Downam replieth not against this nor doth so much as go about to shew that the Pope vsurpeth any more then he ought according to his place and dignity which is to be Christs Vicegerent in spirituall causes as the Emperours and temporall Princes are in temporall To the other part of Bellarmines answere M. Downam replieth thus Shameles and yet ridiculous Doth it not follow that if he be the Prince of priests as they are proud that he is the Prince of proud Priests such as the whole Hierarchie of Rome consisteth of Where first I desire the Reader to consider whether M. Downam be not exceeding shameles to leaue out that clause of Bellarmines Downam corrupteth Bellarmines words answere which is most to the purpose which is his proofe that S. Gregory meaneth not that Priests as Priests belong to the army of Antichrist in these words for so he should haue put himselfe in that army Secondly I must craue the like iudgment of his ridiculous sophistry for Bellarmine answereth to Biblianders argument who proueth that Antichrist shall be the head of Priests because S. Gregory Antichrist the head of all the proud affirmeth that his army shall be Priests That S. Gregory meaneth not Priests as they are Priests but as they are proud and consequently it followeth not that Antichrist shall be the head of Priests is they be not proud but of the proud whether they be Preists or others M. Downam replieth that he shal be the prince of proud Priests Can there be any thing more ridiculous then this to infer the same which his Aduersary graunteth Yea but he addeth such as the whole hierarchy of Rome consisteth of This is the question and this M. Downam after his wonted manner would haue granted Downam his petitio principij which if it may not be he hath no more to say but will put vp his pipes and make an end as he doth heere but yet with a crake for otherwise he were no Minister THE FOVRTENTH CHAPTER Of Antichrists Doctrine OF Antichrists Doctrine saith Bellarmine there is very great controuersy betwixt vs and the heretikes It is manifest out of the Scriptures euen by the testimony of our Aduersaries that there shall be foure heads of Antichrists Doctrine For first he shall deny that Iesus is Christ and for that cause shall impugne all the ordinances of our Sauiour as Baptisme Confirmation c. and shall teach that Circumcision is not yet ceased nor the Sabaoth and the other cerimonies of the Law 1. Ioan. 2. VVho is a lyer but he that denieth Iesus to be Christ And this is Antichrist who denteth thâ— Father and the Soane Afterward when he hath perswaded that our Sauiour is not the true Christ then he will affirme that he himselfe is the true Christ promised in the Law and the Prophets Ioan. 5. If any come in his owne name him you will receaue viz. for the Messias Thirdly he will affiâ—me that he is God and will be worshipped for God 2. Thess 2. so that he sit in the Temple of God shewing himselfe as though he were God Lastly he will not only say that he is God but also that he is the only God and he will impugne all other Gods that is aswell the true God as also the false Gods and all Idols 2. Thess 2. VVho extelleth himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped as God And Dan. 11. And he will not repute the God of his Fathers nor care for any of the Gods because he will rise against all That all these things are in some sort true and belong to Antichrist our Aduersaries agree with vs But the question is of the sense of these foure heads for the Catholikes vnderstand them plainely and as the words of Scripture sound that Antichrist will deny the true Christ make himselfe Christ proclaime himsefe God detest all other Gods and Idols Out of which are taken foure arguments that the Pope is not Antichrist for it is manifest that the Pope denieth not Iesus to be Christ nor bringeth in Circumcision or the Sabaoth insteed of Baptisme and our Lords day And likewise it is manifest that the Pope doth not make himselfe Christ nor God and chiefly it is manifest that he maketh not himselfe the only God since that he openly worshippeth Christ and the Trinity and in our aduersaries conceipt he worshippeth all Idolls that is Images and Saints departed But our Aduersaries interprete all these things farre otherwise for first they say that Antichrist will not deny in word and openly that Iesus is Christ nor Baptisme and other Sacraments but that he will deny him in worke because vnder the colour of christianisme and the Church he will corrupt the doctrine of Sacraments of Iustification c. Caluinus lib. 4. cap. 7. § 25. VVe gather saith he that the Tyranny of Antichrist is such that it abolisheth not the name of Christ or of the Church but rather abuseth it vnder the colour pretext of Christ and
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
vnderstood of Antiochus and in this agreed with him all writers aswell Christians as Iewes and in particuler Methodius Eusebius and Apollinaris wrote largely against Porphyry answering his mad obiections among which no doubt this was one which M. Downam and his learned men take vpon them so stiffely to defend and for that cause will seeme to some to pertake with Porphyry in his malicious cauills 3. Thus far M. Downam hath byn constrained to fly to Porphyry that wicked Gentile against both Iewes and Christians Now he hath gotten himselfe a Iew to ioyne Dan. 7. 11. with him against the Pope for so he saith that not only Protestants but also the Iewes and namely R. Leui Gerson expoundeth the 7. and 11. chap. of Dan. as spoken of the Pope of Rome whom he calleth another Pharao which pleaseth this man very well who thinketh that he hath gotteÌ„ a great aduantage against the Pope because not only Heretiks but also Iewes themselues impugne him And yet fearing least this Rabbin be not able to make his party good he still sticketh rather to Porphyry affirming that only Antiochus is litterally spoken of Antiochus a type of Antichrist only in some principall pointes in those places and that consequently there can no sound argument concerning Antichrist be taken from them because Antiochus was a tipe of Antichrist not in all and euery particuler but in some principall matters In which M. Downam sayth true and I thinke there was neuer yet any so mad as to auouch the contrary and the like no doubt is to be said of the Types of Christ which M. Downam alleageth only the controuersy may be what those principal matters are in which Antiochus was the Type of Antichrist But euen in these also he seemeth to affirme that there can be no sound argument taken from the Tipe for he vniuersally alloweth of that rule of Diuinity set downe by the Schoolemen that Theologia Symbolica non est argumentatiua which notwithstanding he must vnderstand praecisè per se as the Schoolmen do in which sense it only signifieth that it is no good argument in all poynts to argue from the Type to that which it signifieth which is all that his other argumeÌ„t of Allegories proueth also And consequently it wil stil be a good argument from the allegorical mystical or spirituall How we may argue from the mysticall sense sense to infer such things as the type is a figure of As for example now that we know by the Scripture that the Paschall Lambe was a figure of Christ not only in other respects but also in that the bones of it were not to be broken we may very wel bring that place of Exodus 12. necos illius confringetis to proue that Christ had not his thighes broken as the two theeues had And the reason of this is for that the mystical and spiritual sense is aswel intended by the holy Ghost as the Litteral or Hystorical yea for the most part in the old Testament much more as is euident by the place alleadged wherfore the only cause why we cannot vse it in our proofes is because it is hidden and vncertaine so that when it is knowne certainly it conuinceth as much as the litteral doth for which cause the Apostles to whom Except the litteral sense be certain we cannot argue firmly from it it was reuealed vsed it so often But we can proue nothing firmly eyther by the mystical or litterall sense except we be sure that we haue the right of each which we can neuer se by our owne wits and industry without the assistance of that spirit with which al Scriptures were written Neyther can any man in particuler without great presumption euident danger of errour promise this assistance to himself but no doubt the Church of Christ is neuer without it therfore we may boldly build vpon any exposition which she houldeth for certayne as she doth all those in which all the Fathers Doctors and Pastors giuen vnto her by her spouse do fully agree as we see they do in expounding this place of Antichrist and therfore we are to be out of doubt that it is a true exposition whether it be litteral or spirituall of which there may be some question Neither doth M. Downam seeme much to striue but that in some thinges concerning Antichrist the proofe out of this place is good inough But he would haue vs giue him leaue to choose them out which we can do with no security except he first shew vs an authenticall warrant for so high speciall a priuiledge which because he can neuer be able to do we must of force neglect his babling and listen to the consent of the Fathers to whom it doth belong to shew The consent of the Fathers maketh eyther litterall or mysticall sense certaine vs in what points Antiochus Antichrist are to agree and in what to differ as Bellarmine doth in this place though as I noted before there be many things in the 11. chapter which cannot be vnderstood of Antiochus and therfore are litterally to be referred to Antichrist and much more all that which is spoken of the little horne in the seauenth chapter in which there is no mention of Antiochus at all 4. After this generall answer M. Downam commeth II. to examine the particuler Instances and to the first he answereth in two sorts First that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist which he saith shall appeare out of Daniel himselfe for Daniel speaketh of Dan. 11. him that immediately in the Kingdome of Syria succeâ—ded Seleucus Philopater for so he saith in his place who was descrybed vers 20. shall Antichrist shall arise from base estate stand vp a vyle person meaning therby Antiochus c. Thus M. Downam prouing very well that Antiochus is spoken of which no man denyed and Bellarmine expresly alleageth S. Hieromes exposition in that sense but withall addeth that all Christians vnderstood it also of Antichrist and that more rightly in S. Hieromes iudgment This M. Downam should haue impugned which he in no sort doth by telling vs that Antiochus is spoken of because both Antiochus and Antichrist may be spoken of if not litterally at least spiritually which is sufficient so that it be certaine that those words are to be applyed to him as S. Hierome the other Christians thought that they were 5. After this M. Downam entreth into a large discourse telling vs first that excepting one propheticall comfort of the Resurrection cap. 12. Daniels whole Prophesie is of those things which happened within lesse then 700. yeares that is to say from the taking Daniels prophesie coÌ„taineth many things coÌ„cerning the end of the world of Hierusalem by the Chaldaeans vnto the finall destruction therof by the Romans Where first we are glad that we haue gotten M. Downams consent of that Prophesie of the Resurrection for surely it is very probable that it is not alone but ioyned
to Iudaize c. 5. To Bellarmines last confirmation frō the vehemency of Antichrists persecution which shall cause the publique Offices and the diuine Sacrifices to cease M. Downam answereth with a distinction that if he meaneth the true publique worship of God it hath ceased already in the Papacy by the vehemency of the Popes persecution who yet is no open enemy of Christ where by the true worship of God you may easily conceaue that he meaneth that of Protestants though he cannot shew vs that euer it was before Luthers time or name vs one who felt this vehement persecution for that cause well he may tell vs of some of their brethren for all heretikes will be brethren because they agree at least in one point that is The Pope suppresseth heretikes as Antichrist shall oppresse Catholikes in impugning Gods Church whome the Pope hath suppressed for it is his office to suppresse them as Antichrist shall endeauour to suppresse him and all that adhere vnto him for Christs cause whom he shal chiefly oppose himself vnto Neither is the other part of M. Downams distinction necessary for all false worshippers shall ioyne themselues to Antichrist and help him in the persecution of the others and if M. Downam remembreth in the place which Bellarmin alleadged he shewed that Antichrist shall make the daily sacrifice of the Church to cease which cannot be vnderstood See cap. 7. of the Protestants but of the Catholike Roman Church but since both Bellarmine and M. Downam remit themselues to that which they haue sayd before I will do so likewise only I will require the Reader to note by the way that M. Downam Downam mistaketh Bellarmin is at least mistaken in this place if not worse for he maketh this of the ceasing of the publike offices and the diuine Sacrifices to be a new argument to proue that Antichrist shall openly deny Christ and abolish all his ordinances wheras Bellarmine neuer meant any such matter but only hauing proued by the Fathers that Antichrist shall deny Christ impugne Baptisme seeke to dissolue the Ghospell of Christ teach that the Sabbaoth and other cerimonies of the Iewes are not ceased because he would auoyd prolixity be remitteth himselfe to his former proofes that he shall likewise cause the publike offices and the diuine sacrifices to cease so that M. Downam might aswell haue made a new argument of euery one of the Fathers Authorities as of this But I will not charge him with malice in this place except it may be attributed rather to malice then to simplicity that he was so blind of which I am content he shall haue his choice But surely the one of thē he cānot auoid as appeareth by that which I haue sayd and also by Bellarmines conclusion which followeth immediatly Ex quibus euidens est c. By which it is euident c. For that quibus cannot be referred to the last clause only but to the whole induction out of the Fathers as is manifest and this is alway Bellarmines vse to make the authority of the Fathers one argument 6. And thus we may come to the second doctrine for that which M. Downam sayth concerning Bellarmines assumption Downam speaketh from the purpose is neither to the purpose but only so farre as it includeth the deniall of the proposition nor belongeth to this place but to another to which he remitteth himselfe and so the Reader must haue patience till we come thither See part 2. §. 6. 7. 8. 7. Now then concerning the second doctrine M. Downam denyeth that Antichrist will openly and in so many words expresly affirme that he is the Christ or Messias of the world for Antichrist wil opēly affirme himself to be Christ which he remitteth himselfe to his former proofes touching only two 1. That his Religion is a mystery of iniquity which as a little before we shewed it is to be vnderstood of the heretikes and cannot be applied to Antichrist himselfe 2. Because he could not seduce so many Christians if he should plainely professe himselfe Christ But we see the contrary of this in the Turkes The Turks inferiour to Antichrist who notwithstanding are nothing comparable to Antichrist either in craft wonders or violence besides the ill disposition which he shall find in most Christians at that time Hauing thus eased his stomake a little M. Downam cōmeth to answere Bellarmines proofe out of the Scripture referring Ioan. 5. himselfe to his former answere to this place in Bellarmines second argument where he said that Christ spake conditionally if another shall come and indefinitly of See cap. 2. any false Prophet But there also I shewed the contrary of both as also that Antichrist is to come in his owne name and to professe so much which other false prophets vse not to do For as our Sauiour did not only come indeed but also professed himselfe to come in the name of his Father so likewise Antichrist shall not only come indeed but also professe himselfe to come in his owne name And if our Sauiour were to be vnderstood of all false prophets indefinitely Our Sauiours words not true in M. Downam his opiniō his speach were not true which me thinkes M. Downā should be afraid to affirme for it is euident by experience that many false prophets haue come since that time few or none of which the Iewes or the greatest part of them haue receaued wheras by his interpretation they should haue receaued them all and aboue all the Pope whome M. Downam will needs haue to be Antichrist himselfe whom notwithstanding they are so farre from receauing that they hate him aboue all other men and accompt him their greatest enemy as we haue seene and experience teacheth To the Fathers in this place he vouchsafeth no answere at all but reiecteth them absolutly because they were no prophets and spake without booke This is the impudency of this fellow that al they must of force speake without-book that interpret Scripture against his fond fancy But we make no doubt but that God hath giuen the interpretation of Scripture to his Church and the Doctors therof which by all reason we are to acknowleadg these holy Fathers to be since they came not without calling and commission as M. Downam and his fellow Ministers and all other heretikes do Neither can he help himselfe by flying to Bellarmine for aide for no man reuerenceth the Fathers more then he and it is false that he euer gaue any such rule that we are not to Bellarmin reuerenceth the Fathers giue credit to any such coniectures of the Fathers as haue no ground in the word of God For who shall be Iudge of this How farre he admitted the opinion of those twelue Fathers who affirmed that Antichrist as to be of the Tribe of Dan. we shew in that place and it was that he tooke it to be very probable See cap. 12. though not altogeather certaine