for although you graunt not this yet the word of God doth graunt it for what is that which Ezechiel saith cap. 18. VVhen the impious shall turne himselfe from his impiety he shall quicken his soule What is that which Dan. saith cap. 4. Redeeme thy sinnes with almes What is that which Ionas saith cap. 3. God saw their workes fastings and hayrecloth and tooke compassion of them What is that which Christ saith Luc. 7. Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she loued much And not only S. Gregory but many Fathers before him taught the same S. Ambrose lib. 10. in Lucam Teares saith he do not aske but merit pardon S. Hierome lib. 2. aduers Pelagianos They who simply confesse their sinnes merit by humility the clemency of our Sauiour S. Augustine epist 105. Neither is the remission of sinnes it selfe without some merit if faith obtayne it for the merit of faith is not none with which faith he said God be propitious to me a sinner and the faithfull humbled descended iustifyed deseruealy c. And epist 106. If any shall say that Faith meriteth grace to worke well we cannot deny it yea we most freely confesse it Finally the last kind of workes is of those which are done by a man already iustifyed and proceed from the holy Ghost inhabiting the hart of man and diffusing charity in it To which workes whether you will or no we attribute merit not with which they merit remission of sinnes which went before and which cannot properly fall vnder merit but with which they truly and properly merit glory and euerlasting blessednesse for otherwise how would S. Paul say 2. Tim. 4. I haue fought a good fight I haue consummate my course I haue kept the faith Concerning the rest there is layd vp for me a crowne of Iustice which the iust Iudge will render mein that day For if euerlasting life be not truly the reward of good workes why calleth he it a Crowne of Iustice and not rather a gift of clemency Why saith he is it to be rendred and not giuen why by a iust iudge not by a liberall King Wherefore rightly S. Augustine ep 105. from whence saith he life euerlasting it selfe which doubtlesse in the end shall be had without faith and therefore is rendred to precedent merits yet because those merites to which it is rendred are not gotten by vs by our sufficiency but are done in vs by grace it also is called grace and not therefore because it is not giuen to merits but because the merits also of themselues are giuen to which it is giuen Neither do those two testimones of Scripture terrify vs I am he who take away iniquities and there is not saluation in any other for such testimonyes exclude another God another Christ another Sauiour and Phisitian of soules who may promise saluation the true God and Christ Iesus being excluded notwithstanding they exclude not faith hope charity pennance Sacraments with which as it were with certaine meanes and instruments God himselfe chiefly working the merit of Christ is applyed vnto vs for otherwise how do these sentences I am he who take away iniquityes and there is not saluation in any other agree with those Thy saith hath made thee safe Luc. 7. He will saue those who haue hoped in him Psal 36. he shall quicken his soule Ezech. 18. The seare of God expelleth sinne Ezech. 1. He that hath belieued and hath bene baptized shal be saued Marc. vlt. he that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Ioan. 6. But thus much of this Chytraeus But go forward §. III. Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that he who doth pennance and heareth the promise ought to belieue the promise and to determine that sinnes are remitted not only to others to Peter or to Paul but also to himselfe for Christ that he himselfe pleaseth God is receaued and heard by God and that we must haue accesse to God with this faith and daily inuocation The Papists contende that we must alway doubt whether we haue remission of sinnes which doubtfulnes is simply repugnant to faith and plainely heathen So he Bellarmine One Ghospell teacheth plainely inough that we must giue credit to Gods promises and all Catholikes teach that we must in no fort doubt of them But that remission of sinnes is absolutely promised by God to men we read in no place of our Ghospell And much lesse read we that euery one must certainely determine that his sinnes are forgiuen him that he pleaseth God and that he is receaued and heard by God And not without cause we ead not this because it would destroy the rest which is most plainely and cleerely read in it for what is more cleere then that which the wise man writeth Ecclesiast 9. There are iust and wise and their workes in the hand of God and yet a man knoweth not whether he be worthy of hatred or loue Likewise how manifest is that which Iob saith cap. 9. Although I shal be simple this very same my soule shal be ignorant of and after I feared all my workes knowing that thou wouldest not spare the offender Besides almost all Gods promises haue a condition annexed which no man can certainly know whether he haue fulfilled it as he ought or no. Matt. 19. If thou wilt enter into life keep the Comaundemēts Luc. 14. If any man cōmeth to me and hateth not Father and Mother and VVife and Children and Brethren and Sisters yea and his owne life besides he cannot be my Disciple Rom 8. The spirit himselfe giueth testimony to our spirits that we are the sonnes of God and if sonnes heyres also heyres truly of God and coheyres of Christ yet if we suffer with him that we may also be glorised with him Finally S. Ambrose much more ancient as we haue said then S. Gregory inserm 5. super Psalm 118. Hee would saith he haue his shame taken away which he suspected either because he had thought in his hart and not done it and though it were abolished by pennance yet be suspected least peraduenture his shame remayned still and therefore he prayeth to God to take it away who only knoweth that which he himselfe that did it may be ignorant of §. IIII. Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that there is one only propitiatory Sacrifice in the world c. Heb. 7. 10. Christ was once offered that he might take away sinne c. The Papists teach that Christ is offered euery day in the Sacrifice of the Masse to God the Father by Priests c. Bellarmine The Ghospell teacheth indeed that there is only one propitiatory Sacrifice in the world viz. which was once offered vpon the Crosse neyther do Catholikes deny this but the Ghospell no where teacheth that this only Sacrifice may not be euery day reiterated in mystery by the same chiefe B. Christ by the hands of Priests and this Catholikes affirme Neither do they only affirme it who haue bene since S. Gregories tyme but all the
repentance or conuersion to God is an earnest sorrow of hart of sinnes committed and a faith determining that sinnes are certaynely remitted to him for Christ c. The Papists contrariewise although they number contrition among the parts of repentance yet they feigne that it meriteth this remissâ—on of sinnes and they adde auricular confessâ—on not commaunded by God and satisfaction or workes not due with which they feygne that the eternall paines of sinnes may be satisfied and that these same works may be redeemed with money all which doctrine is blasphemous against the merit of the Sonne of God who alone hath satisfyed for our sinnes Bellarmine Heere I see nothing proued no testimonies of the Ghospell produced but only vayne words interlaced with lyes for thou mightest haue omitted that which thou sayest of conuersion and earnest sorrow of the hart for we truly require conuersion and earnest sorrow of the hart in Penitents wheras you only haue I know not what terrours insteed of contritioÌ„ That which thou addest of faith determining that our sinnes are forgiuen vs is refuted before That which thou saiest that among the Papists the contrition deserueth remission of sinnes is a lye before refuted also That also which thou affirmest that the Papists say that euerlasting paines are satisfyed by temporall satisfactions is likewise a lye for we thinke not that we satisfy for euerlasting paines which we doubt not to be remitted vs in our iustification but for temporall punishments which either heere or in Purgatory God exacteth of them who after Baptisme come to pennance and reconciliation The punishment saith S. Augustine tract 124. in Ioan. endureth longer then the fault least the fault should be thought small if the punishment were also ended with it Finally that which thou addest that auricular confession is not commaunded and that satisfaction is repugnant to the merit of Christ thou saist indeed but doest not proue it Read if thou please S. Cyprian ser 5. de lapsis and thou shalt find Confession and Satisfaction to be necessary and these very words often repeated Now that Satisfaction is to be redeemed with money least peraduenture thou shouldest suspect some vnlawfull negotiation is nothing else among Catholikes then that one kind of satisfaction may be changed into another by the Priests iudgment as fasting into almes Let vs go forward to the rest §. X. Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that marriage is graunted and free for all men Lay and Priests and expresly saith that the forbidding of marriage and meates is a diuellish doctrine Contrariwise the Papists forbid a great part of men Priests and Monkes marriage and commaund abstinence from certaine meates vpon certaine daies Bellarmine But where I pray thee doth the Ghospell teach that marriage is graunted to them who haue a vow of continency Peraduenture Hebr. 13. where we read Marriage is honorable in all But if in all comprehendeth all men whatsoeuer marriage shal be honorable in the Father the Daughter in the Mother and the Sonne in Brother and Sister or if this pleaseth you not let it not please you neither that marriage ought to be called honourable betwixt a Monke and a Nunne and other men for whome it it is not lawfull to marry by reason of their vow for the Apostles meaning only is that we honour Marriage in all who are duely and lawfully marryed and it remayneth that you proue that those are duely and lawfully marryed who haue vowed to God perpetuall continency Heare S. Chrysostome what he wryteth epist 6. to Theodore a Monke who meant to marry a wife or perhaps had already marryed one Marriage saith he is honourable but it is not fitting for thee now to keep the priviledges of marriage although thou often callest this Marriage yet I thinke it worse then adultery Concerning the place of the Apostle 1. Tim. 4. forbidding to marry c. see what we said before chap. 21. neere the end of it §. XI Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that there is one true and solide foundation vpon which the Church of God is built viz. our Lord Iesus Christ 1. Cor. 3. Act. 4. and Augustine so interpreteth the place of Matth. 16. Vpon this rock which thou hast knowne saying Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God that is vpon my selfe the Sonne of the liuing God I will build my Church I will build thee vpon me not me vpon thee The Pope contrary wise cryeth out that vpon the rock of the Roman Church and the ordinary succession of Popes all the rest of the Church in the Christian world is built Bellarmine But I belieue S. Paul is not repugnant to himselfe when he saith Ephes 2. we that are built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Neither is S. Iohn Apoc. 21. where he saith that the 12. Apostles are 12. foundations of the Church contrary to S. Paul 1. Cor. 3. affirming that there is no other Foundation of the Church but Christ for S. Paul 1. Cor. 3. speaketh of the principall foundation But both he Ephes 2. and S. Io. Apoc. 21. speake of secondary Foundations Of which manner of foundation S. Augustine also speaketh in psal contra part Donat. where he saith Number the Priests euen from the very seat of S. Peter that is the rock which the proude gate of hell do not ouercome But of this we haue spoken sufficiently before lib. x. de Pontifice cap. 10. §. XII Chytraeus THE Ghospell teacheth that no Apostle or Bishop or other Minister of the Ghospell hath superiour and greater power and rule then another so farre as pertayneth to the Ministry but that all Ministers haue equall power to teach the Ghospell administer Sacraments bynd wicked and absolue those which do pennance as the Scriptures cleerly teach Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 3. v. 4. Ioan. 20. Matth. 18. the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen are giuen to all the Apostles togeather On the contrary side the Bishop of Rome boasteth that he hath by Gods law supreme power ouer all other Bishops and the whole Church and both swords the spirituall and politick c. Bllarmine I could not yet find where the Ghospell teacheth that one Bishop or Minister hath not greater power then another for the places which thou citest do plainely signify the contrary for Luc. 22. our Lord indeed exhorteth his disciples to humility and forbiddeth Kingly and tyrannicall dominatioÌ„ to them who ought to gouerne the Church In the meane time notwithstanding he affirmeth that among the Apostles one is greater then the rest yea and the guid or captayne of the rest For he saith let him that is greater among you become as the lesse and the precessour in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Dux the guide or captaine as a seruant or Mynister And the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. where he saith that he had planted and Apollo watred and againe that he as the Architect had laid the Foundation and that others do build vpon it doth he
of 3. About the secoÌ„d place M. DownaÌ„ taketh occasioÌ„ to shew his skill in Greeke maketh a large discourse that many tymes the greek article doth not signify a particuler thing 2. Thess 2. which both S. Epiphanius Bellarmine knew aswel as himselâ—e 4. But when he commeth to that part of S. Epiphanius his obseruation which maketh to the purpose he hath little WheÌ„ the Greek article signifieth a particuler thing to say against either of them both For S. Epiphanius his rule as M. DownaÌ„ interpreteth it is this VVhere the article is added vnto some definite and notable thing there is alway confirmation by the article which confirmation he will haue to be that the word is not to be vnderstood indefinitly or indifferently of any Which interpretation cannot stand with S. Epiphanius his wordes which doe suppose that there is no doubt but that the word doth signify of it selfe some definite notable thing and yet the article is added to adde some other confirmation which can be only the particularity as Bellarmine concludeth So that Epiphanius and Bellarmine agree very well and Doctor Downam cannot otherwise answere Bellarmines argument but by impugning S. Epiphanius his rule which he doth by deniyng two of his examples for the other was too euident and those two he first refuteth by our English phrases in which we will easilie grant that M. Downam hath more skill then S. Epiphanius or Bellarmine so that he will graunt vs. that they haue more skill then he in Greeke out of which Bellarmines argument is drawen Secondly he alleadgeth 2. Tim. 2. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man of God and Luke 11. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the vncleane spirit but these are froÌ„ the purpose since that neither place speaketh of the most eminent man of God nor of the most eminent vncleane spirit which is necessary for S. Epiphanius his rule who only speaketh of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which M. Downam translateth not well in the positiue degree and cannot deny the rule it selfe which is confirmed by all the examples which he bringeth of Apostle Poet Orator and VViseman and the same is euident of King Man c. when we only speake of the most eminent King Man c. as S. Paul doth here of the most eminent Antichrist Now as for the second part of S. Epiphanius his rule which M. Downam translateth thus but without the article it is to be taken of any one indefinitly that is indeterminately we graunt it him when it is the name of some definite and most notable thing of which S. Epiphanius speaketh but when it is only an Adiectiue or a Pronowne as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is theÌ„ it is out of S. Epiphanius his rule especially when by some other circumstances it is sufficiently declared that some particuler person or thing is meant as it happeneth in our case 5. Concerning the third place it pleaseth M. Downam to be a little merry with Bellarmine saying that he thought the argument drawne from the article to good to goe for one and so deuided it 1. Iohn 2. into two And yet he knew well inough that Bellarmine did not draw his argument from the article but from places of Scripture or rather bringeth many places of Scripture to make one argument But in good earnest I meruaile why M. Downam troubleth himselfe so much with an argument already answered in the former for first he bringeth forth 2. Thess 2. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that hindereth which signifieth the state and succession of the Roman Emperours As though this did signify the most notable Emperour which is necessary for to verify S. Ephiphanius his rule After this he alleadgeth Matth. 1. 16. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vpon this rock by which he saith the Papists vnderstand the whole succession of Popes and yet there is not only the article but also the pronowne demonstratiue But M. Downam should haue considered that the Papists do not otherwise vnderstand the place of the whole succession of Popes then by a necessary consequence that whatsoeuer is giuen to one Pope is giuen to all and so this speach being vsed to S. Peter as Pope is by consequence to be vnderstood and verifyed of all the rest After this he commeth back againe to 2. Thess 2. 3. which he had handled so largely before and saith that some Downam mistaketh Bellarmine and S. Augustine doe vnderstand the Man of Syn of the whole multitude of those who toyne with Antichrist and addeth that Augustine reciteth this opinion and is so far from misliking it that Bellarmine alleadgeth it as Augustines At which ouersight of his I much meruaile For neither doe those Authors speake of the MaÌ„ of sinne but of the Apostasie or reuolt nor doth Bellarmine attribute the opinion to S. Augustine as M. Downam or any other may easily see if it please them to looke vpon the place in this Chapter § XXIII yet M. Downam goeth on with his examples of the VVoman and the Harlot out of the Apoc. 12. 6. and 17. 1. 18. by which are signified the Church of Christ and the Cittie or Church of Antichrist And yet he cannot choose but know that first they signify those women which were shewed to S. Iohn in the forme of particuler VVomen and besides that which is signified by the women is also as particuler as the nature of those thinges doe permit the Church of Christ in that tyme of which S. Iohn speaketh and the materiall Cittie of Rome which is a particuler Cittie 6. At length he commeth to the place which Bellarmine citeth and he maketh the Apostle to reason thus VVhen the 1. Ioan. â— Downam corrupteth the text of Scripture Antichrist is come it is the last houre now Antichrists are come therfore now is the last houre Where I meruaile how he durst be so bould with the holy Scripture as to change commeth into is come If he saith that S. Iohn might not haue 4. * termini termes in his argument he should rather haue said that S. Iohn did not argue at least in forme but rather that he did vse a more briefe and compendious manner of reasoning by putting downe two arguments almost in two lines as indeed he doth For if M. Downam will needes bring it into forme it is thus VVhen the great Antichrist commeth it is the last houre But now he commeth Ergo c. the minor which might seeme obscure he proueth thus The great Antichrist is then said to come when many are become Antichrists But we see many such now Ergo c. And then he repeateth his former conclusion Therefore it is the last houre After this M. Downam goeth to the 22. v. where S. Iohn saith This is the Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which denyeth the Father and the SoÌ„ne Out of which there can no more be gathered then that Antichrist shall deny both the Father and the
Empire as M. Downam rashelie auoucheth only because he would exceed Bellarmine in wordes since he cannot come neere him in proofes THE SIXT CHAPTER Conteyning the third Demonstration THE third demonstration saith Bellarmine is taken from the comming of Henoch and Helias who liue still and to this end that they may oppose themselues to Antichrist when he commeth conserue the elect in the Faith of Christ and at length conuert the Iewes which notwithstanding without doubt is not yet fulfilled There be foure places of Scripture concerning this matter the first Malac. 4. Behould I will send Elias the Prophet vnto you before the great daie of the Lord commeth and he will conuert the hartes of the Fathers to the Children and the hartes of the children to their Fathers The second Eccle. 48. where we read of Helias VVho wert receaued in a whirle-wynd of fire in a whirle-wynd of fyery horses who art written in the iudgments of tymes to asswage the Lordes anger to reconcile the hart of the Father to the sonne and to restore the Tribes of Israel And cap. 44. Henoch pleased God and was translated into Paradise to giue to Nations pennance The third Matth. 17. Helias indeed is to come shall restore all thinges The fourth Apoc. 11. I will giue to my two witnesses and they shall prophesie 1260. dayes Theodorus Bibliander alleadgeth also all these places in his Chronicle tab 14. but he saith that by Henoch and Helias are vnderstood all faithfull Ministers which God rayseth in the tyme of Antichrist of which sort were Luther Zuinglius and the rest and at length he concludeth VVherfore saith he it is a childish imaginatiō or a Iewish dream to expect either Helias or Henoch as persōs described by their particuler proprieties And the same teacheth Chytraeusin Comment Apoc. 11. and they prooue it because those thinges which are said of Helias by Malachie our Lord taught vs to be vnderstood of S. Iohn Baptish Matth. 11. He is Helias who is to come And S. Hierom in cap. 4. Malach. expoundeth it of all the quire of Prophets that is to say of the doctrine of all the Prophets But to vs it seemeth not a childish imagination but a most true opinion that Henoch and Elias shall come in their persons and that the contrary is eyther an heresie or an errour next doore to heresy It is proued first out of those foure Scriptures for that the wordes of Malachie cannot be vnderstood of any Doctors whatsoeuer as of Luther Zuinglius the like it is manifest for Malachie saith that the Iewes are to be conuerted by Helias and that he is chieflie to be sent for the Iewes as is manifest by that I will send vnto you And in Ecclesiasticus to restore the Tribes of Iacob But Luther and Zuinglius haue conuerted none of the Iewes That also they cannot be vnderstood litterallie of S. Iohn Baptist but only of Helias it is manifest because Malachie speaketh of the second comming of our Lord which shal be to iudge for so he saith Before the great and horrible day of the Lord commeth for the first comming is not called a great and horrible daie but an acceptable tyme and the day of saluation For which cause it is also added Least perhappes comming I strike the earth with anathema and curse that is to say least comming to iudgment and finding all wicked I condemne all the earth therfore I will send Helias that I may haue some to saue But in the first comming our Lord came not to iudge but to be iudged not to destroy but to saue To the wordes of our Lord Matth. 11. we wil answere a little after To S. Hierome Isay that though in Comment Malach he did not thinke that Malachie did speake of the true Helias yet in comment Matth. 11. 17. he thinketh teacheth the contrary Finallie S. Augustine lib. 20. Ciu. cap. 29. witnesseth that this is the common interpretation of the faithfull That likewise Ecclesiasticus speaketh of the persons of Henoch Helias and not of some other it is prooued for Ecclesiasticus saith that Henoch shall come to giue the Nations pennance who is translated into Paradise and that Helias shall come to restore the tribes of Israel who was taken away in a chariot of fiery horses which certainely agree not but to those particuler persons In which place I cannot sufficientlie meruaile what came into Bishop Iansenius his mind that expounding this place he should write Although it be the opinion of all the Ancients that Helias shall come yet it is not conuinced out of this place for it may be said that Ecclesiasticus wrote that according to the opinion receaued in his tyme by which it was belieued out of the wordes of Malachie that Helias shall trulie come before the Messias in his owne person whereas it was not to be fulfilled in his owne person but in him who was to come in the spirit and vertue of Helias For if it be so as Iansenius saith it followeth that Ecclesiasticus erred and wrote false thinges But if I be not deceaued Iansenius changed his opinion for writing in Cap. 17. Matth. he teacheth that the place of Malachie cannot be litterallie vnderstood but of the true Helias which he is likewise compelled to say of the place of Ecclesiasticus who without doubt expoundeth Malachy Now that the wordes of our Lord Matth. 17. are vnderstood of the true Helias yt is plaine because S. Iohn was alreadie come and had absolued his course and yet our Lord saith Helias shall come and that they are not vnderstood of all doctors but of one true Helias it may be proued first because the Apostles who moued the question of Helias where S. Peter S. Iames and S. Iohn and they tooke occasion by the Transfiguration of our Lord where they saw Moyses Helias wherefore when they aske why therefore doe the Scribes say that Helias must come first they speake of that Helias whome they had seene in the mountayne with Christ Therefore Christ answering Helias indeed shall come restore all thinges speaketh also of that particuler Helias who had appeared in the Transfiguration Secondly the same is manifest out of those wordes and he shall restore all thinges for S. Io. Baptist nor any other hath don that for torestore all thinges is to recall all Iewes and heretikes and perhappes many Catholikes deceaued by Antichrist to the true Faith But Bibliander vrgeth because our Lord Matth. 11. saith of S. Io. Baptist He is Helias who is to come as if he had said He is the Helias promised by Malachy I answere Our Lordes meaning is that S. Iohn was the Helias promised not litterally but allegoricallie for therefore he said first and if you will receaue him as if he said Helias indeed promised in his owne person is to come in the last comming yet if you will haue also some Helias in the first comming receaue Iohn Therefore also he addeth
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
lieth lurking vnder the title of the Church as vnder a vizard Magdeburgenses Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. col 435. So that say they the Kingdome of Antichrist consisteth in doctrine which professeth Christ but yet he denieth his Merit and Office And after Iohn say they sheweth that Antichrist shall deny that Christ is come in flesh that is that Christ hath entirely redeemed and saued vs in his flesh but that our good workes do also help vs somthing to saluation Secondly they say that Antichrist shall not make himselfe Christ or God in word but in worke because he shall occupy the place of Christ and God in the Church making himselfe the head of all the faithfull which belongeth only to Christ So the Magdeburgenses loc cit He shall shew himselfe say they for God as that he is Christs vicar and the head of the Church and can fasten loose the articles of Faith Finally they say that Antichrist shall not reiect Idols yea that he shall adore them openly which they proue out of Daniel who cap. 11. after that he had said that Antichrist should rise against all the Gods addeth But he shall reuerence the God Maozim in his place and he shall worship the God whome their Fathers knew not with gold and siluer and precious stones c. And by Maozim the heretikes vnderstand the ornaments of the Churches the Masses Images Reliques and other like So Illyricus in lib. cont Primat and all the rest And that which the Apostle saith 2. Thess 2. that Antichrist shall extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped they expound the Pope who maketh himselfe the Vicar of Christ and yet vsurpeth greater authority then Christ had Illyricus in catalog testium pag. 3. proueth this for I haue not hitherto seene how they proue the rest because Christ Matth. 24. declared that it is nothing els to shew himselfe to be God yea to extoll himselfe aboue God and his worship then to come in the name of Christ out of which it followeth that the Pope who challengeth himselfe to be Christs Vicar is most truly Antichrist Likewise Christ subiected himselfe to the Scripture saying that he did and suffered those things which he did and suffered that the Scripture might be fullfilled but the Pope sayth that he can dispence against an Apostle or Euāgelist and make those things which seeme right to be wicked c. This is the summe of the chiefest part of our Aduersaries doctrine of Antichrist which is wholy grounded vpon only Scripture falsly explicated by new glosses In signe wherof they alleadge not so much as one Interpreter or Doctour for themselues Wherfore let vs begin with the first that Antichrist shall openly and of set purpose deny Iesus to be Christ and therfore reiect all his Sacraments as the inuentions of a seducer it is proued first out of that which we haue said cap. 12. For if Antichrist shall be by nation and religion ◠Iew and receaued by the Iewes for their Messias as we haue shewed certainly he shall not preach our Christ but shall openly impugne him for otherwise the Iewes should receaue our Christ by Antichrist which is most absurd Besides since there cannot be two Christs how can Antichrist obtrude himselfe for Christ to the Iewes vnles he first teach that our Christ which went before was not the true Christ Secondly that it is proued out of that 1. Iohn 2. VVho is a lyer but he that denyeth Iesus to be Christ And this is Antichrist for all heretikes are called Antichrists who in some sort deny Iesus to be Christ Therfore Antichrist himselfe shall simply and in all sorts deny Iesus to be Christ And it is confirmed because the Diuell is said to worke the mistery of iniquity by heretikes because they hiddenly deny Christ But the comming of Antichrist is called a reuelation because he shall openly deny Christ Besides out of the Fathers S. Hilaryl 6. de Trinit saith that the diuell by the Arians endeauored to perswade men that Christ was not the naturall but the adoptiue Sonne of God but that by Antichrist he wil endeauour to perswade that he is not so much as the adoptiue that he may vtterly extinguish the name of the true Christ S. Hippolyt mart orat de consum mundi saith that Antichrists Character shall be that men shall be compelled to say I deny Baptisme I deny the signe of the Crosse and the like S. August lib. 20. Ciuit. Dei cap. 8. inquireth whether in the time of Antichrists persecution it be credible that any shall be baptized and a◠length he answereth Truly quoth he both the parents shall be so couragious for the baptizing of their children and likewise those who shall then first belieue in Christ that they will ouercome the strong man euen vnbound Where S. Augustine presupposed that Antichrist will not permit them to be baptized and yet that some godly parents will rather suffer any thing then that their children should not be baptized S Hierome in cap. 11. Dan. Antichrist saith he is to rise of a meane nation that is of the people of the Iewes and he shal be so vile and contemptible that Kingly honour shall not be giuen vnto him and by subtilties and deceipt he shall come to be a Prince and this he shall do because he shall frame himselfe to be captaine of the League that is of the Law and Testament of God Where S. Hierome teacheth that Antichrist shall obtaine the Kingdome among the Iewes because he shall shew himselfe zealous for the Iewish Law Sedulius in 2. Thess 2. saith that Antichrist shall restore all the Iewish Cerimonies that he may dissolue the Ghospell of Christ S. Gregory l. 11. ep 3. Because Christ saith he shall compell the people to Iudaize that he may recall the right of the outward Law and subdue to himselfe the perfidiousnesse of the Iewes he will haue the Sabaoth obserued Finally in the time of Antichrist by reason of the vehemency of his persecution the publicke offices and the diuine Sacrifices shall cease as we haue shewed c. 7. By which it is euident that Antichrist will not depraue the Doctrine of Christ vnder the name of Christianisme as the heretikes will but that he will most openly impugne the name and Sacraments of Christ and bring in the Iewish cerimonies which since the Pope doth not it is euident that he is not Antichrist Now that Antichrist will plainely and by name cal himselfe Christ and not his Minister or Vicar that is manifest first out of those words of our Lord Iohn 5. If another come in his owne name him you will receaue Where our Lord seemeth of purpose to haue added in his owne name foreseeing that the Lutherans Caluinists would say that Antichrist shall not come in his owne name but in the name of our Christ as his Vicar Besides the Fathers in many places teach this S. Iren. lib. 5. He will endeauour
saith he to shew himselfe Christ S. Ambrose in cap. 21. Luc. He will argue out of the Scriptures saith he that he is Christ Theodoret in 2. Thess 2. He will name himselfe Christ S. Cyril cateches 15. He will induce saith he a certaine man falsly calling himselfe Christ and by this appellation deceauing the Iewes who expect him to come Briefly all the Fathers as we haue shewed before do say that Antichrist shall be receaued of the Iewes for the Messias Wherfore he shall openly and by name make selfe the Messias that is Christ Wherefore the Pope who doth not this as is knowne is not Antichrist For in that he calleth himselfe the Vicar of Christ he affirmeth himselfe not to be Christ but his seruant And that Antichrist shall openly name himself God and will be worshipped for God not only vsurping some authority of God but the very name of God it is proued first by those words of the Apostle 2. Thess 2. So that he sitteth in the Temple shewing as though he were God Where S. Paul doth not only say that Antichrist shal sit in the Temple for we also sit in Temples and yet are not Antichrists but also he explicateth the manner in which he shall sit viz. that he shall fit as God to whome alone properly a Temple is erected And this is more plaine in the Greeke text for it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tamquam Deus but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is ostendens quod sit Deus shewing that he is God And so did all the ancient Fathers vnderstand this place S. Irenaeus lib. 5. Being an Apostatae and Thiefe he will be adored as God S. Chrysostome in hunc locum He will command himselfe to be adored for God and placed in the Temple And Homil. 40. in loan expounding this place He will professe himselfe the God of all And after He will glory that he is the greatest of Gods S. Ambrose in 2. Thess 2. He will affirme himselfe to be God himselfe not the Sonne of God In like sort do all expound it By which we vnderstand that the Pope who acknowledgeth himselfe to be the Seruant of God and not God is not Antichrist Finally that Antichrist will not suffer any God neither true nor false nor any Idolls it is proued first by those words of S. Paul 2. Thess 2. VVho is extolled aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped where it is to be noted that in greeke for that is worshipped it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Magdeburgenses will haue to signifie worship that is the act of worshipping not that which is worshipped that from thence they may proue that the Apostle meaneth not that Antichrist will not adore Idols but that he will depraue the worship of the true God mayming the Sacraments or adding vnto them diuers Cerimonies But certainely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth most properly not the act but the obiect that is that which is worshipped as the Altar Temple Idoll c. For the worship is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherfore the same S. Paul Act. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Praeteriens considerans Simulachra vestra inneni Aram c. passing by and considering your Idols I found an Altar c. Where S. Paul most manifestly by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnderstaÌ„deth the things theÌ„selues which are worshipped as the Temples Altars Idols c. And Sapient 15. we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Melior est homo idolis quae ipse secit nam ipse vixit aliquando illa autem numquam Man is better then the Idolls which he hath made for he liued sometime but they neuer which place I know not whether any dare so peruert that he wil deny by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the idolls or figures themselues which are made with mens hands to be signified and which seeme to haue life and yet liue not Wherfore all the Grecians and Erasmus also himselfe to whome all the heretikes attribute much aswell in his translation as in his annotations doth teach that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be translated Numen Soueraignty or diuine power and Maiesty Secondly the words of Daniel cap. 11. are most manifest Neither will he care for any of the Gods but will rise against all Vpon which place S. Hierome writing sayth that they caÌ„not be vnderstood of Antiochus as Porphiry would haue theÌ„ because it is manifest that Antiochus adored the Gods of the Greekes but they are to be vnderstood of Antichrist who will worship no God Lastly this is the consent of the ancient Fathers S. Irenaeus lib. 5. He shall lay aside Idols to perswade that he is God but he shall extoll himselfe the only Idoll S. Hippolyt Serm. de consummâ—t Antichrist will not admit Idolatry S. Cyril catech 15. Antichrist will hate Idols S. Chrysost vpon this place He is extolled aboue all that is called God or Maiesty for he will not lead to Idolatry The same teach vpon this place Theophilact Oecumenius Theodoretus who also note very well that the Diuell doth and will wonderfully play with the children of perdition for in old time he perswaded that there were many false Gods and that diuers Idols were to be worshipped and by that meanes gained many But in the time of Antichrist because he shall see that by the Doctrine of Christ Idols are cast in a manner out of the world and the multitude of false Gods he will also accuse Idols and the multitudes of them and by that meanes will deceaue more yet By which it appeareth that the Pope who in the opinion of the Catholikes acknowledgeth God the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost and in the opinion of Heretikes adoreth many Idols can by no meanes be sayd to be Antichrist But say they Daniel cap. 11. affirmeth that the God Maozim shall be worshipped by Antichrist with gold and siluer and pretiâ—â—â— stones it is answered first by the God Marzint which is interpreted of strengths that is most strong Antichrist himselfe may be vnderstood for the word venerabitur will worship is not in the hebrew jistaâ—aâ—ch adorabit will adore but jecabbed glorificabit will glorify as Psal 90. God saith Eripiam cum glorificabo cum I will deliuer him and glorifie him in hebrew â—â—abbedehâ— and certainely God doth not glorify men by subiecting himselfe vnto them but by exalting them So therfore shall Antichrist glorify himselfe when he shall cause himself to be adored of all for which cause the 70. translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in this sort doth Theodoret expound it He calleth himselfe the strong and mighty God for this doth Maozim signify for he did put in this place for himselfe For he will erect Temples to himselfe and will adorne them with gold siluer and pretious stones Thus Theodoret. Secondly it may be said which I like better that
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
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
and our Ancestors haue proued 〈◊〉 belieue and â—â—â—st that we shall alway be helped by the prayers of our speciall 〈◊〉 among all the laboures of the life to obtayne the mercy of God that by hâ—w much we are depressed by our sinnes so much we may be erected by Apostolicall merits So he And although we are not wont to speake so as Illyricus saith that we are saued by the merits of spirituall men yeâ— if any did speake so and would only signify that we are in some sort helped by the merites of Saints to obtayne saluation by Christ he could not be more reprehended then the Apostle S. Paul who 1. Cor. 9. saith Iam made all things to all men that I might make all men saued and the Apostle S. Iudas who speaketh in like manner when he saith Do you reprehead these indeed being iudged and saue those taking them from the fier And thus much of the Priesthood of Christ Illyricus goeth forward Now he taketh away Christs Kingdome from him because in earth he will be the head of the Church and in Heauen he appointeth vs other helpers and Sauiours to whome he commaundeth vs to fly in our miseries wherefore the Pope denieth that Iesus is Christ Heere first I aske whether the Pope or any of the Catholikes call the Saints Sauiours Then I adde if to affirme that he is the head of the Church vnder Christ as his Vicar and Minister which the Pope doth be to deny that Iesus is Christ why by the same reason whosoeuer affirmeth that he is Vice-roy or Gouernour of some Prince is not forthwith censured to deny the King to be his Lord Finally if to fly to Saints as helpers in miseries is to deny that Iesus is Christ how I pray you did not S. Paul deny Iesus to be Christ when he saith Rom. 15. I besâ—ech you brethren by our Lord Iesus Christ and by the charity of the Holy Ghost that you helpe me in prayers for me to God that I may be deliuered from the infidalls which are in Iudea How did not Basil the Great deny Iesus to be Christ when in orat de 40. Mart. he spake thus He that is oppressed with any distresse let him fly to these Againe he that reioyceth let him pray to these he to be deliuered from miseries this other that he may continue in prosperity I omit the rest of the Fathers for feare least if we examine them we shall find none who hath not denieth Iesus to be Christ Illyricus goeth on Dan. 11. describeth Antichrist by many notes First saith he he shall do what he will surely the Pope doth what he listeth But holy Daniel when he saith of Antichrist he shall do what he will signifyeth that Antichrist shall acknowledge no superiour at all no not God himselfe for so it followeth And he shal be extelled against euery God wherefore Antichrist neglecting also the law and commaundement of God shall liue at his owne will which cetainely the Pope doth not who denieth not that he is bound by the law of God and acknowledgeth Christ his Iudg and Superiour He himselfe saith Illyricus confesseth it dist 40. If the Pope should draw with him infinite soâ—â—es into hell yet no man must say vnto him what dost thou And the glosse saith the Popes will standeth for reason The Canon which beginneth Si Papa is not as Illyricus falsly saith of any Bishop of Rome but of S. Boniface Bishop of Meâ—tz Apostle of the Germanes and a Martyr who donieth not that the chiefe Bishop if he liueth ill is to be rebuked and admonished by brotherly charity but he denieth that he can be reprehended by authority and iudged since that he is the iudge of all men which Boniface also in those words which go before that Canon as is to be seene in the new edition of the Decree expresly calleth the Church of Rome the head of all Churches and affirmeth that the prosperity of the whole Church doth depend of the safety of the Bishop of Rome after God Wherefore I demaund of Illyricus whether the sentence of S. Bonifacius Apostle of the Germans be true or no for if it be not true why is it obiected vnto vs if it be true why is it not receaued I will say the same more plainely If that sentence be not true then it is not true that it may not be said to the Pope drawing many soules with himselfe into hell What doest thou If it be true then is the Pope truly the head of all Churches and being to iudge all is to be iudged by none Wherefore let Illyricus leane alleadging the Canons which can profit him nothing As for the glosse let Illyricus know that it is either taken away by the Pope himselfe as false in the new edition of the Decree or cls was neuer in the decree certainely I could not find it Illyricus goeth forward Secondly Daniel saith that he will extol himselfe aboue God that the Pope did as is manifest by that which hath ben said Likewise because he will have himselfe heard more then God and blaspheming he crieth out that the Scripture is the Fountaine of all heresies and schismas doubtefull and obscure c. But thou shouldest haue rehearsed Daniels wordes faithfully for he saith not he will extell himselfe aboue God but he shal be extelled against euery God and after Neither shall he care for any of the Gods because he shall rise against all Which note most clearely sheweth that the Pope hath nothing common with Antichrist for Antichrist will care for none of the Gods but the Pope worshippeth the only true God the Father the Sonne and holy Ghost Neither doth he that alone but also if we belieue you he adoreth openly so many Gods as there be Saintes in Heauen Images on earth and reliques vnder the earth Now that which thou addest that the Pope crieth out that the Scripture is the fountaine of heresy and schismes Certainely I neuer read it in the writinges of any Pope but I heare that it is the word of thy freind Luther that the Scripture is the booke of heretikes Luth. praefat historia qua contigit in Strasfort anno 36. which word if it be rightly taken I see not why it should be deseruedly reprehended for S. Hilarie lib. de Synod extreâ—â—o sheweth that most heresies arose out of the Scriptures ill vnderstood and Tertullian in lib. de praescript more bouldly saith thus Neither am I afraid to say that the very Scriptures are so disposed by the will of God that they might minister matter to Heretikes since I read Heresies must be which cannot be without Scriptures And that the Scriptures are ambiguous and obscure in many places not only the Pope most truly teacheth but also all the old Fathers and euen Luther himselfe whether he would or no was constreyned to confesse it when praefat in Psal he wrote thus I would not haue that presumed of me by any which none of the most
Sonne for S. Iohn speaketh not generallie of euery one that denieth Iesus to 1. Iohn 4. 5. be Christ as M. Downam affirmeth Likewise Cap. 4. 5. S. Iohn only affirmeth that it is the spirit of Antichrist to denie Christ and that he was to come in himselfe and was then in the world in his members and the like he repeateth Epist 2. v. 7. that all those which denied Christ to be come were 2. Iohn 7. members of the chiefe Seducer and Antichrist which was to come after and teach that doctrine more then any of the former The rest which M. Downam hath in this place be the obiections which Bellarmine maketh solueth as we shall see not long after 7. To the fourth place M. Downam answereth that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist at all which he proueth by the authoritie of the learned of our times but nameth not any perhaps because Dan. 7. 11. 12. he was ashamed to oppose them to those which Cardinall Bellarmine cited especially to his good Maisters Calwin the Magdclurgenses and Beza Afterward he proueth the same Downam peruerteth Daniel egregiously with reason for that Daniel describeth him whome M. Downam will haue to be Antiochus only as the tenth and Cardinall Bellarmine maketh him the cleauenth as if it were a beast of cleauen hornes which trulie is a straÌ„ge bouldnes in M. Downam the words of Daniel being so cleere for hauing said Cap. 7. v. 7. that the fourth beast had ten hornes he forth with added â— 8. Consideraham cornua ceâ—â— corâ—u aliud parâ—â—ulum orium est de medio eorum c. I did consider the hornes no doubt the ten which he had said that the beast had and behould another little horne rose vp in the mydst of theÌ„ so that he distinguisheth it froÌ„ the other ten by three notes 1. calling it another 2. a little one no doubt in respect of the other ten and 3. that it rose vp in the midst of them signifying that they appeared before this and that it was not the tenth may also be gathered by that it arose in the midst and not in the same place as it should haue done if it had signified one of the ten Kings of the Seleucida and Lagidae in Syria and Egipt as M. Downam would haue it Where we may also note that these 10. Kings were all of distinct Prouinces and at one time for otherwise this last horne could not haue risen in the midst of them And againe v. 20. he that expounded the visioÌ„ to Daniel saith thus Et de cornibus decem quae habebat in capite de alio quod ortuÌ„ fuerat c. And of the ten hornes which he had on his head and of the other which arose c. caÌ„ any thing be more plaine theÌ„ that the other which arose was none of the ten But v. 24. more plainly porrò cornua decem ipsius regni decem Reges eruÌ„t alius consurget post eos ipse potentior erit prioribâ—â— c. Moreouer the ten hornes of his kingdome shal be ten Kings and another shall arise after them he shal be more potent theÌ„ the former c. Now what a strange man is M. Downam to say that he is the tenth And by this it is easy to gather how true his exposition is in the rest as that those 10. Kings ruled succeffiuelie euer the Iewes and that 6. for the most part were dead before the 10. was borne of which we shall haue Chap. 16. occasion to speake hereafter Now it is sufficient to note that Bellarmine addeth that of the subuing seauen out of the 12. 23. and 17. of the Apocalyps togeather with the 7. of Daniel for in all those places there is mention made of the 10. hornes but with this difference that in the 12. chap. of Apoc. 3. v. there be togeather with the 10. hornes 7. heads with 7. diadems in the 13. there be also 7. heades vpon the hornes 10. diadems of which difference in the diadems that in the former place they be but 7. and in the latter ten the reasoÌ„ is for that Antichrist shall kill three Kinges and so there shall only 7. remayne But of this wee shall likewise haue occasion to speake more heereafter Now therefore let vs goe forward with M. Downam who saith that if Antiochus be Chap. 16. spoken of and Antichrist be by him figured it followeth not that Antichrist shal be a particuler man as Antiochus was for that the likenes doth not hould in all thinges but only in those in respect whereof the type is a figure as the high Priest of the Iewes was a figure of Christ and yet they were many Melchrsedeth was as Papistes say a figure of theyr Priestes and yet was but one Iosuah Dauid Salomon types of Christ and yet not like him in all As though Bellarmine said that Antichrist shal be like Antiochus in all thinges or in any other thing then that which is set downe in the Scripture and confirmed againe in the new Testament so vnderstood by the Fathers as in his victories and such other circumstances that cannot agree to many but only to one particuler man as Antiochus was and Antichrist shal be 8. To the 5. place M. Downam answereth that S. Iohn Daniel speake of diuers matters For confirmation wherof he denieth againe the 11. horne in Daniel adding this proofe Apoc. 13. 17. that otherwise the 4. beast were abeast of 11. hornes To which it is easie to answere that before that little horne arose that beast is described with 10. hornes and after he had but 7. left for three of them were pulled vp by this little horne and by See cap. 1â— this all the difference he putteth betwixt the 10. Kinges in Daniel and S. Iohn is ouerthrowne After he commeth to the tyme of the persecution of Antiochus Antichrist for the former he graunteth that it endured only from the 15. day of the moneth Casleu in the 145. yeare of the Kingdome of the Seleucidae 1. Macah. 1. 57. vnto the 25. of the moneth Casleu in the yeare 148. 1. Macab 4. 52. which make 3. yeares and ten daies which is all that Daniel assigned by a time and times and parcell of a tyme. Where he maketh bould with Daniel changing halfe a tyme vnto a parcell of a tyme for the Prophet saith plainly Downam corrupteth the text of Daniel Dan 7. 12. both cap. 7. v. 25. vsque ad tempus tempora diâ—â—diunt temporis and againe cap. 12. v. 7. he saith that the Angell swore by him that lyueth for euer quia in tempus tempora dimidium temporis and after he counteth it also by dayes dies mille duceuts â—â—naginta and yet all this will not keep M. Downam from taking away so much as he thinketh necessary for to make his interpretation good But when he commeth to the Apocalyps