yet Downamâ— vayne bragging it maketh nothing against vs. And heere M. Downam braggeth of the goodnes of his argumeÌ„t yet straight way after he calleth it oÌ„ly an aÌ„swere But the poore maÌ„ is deceaued in thinking that when one saith transeat because the argument is impertinent that he doth it because the argument is very good wheras indeed it is only because it is nothing worth as M. Downam might easily haue seene in this of his by the 4. precedent answeres And there can no argument be more fully answered then by shewing that it may be answered many wayes and in all opinions And lastly that though it were admitted yet the cheife question remayneth as doubtfull as before But M. Downam saith that none of their side make this argument Antichrist is not one man Therefore the Pope is Antichrist which because he saith it we will beleeue him but then I must aske him whether any of them make this argument or noe The head of the generall Apostasie which endureth many yeares is Antichrist but the Pope is the head of this Apostasie Ergo the Pope is Antichrist for this M. Downam himselfe setteth downe in the end of his discourse and this is the argument which Bellarmine answereth by letting passe the proposition with a transeat though it be false denying the AssumptioÌ„ 20. And so at last M. Downam is content to proue it which he doth very worshipfully by an argument that is called petitio principij alleadging certaine points in controuersy Downams petitio principij and supposing that we teach false in them all as about Marriages Fastings though he know well inough that we allow the Sacrâ—ment of matrimony forbid none to marry but such as of their owne accord haue bound themselues to the essate of continency nor commaund any Fastinges for that we thinke any creature of God vncleane or defiled nor adore Images as Idols or Gods nor refuse any part of Scripture or admit any thing against Scripture as he falsely affirmeth but onlie deny Hereticall interpretations and admit certaine and vndoubted Traditions and Definitions which agree with Scripture and are both commended and many tymes insinuated in Scripture though not so plainely explicated as other pointes of doctrine which are held aswell by Tradition as by manyfest Scripture expounded by the vniforme consent of holy Fathers But it is strange how M. Downam slippeth ouer that which Bellarmine vrgeth Downam dissembleth the difficultie against him which is that they haue plainely apostated from our Church euen by their owne confession and that they cannot shew that euer weapostated from any Church at al and consequently that there is farre more likelyhood that they belong to the generall Apostasie of which Antichrist is head since it is plaine that in some sort they are Apostataes then we who in no sort can be proued to haue apostated at all 21. Hitherto you haue seene how M. Downam hath replyed against Bellarmine Now you shall here one obiection of his owne in these wordes To the 3. former arguments a fourth may be added the 7. heads of that beast which signifieth the Roman estate Apoc. 17. are not so many persons but so many heades or States of gouerment wherby the commonwealth of the Romans hath ben at diuers tymes gouerned the sixt head was the state of Emperors the 7. Antichrist as the Papists confesse for which he citeth Rhem. in Apoc. 17. and Bellarmine the eight which also is one of the 7. the state of the Emperours renewed Wherby it euidently appeareth not only that Antichrist is not one man but also that the Pope who is the 7. head is Antichrist To which I answere that all or the most part of this exposition is false and especiallie that which appertayneth to the present purpose For first he bringeth neither author nor reason to proue that those 7. heades did signifie 7. states of gouernement in Rome and others as good authors as M. DownaÌ„ doe expound it farre otherwise Secondly though we admit this exposition as probable and that the head is Antichrist yet it followeth not that he shal be any more then one man for he may haue a different gouernement which is to endure but only in his owne tyme especially since in the same place he is said to staie a short tyme and els where it is plainly explicated that it shal be only three yeares and a halfe and so it appeareth not soe euidentlie as M. Downam weeneth that Antichrist or the 7. head shall not be one man euen in his owne exposition and much less that the Pope is Antichrist For neither is he the 7. head since the 6. still remayneth neither hath he endured a short tyme as the 7 head shall And as for the 8. which M. Downam would make an head also for Downam addeth an head of his owne to the 7. of the beast which he must be faine to lend him his owne head for otherwise there wil be only 7. found in the Scripture it is manifest that M. Downams interpretation is most foolish for that he maketh the beast with 7. heades to haue 8. and himselfe to be one of them and so to be also only one head he being indeed no head at all but a beast which hath 7. heads and is said to be the 8. in number not of heads but of distinct rulers or gouernours for that he is distinct from all the other 7. which are called his heads and yet is of them as he whose instruments they haue bene and whome he hath moued incited to all manner of euill which plainely discouereth M. Downams follie in applying it to the Emperours which now are And so all his obiection is shewed to be friuolous of which I shall haue occasion to speake heerafter whither I remit the Reader for further proofes THE THIRD CHAPTER Wherein it is shewed that Antichrist is not yet come ABOVT the third saith Bellarmine concerning the tyme of Antichrists coÌ„ming there haue bene many false suspicions many errors aswell of Catholikes as of Heretikes but with this difference that the Catholikes knowing that Antichrist shall not come but in the end of the world which is the truth they erred notwithstanding in that they thought that the end of the world had ben neerer then indeed it was But the Heretikes do erre in that they think that Antichrist shall come long before the end of the world and that in verie deed he is alreadie come Let vs therefore speake of both errors First all auncient Writers considering the malice of their tymes suspected that the tymes of Antichrist were at hand So the Thessalonians in the Apostles tyme did thinke that the daie of our Lord drew neere whome the Apostle doth correct 2. Thess 2. In like manner S. Cyprian lib. 3. ep 1. Antichrist saith he drawing neere prepareth soldiars for the battaile And lib. 4. ep 6. You must know saith he and belieue and hould for
yet the Kingdomes in his exposition were signified by the fourth Beast and iron legges and the Kinges by the 10. hornes and 10. toes And is not M. Downam a wise man thinke you to confirme one absurditie with another farre greater and which he knoweth his aduersary will much lesse graunt then that Downam childishly confirmeth one absurditie with another farre greater which he goeth about to proue Besides that this deuise is so foolish that euery child will laugh at M. Downam for it for who seeth not that the King succeedeth not his Kingdome as the ten toes doe the iron legges and the ten hornes by the consent of all Ecclesiasticall writers the 4. beast but must of force be vnited togeather except we will make the Kingdomes of the Seleucidae and Lagidae or of the Romans to haue byn without their Kings and Emperours and afterward againe the Kinges Emperours without their States which is so grosse an absurditie as mee thinkes M. Downam should see it and it is little lesse to call these Kinges the toes of their Kingdomes whereas euerie man els accompteth them the heads in respect of their owne Kingdomes howsoeuer in respect of others they may be called toes because of their succession in the last place And by this that hath byn said I doubt not it will appeare to the iudicious Reader whether Bellarmines argument or M. Downams answere be more impertinent and friuolous 3. To the second proofe out of the Apocal. 17. M. Downam hath very little to answere therfore he is glad to take hould Apoc. 17. of euery word spoken obiter and by the way as that Rome is the Harlot wherof S. Io. speaketh and that the seauen heads signify all the Emperours of Rome the first of which M. Downam liketh very well but the second he affirmeth to be vntrue because they are numbred fiue are fallen the sixt is and the 7. is not yet come in which point I will not now much cōtend because M. Downam confesseth that it is besides the purpose And if hereafter he can bring any other exposition more probable he shall find me very ready to allow of it though he might haue vsed more moderation in his censure Downam not moderate in his censure since he cannot choose but know that many great authors haue taken the number of 7. in this place indefinitely as without all question in many other places it is to be taken and his difficulty must be solued by himselfe since that in this very chapter he affirmeth that Apoc. 13. by the Beast with 7. heades is meant the Roman State and that vnder the Roman Emperours especially and yet by the head which was wounded which he maketh the 6. he likewise vnderstandeth the State of the Emperours which besides the difficulty common to Bellarmine inuolueth a contradictiō peculier to M. Downam Neither will I stand now to discusse with M. Downam whether Rome be the Seate of Antichrist or no or how and in what state only I must aduise him that Bellarmine affirmeth not that the VVhore of Babylon is the seate of Antichrist as neither that Rome after the desolation of the Empire is the VVhore of Babylon but these are M. Downams owne additions See cap. 13. which if he will haue graunted he must first proue them in their due places But now to come to that which Bellarmin would proue M. Downam first is inforced to yeild that these ten hornes signify 10. Kinges which shall raigne togeather and only can help himselfe with affirming that these are not the same ten hornes whereof Daniel speaketh which raigned successiuelie For which point I remit my selfe to that which hath byn said in the former proofe besides that it is no small confirmation that S. Iohn must needes be vnderstood of 10. Kinges which raigne togeather since their wordes are so like and S. Iohn may be thought to expound Daniel whome heere M. Downam citeth cap. 11 perhaps through the Printers fault since that chapter maketh not to his purpose and therefore was neuer mētioned in the whole precedent discourse Well it is now at length agreed vpon that there shall 10. Kinges raigne togeather Wherfore it only remayneth to proue that in the time of these 10. Kings there shal be no Roman Emperour consequently that the Roman Empire shal be vtterly destroyed and so it is tyme for M. Downam to bestirre himselfe and to vse al his iugling tricks First then he bringeth in Bellarmines first proposition in the beginning of the question for an argument in this place and not truly neither But it will be best to heare M. Downams owne wordes How then saith he doth Bellarmine proue that before Antichrist commeth the Roman Empire shall be so vtterly destroyed as not the name of a Roman Emperour or King of the Romans should remayne because the Empire shall be deuided among 10. Kinges which are not Roman Kinges c. Wheras Bellarmines wordes are these VVe must know that the Roman Empire is at length to be deuided into ten Kinges of which none shal be or be called King of the Romans where you see not only the being but also the name of Roman Kinges is excluded But saith M. Downam he that is none of those 10. Kinges may haue the name of the Emperour or King of the Romans as namely the beast which was is not though it be which is the 8. head and is one of the 7. that is to say the Emperour erected by the Pope This found and foolish conceipt that the beast which was and is not is the Emperour erected by the Pope shall in other places be largely confuted Now I would only know how this Emperour can be when the whole Empire is deuided among those other 10. Kinges as Bellarmine affirmeth and proueth out of this very place as we should haue seene ere this had not M. Downam interrupted vs with his impertinent disgressions which perhaps foreseeing and fearing he putteth another question somewhat more to the purpose And why may none of these be called the King of the Romans first forsooth because they shall hate Rome and make her desolate But he might haue kept his first forsooth in his purse insteed of money for Bellarmine giueth but one reason which is the foresaid wordes of Scripture adding only the exposition of them which because M. Downam could not impugne he though best to deuide that so hauing separated the exposition from the place of Scripture the one might want authority and the other be easily shifted of as he doth in these words As though he that hath the title of the King of the Romans may not hate Rome notwithstanding that title as indeed some of the Emperours haue done which euasion had byn too ridiculous if he had added Bellarmines exposition to wit that the Scripture testifieth that these Kings shal hate the harlot and make her desolate and naked and shall eate her flesh and shal burne her
former beast may signify the Roman Empyre though he speaketh doubtfully ioyneth another exposition with it which indeed is the more probable of the two out of which he maketh many illations but proueth none and therfore it is sufficient in this place to deny them all and remit the Reader for both our reasons to the seuerall places where they are handled at large only thus much we may note now that since as we haue already proued the 7. head which is Antichrist is not to come till the 6. which is the Roman VII VIII Empyre be wholy taken away it is most manifest that the Apoc. 13. Pope can by no probability be the seauenth head since that the Emperour as yet remayneth And withall I would The Pope cannot be signified by the 7. heâ—d of the beast Apoc. 13. 17. desire the Reader to put all M. Downams arguments in forme that he may better discouer his folly and make himselfe sport for how doth it follow Antichrist shal be head of the Roman Empyre ergo not of the Iewes Antichrist shall be head of the Roman Empyre ergo his chiese Seat or Sea shal be not Ierusalem but Rome and he shall not be one particuler Man only one of his illations is good against Bellarmine viz. that if the beast signifieth the RomaÌ„ Empyre the name of the beast may very well be said to be Roman or Latin But this agreeth not with the number of 666 as Bellarmine proued besides it is certaine also that the name of Antichrist himselfe is signifyed by that number and consequently that he is signifyed by the former beast and not the Roman Empyre Neyther can M. Downam in any case admit that the seauenth head of The 7. heads of the beast Apoc 13. are not the same with those of Apoc. 17. this former beast Apoc. 13. is Antichrist since that he affirmeth that Antichrist is signified by the latter beast wherfore both Bellarmine and he must of necessity graunt that this beast Apoc. 13. is different from the other cap. 17. and indeed it is very euident that Antichrist and the 7. Kings which shall acknowledge him are spoken of in the 13. Chapter and in the 17. other 7. far different from these as we shall presently see 5. The obiections which M. Downam maketh against Bellarmines second interpretation proue aswell against Downam impugneth himselfe the first which is his owne for what world wondreth after the Roman Empyre but such as are in some sort subiect or belong to it VVho are all those Inhabitants of the earth that do worship it VVhat are all the Tongues Kindreds Nations which are made subiect vnto it For if this be absolutely vnderstood of all the wicked and reprobate it is false that they all do thus wonder or worship or are subiect to the Roman Empire and if it be only vnderstood of some viz. of those which belong to the Roman Empyre then the difficulty is as great how the Roman Empyre is said to wonder c. after it selfe as how the multitude of the wicked may doe the same and besides M. Downam hath one difficulty more to explicate then those which follow this second interpretation haue for he must shew vs how all this wondring and worshipping and subiection came vpon the restauration of the Empyre in the West which he will needs haue to be the healing of the head which was wounded as it were to death for experience hath shewed vs the quite contrary viz. that the Roman Empyre hath euer since gone more and more to decay and had a farre greater part of the world subiect vnto it before then since Wherfore all this still conuinceth that this beast Apoc. 13. is neyther the Roman Empyre nor Apoc. 13. the multitude of the wicked but Antichrist himselfe of whom all those sayings are to be verifyed and the 7. heads are the 7. Kings which shall yield themselues to Antichrist and ioyne with him in persecuting the Church Neyther doth the beast mentioned cap. 17. signifie Apoc. 17. the Roman State or Empyre or the multitude of the wicked but the Diuell himselfe and the 7. heades which he hath signify eyther the Kings which reigned in the 7. ages of the World as it is commonly held by Catholikes or else the 7. diuers gouernments of the Roman State as M. Downam will needs haue it because otherwise his whole deuise of prouing the Pope Antichrist out of this place is quite ouerthrowne But we will shew in due place that this his exposition is nothing so probable as the other And though it were true in this poynt yet it cannot stand in the rest in which he would ground his inference against the Pope 6. Wherfore M. Downams discourse of the 3. wounds which the Roman Empire receaued at the death of Iulius Cesar by ciuill warres and of Nero by vncerteynty of succession and in Augustulus by his ouerthrow and of their seuerall healinges is altogeaâ—her impertinent and ridiculous for now we seeke only for one and the last which maketh most to his purpose Downam impugneth him selfe is indeed flatly against him since that in his opinion the Pope healed this wound whom he would haue to be signified by the 2. beast whereas the Scripture witnesseth that it was healed by the first Beast and that before the second appeared Likewise if we will belieue M. Downam the healing of this wound and the erecting of the Image is all one since that both are nothing els but the erecting of the West Empire vnder Charles the Great and the like he must say of making the former beast to be worshipped for M. Downam hath no other deuise left for all these seuerall actions but only the bare erecting of the Roman Empire by the Pope And yet he will haue this also to be so mean a thing that in substance it shal be nothing at all and that indeed not this new Emperour but the Pope himselfe shal be the head of the Roman Empire all this while and the Emperour shall only stand for a cipher to make vp the number of 8. whereas notwithstanding the Scripture plainely saith that there are 8. without him not heades as M. Downam seemeth to imagine but Kings the beast making one himselfe as the Scripture expresly testifieth cap 7. v. 12. which can by no meanes be vnderstood of the Roman Empire except M. Downam will make the Empire it selfe an Emperour which is too absurd for of what should it be Emperour Wherefore it is manifest that by the Beast is vnderstood the Diuell who indeed is distinct from the other 7. as is manifest and therefore By the beast Apoc 17. the Diuell is vnderstood may well be accompted the 8. and yet bâ—longeth to all the 7. because he concurred with them all in their wickednes and in the persecution of the good and it is also manifest that he was in the world before Christs comming much more
hath no Prouinces For as for Rome he graunteth that it is not necessary that he should haue it Is a great part of Germany nothing with M. Downam It should seeme that he is become a great despiser of the world since that which all Christian Infidell Princes and people esteeme so much he accoumpteth nothing 5. To conclude this Chapter M. Downam goeth about to reply vpon Bellarmines answere to the obiection of Luther the rest and telleth vs that it is euident that the former Beast Apoc 13. figureth not Antichrist but the Roman state and that vnder the Roman Emperours especially but it had bene wel that he would haue shewed vs this euidence for neither we nor the Fathers which Bellarmine citeth to whom we may adde S. Irenaeus l. 5. cap. 28. Arethas S. Methodius and S. Hippolytus in orat de The former beast Apoc. 13. signifyeth Antichrist Apoc. 13. See cap. 15. §. 3. 4. part 2. c. 3. n. 8. consummatione mundi can see any such euidence but rather the contrary to wit that the former beast signifyeth Antichrist at least in one of his heads which might be playnly gathered out of the Text if it were our turne to proue as it is M. Downams But since we must answere only his authority auouching a new exposition without reason moueth vs very little Secondly M. Downam telleth vs that it is not said that one of the heads did saigne it selfe dead and by the help of the Diuell did rise againe which needeth not saith he if the death were counterfait but that one of the heads had receaued a deadly wound and was cured againe But wee knew thus much before he tould vs so neither doth Bellarmine affirme that the Scripture hath that exposition in it selfe for then what need we seeke for any other The words of the Scripture are Vidi vnum de capitibus suis quasi occisum in mortem I saw one of his heades as it were slaine to death Where we se a quasi which M. Downam omitted but the Fathers made so great accoumpt of it that they chiefely grounded their exposition vpon it especially because they knew very wel that if it had byn no faigned but a true and reall death it had passed the diuels cunning to haue recouered him except M. Downam will thinke that the Diuell can doe true miracles as he seemeth to insinuate by saying that the Diuels help neded not if the death were countersait but yet wee will thinke better of him then that he will fall to open blasphemy and will only tell him that the Diuels cunning was very needfull to make this wound seeme so desperate and mortall and to faygne death so cunningly that al should remayne so fullie satisfied and verily perswaded that the head had byn dead indeed and was risen againe by the power which the beast had by the Diuell But here wee must not passe ouer in silence M. Downams iuggling trickes for in his opinion the second Beast with two hornes is Antichrist for so he obiecteth to Bellarmine that he might haue read that the second beast which is Antichrist causeth the Image of the beast that is the new Empire to be made and putteth life into it Now this second beast had not yet appeared to S. Iohn when the head of the former beast was healed by the power which the Dragon had giuen to the former beast yet is M. Downam content to apply this to the Pope also not caring as it seemeth what he saith so that he may seeme to say somthing against the Pope But by the former beast as wee haue seene Luther Illyricus Chytraeus in their obiections suppose Antichrist is signified by the latter his chiefe Precursor and false Prophet who shall cause his followers to errect Statua's Images of Antichrist out of By the later beast which by his procuring the Diuells shall speake giue āswers other signes of life as sometimes happened amōg the Apoc. 11. is signified Anticrists false Prophet Pagās Idolators And this is the exposition of the anciēt Fathers by which all M. Downams deuise of the new Empire erected by the Pope becommeth too too foolish and ridiculous And if I were to dispute and not to answere I would aske how the Roman Empire came to haue 7. heads togeather Perhappes he might haue found two hornes as the second beast had by reason of the East and West Empire But now I will not vrge him any further since his folly is more then notorious already 6. Finallie M. Downam would make vs belieue that Bellarmine fighteth with his owne shaddow when he inuincibly proueth that the head which was healed is not Charles the Great for saith he by the head is not meant any one Man but the state and succession of Emperours And hath he not amended the matter well thinke you that wheras Bellarmine proueth that it could not be Charles because he raigned longer then 42. monethes M. Downam answereth it is true it could not be Charles but yet it might be the State and succession of Emperours as though this endured lesse tyme then Charles conteyning both him and all the other Emperours Can there be anie Downams ridiculous absurditie thing more ridiculous then this And is M. Downam anie better then a shaddow for Bellarmine to fight withall But yet he will haue one saying more and so he telleth vs that which is added concerning the Vniuersality either of worship or rule is not spokē of the head which was reuiued but of the beast which was to haue one of his seauen heads wounded to death and cured againe Well then let M. Downam shew vs where or by whom the Roman Empire had either worship or rule after the head was healed that is in his opinion after the Empire was restored by the Pope but onlie in Charles the Great and his Successors If he cannot shew vs any such matter anie where els let him confesse that this Vniuersalitie of rule and worship cannot befound in the Roman Empire but onlie in Antichrist as neither he can shew vs that anie of the Roman Emperours after Charles the Great blasphemed God and his Saintes so as this head or beast is said to doe But yet to doe him a courtesie wee will not stick much to graunt him as probable that Whether the woūded head Apoc. 13. be Antichrist or noe the head is not Antichrist himselfe but one of the 7. Kinges which shall continue with Antichrist and follow assist him in all his wickednesse as he may see learnedly expounded in Ribera one of Bellarmines religion and order And thus wee will cōclude leauing the iudicious Reader to iudge whether the Protestantes are deceaued thinking that the declination of the Empire was sufficient for Antichrists comming as Bellarmine modestelie affirmeth after euident proofes or the Catholikes be in an errour who thinke that Antichrist commeth not before the vtter desolation of the Roman
forsake all worldly thinges yea imbrace death it selfe not to haue this happines differed for very few so long as they liue in this world haue their spirituall eyes so cleere as to haue so great and effectuall a conceyt of Caluin thinketh that only Christ is in Heauen that others stay without Heauen and those which haue are of those perfect who easilie conforme themselues to Gods blessed will in this all other things And heere likewise I might put M. Downam in mind that his great Maister Caluin l. â— Instit cap. 20. § 20. affirmeth that only Christ is entred into the Sanctuarie of Heauen and all other stay without in the Court and there expect vntill the end of the world And § 24. he saith that the soules of the Saintes haue faith still as we haue which being soe no doubt he must needes thinke that they enioy not the visioÌ„ of God in which our essentiall happines consisteth So that in this mans opinion there is no great difference betwixt Henoch and Elias and other Saintes But I am glad to see M. Downam leaue his Maister in this would to God he would do so in the rest also that my ioy for him might be complete Another trifling obiection of M. Downam is that S. Iohn mentioneth neither Enoch nor Elias As though it were not sufficient that the holie Fathers expound it so and that the circumstances are such as that they cannot with anie shew of probability be applied to anie other which is the reason that he himselfe onlie goeth about to impugne but dares Downam dareth not defend his fellowes not take vpon him to defeÌ„d his fellow heretikes expositioÌ„s which Bellarmine coÌ„futeth nor bring any other of his owne And surelie it is a great wonder that in the Apocalyps S. Iohn should be so ouerseene as to speake so darkelie that he would leaue out the names of these two witnesses Fir allie he threatneth Bellarmine with another answere saying But if I should adde that Bellarmine cannot prooue that this place treateth of Antichrist but rather of the Beast with seauen heades arising out of the sea that is the Romayne State either generallie or speciallie vnder the Emperours as may be gathered by comparing verse 2. 7. of the 11. Chap. with the 1. and 5. of the 13. I would then know to what purpose he alleadgeth this text to prooue that Enoch and Elias shall come against Antichrist if neither the one nor the other be heere meant Well Syt put Bellarmine to prooue this when you will and you shall see how many Authors he will bring you to prooue that both these places are to be vnderstood of Antichrist for the later which you thinke most hard you may take a view of those which he cited in the former Chapter where I also added a few more And this proofe shall suffice for this tyme for before you and I part I doubt not wee shall discusse this matter more fully 7. After that M. DownaÌ„ hath thus substantiallie answered Bellarmines first argument out of the Scripture he commeth to the Fathers whom he will soone dispatch and send theÌ„ Downam reiecteth the Fathers packing for first seeing that they all consent about the coÌ„ming of Elias his aÌ„swere is in plaine wordes to tell theÌ„ that they were all deceaued but yet he doth them so much fauour as to confesse that they had reason to be so because they followed the corrupt translation of the 72. who Malach. 4. v. 5. reade Elias the Thesâ—ite so that now all the fault is layd by M. Downam vpon these Interpreters at which the latin Interpreter of Ecclesiasticus hath good cause to reioyce since by this meanes Downam reiecteth the 72. Interpreters his case is no worse then that of these 72. Interpreters who yet were approued by our Sauiour himselfe and his Apostles who were wont to cite the Scripture as they translated it and all the holy Fathers to expound it also as vndoubted Scripture and this place in particuler was approued by S. Hierome in his traslation of the 70. as also in his Commentaries and by S. Cyril and Theodoretus ibidem S. Augustine l. 20. de ciuit cap. 22. where he also saith that the 70. Interpreters prophetice interpretati sunt did interprete as Prophets and not as bare Interpreters And lib. 18. cap. 42. he acknowledgeth in them vniuersally mirabilem ac stupendum planéque diuinum in eorum verbis fuisse consensum that there was an admirabley wonderfull yea manifestly a diuine consent in their The 72. Interpreters not to be reiected wordes And a little after reuerà spiritus erat vnus in omnibus verily they had all one spirit to wit the spirit of truth and of prophesy with which the Scriptures were first written conformably to which S. Hierome praesat in Paralip acknowledgeth that the 70. did adde some thinges vel ob decoris gratiam velob Spiritus sancti authoritateÌ„ either for ornament or for the authoritate of the Holy Ghost But this place in particuler is likewise approued by Euthymius in Matth. 17. Arethas in Apoc. 11. and finally by S. Chrysostom hom 58. in Matth. where he also saith Vides exactam c. Thou seest the exact diligence of the Prophets prediction for because S. Iohn might also be called Elias for the likenes of the mystery to auoyde confusion he added the Countrey calling him Elias the Thesbite for S Iohn was no Thesbite Secondly he saith that some Author disagre about Enochs comming in whose place they put either Elizaeus or Moyses or Hieremy But what is this to the purpose since Bellarmines argument hath still the same force For all consent that Elias is to come and as yet he is not come and besides the common opinion is that Enoch shall come with him though perhaps it bee not altogeather so certaine of him as of Elias Lastly he would make vs belieue that among all the ancient which Bellarmine citeth only S. Gregory is alleadged to the purpose whose authority he reiecteth with a scoffe But this is to shew himselfe in his colours that is a ridiculous scoffing Minister For any man that hath but morall honesty Downam scoffeth at S. Gregory cannot choose but much condemne this his prophane spirit to contemne this Saintes auctority because he morally expouÌ„deth a place of Scripture with the receaued doctrine of the Church not prouing it out of that place but only affirming that by a morall application those wordes might haue that sense which the very title of that whole booke might haue giuen this Minister to vnderstand if he had either wit in his head or honesty in his hart VVell he is content to graunt that S. Gregory was flat for Bellarmine But why doth he deny it of the rest Surely it is hard to imagine since their wordes are so plaine and therfore till he giueth vs a reason we may iustly thinke that he hath none but was willing
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
were not necessary that he himselfe should bealiue at that tyme and consequently he might well inough be shine at the end of the world yet be no very old mā neither for that it is vncertaine when he was to be borne For certaine it is that he needed not to be in S. Pauls and S. Iohns tyme if they speake not of him in person but onlie of some of his members which for ought S. Paul and S. Iohn say or M. Downam can proue might be in the world before he himselfe came in person not only manie an hundreth yeare which M. Downam graunteth of 600. but also many thousands 13. Lastly M. Downam commeth to Bellarmines answere to the confirmation where first he censureth that tradition which the Fathers gather commonly out of the Scripture that Elias shall come in person before the second comming Downam censureth the Fathers of Christ for a Iewish fable and yet doth he not so much as goe about to proue with any argument that it shall not be soe but only confirmeth that S. Iohn Baptist was called Elias and giueth the reason why he was so called in which there is no controuersy And at least wise he might haue vouchsafed to haue tould vs out of his high learning what our Sauiour meant in that place which Bellarmine citeth by saying that Elias indeed shall come for this cannot be vnderstood of S. Iohn Baptist who as our Sauiour affirmeth in the same place See Chap. 6. was alreadie come wherfore till M. Downam bringeth some better proofes I take it any wise man will not only suppose as he giueth him leaue to do but also hold for certaine that Elias shall come in person though he be said to haue come Elias shall come in person in S. Iohn Baptist for that he had a spirit like vnto his consequently that it is not necessary that there shall come no other Antichrist in person at the end of the world because S. Iohn saith that he was come in his tyme in some of his members whose spirit was like his for Bellarmine disputeth not now but answereth by producing another place of Scripture like vnto that which is obiected which cannot be denied to be a good manner of answering But M. Downam bringeth forth a place of Scripture where Dauid is promised to come after he was dead and yet it is not vnderstood Ezech. 34. of King Dauid but of Christ and therfore neither is Elias to come againe But M. Downam will easily see if it pleaseth him to put this argument in forme in which he seemeth to take particuler delight that one may well answere him nego consequentiam and withall he may note how that name Dauid is somtime taken properly and sometime for a distinct person which is figured by the former which is somewhat harder then that the type should take the name of the chiefe and principall in that kind which it figureth and as it were noe good argument to say Dauid shall come therfore he is not come for there be two to whome the name of Dauid agreeth so likewise the argument which we haue bene discussing all this while concludeth not since it is only thus Antichrist is already come therefore he shall not come in the end of the world for that there be more then one Antichrist and the chiefest is not come any otherwise yet then in his members 14. Concerning Bezas second reason M. Downam addeth to the 7. of Damel also the 11. and besides the 13. and 17. Apoc. and saith that in all these places vnder the name figure of a beast is not described one singular thing or person but a whole state or succession and in the assumption insteed of 2. Thess 2. he putteth down Apoc. 13. where he saith Antichrist is described vnder the name figure of a beast then he proueth the proposition by induction out of the 7. 8 of Daniel and Apoc. 13. so that he hath made a Downam cannot defend Beza new argument of his owne for that belike he could not saue his M. Beza from absurdities if he should haue followed his Argument against Bellarmines answere and yet he putteth downe Bellarmines answere as though it had bene giuen to this new Argument which he hath coyned himselfe In Downam applieth Bellarmines answere to a wrong argument Dan. 8. which he sheweth lesse vpright dealing then Bellarmine doth with the Scriptures by saying that in the 8. Chap. of Daniel the Ram and the Goat signify but two seuerall Kinges which M. Downam thinketh to be against the Scripture for that in the 20. v. where the vision is expounded there is in Hebrew the word Kinges in the plurall number and for that afterward Daniel addeth of the Goat that the great horne which was betwixt his eyes is the first King namely Alexander and consequently the Goat whose horne this was could not be the same Alexander For the first part of which obiection M. Downam must be content that we attribute asmuch to S. Hierome both in skill in the Hebrew tongue and in Scripture as to himselfe and S. Hierome translateth the Hebrew word in the singular number Rex Medorum est atque Persarum so that either he thought that the plurall number was put for the singular as it is vsuall in Scripture or els in the Hebrew text in his tyme it was also in the singular number and the first reason hath the more probability in this place for that Darius was in effect two Kings since he had two Kingdoms which is also signified by the two hornes which the Ramme had And this is so much the more plaine for that it is manifest that he who was ouerthrowne by Alexander was no other then Darius one King as we read in 1. Machab 1. and Iustine lib. 11. and Plin. lib. 10. cap. 7. doe also testify Now for the second part M. Downam might easily see that both the Goat and the horne being called a King in the same 21. v. either doe both signify Alexander or else if the one doe signify the King and the other the Kingdome he must giue vs some reason why rather the former should be taken for the kingdome then the latter especially since we see in the same Chapter that by the two hornes of the Ram are signified his two Kingdomes and besides it is well knowne that he who did conquer and ouercome the King of the Medes and Persians was no other then Alexander who is also called Hircus caprarum after the Hebrew phrase which signifieth a yong Goat as I might proue by many examples but that I suppose M. Downam to be so cunning both in Scripture and Hebrew that he will not contradict it for that he was not past 20. yeares ould when he began his Monarchie by his admirable victories for which in the 5 verse he is said to haue gone so swiftly as though he had slowen in the ayre and not touched the
be of little accompt except they could bring better proofes that they are the true Church of God which affirmation whilst it be proued is petitio principij and the Iewes Turkes and Pagans will say asmuch for themselues if any man wil be so foolish as to belieue them which he hath reason to doe assoone as heretikes of which number to vs it seemeth euident that Protestants are 5. Next M. Downam maketh Bellarmine to prooue that Antichrists name is not yet knowne by the authority of Irenaeus which he impugneth because Irenaeus liued before the fulfilling of this Prophesy which he affiâ—meth to be now fulfilled which obiection I thinke deserues no other name then the M. Downams Petitio principij former for it is a playne petitio principij And M. Downam might easily haue discerned that Bellarmine was in that place discussing and searching out the most probable opinion among Catholikes who all agree that Antichrist is not yet come no more then he was in Irenaeus his tyme and therfore his authority among them proueth very well that his name is not yet knowne As for M. Downam and his Mates who haue forsaken the Catholike Church and faith he argueth against them from their owne authority and manifest experience as we haue seene Wherefore all Irenaus his proofes are good and firme for the end that Bellarmine bringeth them as likewise his inference is euident to all Catholikes that The danger of ProtestaÌ„ts the Protestants are in great danger to receaue Antichrist when he commeth since before he come they so verily perswade themselues that he is already come which is a good warning for Protestants also to looke about them and to take heed that they be not so confident but vpon better groundes for the daunger is great But heere I must desire my Reader to marke attentiuely M. Downams deuise who will needes be so foolish as to seeme to thinke that M. Downam mistaketh Bellarmine the proofes which Bellarmine bringeth to conuince that Irenaeus was of that opinion that Antichrists name should not be certainely knowne before his coÌ„ming were brought by him to proue absolutely against Protestants that Antichrists name is yet vnkowne whereas he beginneth not to propose his argument to this purpose till he had fully examined both Irenaeus and all the other opinions 6. Well you must giue M. Downam leaue to mistake sometymes otherwise he should haue very little to say to the purpose Yet he will try what he can say to Bellarmines true proofe which is that Antichrists name is not yet knowne because there is a great controuersy about it Against which he obiecteth that by the same reason Bellarmine may conclude that few pointes of religion are yet knowne because there be few concerning which there is no controuersy But M. Downam must consider the difference which is great For first about Antichrists name there is not only a question betwixt Catholikes and Protestants but likewise euen Protestants M. Downam contradicteth himselfe themselues doe vary and Catholikes also are not all of one opinion which M. Downam insinuateth in some sort saying that in other controuersies the truth is knowne of those which are Orthodoxall howsoeuer others will not acknowledge it But of this matter he dareth not go so farre but only aduentureth to say that he doubteth not but that the truth of it is knowne although some cannot and others will not as yet see it So that in this some cannot know the truth but in other controuersies all may that will And besides M. Downam might haue noted that not only the Orthodoxall but all others must know and acknowledge Antichrists name thus farre that they confesse that he whome the Orthodoxall take to be Antichrist hath that name which hath this number of 666. as all Pagans Turkes and Iewes confesse that the name of Iesus which Christian should to be the name of Christ is indeed the name of our Christ and contayneth the number 888. But heere it is otherwise for though M. Downam and his fellowes giue the Pope the name of Romanus and Latinus yet neither the Popes themselues nor any other giue them that name without addition especially that of Latin cannot be attributed to him for he is head aswell of the Greeke as the The name of Latin cannot be giuen to the Pope Latin Church his particuler Sea or Bishoprick to which this supreme iurisdiction is annexed is only Rome And besides there is much controuersy whether these names contayne the number 666. or no as we shall see presently Neither can M. Downam help himselfe with telling vs that without doubt the Roman State is signified by the beast whose name contayneth this number 666. for this he knoweth is denied by vs and his proofes wherof he braggeth are all discussed and confuted in their due places 7. Wherefore now let vs see how he will confute Bellarmines Answere to the reasons which Chytraeus and Bibliander bring for their opinions And heere Bellarmine must be content to put vp an iniuryous imputation that M. Downam layeth vpon him that it is his manner to make choyce of the easiest Bellarmine slauÌ„dered by Downam obiections omitting the harder which is so manifest and notoriouâ— a slander that I dare remit the iudgement to any indifferent or morall Protestant For no man that hath read Bellarmine can deny but that he vrgeth all arguments against himselfe to the vttermost in so much that it is the common censure of Protestants that he is a good Author to be read against himselfe because his obiections are so forcible but their meaning is that the Reader should stay in them and not passe to his answers because they are also most plaine and euident But to come to our particuler M. Downam should haue shewed vs those hard obiections of Chytraeus and Bibliander which Bellarmine omitted but he hath no such matter only he writeth thus VVe produce three other arguments as you haue heard speaking of himselfe in the plurall number and as it seemeth vsing the same figure in numbring his arguments for I can only find one of his owne adding which is that the number of 666. is not the name of Antichrist himselfe but of the former beast which signifieth the Roman State But how can Bellarmine be blamed for not answering this argument which M. Downam hath framed so many yeares after his booke was written Downam contrary to his fellowes For Chytraeus and Bibliander could not vse this argument since they were not of M. Downams opinion in this point but tooke that number to be vnderstood of the name of Antichrist himselfe as all other Authors but M. Downam do also for ought I can perceaue since he alleadgeth none for See cap. 5. n. 5. c. his opinion and indeed the matter is playne as you may see in those places where it is discussed at large The first reason then which Bellarmine answereth is the authority of Irenaeus to
which he saith that Irenaeus preferred another name before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and M. Downam graunteth that it is true indeed that he seemeth to do so and addeth that they buyld not vpon Irenaeus his authority but vpon those reasons whereupon his coniecture is grounded which are two the one because it is the name of that Kingdome which is figured vnder the former beast Apoc. 13 7. whos 's authority Antichrist was to vsurpe and he translateth Irenaeus thus It is the name of that which most truly is called the Kingdome for they are the Latines that now raigne and addeth his Apoc. 13. owne exposition making Irenaeus say that it is the name of the former Beast spoken of Apoc. 13. 1. which figureth verissimum Regnum Downam corrupteth Irenaeus his wordes meaning that Kingdome which most truly is called a Kingdome that is the Latin or Roman State All which is a plaine corruption both of Irenaeus his wordes and meaning For there can be nothing more playne then that Irenaeus attributeth this number to Antichrist himselfe whome also he vnderstandeth to be signified by that former beast as commonly all other Authors doe only he giueth a reason why he thought it probable that Antichrist should take that name as Bellarmine truly explicateth and withall sheweth that though that reason might seeme to haue some force in Irenaeus his tyme now it hath none at all because the Kingdome of the Latins is decayed since that tyme. And if Irenaeus had thought that this name was to be attributed to a Kingdome or State surely he had no reason to preferre the name of Teitan before Lateinos as he did Neither are we to make any accompt of M. Downams confirmation vpon supposition that Antichrist it come for this is his ordinary fault and is called petitio Antichrist shal be a most potent King principij and his deniall that Antichrist shal be a most potent King is tooto shameles and disproued vpon diuers occasions and in this very place according to the best exposition he is said to haue the power of the 4. Monarches for the 10. Princes which shall deuyde the Roman Empire amongst them shall belong to him and he shal be like to a Pard and haue feete like a Beare and a mouth like a Lyon which are the three beastes to which the other three Monarches are compared by Daniel and lastly the Diuell signified Dan. 7. by a Dragon shall giue him his force and great power The other reason of S. Irenaeus vpon which M. Downam now saith that he graunteth his opinion though a little before he said it was easy to answere is because the letters of the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make the number 666 to which Bellarmine obiecteth that the name of Latin as it signifieth a Roman is not written with ◠but which a simple iota and then it maketh not that number M. Downam answereth that the ancient Latines vsed to write and pronounce ◠long by ◠dipthong and the Grecians vsually expresse ◠long by ◠and he obserueth The name of Latin containeth not the numbe◠666 that S. Irenaeus setting downe these two names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as conteyning 666. taketh it for graunted that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be so written whereas of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith that it maketh that number if it be written with ◠dipthong For answere of all which I reply first that M. Downam should haue shewed vs that the ancient Latins euer wrote their owne name by ◠diphong which I can hardly belieue since they tooke it from Latium which can hardly be so writtē Secondly the Grecians did not vsually write ◠long by ◠and we need go no further then to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for an example Thirdly the reason why S. Irenaeus expressed the diuersity of writing in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is plaine because he writing in greeke could not alter the greeke Orthography without much note in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a greeke word but for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he made no such difficulty because he respected only the sound and pronunciation as we commonly doe in all Greeke wordes which we wryte or vse as Latin But this hindreth not but that there is a difference betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Latinus except M. Downam thinketh that the changing or taking away of a letter will not alter the signification which were too absurd and grosse And no doubt we must rather stand to the Latin then to the Greeke Orthography of a Latin word The like obiection maketh Bellarmine The name Romansh cōteynet◠not the number 666. against Romanus for it maketh not the number except it endeth in Tau and be a feminine whereas Antichrist is to be a man by the consent of all Authors To which M. Downam answereth that collectyue names in Hebrew are indifferently expressed in either genders but he neither telleth vs what names be collectiue nor sheweth that Romanus is one of them nor produceth any authority for that he saith and therfore we are rather to stand to Bellarmines iudgment who hath written an Hebrew grammer then to M. Downams of whō we are not sure that he can read Hebrew and if by a collectyue name he exclude a proper he is farre wyde His second answer is that because the name heere spoken of is the name of the Roman State it may be feminyne since that elswhere that State is called the whore of Babylon a woman But we deny that the name is to be attributed to any other then to Antichrist himselfe and with vs agree in a manner all Authors and indeed the matter is euident and els where sufficiently See cap. 5. n. 5. c. proued Another obiection of Bellarmine is that the name signified by this number is to be the proper and vsuall name of The name which cōteyneth the number 666. shal be the proper vsuall name of Antichrist Antichrist whereas Latinus is neither and Romanus was only the proper name of one Pope who lyued but 4. monethes To which M. Downam giueth no other answere but this in these wordes Neither ought it seeing it is the name of the beast which signifieth a whole State and in setting downe Bellarmines obiection he omitteth the one halfe that it must be vsuall only making mention of the other that it must be proper And as you see his answere is as slender still running vpon that erroneous conceipt of his owne that this is not Antichrists name but of the Roman State Finally Bellarmine obiecteth that there are innumerable names which make the same number To which M. Downam after a little cauilling at some of the names which Bellarmine bringeth answereth that though it be so yet none can be the name heere spoken of vnlesse also it be the
name of the beast that is the Latin or Roman State and vnlesse it be such a name as he to whome all other notes of Antichrist doe agree causeth men to take vpon them which is to harpe still vpon the same string and to sing the same song like a Cuckow for this name belongeth to no other beast but Antichrist and the other part is the mayne controuersy and therefore to assume it as a thing graunted is petitio principij a figure wherewith M. Downam is well acquaynted and therefore chooseth to make it his conclusion also as the Reader may see if he please to whose iudgment I leaue it to consider whether M. Downam hath answered Bellarmines argument or rather that it is altogeather vnanswerable and inuincible as Bellarmine deseruedly affirmeth THE ELEAVENTH CHAPTER Of the Character of Antichrist THERE are also saith Bellarmine two or three opinions of Antichrists Character The first is of the heretikes of this tyme who teach that the Character of Antichrist is some signe of obedyence and coniunction with the B. of Rome yet they do not explicate after the same manner what that signe is Hemicus Bullengerus scr 61. in Apoc. will haue it to be the vnction of Chrisme with which all Christians that are obedient to the Pope are signed in their foreheads Theodorus Bibliander in Chron. tab 10. saith that the Character of the Pope is the profession of the Roman faith so that he is not accompted a true Christian who professeth not that he cleaueth to the Roman Church Dauid Chytraeus besides these two addeth the Oath of Fidelity which many are compelled to make to the Pope Likewise the Preistly vnction which is receaued in the crowne and hand and imprinteth as the Papists call it quoth hee an indeleble Character Finally to fall downe before Images and consecrated bread and to be present at Masses of Requiem Neither are these thinges vnlike to those which Sebastianus Meyer and others alleadged by Augustinus Marloratuâ— in Apoc. 13. do teach But it is an easie matter to confute these toyes both because they agree not with the words of the Text and also because all these signes were in the Catholike Church before that Antichrist had appeared in their opinion First therefore we haue out of the text that the Character shal be one not many for the Scripture alway speaketh in the singular number both of the Character and of the name number of Antichrist Wherefore there shal be one Character likewise one proper name of Antichrist and one number of his name Wherefore when our Aduersaryes multiply so many Characters they shew that they know not which that is of which S. Iohn speaketh Secondly that Character shal be common to all men in Antichrists Kingdome as is playne by those words He shall make all little great rich poore free and bound to take his Character But the Oath of obedyence and Priestly vnction agree to few Thirdly the Scripture declareth that the Character shal be such that it may indifferently be carried in the right hand or forehead for so it saith He shall make all men receyue his Character in their right hands or foreheads But none of those thinges which our aduersaryes bring is such That the vnction of Chrisme cannot be receyued in the right hand The profession of the Roman Faith is neither in the hand nor forehead but in the mouth by confession in the hart by faith The Oath of Fidelity is taken with the hand and mouth but can in no wyse be carryed in the forehead The Priestly vnction is neither receaued properly in the right hand nor in the forehead but vpon the head and fingers of both hands Finally to be present at Masses for the dead to kneele before Images and the Eucharist belong not to the forehead or hand but to the whole body and chiefely to the knees Fourthly the same Scripture saith That in the Kingdome of Antichrist no man shal be permitted to buy and sell vnles he shew the Character or the name or the number of the name But how many doe buy and sell in the dominious of the Pope who are not yet chrismed nor haue taken the Oath of fidelity nor are Priests Doe not many Iewes euen in the very Citty of Rome where the Pope hath his Sea negotiate publikely buy and sell although they haue none of those signes Let vs come to the other reason prooue that all these signes are elder then Antichrist Antichrist by the opinion of our aduersaryes came not before the yeare 606. but Tertullian lyued about the yeare 200. and yet maketh mention of Chrisme lib. de resurrectione carnis The flesh saith he is washed that the soule may be clensed the flesh is annoynted that the soule may be consecrated S. Cyprian liued about the yeare 250. and maketh mention of Chrisme lib. 1. epist 12. He must necessarily be an noynted saith he who is baptized that hauing receaued Chrisme that is vnction he may be the aunoynted of God and haue in him the grace of Christ S. Augustine lyued about the yeare 420. and yet he saith tract in Ioan. 118. VVhat is it that all know the signe of Christ but the Crosse of Christ VVhich signe vnles it be applyed either to the foreheads of the faithfull or to the water with which they are regenerated or to the oyle with which they are Chrismed or to the Sacrifice with which they are nourished none of these thinges is rightly performed Likewise to cleaue to the Roman Church was the signe and Character of a true Catholike man before the yeare of our Lord 606. S. Augustine writeth epist 162. of Caecilianus who liued about the yeare 300. He needed not to care for the multytude of enemyes which conspired against him since he saw himselfe vnited by communicatory letters to the Roman Church in which the principality of the Apostolicall chayre alway flourished and to the other Countries from whence the Ghospell came into Africa S. Ambrose who lyued about the yeare of our Lord 390. in orat de obitu fratris sui He asked the Bishop saith he if he agreed in doctrine with the Catholike Bishops that is with the Roman Church Victor Vticensis who lyued about the yeare of our Lord 490. lib. 1. de persecut Vandal writeth that an Arian Priest going about to perswade the King not to put a Catholike to death vsed these wordes If thou puttest him to death the Romans will accompt him a Martyr In which place by the name of Romans the Catholikes of Africa are designed who doubtles are not called Romans by the Arians for any other cause but for that they followed the Faith of the Roman Church and not the misbeliefe of the Arians We find the Oath of obedience made to the B. of Rome in the tyme of S. Gregory lib. 10. epist 31. and therefore before the yeare 606. for S. Gregory lyued not so long Of Priestly vnction we haue the testimony of
yet expressing it in the conclusion which is a meere cauill for Bellarmine would not add any word in the premisses which he found not in Melancthon Caluin and Illyricus whose opinion he alleadged In the conclusion which was his owne he might very well expresse that which was necessarily to be vnderstood as Bellarmin explicateth out of Caluin himselfe for M. Downams deuise that the Church of Christ The Church comprehendeth not al that professe the name of Christ may be taken for the company of Christians that is of those that professe the name of Christ is too ridiculous since by this meanes he includeth all heretikes whatsouer who are indeed the Synagogue of the Diuell so confoundeth the Church of God and the Sinagogue of the Deuill wheras S. Paul saith that Antichrist shall sit in the TeÌ„ple of God he meaneth according to M. Downams interpretation the temple of the Diuell All which is so obsurd that the authors with whom Bellarmine disputeth would haue byn ashamed of so ridiculous an assertion and therfore they sought other cuasions as we shal see forthwith but now let vs go on with the other illation that the Protestants are out of the true Church for how the Temple of Hierusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of God we shall see afterward in the discussion of Bellarmines answeres to the arguments of the Protestants 5. Wherfore M. Downam to saue himselfe and his brethren from being out of the true Church of Christ is driuen to this exigent to deny that there is any one visible Catholike Church but only one invisible Catholike Church and many particuler visible Churches which is a most extrauagant and absurd paradox contrary both to Scriptures Fathers and Councells as Bellarmine sufficiently proueth lib. 4. de There is one visible Catholicke Church Ecclesia militant cap. 10. But now I will only oppose to this insolent madnes the authority of the Creed generally receaued of all where the Church is called One Holy Catholike and Apostolike and who seeth not that all which belong truly to Christ must agree in one faith and not to be deuided by schismes and heresies which in M. Downams conceipt can only happen in particuler Churches or at least in them only be acknowledged and rooted out So that if any particuler Church will wholy fall to either or rather if the chiefe head and pastour of any such Church shal become either schismaticall or hereticall there is not meanes left for his reduction since that he is not bound to be at vnity with other particuler Churches nor to subiect himselfe to any visible Catholike Church or to any visible head therof which is as much in effect as to say that Christ hath left no meanes vpon earth to decide controuersies concerning Faith or to take away schismes diuisions but that euery particuler Church or Pastor yea indeed euery particuler man may freely follow his owne fancies without contradiction or controlement of any so long as he can pretend any text of Scripture though neuer so much wrested and falsly vnderstood for that which he is resolued to hould And is it meruarle that heresies and schismes be so rife in our daies since these absurd paradoxes are so currant But what should heretikes and schismatikes do but defend schismes and diuisions and imâ—ugne vnity and concord which if they would admit they must of force returne to the Catholike Church whereit is only to be found Since therfore the visible Church of Christ is one and by the aduersaries confession it is the RomaÌ„ it followeth manifestly that they themselues are out of Christs Church since that they The ProtestaÌ„ts are out of the Church of Christ are out of the Roman For the other cauill which M. Downam maketh that the RomaÌ„ Church is a particuler Church is not worth the answering for euery child can tell him that the Roman Church is taken for all those which agree in faith and are vnited with the Bishop of Rome who is not only Bishop of that particuler Citty but also the head and Pastor of the whole Church which of him her Head is called the Roman Church which coÌ„tinueth the true Church of Christ as Bellarmine proueth and Melancthon Caluin and Illyricus dare not deny howsoeuer M. Downam is so impudent in his rayling consorting himselfe with a vaine Poet whose meaning notwithstanding was far better then M. Petrarcha Downams is 6. M. Downam hauing thus shufled vp the matter hitherto at length commeth to explicate himselfe more plainly and agreeth with Caluin that the Church of Rome vnder the Pope may be called the Church of God in respect both of some notes and signes of a visible Church as the administration of the Sacrament of Baptisme and the profession of the Name of Christ as also of some reliques and remainder as it were the gleanings of the inuisible Church for he doubteth not but that in the corruptest times of Popery the Lord hath reserued some who haue not receaued the marke of the beast And for explication he compareth the Church of Rome to the state of Israel vnder Ieroboam and Achab because they then retained the Sacrament of Circumcision and professed Iehoua to be their God although they worshipped him Idolatrously And euen vnder Achab the Lord had reserued 7000. who neuer bowed their knee to Baal In which comparison M. Downam insisteth wholy Downam his petitio principij vpon his wonted figure of Petitio principij and consequently all that he saith is but meere railing If he would haue said any thing to the purpose he should haue shewed two points in that example the first that the visible Church among the Iewes was altogeather ceased by that Idolatry of Israel The second that Israel departed not from the Religion which was generally houlden before but that the ancient Religion was by little and little changed to Idolatry and that those which came after separated themselues from the former and yet were the true Church With these two points M. Downam might haue made some comparison betwixt the people of Israel and the Church of Rome But since The Protestants like to Israel the Catholikes to Iuda neither of these are so but the quite contrary it will fall to M. Downam and his fellowes share to be like the people of Israel since they haue left the visible Church of which they once were as the other did and consequently the Church of Rome is like to the people of Iuda and the rest which ioyned with them since it continueth in the ancient faith generally holden throughout Christendome before there were any Protestants in the World Neither do we graunt that the Protestants haue any part of Christs Church no more then the Israelites had since they haue not any iote of true faith howsoeuer they make profession of some articles for the reason why they hould them is not the authority of God proposed by the Scriptures or the