or full growth in Gregorie the seauenth in whose time and in all ages since the Pope hath been by some acknowledged to be that Antichrist 3. Now as touching his comming or birth which is the chiefe matter in question all agree Illyricus and the other writers 2. of the Centuries as Bellarmine coÌ„fesseth hold that about the yeare 606. Antichrist was borne when Phocas granted to the Bishop of Rome that he should be called the head of the whole Church Of the same judgement is Chytraeus For although he 3. confesse that the smoake of false doctrine ascending out of the In Apoc. 9 bottomlesse pitte began sooner to obscure and darken the truth yet he saith that in the yeare 607 Boniface the third was by Phocas ordained the Angell of the bottomlesse pit meaning thereby Antichrist when he receiued from him the title of oecumenicall Bishop Luther perceiuing that the Papacie consisteth of 4. the two swords teacheth that there is a two-fold comming of De supput annorum Mundi Antichrist the first with the spirituall sworde after the yeare 600. when Phocas gaue him the Antichristian title the latter with the temporall sworde after the yeare 1000. Bullinger doth not say as Bellarmine falsely chargeth him that Antichrist first 5. appeared Anno 763. for he aboue all others most plainely and In Apoc. 13. distinctlie hath deliuered that truth which we doe hold Pontisex Romanus saith he initium quidem dominij jecit sub Phocá sub regibus Francorum fundauit regnum ampliauit autem sub Henricis et Fridericis confirmauit demum sub sequentibus aliquot regibus regnat nostro seculo ac praecedentibus aliquot The Pope of Rome laide the beginning of his dominion vnder Phocas vnder the French Kings he founded his kingdome vnder the Henries and Fredericks he enlarged it vnder some other Kings which followed he confirmed it bereigneth in our and some former ages Musculus whom he nameth in the sixt place dooth not say that Antichrist 6. came about the yeare 1200 but by the tyrannie of the Popes and vsurped dominion ouer the Church by their shamelesse symony by their excessiue riote and diuellish pride by their abominable lusts and vncleannesse he concludeth that the Church of Rome is Babylon and the seat of Antichtist and addeth that Bernard was of the same minde Who seemeth to haue signified that Antichrist was then come and that onely it remained that the man of sinne should be reuealed that is acknowledged and detected as Musculus vnderstandeth him which discouerie of Antichrist saith he hath followed in our age And thus you see a notable consent of all our writers whom he alledgeth in the maine point concerning the time of the comming of Antichrist 4. Now let vs see what he objecteth against this receiued truth Concerning the time of his comming with the spirituall sword he objecteth that Phocas did not giue the title of vniuersall to the Pope but called him the head of the Churches as Iustinian before him had done and also the councell of Chalcedon And therefore no reason why the comming of Antichrist should be placed in the time of Phocas As touching the title good authours affirme that he receiued from Phocas both the title of the head of the Church and also of vniuersall or oecumenicall Bishop And no doubt he sought for and by suite obtained that which Iohn of Constantinople had before claimed Neither is there any great difference betwixt these two titles as they are now giuen to the Pope saue that to be the head of the vniuersall Church is the more Antichristian stile And although titles of honour and preheminence were sometimes giuen to the Church of Rome as the chiefe or head of the Churches the mystery of iniquitie working before the reuelation thereof in the Papacie yet before this graunt of Phocas which was obtained with much adoe and contention the Church of Rome had the preheminence and superioritie ouer all other Churches excepting that of Constantinople not in respect of authoritie and jurisdiction which after this graunt it more and more practised but in respect of order and dignitie And that for this cause especially because Rome whereof he was Bishop was the chiefe citie as it is specified in the councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the councell of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And for the same cause was the Patriarch of Constantinople sometimes * Concil Chalced. matched with him sometimes ‖ Tempore Maâ—…itii preferred aboue him because Constantinople which they called new Rome was become the imperiall seate Yea and the Bishops of Rauenna because their city was the chiefe in the exarchate of Rauenna whereunto Rome was for a time subject stroue with the Bishop of Rome in the time of the exarches for superioritie Seeing therefore that now the Pope of Rome had with great contention and ambition obtained the supremacie and soueraigntie ouer the vniuersall church and now intituled himselfe the head of the vniuersall Church a title peculiar vnto Christ the head I say not onely in respect of excellencie and dignitie as a chiefe member of the Church as he had beene in former times by some acknowledged because he was the Bishop of the chiefe citie but also in respect of authoritie and Iurisdiction as beeing the prince and supreme gouernour of the Church vniuersall we doe therefore worthily call this soueraigne dominion challenged ouer the vniuersall Church the first reuelation or open comming of Antichrist 5. Concerning the comming of Antichrist with the temporall sworde after the yeare 1000. he obiecteth that from the 700. yeare the Pope had receiued teÌ„porall dominion that about the yeare 715. he excommunicated the Greeke Emperour c. But Bellarmine knoweth well enough that we speake not so much of the Popes temporall dominion ouer those parts which they call the patrimonie of Saint Peter but of that which they call and challenge to themselues Utriusque potestatis temporalis spiritualis Monarchiam The Monarchie of both powers temporall and spirituall I answer therefore that the Pope indeed had a temporall dominion before but not generall and that he had long endeuoured to get the superioritie ouer the Emperours but neuer so fully attained vnto it as in the times of Gregorie the seauenth and afterwards For Gregorie the seauenth as Auentinus saith Primus imperium pontificium condidit c. First founded the Papall Annal. Bâ—…cm lib. 5. Empire which his successours saith he reckoning vnto his owne times for these 450. yeares in spight of the world and maugre the Emperours haue so held that they haue brought all in heauen and hell into subjection From this time forwarde the Emperour is nothing but a bare title without substance c. And thus haue I answered whatsoeuer is in his third Chapter pertinent to the matter in hand omitting as my maner is his other wranglings as being either altogether impertinent or meerely
Apoc. 13. 13. 14. of Antichrist that he should do great wonders whereby he should deceiue them that dwell on the earth Hereby therfore it is euident that false prophets and Antichrists many times haue power to worke great signes and wonders not onelie in shewe and appearāce but in deed and in truth Whereby they indeauouring to deceiue all and to make them belieue lies are permitted both in the iustice of God to seduce the wicked in his mercy to try the faithfull And therefore signes wonders as they haue not alwayes bin signes tokens of true teachers professors of the truth but onely then when they haue Miracles are diuine testimonies whereby the Lord doth beare witnesse to his truth Heb. 2. 4. bin wrought for the cōfirmation of the truth So in these later times the same being wrought for confirmation of vntruthes are vndoubted signes of the synagogue of Antichrist 4 Let vs then consider whether such signes and wonders be wrought in the church of Rome It is recorded of Gregory the 7. who was the first of the Popes which was openly acknowledged to be Antichrist that as he was a notable sorcerer so he wrought many signes and wonders among the rest he vsed to shake fire out of his sleeues And of his votaryes after he had forbidden mariage in the clergy Auentinus writeth that vpon that occasion many false prophets did as it were cast mists and by Annal. Boior lib. 4. fables and miracles did turne away the people of Christ from the truth And againe False prophets did then arise false Apostles false priests who by counterfeite religion deceiued the people lib. 5. wrought great signes and wonders and began to sit in the temple of God and to bee aduanced aboue all that is worshipped And while they endeuour to establish their owne power and dominion they haue extinguished Christian charity simplicity And since those times the church of Rome hath much boasted of her manifold miracles which haue beene partly deuised and partly wrought for the confirmation of such Antichristian doctrines idolatrous superstitions as cannot be cōfirmed by the scriptures as namely the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation and adoration of the breaden God the heathenish doctrine of purgatory and superstitious prayer for the dead the idolatrous inuocation and worshipping of Saints the more then heathenish adoration of images rotten reliques the Antichristian aduancing of the Pope aboue all that is called God or worshipped and such like doctrines of diuels lyes of Antichrist for the confirmation whereof the miracles of the Apostaticall church of Rome haue bin inuented But how many miracles soeuer they produce for the countenancing of such vntruthes they are so many arguments to proue their church Antichristian their Pope Antichrist Because as Antichrist and his followers were in these latter times to abound with signes wōders but alwayes such as serue to lead mē into error so neither Turks nor Iewes nor any other churches of Christians but only the Pope and church of Rome do vaunt of miracles and yet all their miracles are such as serue to deceiue men to make them beleeue vntruthes And therefore although they were in respect of their substāce neither counterfeit nor fabulous as in deed the most of the miracles in the church of Rome are yet were they to be esteemd as notes signes of false prophets Antichrists because their end is to seduce mē confirme lyes 5 Secondly they are called lying signes in respect of the substance being as Augustine speaketh vel figmenta mendacium De vnitat eccl 16. hominū vel portenta fallaciū spirituū either fictions of lying men or wonders of deceipt full spirits And such are the miracles whereby the aforesaide points of Poperie are warranted and confirmed And of them there are three degrees For many of them were such fabulous fictions ridiculous fables incredible lyes whereof their legends and festiualls are full as none would euer beleeue were they not intoxicated made drunk with the whore of Bylons cuppe of fornications and also giuen ouer of God to beleeue lyes And these loud lyes and more then poeticall fictions were in such request in the church of Rome that the records of them I meane their legends festiualls and such like fabulous treatises were both publickly and priuately read in the vulgar tongue whē as the holy scriptures were kept frō the people in an vnknown lāguage The 1. degree then is of such miracles as neuer were indeed nor yet in apparānce but in the opiniō only of men besotted giuen ouer to beleue incredible vntruths The 2. is of such as were phātastical in apparāce only as being crafty cōueiāces of deceitful men or iugling tricks of legerdemaine As for example the nodding or mouing the smiling or frowning the sweating or speaking of images the apparitiōs of souls deceased the manifold cures supposed to be wrought by saints departed or their images such like For of these two sorts there be innumerable wonders recorded in their legends and festiualls liues of Saints which are either altogether fabulous as beeing reports of things which neuer were not so much as in apparāce◅or if any such things haue bene done in the sight of men they haue bin either praestigiatory conueyances of wicked men or mere illusions of the diuell The third degree is of such as were lying miracles in respect of the forme as Bellarmine speaketh although true in respect of the matter For howsoeuer they were things truely done yet they surpassed not the whole strength of nature whereas true miracles are supernaturall neither can bee wrought by any naturall causes whether knowne or vnknown but onely by the omnipotent power of God And such lying signes are the principall miracles of the Apostaticall church of Rome Neither is the Pope and al his adherents able to produce any one true miracle wrought by the finger of God for the confirmation of those doctrines which are peculier to that church that is to speake more plainelie for the proofe of any point of popery But all their miracles as they are lying signes and wonders in respect of their ende so also in regard of their substance being either merely fabulous and therfore such things as neuer were not so much as in shewe and apparaunce or merely phantasticall that is such things as were in shewe onely and not in truth or merely natural and therefore but counterfeite miracles effected by the power of the diuell 6 Some of their owne writers confesse that sometimes there is great deceiuing of the people in fained miracles by the Nicol. Lyran. in Daniel 14. priests and their adherents for temporall gaine And another saith in the sacrament appeareth flesh sometimes by the conueyance of men sometimes by the operation of the diuell I once did Alexander de Hales see an image of Saint Nicolas as it was said when it with many others
his sense repugnant to the Scriptures which describe Antichrist not as an open enemy but as a secret and decipher antichristianisme not as a professed hostilitie but as a mysterie of iniquitie as hath beene shewed 6. Come we to his assumption This manifest persecution hath not bin neither is as yet why First because there are now so many false brethren in the church as neuer were more speaking of the church of Rome wherin it is hard indeed to finde a true christiaÌ„ But shal not Antichrist come whiles there are false brethreÌ„ in the church or rather shall we not thinke that the Apostasie of false brethren in the church of Rome pretended Christians wherof Antichrist is the head is a good argument of his comming Secondly because no man can tell when this persecution began That if it were true doth not disprooue the greatnesse of the persecution but argue the length Yea but vnder Nero Domitian the rest of the persecuting Emperours it was well knowne when the persecutions began and when they ended That happened because there was some intermission of those persecutions but these persecutions vnder Antichrist they haue no end nor yet intermissioÌ„ except it be when they haue none to persecute But how doth it appeare that none know when these persecutions of Antichrist began For sooth because some of vs say that Antichrist came in the yeere 200. others in 606. others in 773 others in 1000 others in 1200. The vanity of which objection which now like a twice-boâ—…de Colewurt he setteth before vs againe hath bin shewed before For of these opinions onely two belong to vs and those not different For we hold that as the whole soueraigntie and tyranny of the Pope consisteth in his two swords which he did not attaine at once but by degrees so we make two degrees of Antichrist his comming first with the spirituall sword in the yeere 607. secondly with the temporall after the yeere 1000. which was more fully obtained then before in Gregorie the seuenth In whom as hath bin said Antichrist was come to his full growth Since which time he hath been more and more reuealed and by some acknowledged Vpon which acknowledgment there hath followed separation from him according to the coÌ„mandement of God and refusall of his marke whereupon persecution hath ensued and neuer hath ceased where any such haue been found where the Pope hath to do Neither are we with Bellarmine ignorantly to confound the time of his comming with the beginning of his persecution For he began not to persecute vntil men began to forsake him and men did not forsake him vntill he was discouered what he was and acknowledged neither was he acknowledged vntill he came to his full growth 7. And thus the two first parts of this demonstration concerning the persecution of Antichrist how great and manifest it should be are already answered although in truth not worth the answering The third part is concerning the publike seruice of God and ceremonies of the church which he saith in the time of Antichrist by reason of that grieuous persecution shall wholy cease His reason is thus framed When Antichrist is come the publicke seruice of God and daily sacrifice of Christians meaning the sacrifice of the Masse shall cease but as yet the publicke seruice of God and daily sacrifice of Christians hath not ceased therefore as yet Antichrist is not come To the proposition I answer that Antichrist being an hypocrite and pretended Christian as hath bin prooued shall not abolish all worship of God much lesse at his first coÌ„ming For Bellarmine maketh this interruption of Gods seruice a fruite of his greatest persecutioÌ„ his persecution as I said is a consequent of mens for saking him and that of his acknowledgement and that of his shewing himselfe in his colours when he was come to his full growth whereunto he attained not at the first but by degrees But this proposition is prooued saith Bellarmine out of Daniel chap. 12. verse 11. From the time when the daily sacrifice shall be taken away are dayes 1290. Where saith he Daniel speaketh of the time of Antichrist For the expositioÌ„ of this place we need not with Bellarmine run to the Fathers seeing by conference thereof with some other places in Daniel whereunto it hath reference it may most plainly be shewed who it is that taketh away this daily sacrifice and what that sacrifice is In the eight chapt vers 11. and chapt 11. vers 31. it is affirmed that by Antiochus Epiphanes and his armies the daily worship of God should be taken away When as therfore Daniel asked when there should be an end of these things the Holy-ghost answereth that from the time that the daily sacrifice was taken away and the abomination of desolation placed whereof he had spoken chap. 11. 31. there should be 1290. dayes For of the restitution of Gods seruice and deliuerie of the Iewes from the tyranny of Antiochus there are foretold diuers degrees at diuers times which agreeably to these Prophecies of Daniel are noted in the histories of Iosephus and of the Maccabees for from the interruption of Gods seruice to the first restitution thereof by Iudas Macchabeus were three yeeres and ten daies namely from the 15. of the moneth Casteu In memorie hereof the Encaenia that is the feast of the dedication Iohn 10. 22. was celebrated on the 25. of Casteu 1. Macca 4. 59. in the 145. yeere of the Seleucida 1. Maccab. 1. 57. vnto the 25 of the moneth Casteu in the yeere 148 1. Maccab. 4. 52. which terme Daniel calleth chap. 7. 25. a time and times and parcell of time Vnto the victorie obtained by the Macchabees whereby the forces of Antiochus were expelled out of Iewry and thereby the restitution before begun established were three yeeres and a halfe as Iosephus testifieth which Daniel cha 12. 7. calleth a time times halfe a time vnto the time that Antiochus being stricken with the hand of God after his discomfiture and flight from Persâ—…polis promised to restore the religion of the Iewes what else they desired were 1290. dayes vnto the time of his death 1335. And that these are Prophecies coÌ„cerning Antiochus I will hereafter shew more at large In the meane time to the present Chap. 16. objection I answer that by the daily worship or sacrifice here mentioned we are to vnderstand not the sacrifice of Christians to be taken away by Antichrist but the daily sacrifice of the Iewes which was interrupted and taken away by Antiochus Epiphanes It was the custome of the Iewes saith Chrysostome to offer a sacrifice to God euery morning and euening which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sacrifice was taken away by Antiochus and the same is testified by Iosephus and the author of the first booke of the Macchabees 8. To this place of Daniel although nothing at all to his purpose Bellarmine trusteth so much that vpoÌ„ it as it
may be called the church of God bicause once it was a true church and stil is in title professiō the church ofChrist although in truth it be but little more the church of Christ then Antichrists imaginary temple at Ierusalem would be the temple of God 5 His second syllogisme which is inferred vpon the former is this If the Pope sit in the true Church of God then the church of Rome is the onely true Church for the Church of Christ is one as Christ is one but the Pope sitteth in the true church of God as was proued in the former syllogisme therefore the church of Rome is the onely true church of Christ. First I answere to the proofe of his proposition The Catholike inuisible Church of Christ is one sheepfolde vnder one shepheard Christ but particular visible churches are more then one as the church of Corinth the church of Rome the seuen churches in the Apocalyps and all the Churches of the Gentiles mentioned Rom. 16. 4. and therefore the church of Rome although it were a true visible church yet were it but a particular church and therefore not the onely true church But now the church of Rome is not a true visible church of Christ but the whore of Babylon an adulterous and Idolatrous and Apostaticall church which once was Rome as Petrarch saith now Babylon once Bethel now Bethauen once the Church of Christ now the synagogue of Antichrist as hath bene proued And therefore there being no truth either in the proposition or the assumption I answere the proposition by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although the Pope did sit in the true church yet it followeth not that therefore the church of Rome is the onely true Church and the assumption by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Pope doth not sit in the true church and therefore there is no shewe of reason in this cauill 6 His third syllogisme is inferred vpon the second If the Church of Rome be the onely true Church then those which are not members of this Church whereof the Pope is head as namely the Protestants are out of the Church But now say I the church of Rome is so farre from being the onely true church as that it is that Babylon Apoc. 18. 4. from which we are commaunded to seperate if wee will bee saued there being no saluation in that Church for those that receiue and retaine the marke of the beast Apoc. 14. 9. therefore this also is a fond and sophisticall cauill Notwithstanding as the adulterous and apostaticall state of Israel vnder Ieroboam and Achab so 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 some sacraments and profession of the name of the Lord and also of some reliques and remainder as it were the gleanings of the inuisible Church In Israell although an Apostaticall and Idolatrous state the sacrament of circumcision was retained so in the church of Rome the sacrament of baptisme The church of Israel professed Iehouah to be their God although they worshipped him Idolatrously so the church of Rome professeth the name of Christ but exceedeth Israel in Idolatry In Israel euen vnder Achab the Lord had reserued 7000. who neuer bowed their knee to Baal and so we doubt not but that in the corruptest times of Popery the Lord hath reserued some who haue not receiued the marke of the beast And as the church of Sardis was still called the church of Christ although greeuously fallen from Christ because they still professed the name of Christ and retained no doubt the Sacrament of Baptisme and had among them some fewe names that had not defiled themselues so I confesse with Caluin that the church of Rome may be called a church of Christ both in respect of some vestigia and outward notes of a visible church as administration of Baptisme and profession of the name of Christ and some secret reliques of the inuisible church which haue not bowed their knees to Apo. 20. 4 Baal But that which is saide to the church of Sardis may most iustly be avowed to the church of Rome Thou hast a name that thou liuest but indeed art dead thou professest Apoc. 3. 1. thy selfe to be the church of Christ but art the synagogue of Antichrist thou art called the church of Rome which once was famous for her saith but art the whore of Babylon the Apo. 3. 4. mother of all the fornications and abhominations in the christian world 7 Heere Bellarmine obiecteth two things If there remaine in the church of Rome but ruines and reliques of a true church then the church may be ruinated and the truth hath lyed who saith that the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile against it Ans. The Catholike and inuisible church of Christ which is the whole company of the elect can neuer faile But visible and particular churches which consist of hypocrites many times and vnsounde christians which are in the visible church but are not of the inuisible as the greater part may faile and fall away although not one sound christian that 1. Ioh. 2. 19. is of the inuisible church doth fall away As the lamentable experience of the church of Israel seuered from Iuda the examples of Corinth Ephesus and many other famous Churches which were planted by the Apostles Againe saith Bellarmine If the Church be ruinated and the ruines remaine in Poperie then the Papists haue the Church although decayed and ruinated but the Protestants haue no Church not entyre for the entyre Church is ruinated not ruinated or decayed for the ruines are among the Papists What haue they then a new building which because it is new is none of Christs and therefore who seeth not that it is safer to liue in the church decayed then in no church at all But in this cauill there is not so much as any shew of reason vnlesse he take that for graunted which we do most confidently denie and they are neuer able to proue that the church of Rome not onely is the true church of Christ but also the onely true church For otherwise the church of Rome may fall and yet the Catholike church of Christ may stand yea shall stand maugre the force of Antichrist and malice of Sathan himselfe And as for the church of the Protestants it is no new building as Antichrist vaunteth but is a part of the Catholike church of Christ reformed and renewed according to the word of God and the example of the primitiue church euen as the Church of Iuda vnder Iosias was no new building but the olde frame as it was vnder Dauid renewed and reformed according to the lawe of God 8 The exceptions which he taketh against our arguments concluding that Rome is the seate of Antichrist I haue for the Lib. 1. cap. 2. most part taken away before It shall suffice therefore
against Christ the Lambe so they in oppugning the Pope and Church of Apo. 19. 19 Rome doe fight the battailes of Christ against Antichrist And consequently are to promise to themselues vndoubted victorie they fighting vnder the banner of the Lambe who shall be sure to ouercome seeing he is the Lord of Lords and King of Kings Apo. 17. 14. and those also that are with him though esteemed of Antichrist Qui monet vt facias quod iam facis ipse monendo Laudat â—…atu comprobat acta suâ—… and his adherents as Schismaticks and Heretiques yet are they called elect and faithfull Encourage therefore your selfe most Christian King as we doubt not but you doe to maintaine for euer the truth of Christ against the falshood of Antichrist And doubt you not both of happy successe and victorie in this life and of an immortall crowne of glory in the life to come The God of all mercy and power who in his vnspeakeable bountie towards vs hath placed your Highnesse ouer vs in peace make both you and vs truely thankfull to his maiestie for this inestimable benefit and establish your Highnesse and your Royall posteritie in the throne of this Kingdome to the glory of his great name aduancement of his Kingdome propagation of the Gospell confusion of Popery consolation of all true Christians and your owne euerlasting comfort Amen Your Maiesties most humble and dutifull subiect GEORGE DOVVNAME Faults escaped in the Printing are thus to be corrected In the first Booke Pag. 7 lin vlt. read the Apoc. Pag. 1â—… l. 9 Apocal. 13 In margine li. 6. ad Mareclâ—… P. 14 l. 4. atq 〈◊〉 l. 9. vvhich vvith l. â—…0 vvhich vvord l. 12. superst â—…ous p. 15. l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 17. l 18. Pannonia P. 21. marg l. 3. Algasiam P. 24 l. 1 for as marg lin vlt hist. â—…otor p. 28. l vlt P 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 29. l. 10. vvould p. 31 l. 3. as 〈◊〉 l. 25. hinder d then pag. 35 l 9. donation l. 16. Exarch p. 36. l. 23. Luttpâ—…dus p. 40 marg l. 16. â—…aleu p. â—…2 l. 16. Seleucidae p. 47. l. 22. blot out the one vvhiles p. 50. marg l. 6. Mat. 4. 9 p 59. marg l. 2. Lubb p. 69. l. a fine 5. Cookes vvith p. 70 l. 9. Monstrance in marg l. a fine 4. arcu pag. 71. ad lin 2. in marg scribe 〈◊〉 can sub sinem extravag loan 22. Tat. 14. 〈◊〉 significatione C. cuÌ„ inter p. 74. marg l. 16. Electi potest p. 77 l. 6. ipsissimum p. 78. l. 7. eight p. 80 marg l. 7. Naâ—…r p. 83 l. 16. blot out 〈◊〉 in marg l. vlt. refer subtiliss ad lin a f. 7 p. 86. l. 7. Tecetius p. 90. l penult Donation p. â—…1 l. a. f. 8. first and second p. 92. l. vlt. Lando p. 94 l 2 vnto l. a. f. 5. 4. Benedict p. 100. l. a. f. 10. Impleuâ—…ris p. 104. marg l. vlt. Non nos p. 106. l. 6. vve are p. 110. l 23. Babylons p. 123. l. 5. This l. a. f. 11. receiued p. 128. l. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 129. l. 19. other names p. â—…38 l. 18. There In the second Booke Pag 6. l. 13. that he is p. 10. l penult another p. 11. l. 11. prefixed p. 13. l. 27. the King is supreme p. 16. l. a f. 4. reuealed as p. 20. l. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 21. l. a f. 5 prefixed p. 25. l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l 11. beast p 27. marg l 3. for § 2. read lib. 1. cap. 4. § 2 p. 28. l. 21. he seeth p. 30. l. 6. reuolted p. 32 l. 19. ovvne p. 37. marg l 5 Annal Boior p. 41. l. 14. vvomen vvith child p. 46. l. 8. come sor p. 48. set chap. 16. against line 12 p. 60. l. 1. of the 13 I marg l. penult can p 70. l. 11. Neuerthe esse p. 72 l. a. f. 13. time vnto p. 73. l. a f. 5. adornc pag. 77 l. 10. seemeth p. 80 l. 1. blot out of p. 82 l. 24. men l. 26. out p. 85 l. 24 in marg dele 3. p. 89. l. a f. 8. lizen sse p. 97 l. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 20 Diclâ—… l. 23. Luthers l. 24. Lulter p. 98 l. 15 be come p. 102. l. 18. pronounce p. 106 l. a f. 14. saith he p 109 l. 3. vvere p. 110 l a f. 4. bload shed p. 114 l. 21. or altogether p. 124 l. 19. spiritually p. 125 l. 18 Apoc. 17. 16. p. 133 l. 7. desolatours p. 135 l. 1. Monarches p. 137 l. 2. a meere sable p. 139 l. 15 141 l. 11. 12 depraue p. 144 l. 13. aequè ac p. 151 l. a f. 5. and therefore p. 152. l. 17. 18. glorifie p. 156. l. 21 blot out ad l. 23. d scribe p. 157 l. 14. of Babylons p. 161. l. a f. 4. first of p. 162. l. 6. 7. Omnes p. 163. l. penult fiue p. 168. l. 7. 22. Lagidae p. 169. l. 1. vidâ—…atur l. 3 to Porphyry l. 7. Daniel The p. 175. l. 5. the land Tzebi l. 6. eight horne p. 181. l. 1. 〈◊〉 Casleu p. 188. Marg. l. 3. vid. Tremell The first Booke prouing that the Pope is Antichrist The first Chapter propounding the state of the controuersie and the grounds of our proofes 1. WHeras the holy Ghost 2. Thess. 2. Thess. 2. 8. 2. 8. hath foreshewed that Christ our Sauiour shall consume Antichrist with the spirit of his mouth that is by the ministerie of his worde which Esay 11. 4. is called the rodde or Esay 11. 4. scepter of his mouth the spirite of his lips it caÌ„not therfore be denied but that it is the dutie of all faithfull ministers who are as it were the mouth of christ vnto his people to set themselues against Antichrist that by their ministery his kingdome may be weakned and the kingdome of Christ Iesus more and more aduaunced For which cause I tooke vpon me in my publicke readings not long since to intreat of this maine controuersie betwixt vs and the church of Rome concerning Antichrist But because my speech could prosite onely those that heard me I haue for diuerse causes thought good by writing to make the benefit of my labours coÌ„mon First that by this means the Papists which be tractable may be reclaimed Secondly that those which bee obstinate among them may bee confounded Thirdly that Protestants and professours of the trueth which be found resolute may be more more coÌ„firmed lastly especially that those which be weake wauering may be stayed and preserued from falling into that fearfull iudgement which as the Lord hath threatned 2. Thess. 2. against vnsound professours in these latter times so hath it within these few years fallen vpon very many who hauing by the great mercy of God beene deliuered out of the more then Egyptian bondage of Antichrist and
of himselfe sheweth what kind of defection hee speaketh of For afterwards in the same chapter he noteth this Apostasy 2. Thess. 2. 10. 11. 12. to be of those who because they haue not loued nor beleeued the truth that they might be saued but haue taken pleasure in vnrigteousnes are therefore giuen ouer by the iust iudgement of God to beleeue the lies of Antichrist to their damnation But more plainely the same Apostle speaking of that Apostasie which in these later times was to accompany the reuelation of Antichtist he saith 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. The spirit speaketh euideÌ„tly 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. that in the latter times some shall make an Apostasie from the faith attending to erronious spirits and doctrines of diuells speaking lyes in hypocrisie hauing their owne conscience seared 3 Now the Papists are as ready to obiect this Apostasy to vs as wee to them How then shall we discerne whether we or they haue made this reuolt The Apostle in the same place setteth downe two of those doctrines of diuells as certaine notes whereby those which make this Apostasie may be discerned Forbidding saith hee to marry and commaunding to abstaine 1. Tim 4. 3. from meats which God hath created to bee receiued with thanksgiuing The former where of Hierome also hath noated to bee a In Dan. 11. marke of Antiehrist Nota est Antichristi prohibere nuptias But these notes agree not vnto vs who neither forbid mariage nor commaund abstinence from any meats for religion sake As for the Papists especiallie since the times of Gregory the seauenth they forbid mariage to some men at all times and certaine meats to all men at sometimes and that for religion sake esteeming of mariage in their clergie worse then adultery or Sodomy and eating of flesh in Lent or other forbidden times as a mortall sinne And as touching the falling away of the Church certaine it is that although neither the inuisible 1. Iohn 2. 19. church in generall nor any one sound member thereof caÌ„ fall away from faith either totally or finally yet not onely the members of visible churches but also the churches themselues consisting of hypocrites as of the greater part may fall away As the Church of England which was in King Edwards daies reuolted in Queene Maries time from Christ to Antichrist So hath the church of Rome which once was famous for her Rom. 1. faith as may appeare not onely by those notes set downe by the Apostle 1. Tim. 4. 3. and some others which hereafter See the 2. boke chapt 2. shal be noted but also in those innumerable particulars both in doctrine and maners wherein they haue reuolted from the purity of the primitiue Church And of this catholicke Apostasie the Pope is head 4. Secondly Antichrist is not an open and outward but a couert disguised enimy oppugning Christ his church not by open violeÌ„ce but with all deceiueablenes of vnrighteousnes 2. Thess. 2. 10. For he is not so foolish as to professe himself to be Antichrist Neither could that be which the Apostle testifieth as Radulphus FlauiaceÌ„sis saith that Antichrist should attaine vnto ecclesiasticall In Leuit. lib. 18 cap. 1. apud Magdeburg centur 10. honours and in the temple of God that is the society of the faithfull should take the chaire of honour vnlesse hauing first pretended a kind of coÌ„formity with the faithful he should deceiue those of whom he is to be ordained Therfore Antichristianisme is called the mystery of iniquitie whereupon the Glose saith 2. Thess. 2. 7. The impiety of Antichrist is mysticall that is cloaked vnder the In 2. Thess. 2. name of godlinesse And as in the Popes miter was wont so also in the whore of Babylons forehead is written a mystery Apoc. 17. 2. Thess. 2. 4. Augustin Primasâ—… glossâ—…in Apoc. 13. And Antichrist himselfe is deciphered as an hypocrite sitting in the teÌ„ple of God professing himselfe and his followers to be the onely true church of God vsing the two Testaments pretending himselfe as Hierome saith to bee the Prince of the couenant And consequently head of the Church deceiuing vnsounde In Dan. 11. Christians with a glorious profession of religioÌ„ signified by the Apo. 17. golden cup with a shew of couÌ„terfait holinesse otherwise he could neuer so effectually deceiue many christiaÌ„s as that the elect Mat. â—…4 24. should be in any dauÌ„ger to be seduced speaking lies in hypocrisie oppugning Christ his truth vnder the outward shew 1. Tim. 4. 2. profession of Christian religion hauing two hornes like the Apoc. 13. 11. lambe couÌ„terfeiting in some things the humility meekenes of Christ yet challeÌ„ging that double power both spirituall teÌ„porall which belongeth to Christ the laÌ„be as our chief priest and king and not onely that but speaking also like the dragon Which is to be vnderstood partly of his blasphemous speaches which he doth vtter partly of the doctrines of diuels which he 1. Tim. 4 1. doth teach partly of those hellish curses which he thundreth against the true professors of the faith partly of those great promises which like the prince of the world he maketh to those Mat. 9 4 that will adore him These things need no application for those to whom the disguising more then pharisaical hypocrisie of the Pope Papists is knowne For must not his holines be called sanctissimus most holy wheÌ„ he is most wicked doth not he call himself SeruuÌ„seruoruÌ„ the seruaÌ„t of seruants wheÌ„ in truth he maketh himself the King of Kings and Lord of Lords And as Faber hath obserued the Pope in word saith that he is the seruant of seruaÌ„ts but in deed he permitteth himselfe to be adored Praesat instit which the Angel in th' Apocalyps refused FroÌ„ which fact of the Pope as if it were a rule of iustice Antoninus concludeth that Suâ—… part 3. there is no lesse honour due to the Pope then to the Angels Wherupon â—…it 22. 〈◊〉 4. saith he he receiueth from the faithfull adorations prostration or falling downe before him and the kisses of his feete which the Angell permitted not to be done vnto him by Iohn the Euangelist Neither was Bernards complaint either vniust or Apoc. 22. Serm. in conuers Pauli vntrue Heuheu Doâ—…ine Deus c. Alas Lord God that they be first in thy persecution which seeme to loue the primacie in thy Church and to beare rule And else where A silihy contagion saith he spreadeth it selfe now adaies through the whole In cant seâ—…m 33. body of the Church c. All are louers and all enemies all friends al aduersaries all domesticall or of the houshold and none peaceable all neighbours and yet all seeke their owne they are ministers of Christ and they serue Antichrist And such was the complaint of diuerse Bishoppes in their Epistle to Pope Nicolas recorded in Auentine
offering to euerie one for the payment of ten shillings but not a penny vnder to sette at libertie the soule of any one which they should name in purgatory And lastly if you respect Gods acceptation that is whether God would take it well that the Pope should release all that bee in purgatory at once or not Antoninus answereth he cannot tell And to conclude this kingly office of the pope with that venerable acclamation of the reuerend fathers in the councell of Laterane Thou art all and aboue all a Sess. 10. in orat Steph. Patracensis to thee all power is giuen in heauen and in earth And againe a Sess. 10. in orat Steph. Patracensis In the pope is all power aboue all powers in heauen and in earth And thus it appeareth euidently that the Pope is Antichrist not onely because he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an aduersary opposed vnto Christ as was proued in the former chapter but also because he is aemulus and as it were a counterchrist who seeking to match our Sauiour Christ aduanceth himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped insomuch that he sitteth in the temple of God as god shewing and demeaning himselfe as though he were a God vpon earth Chap. 6. Of other vices or sinnes of Antichrist 1. NOw are wee to intreate of other vices and sinnes of Antichrist For albeit by the application of the two former noates concerning the opposition of Antichrist vnto Christ and his incredible ambition in aduancing himdelfe aboue all that is called God it plainely appeareth that the Pope of Rome meriteth to be called by that peculiar title of Antichrist the man of sin because those two notes wherein the Apostle insisteth as sufficient 2. Thess. 2. 3. 4. proofes thereof doe most properly agree vnto him notwithstanding many other notorious sinnes of the Popes may be produced for the further euidence of this truth Of which sins some are common to very many of them and some are common to them all For howsoeuer the crimes and enormities of such deepe dissemblers as these Antichristian Popes haue beene were many times either not commonly knowne to the world or beeing knowne were not communicated to posterity the writers of those times being for the most part the seruile flatterers of Antichrist yet notwithstanding many of them were knowne of those which were knowne many are recorded to haue beene guilty of fearefull crimes besides those which either were not knowen or not recorded For to begin with their horrible impiety towards God haue not many of these most holy fathers bewraied themselues to be very Atheists and scorners of religion Such were those which before I Chap. 4. §. 8. named Iohn the 24. Alexander the 6. Sixtus 4. Paulus 3. Clement 7. Iulius 2 3. Leo 10. and besides them Iohn 12. alià s 13. who vsed to blaspheme God at his dice to call vpon the Luitprandus lib. 6. Fascic temp diuell in his feasts to drinke vnto him Many of them also as coÌ„monly those which renouÌ„ce god betake theÌ„selues to the diuell haue bin knowne sorcerers necromancers besides those which were not known It is recorded euen by Popish authors of Syluester the 2. that he did homage to the diuell that by the diuel he was placed in the Papacy to which end he had be Fascic tempo Stella Platina c. taken himselfe both in body solue to the diuell Such a one was Gregory 7. as Cardinal Benno testifieth such also were al the Popes froÌ„ Syluester the 2. to Gregory the 7. But amoÌ„g them Benedict 8. alià s 9. who before his Papacy was called Theophylact is most worthy to be remeÌ„bred For he was wont in woods mountaines to sacrifice to the diuell by magicall art to allure women vnto him he kept a sparrow which brought him newes froÌ„ alcoasts And when he had sold the Papacy to Gregory the 6. for 1500. pound thought by soloery to recouer it againe as he first had gotten it and to that end consulted with the diuell he had his neck wrung in sunder his successor Gregory the sixt beeing a sorcerer as well as he and now as it may seeme in greater fauour with the diuell then hee and to these three which I haue named some twentie more may be added But now I come to speake of their sinnes against the second table 2 For many of them haue beene murtherers and otherwise barbarously cruell As for example Gregory the seauenth who poisoned six Popes to make himselfe a way to the Papacie and sought to murther Henry the Emperour as hee was at his Bal. ex Mario Mat. Paris in Henr. 3. prayers in the church Innocentius the fourth sought to poison Conrade the Emperour Clement 6. caused the Emperour Lewis of Bauaria to be poisoued King Iohn was poisoned by a monk when the Pope had giuen sentence that he should be deposed and so was Henrie of Lucemburgh euen in the eueharist and that as some report by the appointment of the Pope By the Gregory 13. Pope was Parry suborned to murther our gracious Queene Elizabeth so was the Iacobine that murthered Henry the third Sixtus 5. king of Fraunce In the church at Florence a massacre was intended and Iulianus Medices murthered by the appointment Volaterran geograph lib. 5. Politianus de coniâ—…ratione Pactiana of Sixtus the fourth the eleuation of the sacrament beeing made the signe or watchword when this murther should begin Alexander the sixt for 200000. crownes poisoned the great Turks brother who was at Rome he also or as some say his sonne appointed his seruaunts to minister poyson to certaine Cardinalls and Senatours whom he had inuited but the seruitors mistaking the cuppes and giuing him of the same dispatched him together with the rest Paulus the third poisoned his mother and his nephew that to him might descend the Bal. de Rom. Poâ—…t actis whole inheritance of the Farnesian family Hee poisoned his sister whome he vsed as his harlot because shee fancied others more then himselfe and that he might more freely abuse his owne daughter Constantia hee poisoned Bosius Sfortia her husband He poisoned one Bishop and two Cardinalls because they inclined to the gospell I might be long in this argument but these may serue for a tast But if besides these you desire to heare some other examples of their cruelty you may remeÌ„ber how Stephen the 6. caused the body of Formosus the Pope to be taken out of the graue and hauing cut of two of his fingers cast them into the Tiber he buried the body amoÌ„g the Laity which body eight yeares after Sergius the 3. causeth againe to be taken out of the graue and hauing cut of the other 3. fingers he casteth theÌ„ the body it self into the said riuer condemned him and all his actes which other Popes not withstanding as Romanus 1. Theodorus 2. Iohn
worth yet he was content to make a flourish with it because he had some of the Fathers to father it vpon Afterwards he commeth nearer to the purpose and saith that Caluin as some of the Fathers before him to wit Cyprian and Ierome affirmeth and so doth Bellarmine himselfe else where that Daniel speaketh of Antiochus Epiphanes who was a type of Antichrist Therefore leauing his former hold he reasoneth thus Such as is the type or figure such is the thing figured Antiochus the type was but one singular person therfore Antichrist that is figured is but one The proposition is to be vnderstood of the proportion and likenesse onely in those things in respect whereof the type is a figure and not generally in all things As for example the High-priest was a type or figure of Christ but therefore it doth not follow that there was but one High-priest because Christ is one The Papists holde that Melchisedec who was but one was a type of their Masse Priests which are many Iosuah Dakid and Salomon were types of Christ but therefore not like vnto him in all things So Antiochur may not vnfitly be said to haue beene a type of Antichrist because as Pharaoh was a type of other tyrants which oppressed the Church of God so he in falshood deceit pride idolatry cruelty and persecuting of the Church of God resembled Antichrist the man of sinne which is an enemie and is listed vp about all that is called God or that is worshipped In which respects Antiochus was so fit a type of Antichrist that R. Leui Gerson alledged by Bellarmine in the end of the 12. chap. applieth whatsoeuer is spoken of him Dan. 7. 11. to the Pope of Rome If therefore you vnderstand the proposition generally it is false if particularly the whole argumentation is a fallacion 8. His fift testimonie is Apoc. 13. 17. For these places are to be vnderstood of Antichrist as Irenaeus teacheth and as it is plaine by the likenesse of the words in Daniel and Iohn c. His reason is thus framed If Daniel spake of one King then also Iohn but the former is true therefore the later The proposition wherin there is indeed no coherence he prooueth by the similitude of their words First because both make mention of ten Kings which shal be in the earth when Antichrist shall come It is true that both make mention of ten hornes but with such difference as that otherwise there is no likenesse Antiochus in Daniel by whom Bellarmine would haue vs to vnderstand Antichrist is the last of the ten not one besides the ten otherwise the fourth beast were a beast of eleuē hornes Antichrist is one besides the ten hornes in the Reuelation and of Bellarmine somtimes is called the eleuenth Bellarmines Antichrist in Daniel is the little horne signifying indeed but one man but the true Antichrist in the Reuelation is called not an horne but the beast whereby not one man but a state is signified The ten hornes in Daniel are so many kings which succeed one another in the kingdome vsurped ouer the Iewes before the cōming of the Messias the ten hornes in the Reuelation are so many rulers ouer diuers kingdomes which receiue their kingdome together not only after the incarnatiō of Christiō but also after the dissolutiō of the Roman Empire So that in truth nothing is here alike saue that in both there is mention of ten hornes Secondly saith Bellarmine both of them foretel that the kingdome of Antichrist shall continue three yeares and an halfe But I answer that neither of both assigne that time to Antichrist For first Daniel assigneth a time and times and parcell of time that is three yeers and ten daies to the persecution vnder Antiochus wherby the publick worship of God was for that time interrupted viz. from the 15. day of the month Casleu in the 145. yeare of the kingdome of the Seleucidae See Chap. 16. 1. Mac. 1. 57. vnto the 25. of the month Casleu in the yeare 148. 1. Mac. 4. 52. But of this more hereafter Neither doth Iohn any where assigne three yeers an halfe to the raigne of Antichrist but to the beast with seuē heads ten hornes which signifieth the Roman state either generally as it is opposed vnto Christ or particularly as it was gouerned by the sixt head that is the emperors he assigneth fortytwo Apoc. 11. 2. 7. and 13. 1 5. months which are not literally to be vnderstood Now Antichrist is not the beast with seuē heads but one head of the seuē is described vnder the second beast as our aduersaries also confesse which in plaine terms is called another beast For how can he be that beast if he be another Apoc. 13. 11. And of this also I shal haue better occasiō to speake more fully hereafter Lastly he flieth to the authority of the fathers as his last refuge but neither do these fathers expresly say that Antichrist shal be See Chap. 8. but one man neither if they did can any sound argument be drawne from their testimonies vnlesse Bellarmine be able to prooue that whatsoeuer these fathers haue written concerning Antichrist is true And againe diuers of the Fathers as Irenaeus Origen Chrysostome Ierome Ruffinus Primasius Augustine expounding that place Math 24. 24. which speaketh of more then one as spoken of Antichrist they could not vnderstand Antichrist to be but one Yea but the Fathers say that Antichrist shall be a most choise instrument of the Diuell that in him shall dwell all the fulnesse of diuellish malice bodily euen as in the man Christ dwelleth the fulnesse of the diuinitie corporally But although this allegation were true as I will not thereof dispute yet is it impertinent for the Pope meaning the whole succession of Antichristian Popes may be a notable instrument of the diuell c. and yet hereof it followeth not that there hath beene but one Pope As touching the other assertion of Antichrists raigne three yeares and a Chap. 8. halfe we are hereafter to intreate 9. Now that Antichrist is not one singuler man but a whole state and succession of men it may appeare by these arguments First by conference of 2. Thes. 2. with the Epistles of Iohn for Iohn plainely 1. Ioh. 4 3. 2. Iohn 7. 1. Ioh. 2. 18 saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antichrist of whom they had hard that he should come was in his time And of whom had they heard it but of Paul in the 2. Thes 2. where in like sort the Apostle saith that euen in his time the mysterie of iniquitie that is Antichristianisme was working noting that Antichrist in some of his members was already come although he were not reuealed vntill that which hindered was taken out of the way Now as Paul and Iohn doe both testifie that the Antichrist was in their time so Paul also sheweth that Antichrist shall remaine vnto the second comming of Christ
2. Tim. 4. 4. trueth and are conuertd vnto fables They cannot abide to heare that the Scripture should be the onely rule of faith and maners they cannot endure to see any of their people to read the Scriptures and therefore desire to keepe it from them in an vnknowne language The foundation of their trueth is the authoritie of their Church and in the Church of their Pope who they say cannot erre But if the Pope teach doctrines of Diuels and speake lyes in hypocrise as the Apostle hath prophesied especially of them then is there in that Church little soundnesse of trueth that is built vpon so vnsound a soundation Thus therefore I reason The head of the generall Apostasie is Antichrist The Pope is the head of the generall or catholicke Apostasiei therefore he is Antichrist 21. To the three former arguments a fourth may be added The seuen heades of that beast which signifieth the Romane state are not so many persons but so many heades or states of gouernement wherby the common wealth of the Romanes hath beene at diuerse times gouerned the sixt head was the state of emperours the seuenth Antichrist as the Papists confesse the eight which also is one of the seauen the state of Emperours renewed Whereby it euidently appeareth Rhem. in Apoc. 17. Bellarmi not onely that Antichrist is not one man but also that the Pope who is the seuenth head is Antichrist CHAP. 3. Concerning the time of Antichrist his comming 1. TO withdraw our minds from beholding Antichrist in the See of Rome and to make vs looke for the expected Messias of the Iewes that neuer shall come the Papistes labour by might and maine to perswade vs that Antichrist is not yet come For euen as the learned of the Iewes when Christ was among them contrary to their one perswasion for worldly respects refused the true Messias and made the people expect another which neuer shall be So the learned among the Papists hauing Antichrist among them for worldly respects cannot endure that he should bee acknowledged but teach the people that he is not yet come and describe vnto them such an Antichrist as themselues may well know shall neuer come as by the grace of God shall appeare in the particulars Now as touching the time of Antichristes comming Bellarmine first reciteth diuers false and erronious opinions as heo calleth them and afterwarde setteth downe sixe solemne demonstrations to prooue that he is not yet come In the former he spendeth a goodlong chapter reckoning vp diuers opinions both of the fathers in former ages and also of hetetiques as â—…he calleth them in latter times mingling the trueth with errours that the credit of both might be alike As touching the fathers because he taketh it for granted which is the question that Antichrist is not to come before the end of the world which we deny according to the Scriptures 1. Ioh. 2. 18 2. Iohn 7. 2. Thes. 2. 7 he would make their opinion concerning the approching of Antichrist which they heid according to the Prophesies of the Scripture compared with the euent of no better credit then their conceit of Christs approching vnto judgement grounded not so much vpon the Scriptures as vpon their owne conjecture For to omit their conjectures concerning Christs comming consuted by experience what can Bellarmine answer to the sound argument either of S. Ierome or Gregorie concerning the comming of Antichrist confirmed by experience alledged by Bellarmine himselfe Ierome applying the Prophesie of Paul Epist. ad Geront de Monogamia 2. Thes. 2. 6. 7. 8. that Antichrist should appeare when he that hindereth meaning the Romane Emperour was taken out of the way to his time wherein not onely the imperiall seat had beene remooued from Rome which was the first degree of taking out of the way that which hindered but also Rome it selfe in distresse being taken of the Gothes and the Empire in decay Quitenebat saith he de medio fit non intelligimus Anticbristum appropinquare He which did holde is taken out of the way and do we not vnderstand that Antichrist dooth approch And likewise Gregory Omnia quae praedicta sunt fiunt Rex superbia propè est All things which were foretold doe come to passe the King Lib. 4. epi. 38. of pride is at hand Which arguments alledged also by vs Bellarmine because he could not answer he thought to discredit by reckoning them among erronious conceits 2. But let vs come to his heretiques Who although they all agree in this that Antichrist is come and that it is the Pope yet saith Bellarmine they are deuided into sixe opinions The first opinion viz. of the Samosatenians in Hungarie and Transyluania is not worth the mentioning being of such heretiques as deny the Trinity and also the diuinity of Christ with whom though we haue as little to doe as the Papists sauing that some of our men haue soundly confuted their heresies whiles the Papists held their peace yet he numbreth our opinion with theirs as Christ was numbred among the wicked that by this mixture of truth with falshood he might discredit the truth As for the rest it is easie to shew that all Protestants almost that haue written in this argument and namely those whom Bellarmine alledgeth doe agree in the substance concerning the comming of Antichrist And that there is no such difference among them as Bellarmine would beare vs in hand For concerning this matter this is the receiued opinion of our Churches When with Iohn in his Epistles we speake of Antichrist meaning the whole bodie of Heretiques and Antichrists we hold with Iohn that euen in the Apostles times Antichrist had as it were set his foote in the Church and that from that time the mysterie of iniquitie that is Antichristianisme did more and more worke vntill the head of this body the man of sinne was reuealed Which with Paul we hold to haue beene done after that which hindered was remooued out of the way But when we speake of the head of this body who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called the Antichrist figured by the second beast Apoc. 13. of whom also the Apostle intreateth 2. Thes. 2. the constant opinion of the learned is this that of the reuealing or manifest appearing of Antichrist there were two principall degrees The first about the yeare 607. when Boniface the third obtained the supremacie ouer the vniuersall See lib. 1. cap. 3. Church The second after the yeare 1000. when he claimed and vsurped both swords that is a soueraigne and vniuersall authoritie not onely ecclesiasticall ouer the Clergie but also temporall ouer Kings and Emperours Vnto which second soueraigntie they had long aspired but neuer attained vntill the time of Gregorie the seauenth We holde then that Antichrist was come and shewed himselfe in Boniface the third and that after this his birth as it were he grewe by degrees vntill he came to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
is armies bringing desolation partly by the greeuousnesse of the destruction verse 21. To this prophecie also he admixeth counsel and consolation Counsell that they which shal be in Iewry prouide for their selues by flight verse 16. 17. 18. in respect whereof he both pitieth the women and such as giue sucke and biddeth them pray that their flight be not in winter nor on the Sabboth day verse 19. 20. His consolation is that for the elects sake the time of the siege shal be shortned for otherwise none of the Iewes could escape as Chrysostome also expoundeth verse 22. This exposition is plainely confirmed by conference of this Chapter of Mathew with Luke 21. where the same question being propounded verse 7. concerning the end of Ierusalem alone receiueth an answer peculiar to the destruction of Ierusalem vnto the 25. verse And whereas Mat. 24. 15. Christ vseth these words when you shall see the abomination of desolation which in Daniell is called the abominable wings bringing desolation standing in the holy place this in Luke is thus expounded When you see Ierusalem Luk. 21 20 besieged with armies which Daniel foretold should bring desolation vpon it then vnderstand that the desolation thereof is neare and therefore he aduiseth them which shall be in Iewry to flie so soone as Ierusalem shall be besieged c. Because there shall be great affliction in those dayes namely in Iewry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ierusalem as Luke restraineth it For there shal be great destresse Luk. 21. 23 24. in the land and wrath in this people and they shall fall on the edge of the sword and shal be carried away captiue into all nations Luk. 22. 25 and Ierusalem shal be troden vnder foot of the Gentiles vntil the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled and then shal be the end of the world the signes whereof be addeth in the next words 4. By this analysis of the text conference with Luke it euidently appeareth that all these predictions from the 6. ver to the 23. in Mat. in the 21. of Luke frō the 7. vers to the 29. concerne the destruction of Ierusalem which hapned within forty yeares after this prophecie was deliuered Neither may we thinke that our sauiour Christ would intermingle the prophecies concerning the destruction of Ierusalem and the end of the world therby to nourish the aforesaid errour of his disciples who imagined that the end of Ierusalem should not be before the end of the world as appeareth by their question For euen afterward ver 34. where seemeth the greatest mixture our Sauiour Christ speaketh distinctly For wheras our Sauiour had spoken first of the end of Ierusalem and then of the end of the world seuerally had giuen signes of both wherby they might know the approching of eyther as by the budding of the fig tree they gather summer to be neare he defineth the time of the one the other he leaueth indefinit Verily I say vnto you this generatiō shall not passe vntil al those things saith he pointing as it seemeth towards Ierusalē as he sat in the moūt Oliuet be fulfilled And as touching the end of the world he noteth both the certainty therof the vncertainty of the time of the former he saith Heauē earth shal passe away that with a noise as Peter saith but my words shall not passe away howbeit of that day houre namely wherin the sonne 2. Pet. 3. 10 of man shal come and wherin the heauens shal passe away none knoweth no not the Angels of heauē but the father only Whatsoeuer the Papists therefore alledge out of the former part of the Chapter as fauouring any of their fancies concerning Antichrist as namely the preaching of the Gospel before the comming of Antichrist the abomination of desolation the most greeuous tribulation in the time of Antichrist c. may easily be answered 5 But if these prophecies be compared with the history and euent we shall finde this trueth to be more euident seeing all these predictions had their complement at or before the destruction of Ierusalem For to omit the rest the Apostle testifieth Colos. 1. 6. 23. Rom. 1. 8. 10. 18. that the Gospell was in his time preached in all the world and therefore before the desolation Euseb. lib. 3 of Ierusalem which hapned about two yeare after his death From whence also euidently appeareth how false Bellarmines assumption is as being contradictory both to the prophecie of Christ in this place as also to the testimony of the Apostle testifying the fulfilling thereof in his time according to the commission giuen to the Apostles that they should goe into all the world and teach all nations Mat. 28. 19. Mar. 16. 15. which was accordingly performed Mar. 16 20. And thus Homil. in Mat. 24. Chrysostome also expoundeth this place that before the end that is the destruction of Ierusalem the Gospell was to be preached throughout the world and prooueth by the same testimonies of Paul that this prophecie was fulfilled before the taking of Ierusalem But if it seeme incredible vnto any that the Gospell should be preached throughout the world in so short a time he must consider first that by the whole world is not to be vnderstood euery small corner and vnknowne part of the world but by a Synecdoche the greatest part of the world then knowne and inhabited as Luke 2. 1. And by all nations not all and euery nation but all sorts that is both Iewes and Gentiles For both here and elsewhere there seemeth to be an opposition made betwixt the whole world and the land of Iewry betwixt all nations and the Iewes For wheras before the Church was contained in Iewry the word preached to the Iewes our Sauiour sheweth that before the desolation of Ierusalem the Gospell should be preached commonly in all parts of the world not only in Iewry indifferently to all other nations not peculiarly to the Iewes Secondly he is to consider both the multitude of the preachers dispersers of the Gospell and also the infinit power of Gods spirit and miraculous efficacie of his word preached in that it could in so short a time spread it selfe so far as it did Thirdly a distinction is to be made betwixt preaching the Gospell and receiuing it For it was preached in all the world but not receiued euery where And that our Sauiour signifieth where he saith it should be preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations to leaue those which embrace it not without excuse If then the preaching of the Gospell throughout the world be not made by Christ our Sauiour a signe of Antichrists comming and yet notwithstanding it be most true that according to the prophecie of Christ the Gospell was preached in all the world before the desolation of Ierusalem what shew of reason is there in this demonstration And this is all that I thinke worth
reprooue in due season and to pacifie the anger of the Lords judgement proceeding to furis and to turne the hearts of the fathers vnto the children and to set vp the Tribes of Iacob In the latter it is said of Enoch as Bellarmine readeth That he pleased God and was translated into Paradise that he might giue peâ—…ance vnto the Gentiles First I answer to both places that although this booke of the sonne of Sirach be very commendable yet it is not of Canonicall authoritie being but a humane writing as appeareth not onely by the former place alledged but also by that erronious conceit concerning Samuel chapter 46. 23. Secondly in neither place is it said that either of them should come to oppose themselues against Antichrist that from hence their returne into the world should be made a signe of the comming of Antichrist But as touching the former place seuerally I answer with I ansenius one of the best writers among the Papists howsoeuer Bellarmine wondereth at him that hee should consent with vs in the trueth beeing a Popish Bishop that although the ancient writers haue thought that Elias was to come againe yet it cannot be euinced out of this place For we may say that Ecclesiasticus did write this according to the receiued opinion of his time grounded as they thought vpon the words of Malachie that Elias was truely to come in his owne person before the Messias when as that was not to be fulfilled in his owne person but in him that was to come in the spirit and power of Elias True indeed it is that not onely the authour of that booke as it seemeth but the Iewes in generall vnderstanding the words of Malachie literally did expect that Elias in his owne person should returne before the comming of the Messias But our Sauiour Christ reformeth this errour applying the Prophecie to Iohn Baptist. And secondly I answer that if Bellarmine will argue out of Ecclesiasticus according to his meaning he must prooue that Elias was to come in his owne person before the first comming of the Messias of which Malachie speaketh and before which this authour as all the rest of the Iewes doe holde that Elias was to come And therefore the Papists might aswell with the Iewes looke for their Messias as for Elias Now as touching the other place it is a wonder that Bellarmine would alledge it for this purpose But that hauing nothing to say to the purpose he is desirous to say some-thing to bleare the eyes of the simple The originall Text hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccl. 〈◊〉 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Enoch pleased the Lord God and was translated for an example of repentance â—…o the generations that is that the generations present and to come might be mooued by his example to turne vnto the Lord and to walke before him knowing by his example that there is a reward laid vp for those that turne vnto the Lord and walke before him as Enoch did But will Bellarmine hence conclude that therefore Enoch is to come againe in the flesh to oppose himselfe to Antichrist 5. The third place is Math. 17. 11. Elias indeed shall come and shall restore all things VVhich words saith Bellarmine are plainely to be vnderstood not of Iohn but of the true Elias For Iohn was already come and had finished his course and yet the Lord saith in the future Elias shall come I answer that by the Euangelist Marke who speaketh in the present tence Elias indeed comming first restoreth all things the meaning of our Sauiour Christ appeareth to haue beene this Elias quidem venturus fuit primum restituturus omnia Elias indeed was to come first and was to restore all things but I tell you that Elias is already come and they haue done vnto him what they listed as it is written of him meaning Mark 9. 12 13. Iohn Baptist. As if he had said The Prophecie indeed concerning Mat. 17. 13 Elias is true but I tell you it is already fulfilled For as he saith in another place Iohn Baptist is that Elias who was to come then which what could be spoken more plainelie Bellarmine answereth That Iohn Baptist was the promised Mat. 11. 14 Elias not literally but allegorâ—…eally So we affirme also and further adde that Elias was not promised literally For our Sauiour Christ plainely affirmeth that Iohn Baptist is that Elias which was promised And both he and the Angell vnderstand that Prophecie of Malachie chapter 4. 5. not literally of Elias the Thesbiâ—…e but allegorically of Iohn Baptist who was as it were another Elias Yea but the Disciples faith Bellarmine who had seene the transsiguration when they asked Christ what is that which the Scribes say that Elias must fyrst come speake of the same Elias whom they had seene with Christ in the Mount and therefore Christ making answer to them that Elias indeed shall come speaketh of the same Elias It followeth not for the Disciples speake according to the erronious opinion of the Scribes who vnderstanding Malachie literallie thought that Elias was to come in his owne person and thereupon as it is thought inferred that Christ was not the true Messias because Elias came not before him But Christ answereth them according to the true meaning of Malachie applying his prophecie to Iohn Baptist who is figuratiuely called Elias Yea but it cannot truely be said that Iohn Baptist restored all things for to restore all things is to call all the Iewes and heretiques and perhaps some of the seduced Catholickes to the true faith as Bellarmine obiecteth This is indeede the Popish conceit that Enoch and Elias shall preach against Antichrist 1260. daies at the end whereof they shal be put to death by Antichrist and after three dayes and an halfe shall rise againe Within a moneth after their death Antichrist shal be destroyed in mount Oliuet and 45. dayes after that Christ shall come to iudgement In the meane time so effectuall shall be the preaching of Enoch and Elias that they shall restore all things that is they shall call all the Iewes and heretickes and perhaps the seduced Catholickes But how doth this agree with the prophecies of our Sauiour Christ concerning the want of faith at his comming and the vncertainty of the time of his appearing As touching the former he saith the sonne of man when he commeth shall he finde faith vpon the earth And as Luk. 18. 8. touching the other he hath foretolde that the end of the world shall be suddaine and vnlooked for euen as it was in the dayes of Noah and Lot But if this conceit of the Papists be Mat. 24. 39 Luk. 17. 26 18. true there shall be more true beleeuers at the end of the world then euer had beene at one time before and the day of Christs coÌ„ming after the reuelation of Antichrist but especially after his death shal be precisely knowne accordingly looked for
Bellarmine would prooue by the authority of Irenaeus as if he should haue said This name was not certainely knowne in Irenaeus his time therefore not in our time I deny the consequence Irenaeus liued before the fulfilling of this prophecie as himselfe professeth as the truth is for he liued aboue 1400. Non ante mul'um temporis pene sub nostro saeculo Iren. Lib. 5. yeeres agoe and as himselfe saith the reuelation was giuen to Iohn but a little before his age For it was giuen in the end of the first Century and he liued in the second and therefore it is more safe saith he to waite for the fulfilling of this prophecie then before hand to determine any thing For if the Lord would haue had this name knowne in Irenaeus his time he would haue made it knowne by Iohn himselfe to whom the reuelation was giuen But as before the fulfilling of this prophecie he saith this name was very obscure so he signifieth that after the fulfilling it should be more plaine And therefore that which he could but ghesse at in his time we may now define time hauing reuealed that trueth which vntill the prophecie was cleared by the euent lay hidde otherwise it shall be lawfull for men to reason from the authority of Irenaeus as Bellarmine doth euen vnto the end of the world But may we then reason thus this name was not knowne in Irenaeus his time therefore it shall neuer be knowne to what end was this prophecie giuen if it shall neuer be vnderstood Whereas therefore he vseth the arguments whereby Irenaeus prooueth that this name could not be knowne in his time to prooue that it cannot be knowne in our time he is ridiculous There are many names saith Irenaeus that haue this number therefore it is heard before hand to tell which is this name Againe if in Irenaeus his time God would haue this knowne he would haue reuealed it by Iohn 3. It is dangerous to define before hand his name for missing of his name we shall not know him when he commeth and therefore shall be in the more danger to be decoiued by him All this we grant But will Bellarmine needs be so ridiculous as to conclude In Irenaeus his time men were not able to tell which of those names that containe the number 666 is the name of the beast therefore 1400. yeeres after none shall be able to tell God would not have it knowne in Irenaeus his time therefore he will not haue it knowne now It was dangerous then before the fulfilling of the prephecie to define what this name should be therefore it is dangerous now when the prophecie is expounded by the euent to apply the one to the other And what doth he inferre hereuppon Therefore no doubt the Protestants who thinke the Pope to be Antichrist shal be deceiued of the true Antichrist when he commeth But blessed be God that hath already reuealed vnto vs the true Antichrist that knowing him we might auoyde him whereas vpon the Papists he hath sent strong illusions that they may beleeue lyes because they loued not the truth that they might be saued 2. Thes. 2. 11. 6. Againe he prooueth this name not to be knowne because there is great controuersie about it what it should be But by the same reason he may conclude that few points of religion are yet knowne because there be few concerning which there is no controuersie Notwithstanding as in other controuersies the trueth is knowne of those which are Orthodoxall howsoeuer others will not acknowledge it so I doubt not but that the trueth in this matter is knowne although some cannot and others will not as yet see it For seeing the hardest matter in this mystery is knowne it is not to be thought that the easier is hid or vnknowne especially seeing the knowledge of the one maketh the other euident The chiefe thing here to be considered is what this beast is For if the beast be knowne it will not be hard to tell what his name is especially if the number of the name be 666. The beast as appeareth by the whole context is as I haue shewed the former beast which without doubt figureth the Romane or Latine state The name of this beast is Romane or Latine If therefore this name in the learned tongues containe the number 666. and be such a name as he to whom all other notes of Antichrist doe agree shall enforce men to take vpon them then without doubt this is the name where of the holy Ghost speaketh but these properties agree to the name Latine or Romane For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew signifying Romane 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke signifying Latine and Romanus in Hebrew Characters doe containe the iust number 666. and are besides such names as Antichrist compelleth all men to take vpon them as hath beene shewed heretofore See Lib. 1. Chap. 8. 7. But let vs see what Bellarmine obiecteth against this truth Of those many reasons which we doe vse Bellarmine maketh choise of two as being the easiest to answer as his maner is and against them he argueth namely the conjecture of Irenaeus and the agreement of the number But besides these we produce three other arguments as you haue heard which together with Lib. 1. c. 〈◊〉 these make the matter euident It is true indeede that Irenaeus besides Latinus produceth two other names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and seemeth to prefer the latter of these before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But we build not vpon Irenaeus his authority but vpon those reasons whereon his conjecture is groūded which are two the one because it is the name of that kingdome which is figured vnder the former beast Apoc. 13. 7. whose authority Antichrist was to vsurpe the other because it containeth 666 his words be these But the name Lateinos also comprehendeth the number 666. et valde verisimile est and it is very likely For it is the name of that which most truely is called the kingdome For they are the Latines that now raigne Which in effect is as much as if he had said this name is very likely because it is a name containing 666. and is the name of the former beast spoken of Apoc. 13. 1. which figureth verissimum regnum that kingdome which most truely is called a kingdome that is the Latine or Roman state Yea but this coniecture saith Bellarmine which in Irenaeus his time was of some force now it is nothing worth for then the Latines bare the sway now they doe not For Antichrist as he shall be Potentissimus Rex 〈◊〉 most mighty king so without doubt he shal seize vpon the most mighty kingdoms Whereas therfore the kingdome of the Latines was in those times most mighty but now otherwise there was some likelyhood then that he might by subduing them be called Latinus but now there is no such probability I answere the name whereof Iohn speaketh
as he might well because it is absurdâ—… to faine a priuatiue marke as if the not vsing of some marke were the marke whereof the Holy-ghost speaketh yet he affirmeth such is his blind malice that herein we are notable fore-runners of Antichrist In the fourth place he addeth his owne conceit that Antichrist shall inuent a positiue or reall marke which as yet is not knowne whereby as he would ouerthrow all the former opinions so especially he confuteth the last From whence notwithstanding as if it were true he would faine inferre that we are the fore-runners of Antichrist And this opinion he doth confute by two reasons First because the marke must be positiue and secondly because it is as yet vnknowne And this is the summe and effect of his whole eleuenth Chapter But what of all this or whereunto doth all this discourse tend You will say to prooue that the Pope is not Antichrist He had indeed propounded that question to prooue but in this Chapter he concludeth nothing for the Pope Onely he telleth vs that there be three opinions concerning the marke and to them he addeth a fourth of his owne and there an end Other Papists when they handle this argument reason thus Antichrist shall compell men to take the marke of the beast the Pope doth not compell men to take the marke of the beast Therefore the Pope is not Antichrist Which argument if he had vsed and had also made good the assumption he should haue said something to the purpose But Bellarmine concludeth no such matter Nec enim aâ—…sus est nec potuit For well doth he know that from this marke of the beast we conclude the affirmatiue namely that the Pope is Antichrist 2. How then doth he argue surely it is not easie to tell For after the sophisters guise he hideth his conclusion that he may the more easily deceiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Philosopher saith But so far as I can gesle either by resoluing the discourse it selfe or by conferring the same with the former chapter whereunto he seemeth to refer vs he would seeme to reason thus If Antichrists marke be not yet knowne then is not Antichrist yet come But Antichrists marke is not yet knowne therefore Antichrist is not yet come and consequently the Pope is not Antichrist The proposition he omitteth and so taketh it for granted although in truth there is no necessitie of the consequence For as we said before of his name so now we say of his marke that after Antichrist is come his marke might bee vnknowne yea was for a time to bee vnknowne Otherwise he should not be able to enforce his marke vpon manie few or none being so desperately wicked as knowing his marke to suffer themselues by the same to be branded to destruction as all they are who doe receiue and retaine it Apoc. 14. 9 10. And further I adde that although this marke bee knowne to very many of those who haue the Marke of God Apoc. 9. 4. yet to them that are branded with this marke of the beast and doe retaine the same that is who liue and die Papists it neither is or shall be knowne or at least not acknowledged of them during this life And therefore no maruaile though Bellarmine confesse his ignorance in this behalfe 3. But let vs see also how he prooueth the assumption viz. that the marke of the beast is not yet knowne Forsooth by this reason If neither that be the marke of the beast which the Protestants teach nor yet that which the Catholicks imagine so many of them as take vpon them to know what this marke is thâ—… assuredly this marke is not yet knowne But neither is that the marke which the Protestants speake of nor yet that which the Catholickes haue supposed Therefore this marke is not yet knowne As for the Papists we confesse that either they know not or at the least acknowledge not this marke for if they did the most of them would refuse to take it Wherefore leauing them to Bellarmines discretion whether to be confuted or allowed let vs consider whether that be the marke which the Protestants haue supposed or not The heretickes of this time saith Bellarmine teach that the character of Antichrist is some signe of obedience and coniunction with the Pope of Rome But what this signe is they doe not expresse after the same maner Bullinger vnderstandeth by the marke the Chrisme wherewith young ones are annointed in 〈◊〉 61. in Apoc. Chron. taâ—… 10. their confirmation Bibliander saith it is the profession of the Romish or Popish faith Chytraeus to these addeth the oath of fidelitie which many are compelled to sweare to the Pope as also the priestly vnction which is receiued in the head and the hand impressing as the Papists speake Characterem indelebilem Finally to fall downe before Images and the hoste and to be present at Masses for the dead Sed facile est saith he has nugas refutare But it is easie to refute these toyes But before I come to answer his trifling cauillations I thinke it needfull first to referre the reader to the former booke See lib. 1. Chap. 8. §. 4. 5. where I shewed what this marke is and that this marke which is but one in substance is diuersly expressed and testified and therfore that there is no opposition in the opinions of the Protestants concerning this matter all these notes which they mention belonging to the marke of the beast And secondly to deliuer briefly the Popish conceit concerning this marke For the Papists imagine that the character is a visible marke of Antichrists name which the followers of Antichrist shall haue imprinted in their foreheads and carrie as a signe in their hands that it may be as it were their warrant to buy or sell And so Bellarmine to omitte others writeth also of the name and the number The proper name of Antichrist saith he must be shewed for a token of Chap. 10. lib. 3. de pontif Rom. all that buy or sell. To which purpose he approueth the judgement of Rupertus who saith that Antichrists name is such a one as he shall glory in Adeo vt jubeat inscribi in frontibus hominum Insomuch that he shal cause it to be written in the foreheads of men And againe the beast whose number this is shall command all merchants that they vse this number for a signe or token in their contracts But who could be so grosse as to imagine that Princes and Magistrates and men of all sorts would euer suffer themselues to be branded as it were with Antichrists visible marke or if that were Antichrists practise who should not be able to discerne him Why their ordinarie glosse could tell them that the marke is receiued in the forehead by confession and in the right hand by operation as we also hold Antoninus also and Lyra teach that Character est determinatus modus viuendi secundum legem alicujus quo
set vp in the temple of God the Idoll of Iupiter Olympius to be worshipped as it is recorded 2. Mac. 6. who was a God whom his fathers knew not that is acknowledged Strabo geograph lib. 16. not nor worshipped For the Syrians worshipped Apollo and Diana And the munitions of Mahuzzim that is Ierusalem and other cities of Iewry which had bene as it were the munitions and cities of God hee committed them to the tuition of a strange God namely Iupiter Olympius The same prophesie in effect was before deliuered Dan. 7. 25. See Tremell in Dan. 7. 8. 8. 11. by conference of which places with this in hand it is manifest that by the God Mahuzzim is meant the true God 17 This prophesie therefore being meant of Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled in him cannot properly belong to Antichrist or any other Notwithstanding as in some other things so in the premisses Antiochus may not vnsitly be thought to haue bene a type or figure of Antichrist In so much that both the auncient Fathers haue vnderstood these prophesies of Antichrist and many also of the late writers besides the Iewes haue applyed the same particularly to the Pope For besides that it is most true of the Pope that hee doth what he will seeing Legi non subiacâ—…t vlli hee is subiect to no lawe and no man may say to him Sir why doo you so The rest also after a sort may be verified of him that both hee setteth himselfe against the Idols of the Gentiles and also hath abrogated the true worship of God And that in stead of Christ the Almightie God he hath set vp in his churches besides many other Idols the abhominable Idoll of the Masse a God which his fathers the first Bishops of Rome knew not which notwithstaÌ„ding he honoreth with gold and siluer and precious stones and hath committed the churches cities and countries of Christendome to the tuition and patronage of diuers Saints who as they are indeed so are they called by Paulus Ionius a Popish Bishop the tutelar Gods of the Papists Hist. lib. 24. in fine 18 And these were his testimonies of scripture In the next place for want of better proofes he slyeth to the authoritie of the Fathers as his last refuge as though they testified that Antichrist shall not be an Idolater nor one that will suffer Idols But I answer that the Fathers do either speake of the Idols and Idolatry of the Gentiles onely and in that sence their speeches are verified in this behalfe of the Pope who neither honoreth nor suffereth the Idols of the Gentiles or else if they speake of all Idols and Idolatry in generall when they say Idola seponet as Ireneus or adidololatriam non admittet as Hippolitus or idola odio habebit as Cyrill or adidololatriaÌ„ non adducet ille as Chrysostome they deserue such an Antichrist as in this behalfe is better then the Pope But indeed as the Pope is so Antichrist in the scriptures is described to bee an Idolater as hath bene shewed 19 Hauing thus doughtily proued this Popish conceit the Iesuit proceedeth to the disproofe of our assertioÌ„s expositions of some places of scripture and especially that of 2. Thess 2. Our assertion concerning the doctrine of Antichrist hee saith is onely built vpon the scriptures falsely expounded by new glosses In token whereof saith hee they alledge not one Interpreter or Doctor for them But this is a malicious slaunder witnesse this place which he mentioneth 2. Thess. 2. where we proue by the consent of many of the Fathers that by the Temple is meant the church of God and that in the church of God Antichrist was to be reuealed after the Romane Empire which hindered was taken out of the way c. Our assertions concerning Antichrist are grouÌ„ded on the prophesies of scriptures expounded by the euent which is the best expóunder of prophesies And with our assertions the opinions of the Fathers agree where they are consonant to the scripture and the euent Contrariwise the assertions of the Papists concerning Antichrist as they are repugnant to the scriptures and the truth of the euent so are they wholy grounded either vpon the vncertaine and many times misalledged coniectures of the Fathers who were no Prophets and therefore being not able to foresee the euent did not many times vnderstand the Prophesies or else on the blinde conceits of Popish writers who being deceiued with the efficacie of illusion and made drunke with the whore Babylons cuppe of fornications were giuen ouer to beleeue lyes And whereas our writers expounding those wordes of the Apostle 2. Thess. 2. 4. who is lifted vp aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped doo apply the same vnto the Pope vpon very good and sufficient proofes and from thence do plainely conclude the Pope to be Antichrist for euidence whereof I referre the Reader to the 5. chapter of my former booke He culleth out some stragling sentences out of some one of the vnsoundest writers of our side as their maner is which he may best hope to answere As though we had no more nor no better arguments to proue that the Pope aduanceth himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped then these two First because he professeth himselfe to bee the Vicar of Christ And secondly whereas Christ subiected himselfe willingly vnto the scriptures the Pope challengeth authoritie to dispense with the scripture Howbeit the former of these two reasons hee depraueth and the latter he is not able to satisfie For Illyricus his reason to proue that the Pope aduanceth himselfe aboue all that is called God is not because he maketh himselfe the Vicar of Christ but this because hee vaunting himselfe to be the Vicar of Christ doth notwithstanding vsurpe greater authoritie then the sonne of God claimed vnto himselfe of which that which Bellarmine Catalog test pag. 3. alledgeth as a second reason is by Illyricus added as a proofe Wherevnto Bellarmine is no otherwise able to answer then by impudent and shamelesse deniall either that Christ subiected Contrary to Galat. 4. 4. Luke 2. 51 himselfe to the lawe and word of God or that the Pope taketh vpon him to dispense with the scriptures or that any Catholike meaning Popish writer hath said that he may dispense with diuine precepts both which notwithstanding I haue heretofore proued by many instances and most euident allegations See the first booke chap. 5. § 10. 11. 12. For that which hee addeth of Christs subiecting himselfe to the prophesies and not to the precepts as though Illyricus had spoken of the one in his proposition and of the other in the assumption it is partly false and partly ridiculous and indeede not worth the answering Chap. 15. Of the miracles of Antichrist 1 WEe are now come to the eight maine argument which Bellarmine vseth to proue that the Pope of Rome is not Antichrist because forsooth those things