only within their owne Trib◠for I can assure him that neither the Kings nor the Nobility of England will imitate those of Iuda in this and it will be their only way to get a Law enacted that their generation may succeed them in their Ministry which M. Downam seemeth to wish and to mislike that law not a little which in a parenthesis he telleth vs hath otherwise prouided These are the base and carnall cogitations of these new Ghospellers and yet all will not serue for they shall neuer find a remedy for this their griefe except they returne to the Catholike Church whom◠they may thanke for the liuing they haue But in it God hath prouided for this all other inconueniences that can any way arise and in particuler for the deciding of all questions and controuersies Wherefore if the Protestants and Puritans will haue an end of this of their Bishops and Presbitery they must of necessity stand to the Catholike Churches iudgment in which they shall find Bishops established and yet sometimes by reason of persecution Priestes only without Bishops as now we see in our Country where conformable to that which in their iudgmēt was practised in the Primitiue Church in many places at least for a tyme we haue hitherto only Priestes subordinate to an Arch-Priest but yet we are far from misliking Bishops but do both wish and expect them when our lawfull Superiour who succeedeth the chiefest of the Apostles shall see it conuenient M. C. A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS of this first Part of Antichrist THE disputation of Antichrist is propounded and the first Argument from the name it selfe discussed CHAP. I. That Antichrist shal be a certaine determinate man CHAP. II. That Antichrist is not yet come CHAP. III. The first demonstration That Antichrist is not yet come CHAP. IIII. The second demonstration CHAP. V. The third demonstration CHAP. VI. The fourth demonstration CHAP. VII The fifth demonstration CHAP. VIII The sixt demonstration CHAP. IX Of Antichristes Name CHAP. X. Of Antichristes Character CHAP. XI Of Antichristes Generation CHAP. XII Of Antichristes Seate CHAP. XIII Of Antichristes doctrine CHAP. XIIII Of Antichristes myracles CHAP. XV. Of Antichristes Kingdome warres CHAP. XVI Of Gog and Magog CHAP. XVII The dotages of Heretikes are confuted with which they do not so much proue as impudently affirme that the Pope is Antichrist CHAP. XVIII The trifles of the Smalcaldicall Synod of the Lutheranes are confuted CHAP. XIX Caluins lyes are refuted CHAP. XX. The lyes of Illyricus are refuted CHAP. XXI The fooleryes of Tylemanus are refuted CHAP. XXII The lyes of Chytraeus are refuted CHAP. XXIII The arguments of Caluin and Illyricus are confuted who go about to proue that the Pope is no longer a Bishop where also the fable of Pope Ioane the Woman is confuted CHAP. XXIIII CARDINALL BELLARMINES THIRD BOOKE of the Pope THE FIRST CHAPTER VVherin the disputation of Antichrist is propounded WEE haue demonstrated hitherto saith Bellarmine that the Pope succeedeth S. Peter in the chiefest Princedome of the whole Church It remayneth that wee see whether at any tyme the Pope hath fallen from this degree for that our aduersaries contend that hee is not at this time a true Bishop of Rome whatsoeuer hee was before And Nilus in the end of his booke against the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome speaketh thus But let that be the summe and head of my speach that while the Pope keepeth in the Church a conuenient heauenly and of ancient tyme appoynted order while hee holdeth and defendeth the heauenlie truth while he cleaueth to Christ the chiefe and true Lord and head of the Church I will easilie suffer him to be both the head of the Church the chiefest Priest the successor of Peter or els if he will of all the Apostles that all obey him and that whatsoeuer belongeth to his honour be in nothing diminished but if he be departed from the truth will not returne to it he ought deseruedly to be accounted of as one that is condemned and reiected But he should haue shewed into what errours the Bishops of Rome are fallen and when and by whome they were condemned For we know that in the Generall Lateran Councell vnder Innocentius the third and of Lyons vnder Gregory the tenth and of Florence vnder Eugenius the fourth the Greekes being conuicted of errour returned to the Faith of the Latins and afterward alway returned to their vomit againe and were therefore most grieuouslie punished by God but we neuer read that the Latins came to the Faith of the Greekes Neither can there any Ecclesiasticall iudgmēt be produced against the Latins as wee bring many against the Greekes Now Caluin Lib. 4. cap. 7. § 22. Let saith he all those things be true which notwithstanding wee haue now wrested from them that Peter was by the voice of Christ appointed Head of the vniuersall Church that he left the honour giuen vnto him in the Roman Sea that this was established by the authoritie of the auncient Church confirmed by long vse that the chiefest authoritie was alway due from all to the Bishop of Rome and that he was the iudge of all causes and men that he was subiect to the iudgement of none let them haue more also if they will Yet I answere in one word that nothing of this standeth in force except the Church and Bishop be at Rome And after § 24. Let the Romanists vntie me this knott I deny that their Pope is the Prince of Bishops since that he is not a Bishop And after Let Rome in tymes past haue bin the Mother of all Churches but since she began to become the seate of Antichrist she left to be that which she was And after § 25. VVee seeme to some backbyters and slanderers when wee call the Bishop of Rome Antichrist but they which thinke soe vnderstand not that they accuse Paul of immodesty after whome we speake yea out of whose mouth we speake soe And least any obiect that we wrongfullie wrest Paules wordes against the Pope which perteine to another purpose I will brieflie shew that they cannot be vnderstood otherwise then of the Popedome So he The like teach al the heretikes of this tyme chieflie Luther in supput temporum in assert art 28. 36. and often in other places Likewise the Magdeburgenses Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. colum 434. sequent and in all the following Centuries cap. 4. 7. 10. Illyricus in lib. de primat Dauid Chrytraus in cap. 9. 13. Apoc. Likewise VVolsgangus Musculus in loc commun tit de Ecclesia Theodor. Beza in Com. 2. Thessal 2. Theodor. Bibliander in Chron. tabul 10. 11. 12. 14. Henricus Pantaleon in Chron. Henricus Bullinger praesat in suas homil ad Apocal. And before all these Iohn VVicklisse art 30. amongst those which are condemned in Concil Constantiensi sess 8. pronounced the Pope to be Antichrist VVherfore that this question may
Scripture and many of M. Downams bretheren are ashamed to deny it and by all probability he would be at least afraid to affirme the contrary if he were well examined by the temporall Maiestrate Secondly sayth M. Downam the Pope and Church of Rome vaunt that they alone are the Catholike Church and that all others professing the name of Christ which are not subiect to the Pope or acknowledge not themselues members of the Church of Rome are heretikes or schismatikes This is very true indeed for we thinke that there is but one faith and one Church and whatsoeuer One faith and one Church Christians are out of it must needes be schismatikes at least if not heretikes and I would haue thought that M. Downam would not haue beene so absurd as to deny this common principle agreed of by all which if he had graunted he would not much haue meruailed that we hould our selues to be of the true Church and consequently that all that are not vnited to vs are out of the Church for we do no more then all other Churches and Congregations do And finally M. Downam must of force put some limits to his Church also which if he make so capable that it may comprehend vs also we shall in some sort be beholding vnto him though we cannot requite him with the like But when we know all the conditions that are required to be of his Church it will be an easy matter to inferre that whosoeuer wanteth those conditions must of force be out of it and so this exposition will agree aswell to M. Downams Church and any other as to the Roman How the third exposition may be applied to the Pope M. Downam explicateth not but only affirmeth that this is the most true exposition and agreeth properly to the Pope of Rome Of the truth we shall see in due place but how properly it agreeth to the Pope is not so easy to conceaue For first all the Churches of those which M. Downam taketh to be the only true or at least the best Christians acknowledg not the Pope at all and Catholikes acknowledg him only to be Christs Vicegerent vpon earth which is far from that which Antichrist shall do when he shall so sit in the Temple of God that he shall shew himselfe as if he were God himselfe Concerning the fourth opinion which pleaseth not M. Downam first he denieth it to be the more common opinion as Bellarmine affirmed it was and yet wheras Bellarmin bringeth an cleauen Authors for his opinion M. Downam bringeth but fiue for his foure of which affirme also as much as Bellarmine doth and are by him alleadged to that purpose which M. Downam could not choose but see and therfore thought good to add that the being more common doth not proue it to be the more true for truth goeth not by voyces neither is it See Part. 2. cap. 4. §. 15. to be weighed by the multitude of suffrages but by weight of reason By which you may imagine what a great deale of reason and wit M. Downam thinketh him selfe to haue and how little he attributeth to the Fathers But all this is but in his owne proud and foolish conceipt for all but himselfe will be easily perswaded that there was more wit and true wisdome in the meanest of these ancient Fathers then there is in this insolent Minister though he had many of his fellow Ministers ioyned with him Secondly he denieth this exposition to be more probable because the Temple shall neuer be reedified which were his wonted figure of petitio principij but that he addeth as hath bene shewed Wherfore I will not censure him any further till the Reader hath seene how learnedly he sheweth it and whether the Fathers or he haue more reason and probability in this point Thirdly he addeth that it were not materiall though this exposition were more litterall vnles the litterall were vsuall And to shew that it is not vsuall he obserueth that in all the Epistles by the Temple of God is meant the Church where first the Reader must marke that the word Temple is not vsed in any Epistle but only in this place of the 2. to the Thessalonians and in the 2. to the Corinthians and only in 3. Chapters of them both in the which the faithfull and their bodies are called the Temple of God because the Holy Ghost is present and Temple what it signifieth in the new Testamēt remaineth with them But how can this be applied to Antichrist sitting in the Temple of God and shewing himselfe as if he were God Can Antichrist dwell in the soules and bodies of men as in his Temple Or if he could were this hidden and spirituall sitting any ostentation or shewing of himselfe as God And yet in this place S. Paul affirmeth that Antichrist shall do so for which no doubt he must sit visibly in a visible Temple by which most properly is signified the Temple of Hierusalem yea when S. Paul wrote and for many yeares after only that was so called as Bellarmine proueth and is to be seene in all the foure Euangelists and the Acts of the Apostles Wherfore since this place may yea indeed must litterally be vnderstood of a materiall Temple aswell as many other places of the new Testament it is ridiculous folly in M. Downam to tell vs that in some few places the word Temple is to be taken spiritually also and contrariwise the word Church materially for of this we neuer made question Yea but saith M. Downam to sit in the Temple of God as God is to rule and raigne in the Church of God as if he were a God vpon earth By which expositiō he maketh all Prelats Magistrats which rule and raigne in the Church of God to sit in the Temple of God as God in the manner that S. Paul saith that Antichrist shal sit in the Tēple of God which is a fit interpretation for a Puritanicall Minister who seeketh to peruert the whole order Hierarchy of Gods Church by with drawing the Christian people from the obedience of their lawfull Pastours prepare thē to receaue Antichrist himselfe when he commeth and in the meane time his forerunners the Heretikes of which because Downam seemeth to haue byn a Puritan whē he wrote this M. Downam is one himselfe no meruaile though he pleadeth so hard for himself his fellowes and Maister but if he had meant to deale sincerly he should haue proued his exposition out of the Fathers or answered the authority of those which Bellarm. alleadgeth for himselfe neither of which he once attempteth but yet remitteth vs to another place See part ◠§. 13. 14. 15. where God willing we will examine all that he obiecteth 4. M. Downam hauing in this sort answered to Bellarmines proofes out of the Scripture returneth to his argument ad hominem where first he taketh great exception at Bellarmine for not putting the word true in the premisses and
Church but only their owne fancies because so it seemed necessary for their reputation and credit or some other human and priuate respect how much soeuer they pretend to be only moued by Scripture for of this they admit no more The Protestants haue no probable rule of faith nor any true faith at al. then they please and for the interpretation they haue no other rule then their owne pruate spirit or fancy which is far of from being any probable rule of truth much lesse so certaine as is necessary for the certainty of diuine and supernatural faith to be built vpon And this is the true reason why the Church of God is but one because there is but one rule of fayth from which whosoeuer falleth cannot haue any true faith at all nor belong to the true Church of God The other comparison which M. Downam vseth is much les to the purpose for it is not the Church but the Bishop of Sardis as he himselfe saith that it is agreed by In his Sermō at Lābeth pag. 2. Apoc. ◠1. Interpreters both new and old who had a name that he liued but indeed was dead neither was this death for want of faith but of charity and good workes as is manifest and though it were otherwise yet M. Downam could proue nothing by this comparison except we would belieue his bare word that the Church of Rome were in this case which is our chiefe question and M. Downams wonted figure to take it as granted Wherfore since he can argue no better let vs see how he can answere 7. To Bellarmines first reply vpon Caluins deuise that the Roman Church is not the true Church but that there VIII remaine in it only the ruines and reliques of a true Church M. Downam granteth that all visible Churches may faile and fall away but not the inuisible Church of Christ which he calleth the Catholike Church nor any one sound Christian that is of this inuisible Church In which answere he graunteth Bellarmine as much as he went about to proue that the gates of hell in his opinion haue preuailed against Christs visible Church so that in a whole thousand yeares Christ had not so much as one constant professor of his truth and though I might easily proue that Christ spake of his visible Church and that it The visible Church is to endure to the end of the world was to endure vntill the worlds end yet now I will not trouble my Reader with so needles a digression since the matter is so plaine and euident in it selfe that me thinks any man which maketh accompt of Christ his passion and glory or of his desire to saue soules and to prouide for their conuersion and faith should stop his eares not to heare so great a blasphemy vttered as M. Downam is not ashamed to affirme yet if any man haue any doubt or desire to be more fully satisfied in this point let him read Bellarmine him selfe lib. 3. de Ecclesia militant cap. 12. 13. To Bellarmines second reply M. Downam answereth that it proueth nothing except he suppose that the Church of Rome is the only true Church But he should haue answered it in forme admitted only that which Caluin auoucheth that the Papists hold the ruines of the Church and the foundations yea the buildings themselues halfe throwne downe for out of this only Bellarmine argueth and sheweth that the Protestants can neither haue the whole intire church since in their opinion it is fallen nor the part which remaineth of it since they grant The Protestants cannot haue the Church of Christ but only some new building of their own it to be amōg the Papists to which delēma M. Downā answereth not a word but only braggeth that the Church of Rome may fall yet the Catholicke Church of God may stand yea shall stand c. But he forgetteth himselfe marketh not what his Maister Caluin hath graunted that not only the Church of Rome but euen the very Church of Christ is fallen and that the Papists haue as much as is left of it cōsequētly the Protestāts can only haue some new hereticall building of their owne though M. Downam be neuer so loth to acknowledge it Neither will the example of the Church of Iuda vnder Iosias serue his turne for that was only a reformation of manners and a destruction of Idolatry without any departing from the ancient Church of God in which remained the true succession of Priests and Gods true religion after a visible manner no otherwise then if it should please his Maiesty to put downe heresie and aduance Catholike Religion in his Kingdome which were only to imbrace the true Church of Christ and not to erect any new building as the Protestants haue done as Bellarmine conuinceth 8. M. Downam hauing thus impugned Bellarmines arguments commeth to refute his solutions to their obiections and wheras Bellarmine gaue three solutions to the first See part 2. cap. 2. M. Downam passeth two of them ouer in silence telling vs that he hath taken thē away in another place which how true it is the Reader shall be iudge when we come to that encounter Now let vs see how he refuteth the second solution which Bellarmine giueth that the harlot of which S. Iohn speaketh is Rome Ethnick raigning worshiping Idols and persecuting Christians and not Rome Christian the Apoc. 17. contrary of which M. Downam neuer goeth about to proue with any new argument as he should haue done it being his turne now to argue but only contenteth himselfe to answere Bellarmines proofe which he doth also by halfes for Bellarmine proueth his exposition euidently by the authority of Tertullian S. Hierome and sheweth the impudency of heretikes that are not ashmed to alleadg those authours altogeather against their meaning to proue that S. Iohn speaketh of Rome Christian To all which M. Downam giueth him not a word but is very well content to be thus beaten so that it may not be spoken of but to the other proofe he thinketh himselfe able to say something therfore answereth two wayes 1. that though Popish Rome had not dominion ouer the Kings of the earth and were not drunke with the blould of the Saints and martyrs of Iesus yet we might vnderstand the Apostle thus that that Citty which then had dominion ouer the Kings of the earth and then persecuted the Saints is called Babylon because it was to be the seate or sea of Antichrist So that as you see M. Downam will haue Rome to be called Babylon because it was to be the seate or sea of Antichrist which he supposeth as manifest though Bellarmine in this third solution and before also in one of his arguments both which M. Downam passeth ouer in silence sheweth manifestly that Antichrist shall hate this Babylon and not make it the seat of his kingdome So that this first solution is nothing but M. Downams wonted
some of their owne brethren do much condemne their insolencie and rash bouldnes in this assertion 2. Now wheras he affirmeth that the conceipts of the elder Papists who liued in the dares of our forefathers concerning Antichrist were meere dotages he only sayth it and therby discouereth his spitefull spirit which prouoketh him to rayle without reason and to slander against all truth For the Catholikes of former dayes held the very same that we do now though Bellarmin agreeth with the elder Catholikes they explicated not themselues so fully as Bellarmine and others do now In which respect only these may in some sort be truly called the refiners of Popery that is the explicators and confirmers of Catholike doctrine against heretikes But the reason of this difference betwixt the elder and later writers is euident for in their dayes Heretikes were not so impudēt as to vrge so palpable and grosse errors as they are in our time for otherwise Bellarmine sufficiently declareth the antiquity of his doctrine by prouing whatsoeuer he sayth by the authority of the ancient Fathers Now whether many haue contributed to Bellarmins bookes or no it is little to the purpose though the truth is as those know that are best acquainted with his studies that they are all his owne labours And that this may not seeme strange M. Downam may easily informe himselfe that diuers other of his order that liued in the same time and some in the same place haue in diuers kindes written as large volumes as Bellarmine hath in this Wherof Salmeron Tolet Valentia Molina Suarez Vasquez and others may serue for example Well to come to the matter M. Downam seemeth to allow of Bellarmines method and diuision since that he obiecteth nothing against it but commeth presently to his first argument 3. In which to make a good beginning he corrupteth Bellarmines argument by altering both words and sense for thus he setteth it down Antichrist is hostis aemulus Christi Downam corrupteth Bellarmines argumēt that is such an enemy as is opposed vnto Christ in emulation of like honour The Pope is not an enemy nor opposed vnto Christ in emulatiō of like honour therfore the Pope is not Antichrist Wheras Bellarmine endeauoureth to prooue nothing els in this Chapter but that the name of Antichrist signifieth not the Vicar of Christ but only some that is contrary to Christ and contrary not howsoeuer but in such sort that he striueth with him for the seate and dignity of Christ so that he would be accompted Christ hauing cast him downe who is truly Christ which is not to be opposed vnto Christ in emulation of like honour but of the same and equall honour which are far different matters For who seeth not that many things are like which are not the same or rather speaking in rigour that nothing is like that is the same And so likewise of equalitie there be manie things like which are not equall As for example the vnitie of Christs seruants among themselues is like to the vnion of Christ with his Father but not the same nor Ioan. 17. equall vnto it And in this our question who doubteth that the Vicar of Christ as of any other is like vnto him in honour but yet he hath not in any sort the same or equall honour to that which Christ hath as not to explicate other differences it is euident that whosoeuer is Vicar to another acknowledgeth dependancie of another which the principall doth not Now then the whole controuersy being about this sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it may signify not only an enemy or emulous of Christ but also his Vicar or Vicegerent no meruaile though Bellarmin wholy insisteth vpon the proofe thereof and in this he sheweth not himselfe to be a sophister but M. Downam proueth himselfe to be a calumniatour and a falsifier as is manifest But yet in some sort he seemeth to acknowledg and amend this fault by affirming that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition commonlie signifieth three things opposition equalitie substitution by which as afterward he explicates himselfe he vnderstandeth subordination which indeed is that which Bellarmine denieth and M. Downam proueth onlie by repeating the example of Musculus adding two others to it which he interpreteth after that manner and saith in general that Greeke writers and Lexicographers doe teach see as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proconsul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proprator or legatus praetoris or qui est vice praetoris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the putting of one case for another And in this sense saith he the sacraments of the new Testament substituted and ordayned insteed of the old are called the Downam repeateth his fellowes argument omitting Bellarmines answere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them But it is meruaile he saw not that which Bellarmine had writtē against Musculus who aleadged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as M. Downam doth and Bellarmine answered to them both that it signifieth not the Vicegerent of a Captaine but ordinarilie a contrarie captaine as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make warre against and sometymes him that is in the Captaines place not as subiect to him but as equall as among the Latins Propraetor or Proconsul doth not signifie the Vicegerent of the Pretor or Consul but him who is in some Prouince that which the Pretor or the Consul is in the Citty And in this was Musculus deceyued for reading in Budaeus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth Propraetor he thought that it did signifie the Vicegerent of the Pretor which is false Thus far Bellarmine By which M. Downam might haue vnderstood the cause of Musculus his error whose authoritie as it should seeme by that he citeth no other he only followeth and in the other examples which he bringeth there is the same reason because one case is equiualent with the other and the Sacraments of the new law are not onlie equall but also of greater value and withall opposite to those of the old law with which they could not stand or be in vse at the same tyme. 4. To Bellarmins second proofe out of Scripture M. Downam granteth the Conclusion though he would faine wrāgle How Antichrist is taken in the Scripture about 2. Thess 2. and Matth. 24. for that Antichrist is not named there though he and all other graunt that they are to be vnderstood of Antichrist and consequentlie he shal be such as is there described Likewise he would cauill about the place in S. Iohns Epistle in which he saith the name 1. Iohn 2. of Antichrist is ascribed to such as being enemies notwithstanding professed the name of Christ as the heretikes of those tymes Where he semeth to haue forgotten what he and Bellarmine haue agreed Bellar. cap. 2. Dow. lib. 1. cap. 1. 3. vpon that the name of Antichrist is taken either properlie or commonly as also the name of Christ and consequently as the members
praâ—us dux 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est verè nocens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est olim inuiden◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est agnus nocens Primasius addeth another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est contrarius Rupertus and before him Haymo inuented two other viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a Gothes name DIC LVX a Latin which maketh 666. if after the Latin manner we take D for 500. l. for one C. for 100. L. for 50. V. for 5. and X. for 10. Of the later writers Lindanus l. 3. Dubitantij noteth that Martyn Lauter maketh the number 666. if the Latin letters be taken for numbers after the manner of the Greeke and Hebrew thus A. 1. B. 2. C. 3. D. 4. E. 5. F. 6. G. 7. H. 8. I. 9. K. 10. L. 20. M. 30. N. 40. O. 50. P. 60. Q. 70. R. 80. S. 90. T. 100. V. 200. X. 300. Y. 400. Z. 500. Gilbert Genebrard in the last booke of his Cronologie noted also that the name of Luther in hebrew maketh that nuÌ„ber Lulter I add two more in fauour of Luther Chytraeus to wit Dbid Citriu id est Dauid Chytraeus and σαξόνειος which later agreeth aswell to Luther as the name Latinus to the Pope Daleth 4. σ. 200. Beth. 2. α. 1. Iod. 10. ξ. 60. Daleth 4. ο. 70. Caph. 20. ν. 50. Iod. 10. ε. 5. Tau 400. ι. 10. Resc 200. ο. 70. Iod. 10. σ. 200. Vau. 6.    666.  666. The third opinion is of many Catholikes who ghesse that Antichrist shal be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because this name properly agreeth vnto him and conteyneth exactly that number So affirme Primasius Anselmus and Richardus This opinion is well confuted by Rupertus because the name which S. Iohn insinuateth in this place shall not be giuen to Antichrist by his Aduersaries but taken by himselfe as glorying therin insomuch that he shall make it be written in mens foreheades And yt is not probable that he will take to himselfe any hatefull or vile name such as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and almost all the other aboue rehearsed The 4. opinion is of Rupertus himselfe who thinketh that the name of Antichrist is not signified by this number but a triple preuarication of the Diuell to be fulfilled in Antichrist for the number of 6. because it commeth not to 7. in which is rest and happynes is the number of a creature by preuarication falling from rest And the Diuell hath incurred a threefold preuarication or rather hath tripled one For first he preuaricated when he sinned in himselfe after againe when he made the first man sinne and then to 6. he added 60. Thirdly he shall preuaricate when he shall seduce the whole world by Antichrist and then to 60. he shall adde 600. The fifth opinion is Bedes who taketh the contrary course and teacheth that the number of 6. is perfect because God made heauen and earth in 6. dayes and 60. more perfect and 600. most perfect Whereupon he gathereth that Antichrist is designed by the number 666. because he shall vsurpe to himselfe the most perfect tribute which is only due to God In figure wherof we read lib. 3. Reg. cap. 10. that the weight of gold which was brought euery yeare to Salomon was 666000. talents These two opinions seeme not sufficiently to agree with that which S. Iohn saith that that number is the number of the name not of the dignity or preuarication neither would these Fathers haue their opinions otherwise accompted of then as suspicions and coniectures Wherefore their opinion is truest who confesse their ignorance and say that Antichrists name is yet vnknown which is the opinion of S. Irenaeus vpon this place of the Apocalyps and of others And I will set downe S. Irenaeus his words because Chytraeus exhorteth his reader to peruse them I exhort saith he the studious Reader to peruse the last pages of Irenaeus vpon this place which are the 333. and the 334. who disputeth of this number of the Beast modestly and piously and among other things sheweth that Antichrist shal be a Latin or Roman by the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wherefore Irenaeus saith thus It is therefore more certayne and without danger to expect he fulfilling of the Prophesy then to suspector ghesse at any names since there may be many names found which haue the foresaid number And notwithstanding there remayneth the same question for if we find many names which haue this number the question is which of them be shall beare that is to come Neither doe we say this for any scarsity of names which haue the number of his name but for the feare of God and zeale of truth for the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the number we seeke but we affirme nothing of it Likewise the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the number 666. and is very likely because this name hath the truest Kingdome for the Latins are they which raigne now But we will no beast of this But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hauing the first syllable written by the two greeke vowells â— â— is the name which deserueth most credit of all that are sound in our language c. And after Since therefore this name Titan hath so many perswasions and so great likelyhood that we may gather by many thinges that peraduenture he that is to come shal be called Titan yet we will not hazard our selues in it nor affirme with asseueration that he shall haue this name because if his name were to be publikely manifested at this tyme doubtlesse it would haue byn declared by him who saw the Reuelation So he Wherefore let Chytraeus giue eare to Irenaeus disputing modestly piously and learnedly and let him not falsly impute that vnto him which he neuer sayd For Irenaeus did not thinke that Antichrist should be a Latin or a Roman but he saith and repeateth oftener then once that the name of Antichrist cannot be knowne yet and this he also proueth by two very good reasons First because there be many names which make that number neither can we ghesse which of them is that which is foretould Secondly because if God would haue had it knowne at this tyme certainly he would haue reuealed it by S. Iohn himselfe And he added that he did not speake thus for any want of names but for the feare of God and zeale of the truth For which cause he rehearsed three names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which he affirmed that the second was more likely then the first and the third then the second but that none of them was certaine We may also adde a third reason out of the same Irenaeus for a little before disputing against them which gathered false names of Antichrist out of their owne conceipt he saith that they fall into many inconueniences for they expose themselues to the danger of erring and of deceauing
were grosse indeed to imagine so if these Princes c. were not forced vnto it by danger of incurring otherwise some greater inconuenience because it is not probable that all shal be so far gone that they will glory in Antichrists marke though no doubt many will and others will seem to do so though in their harts they mislike it Neither are we to thinke that Antichrist shall want deuises how to do this without paine or deformity But I would faine know where M. Downam found this imagination of branding for I cannot see why all Catholikes may not be vnderstood to speake only of such a visible marke as the signe of the Crosse which is visible inough and yet we see no man branded with it His second Argument is that if this were Antichrist practize euery man would be able to discerne him But what meaneth M. Downam by discerning No doubt men shall discerne him to be an enemy of Christ and the question in those daies wil be which of them is the true Christ for he will affirme himselfe not only to be the true Christ but also will extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God Thirdly M. Downam obiecteth the ordinary glosse Downam contradicteth him selfe Antoninus and Lira and referreth himselfe to some places of Scripture by all which he only ouerthroweth his owne assertion that all Catholikes agree that Antichrists marke shal be such a visible signe as he impugneth since now he himselfe hath found some who thinke otherwise and besides this is a new confirmation that this Character is yet vnknowne since that Authors are so deuided in their opinions concerning it Finally so farre as these Authors agree See part 2. cap. 8. §. 4. with the heretikes or differ from Bellarmine they are sufficiently confuted by him with the same arguments with which he impugned the heretikes themselues And as for the Scriptures we shall more commodiously discusse them in another place where M. Downam vrgeth them somewhat more in particuler for now he alleadgeth them only in generall and so we answere in generall that though other places cannot without absurdity be vnderstood of visible marks yet that proueth not but that this place is so to be vnderstood since no doubt some markes may be visible and all circumstances argue a visible marke in this place though we cannot in particuler certainely tell what this marke shal be which is a plaine token that Antichrist is not yet come as M. Downam maketh Bellarmine to reason in this place and he himselfe demonstrateth a little before applying it to Antichrist name as we haue seene THE TVVELVTH CHAPTER Of Antichrists Generation AS for the fifth saith Bellarmine of the Generation of Antichrist there are some thinges euidently erroneous affirmed by some some thinges probable and some manifest and certayne First then there were in tymes past many errours of Antichrist The first that Antichrist shal be borne of a Virgin by the worke of the Diuell as Christ was borne of a Virgin by the worke of the holy Ghost This errour is reported by the Author of the Treatise of Antichrist which goeth vnder S. Augustines name in the end of his 9. Tome which seemeth probable to be made by Rabanus certainely it is not S. Augustines This is a manifest errour for it is only the worke of God who can supply all efficient causes to produce a man without the seed of man because he only is of infinite power and contayneth virtually all the perfection of creaâ—ures The Diuell who is a creature can indeed doe meruaylous workes by speedy application of actiue thinges to passiue but he cannot supply the actiuity of causes Wherfore S. Augustine ep 3. ad Volusian saith that to be borne of a Virgin was such a miracle in Christ that there could not be a greater expected from God Yet it were no errour to say that Antichrist shall be borne of the Diuell and a woman in that sort that some are said to be borne of the Diuells which we call Incubi for though the Diuell cannot by himselfe without the seed of man produce a man yet he can in a body assumed in the forme of a woman receaue the seed of man and after in the forme of a man cast that seed into a womans wombe so beget a child This S. Augustine testifieth lib. 15. de ciuitate Dei cap. 23. and addeth that this hath ben proued by so great experience that it may seeme madnes to go about to deny it still The second errour was of the blessed Martyr Hippolytus who in orat de consummatione mundi teacheth that Antichrist shal be the Diuell himselfe who shall assume false flesh of a false Virgin for as the word of God who is truth it selfe tooke true flesh of a true Virgin so S. Hippolytus thought it probable that the Diuell who is the Father of lyes would faigne himselfe to haue taken mans flesh of a Virgin This opinion is refuted both because 2. Thessal 2. Antichrist is called a man as also because the rest of the Fathers with common consent do write that Antichrist shal be truly a man The third errour is that Antichrist shal be a true man indeed but withall a Diuell by the incarnatioÌ„ of the Diuell as Christ by his incarnation is God and man This error is reported and confuted by S. Hierome in cap. 7. Dan. Beda in c. 13. Apoc. and S. Damaseen l. 4. c. 28. Origen thought this opinion possible for Tom. 2. in Ioan. he affirmed that some Angells were truly incarnate whom S. Hierome confuteth in praefat in Malach. in cap. 1. Aggaei And doubtlesse it is erroneous for no created and consequently finite person can sustayne two perfect natures as the Word of God who is infinite can Neither is there any controuersy of this now among Deuines for though some say that it doth altogeather imply a contradiction others teach it doth not vet all agree in this that it cannot be done by the force of only a creature as the Diuell is The fourth errour is that Nero shall rise againe and that he shal be Antichrist or els that he liueth still and is secretly preserued in his youthly vigour and shall appeare in his tyme. Sulpitius lib. 2. sacrae hist insinuateth this errour yet lib. 2. dial de virt S. Martini he writeth plainely that Nero shall not be Antichrist himselfe but that he shall come with Antichrist and at length be slayne by Antichrist But because all these thinges are said without any reason S. Aug. lib. 20. de ciu Dei cap. 19. deseruedly calleth this opinion a meruaylous presumption Besides these errours there are two probable opinions of the holy Fathers of the generation of Antichrist The first is that Antichrist shal be borne of an Harlot and not of any lawfull matrimony So teach S. Damascen lib. 4. c. 28. and some others But since it cannot be proued by Scripture it is probable but not certayne The second
Gods seruants As though Bellarmine went about to conclude any thing now and did not only set downe his Assumption in plaine words which containe two things 1. That the Pope acknowledgeth himselfe to be the seruant of God 2. Nor God either of which M. Downam should haue proued to be otherwise if he would haue sayd any See part 2. cap. 5. Downam speaketh from the purpose thing to the purpose for whether the Pope may be called Rex Regum c. or no we shall see in another place where M. Downam will spit out all his venome at once Now it is sufficient that the Pope doth not plainely professe himselfe God as Antichrist shall do consequently he is not Antichrist which is al we go about to proue now In that other place we will also shew how falsly and slaunderously M. Downam affirmeth that the Pope taketh any authority vpon him that belongeth to God or that in practice deed or behauiour he vseth himselfe as if he were a God Now also his beast of the Apocalyps commeth so out of place that I will not stand to proue that by him not Antichrist See cap. 15. §. 10. but his false Prophet is described which I haue heretofore shewed in part and will heerafter declare more at large 11. M. Downam stormeth more at the fourth doctrine then at the rest calling it an absurd conceipt of the Papists and affirming that it is not only repugnant vnto the truth but also contradictory to their owne Doctrine in proofe wherof he asketh many Antichrist wil suffer no other God beside himselfe questions If it be credible either that a mortall man shall affirme himselfe alone to be the true God and none but he or if he shall so affirme of himselfe that Christians and Iewes and all the world almost will acknowledg and worship him as the only true God To which I answere that it is not only credible but also certaine And the difficulty which M. Downam putteth is none at all for there can be no doubt made but that a mortall man may A mortall man may be truely God be true God for so our Sauiour was while he liued vpon earth and now we see the whole Christian world perswaded of this truth though our Sauiours conuersation vpon earth was so contrary to flesh bloud that it was a scaÌ„dall to the Iewes and folly in eyes of the Gentiles wheras Antichrist will follow the humours of both seeming glorious in the eyes of world and wonderfull in lying and deceiptfull signes and myracles and with all giue such liberty to his followers that they will make no difficulty in belieuing any thing he sayth 2. He obiecteth that the Antichristian seate is figured by the whore of Babylon Apoc. 17. which togeather with Apoc. 17. her followers are giuen to Idolatry But M. Downam knoweth that Bellarmine denieth that Rome figured by that whore is the seate of Antichrist and likewise that those Idolatries are to be in Antichrists time but are long since post when Rome was Ethnike both which he proued before and M. See cap. 12. DownaÌ„ either would not or could not answere to either then and now he only affirmeth the contrary which is no sufficient proofe 3. The Papists themselues expound Deut. 11. 38. where Antiochus Epiphanes iâ— discribed as an Idolater as properly spoken of Antichrist where the Printer surely coÌ„mitted an errour though it be not noted amongst the falts escaped for in Deut. 11. there is nothing that can be applyed to Antiochus and only 32. verses wherfore no doubt M. Downam meaneth Dan. 11. Dan. 11. 38. where he speaketh of the God Maozim but this place Bellarmine handleth at large a little after wherfore I will intreat M. Downam and the Reader also to â—â—ay for a further answere till we come to examine M. Downams reply to Bellarmines answere concerning that place 4. He asketh this question Do not themselues teach that Antichrist shall professe himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes and consequently that he is sent and annoynted of God To which I answere that we teach indeed that he shall professe himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes but the consequent we teach not for he shall come in his owne name and not sent or annoynted by God and this he will professe also if not in the beginning yet at least after a while and by this M. Downams next question is also answered for since he shall professe himselfe not sent by God he may say that there is no God besides himselfe 5. Or if he being but a mortall man shall say that there is no God besides himselfe may we not well thinke saith M. Downam that they will either hisse at him as a foole or stone him to death as a blasphemer for answere of which I will spurre M. Downam another question Are you so simple Syr as to thinke that Antichrist will only say that there is no God besides himselfe or that he will discouer himselfe so farre till he see himselfe so applauded that he may say what he listeth without any feare at all of either being hissed or stoned and for that obiection of mortality it is already answered that it may stand with the Godhead and besides Antichrist will make a faire shew of either raising another or himself from death to life which will take away this obiection theÌ„ at heast if any stand vpon it at that time so much as M. Downam doth at this 6. Nay do not themselues teach that he shall be in religion â— Iew an obseruer of the Sabbaoth In Dan. â—â— and other Iewish Cerimonies And do they not alleadg Hierome to proue that Antichrist shall faigne himselfe to be the chiefe of the Couenant and a chiefe mantainer of the Law and Testament of God To all which I answere that we do so for he shall not professe himselfe to be any other God then the God of the Iewes and consequently shall approue their law 7. Lastly he poseth vs thus Are not his two hornes like the lambe expounded by some approued Authers among them of the two Testaments which he shall seeme to professe In Apoc. 13. To which I answere that M. Downam might haue done wel to haue named these approued authors for commonly Catholike authors thinke not that this beast with two horne like a lambe is to be vnderstood of Antichrist but of his precursor or false prophet whom S. Irenaeus calleth ArmigeruÌ„ by whose two hornes are signified his power in perswading and in working prodigious and strange things If any expound them of the two testaments they can haue no other true sense but that he shall professe great knowledg in both to establish the old and impugne the new that so he may preuaile with them the better which are lâ—ath to forsake Christ for the authority of the Scriptures 12. Now that M. Downam hath disgorged his owne proofes he is content to answere