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
A TREATISE OF ANTICHRIST CONTEYNING The defence of Cardinall Bellarmines Arguments which inuincibly demonstrate That the Pope is not Antichrist AGAINST M. GEORGE DOWNAM D. of Diuinity who impugneth the same By Michael Christopherson Priest THE FIRST PART Si Patrem familias Beelzebub vocauerunt quantò magis domesticos eius Matth. 10. If they haue called the Goodman of the house Beelzebub how much more them of his houshould Imprinted with Licence M.DC.XIII TO THE KINGS MOST EXCELLENT MAIESTY MOST MIGHTY PRINCE I HOPE it will not be deemed any presumption but rather a iust and necessary preuention for me to offer this my Treatise concerning Antichrist to your Soueraigne Maiesty Sure I am that it procedeth from a loyall and dutifull mynd desirous to auoid all occasion of offence and ready to imploy my best labours yea my life it selfe in your Maiestyes seruice My aduersary likewise hath prouoked me hereunto who togeather with M. D. 〈…〉 Powell haue taken the same course with their disputations of the same subiect And though they may seeme to haue the better hand by reason of your Maiestyes education and present profession yet I want not reasons of encouragement wherby I may be induced to hope and expect your Maiesties fauourable patronage and protection At least your Maiesty giueth all men good leaue to dispute of this Controuersy by accounting the Protestants proofs but bare coniectures yea promising to yield to the Truth when it shal be manifested by more forcible Arguments and more probable Interpretations which we haue good cause of hope to see shortly performed by the labours of so many learned men of forraine Nations who haue endeauored to giue your Maiesty satisfaction in this kynd In the meane space we cannot but highly extoll this rare modesty in so great a Monarch especially when we heare M. Powell and other such vnlearned Vpstarts protesting with full mouth that they know as certainly that the Pope is the great Disput de Antichr in initio Antichrist as that God is in Heauen and Iesus Christ our Sauiour and Redeemer Certainely it is strange how any man could fall into a fit of such extreme and impudent madnes were it not that God permitteth sometymes such excesse of malicious folly for the reclayming of others misled and seduced by these erring guids and false Prophets In which respect I haue alway thought this Question very profitable and of great importance to omit how necessary the discussion thereof may proue sooner then we are aware in regard of the true and great Antichrist himselfe whose comming we haue far more reason to expect in our dayes then the Ancient Fathers had in theirs Thus the diuine Goodnesse alway turneth euill into good and maketh all things concurre to the welfare of his Elect and by this strang paradox and calumniation preuenteth and prepareth vs against Antichrists comming with an exact Discouery of his whole proceeding and persecution which whosoeuer considereth attentiuely as it is layd downe in the sacred Scripture and declared by the holy Fathers will easily perceaue that hitherto the chiefest signes and notes of Antichrist haue not byn fulfilled by any So that indeed there can be no doubt or question whether he himselfe be come only some controuersy might be moued which of his forerunners doth most resemble him And in this also the matter may easily be decided for who seeth not that the false Mahomet draweth nighest vnto him both in name and deedes His name contayning the number 666. which is by S. Iohn assigned to Antichrist and his impiety enmity and persecution against Christ and Christians is notorious to the whole world For which cause there haue not wanted some both Catholicks and See Peâ—erius in Apoc. Protestants who haue persuaded themselues that there is no other Antichrist to be expected But these are euidently confuted by many inuincible arguments Notwithstanding this their errour though neuer so grosse may seeme in some sort excusable because they impugne a certayne and manifest enemy But what shall we say of those who take their marke so much amisse that they make the chiefe visible Pastour of Christs Church a member of Sathan yea Antichrist himselfe Can any thing be more absurd or intollerable Is it possible that any Christian would giue Luther the hearing when his proud spirit of contention and contradiction made him first breake forth into this open blasphemy How did not Princes perceaue that this was the high way to all rebellion Could they conceaue or imagin that Temporall Authority Iurisdiction would be regarded where the chiefest spirituall power vpon earth was thus impudently contemned and trodden vnder foot Can they trust to their Pedigrees when they see the continuall succession of 1500. yeares so lightly esteemed What better Title can they pretend for themselues then the expresse words of our Sauiour with which he established S. Peter and his Successors Your Maiesty wisely obserued that vnlesse In the conference at Hampton court the Authority of Bishops were mayntained that of Princes could not stand No Bishop no King saith your Maiesty And certaine it is that no lawfull Bishop can be vpholden against the Popes Authority to which all other spirituall Iurisdiction is subordinate Can any Iudge or Magistrate of the Realme be independant of your Maiesty This is so euident that euen the Puritans themselues though otherwise neuer so blinded with malice against the Pope could not choose but see it For which cause they stick not to protest to all the world that if the Prelats haue the Truth especially in this point the Pope and the Church of Rome and in them God and Christ Iesus himselfe haue great wrong and indignity offered vnto them in In the Christian and modest offâ—r c. published anno 1606. pag. 16. that they are reiected and that all the Protestant Churches are Schismaticall in forsaking vnity and communion with them Thus then it plainely appeareth that the Protestants neither according to the Truth it selfe nor in the Puritans iudgment can defend themselues their pretended Bishops but by establishing the Pope and Roman Church And all the vehemency which they vse against the Pope to proue him Antichrist falleth vpon themselues who participate with him in admitting the Hierarchy of Bishops And as for other proofes proper to Puritans they are inforced to answere them as well as we yea most of all these Arguments be such as might very easily be turned against any lawfull Prince whatsoeuer and much more against such Protestant Princes as besides their Temporall power make clayme to spirituall Iurisdiction Let any discreet Reader reflect vpon all particulers and he will easily discerne that if Catholicks had byn no more moderate then Luther and other Protestants were King Henry could not haue intitled himselfe Head of the Church in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affayres without hauing the name of Antichrist applyed and appropriated vnto him For if such contumelious inferences be made against the Pope
in great part because he is supposed though falsly to arrogate more to himselfe in Temporall affayres then of right he ought how much more would the same imputation fall vpon such a Prince as did first vsurp spirituall Iurisdiction without eyther example or other probable pretense But I will not vrge these odious inferences any further your Maiesty will easily conceaue how far this proiect might be pursued And by perusing this small labour of myne which I now offer to your Maiesty it will manifestly appeare that we haue euident and inuincible Arguments taken out of Scripture and all Antiquity to free our chiefest Pastour the Popes Holynes from this most absurd and false calumniation and that whatsoeuer any Protestant can answere to these our proofes is without any difficulty ouerthrowne and confuted As likewise their rayling inuectiues and friuolous obiections are presently dissolued returned vpon themselues All which considered I account it no presumption to be an humble Suppliant to your most Excellent Maiesty for some release and mitigation in the pressures and persecutions which Catholicks endure vnder this pretence of the Popes being Antichrist For how can it possibly stand with iustice or reason that a lawfull Prince should punish his loyall subiects for performing their duty to their spirituall and lawfull Pastour That Rebells should vphold Hereticks who are Traytors against God and his Church it were no meruaile since they all agree in the impugnation of superiour powers And yet it is too notorious to the world what Catholicks suffer for their conscience in your Maiestyes Dominions what losse of lyuings liberty yea sometyme of life it selfe How busy are Purseuants in ransacking their houses abusing their seruants and apprehending their persons What insolencyes and vexations are they constrayned to endure And to omit the generality and seuerity of this persecution from which neither frailty of sex nor band of matrimony nor Nobility of birth can exempt any how many things lye hid and vnknowne which would astonish and amaze the world if they were laid open to the view therof What prying and inquiring into mens secret actions in somuch that euen ordinary prouision for the sustenance of nature cannot be made without suspition of Treason as appeared not long since by the pot of peares which were supposed to haue bene balls of wildfyre How many are beaten and tormented euen to death in priuate houses without any publick tryall Some Prentises in the Citty of London can giue good testimony heerof I might adde such other particulers as the rods kept in store by some of no small account for yong youths vnder twenty yeares whom they vse like schollers thinking it not to be against their grauity to whip them priuately with their owne hands But I will not offend your Maiestyes eares with the recitall of such base and vnworthy actions Only I will humbly beseech our Blessed Sauiour to moue your Maiestyes hart to take pitty and compassion of these abuses by giuing present Order for the redresse and reformation of so much as your Maiestie already misliketh which we hope to be the greatest part And for the rest we only craue this fauour that we may be spared vntill vve be heard for vve nothing doubt but that if your Maiesty vvould once resolue to informe your selfe thoroughly of the truth God vvould not be vvanting to our iust desires and to your Maiesties so Honourable and necessary endeauours GOD of his goodnes direct and protect your Maiesty AMEN Your Maiesties most faithfull Subiect and humble Oratour Michael Christopherson P. THE PREFACE to the Reader TO some I doubt not this my labour which I haue taken in discussing this question of Antichrist will seeme superfluous or at least not so well bestowed as it might haue bene in many other subiects And they will be much confirmed in this their opinion if they consider that among so many learned men as haue written in our language and euidently confuted the heresies of our tymes none of them haue vouchsafed to yield so far to our Aduersaries as to handle this question of set purpose which doubtles they omitted not without great consideration and weighty reasons the chiefest of which if I be not deceaued was for that they perswaded themselues that few or none especiallie of the prudent and moderate sort did indeed and in their hart hold this absurd paradox though they were content to let it passe because it serued for a motiue to withdraw the common people from the Catholike faith which in their conceipt conteyned other errors And for this cause those worthy and zealous writers endeauored chiefly to take away this false perswasion of the Churches erring partly by confirming and demonstrating the infallibility of her authority and partly by descending to particuler controuersies and most euidently conuincyng the Churches doctrine in euery one of them to be conformable to the diuine Scriptures and all antiquity For they did easily discouer that by this course they should not only confute this abhominable bâ—asphemy but also with one and the same labour confirme and establish the contrary truth viz. that the Catholike Church togeather with her supreme Pastour is the piller of Truth and the building of Christ against which no force of errors or heresies either hath or euer shall be able to preuayle Which course of theirs as most prudent in it selfe so likewise most profitable to others I am far from mysliking but doe altogeather approue and admyre it And yet notwithstanding I hope that this my labour may be in some sort profitable also For all are not so quick wytted as to make these necessary inferences but rather many are with-held from yielding to the manifest truth in other pointes by a preiudicate opinion which they haue conceaued in this and the iust and discreet silence which hath hitherto bene vsed ministreth to them some cause of suspition that the Protestants haue reason for that they say especially since they vrge this point so much both in their Writings and Sermons and the matter is of so great importance and consequence that whosoeuer hath the truth on his syde in this ought iustly to be belieued in the rest since that Antichrist can neither agree with Christ nor so great a calumniation as this is of the Pope if it be false can agree or stand with the spirit of truth Besides the Protestants out of this their doctrine make most odious inferences against Catholikes as to go no further we may see in M. Downams last Chapter where he deduceth out of it six conclusions First that out of this all other controuersies may be decided and that the doctrine of the Catholike Church is to be reiected as the errors of Antichrist Secondly that their separation from vs is warranted yea commaunded by the word of God and all returning forbidden Thirdly that all they which partake with vs are reprobates and to be damned Fourthly that the Recusant Papists but especialy Iesuites and Seminary Priests
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
it hath bene euer since and so he should haue translated is in taking out of the way and then we shall easily answere to the argument See cap. 5. nu 4. that a thing in doing is not done and consequently that Antichrist is but comming and not come For the remouing of the Imperiall seate from Rome the taking of Rome by the Goths the decay of the Empire are not sufficient for M. Downam to make it good that the Empire was taken away but only that it was in taking away that is in decay not subuerted or perished And besides if M. Downam bethink himselfe well it wil be a litle with the soonest for him and his friends whome Bellarmine calleth Heretikes to affirme that Antichrist was come in S. Hieromes tyme. As for the Scriptures which M. Downam noteth it is not necessary to explicate them now since we haue had and shall haue often occasion to handle thē at large only I will aske M. Downam what he meant to say that Bellarmine thought to discredit the arguments of the Fathers by reckoning them among erroneous conceiptes since Bellarmine expresly saith that the opinions of these Fathers were suspitions and not errors because they durst not set downe any certaine tyme 2. Now then let vs come as M. Downam likewise inuiteth vs to Bellarmines heretikes where he taketh vpon him to defend all those opinions but the first of the Samosatenes whome he is content with Bellarmine to call heretikes but taketh it very ill at his handes that he would number them among Protestants which notwithstanding he hath no reason to do since Bellarmine telleth but the truth and giueth his reason why he doth so because they all agree in this that Antichrist is come and that he is the Pope which will How much the protestants agree with the Samosatenes all other heretikes be thought a greater agreement then Christ hath with the wicked which comparison it pleaseth M. Downam to vse though if others had done farre lesse he would haue bene ready to haue called it blasphemy if he be not more temperate then many of his fellow Ministers and besides he might haue considered that all the arguments which Bellarmine vseth against the Samosatenes make as much against the Protestants so that his boasting of his men which haue soundly confuted their heresies will seeme ridiculous except they had cōfuted this opinion likewise which they could not doe except they would confute themselues And the nippe which he giueth the Papists for houlding their peace will make some thinke that either he hath not read so much as the titles of Bellarmines whole bookes or els that he is very forgetfull if not malicious since it is euident that he hath not omitted those heretikes no more then the rest neither in other heresies nor in this in which he is as exact as M. Downam can desire since he telleth vs in what they differ from him his crew which is but in a nice point God knoweth to wit in the circumstances of tyme if we consider the other two mayne points in which they agree besids here M. Downā sayth that euen in the Apostles tymes Antichrist had as it were set his foote in the Church which is something before that which the Samosatenes affirme who only thinke that he appeared a little after the Apostles tyme so that all the fault will light vpon M. Downam and his fellowes who will needes make themselues so like to those and all other heretikes that none but themselues can see any other difference among them but materiall to wit that euery one choseth this or that matter in which they differ from the Catholike Church but all agree in this that they chose their Religion out of their owne priuate iudgments and spirits by which they take vpon them to explycate the Scripture euery one after his owne fashion but none of them will subiect their spirits to the spirit of truth which is according to Christs promise only in the Catholike Church and consequētly they wil be still accompted formall Heretikes till they amend this generall fault of theirs 3. Concerning the other 5. opinions which Bellarmine From X. to XVII rehearseth M. Downam would faine make an agreement by affirming that the constant opinion of the learned is that of the reuealing or manifest appearing of Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the rest is impertinent there were two principal degrees the first about the yeare 607. the second after the yeare 1000. Where first we may note how Downam nothing Scrupulous in his accompt cunningly he bringeth it in with an about and an after both which may comprehend one or more yeares And it must be no little nor nice difference which will breake any square in this mans conceipt but you must beare with him for he was inforced to inlarge his conscience and to be nothing scrupulous because otherwise he could hardly haue made any one to agree with himselfe or any other for they which come neerest differ in a yeare since Illyricus Chytraeus and Luther put that title which was giuen by Phocas The Protestants disagreement about Antichrists comming to Pope Boniface the third in the yeare 606. and not 607. as M. Downā doth who leauing his Rabbines is contēt to ioine with Bellarm. in this accompt But there is a greater difference betwixt Luther Bibliander on the one syde the Centuriators and Chytraeus on the other syde about S. Gregory whether he did belong to Christ or to Antichrist which M. Downam wisely passed ouer in silence with being content to go about And yet he must fetch a fargreater compasse to comprehend Bullenger who putteth Antichrists comming more then a 100. yeeares later then any of these so that by that word about we must vnderstand a 100. yeares sooner or later And yet the word after hath a larger scope since Musculus will haue Antichrists comming to haue byn about the yeare 1200. But M. Downam stoutly denieth that Bullenger putteth Antichrists comming the yeare 763. yet mentioneth not the place which Bellarmine citeth which is as plaine as plaine may be but thinketh it sufficient to alledge another place out of Bullenger where yet he nameth not once Antichrist but explicateth how in his opinion the Popes dominion increased was confirmed which only sheweth that Bullenger either did not thinke that Antichrists appearing the Popes dominion was all one or els that he is contrary to himselfe of which two I will giue M. Downam good leaue to choose which he listeth He would also faine excuse Musculus but that the matter is too plaine since he would found his opinion vpon S. Bernard who plainly affirmeth that he expected Antichrists appearing or reuealing and consequētly thought that he was not reuealed at that tyme so that Musculus following S. Bernard must needes thinke so too howsoeuer of his owne head he addeth that Antichrist was come which as it is foolish in
doctrine of Antichrist But M. Downam giueth vs two differences betwixt these markes before Antichrists comming and after First vntill the yeare 607. there was not saith he in the Catholike Church an vniuersall subiection to the Pope as the head and consequently till then these things could not be vsed as signes thereof as since they haue But M. Downam may when it pleaseth him take the paines to peruse what Bellarmine The Church was alway subiect to the Pope bringeth in the 19. last Chapter of his second booke concerning this point I doubt not but he will acknowledge an vniuersall subiection to the Pope euen from the Apostles or if he be obstinate and will nor yield to an euident truth yet I am sure he will neuer be able to answere Bellarmines proofes if his pryde be such that he presumeth that he can let him begin when he will and see what he shall gaine by it The second difference which M. Downam alleadgeth is that before the yeare 607. these thinges were not imposed and inioyned vpon all by the lawes of the Pope as since they are so that the cause of vsing them now is not the example of the ancient Church but the authority of the Popes law But this is a very poore difference and argueth a wonderfull corruption in the ancient Church since that she was so forward to take Antichrists markes that she needed no commaund and besides if M. Downam maketh the ancieÌ„t Church to be very corrupt Downam will take the paines to peruse the ancieÌ„t Councells and Decrees of Popes which Bellarmine bringeth in these particuler controuersies he shall find that there was the same necessity for all men to performe these things then that there is now many of them being commaunded by Gods law and others not exacted of all and some not of any as the Reader may easily distinguish by considering the particulers 6. Wherefore now let vs consider how M. Downam answereth VII Bellarmines particuler obiectioÌ„s And first coÌ„cerning Chrisme vsed in the Church before the yeare 607. Chrisme he answereth that those three Fathers speake of the annoynting with oyle vsed in the Sacrament of Baptisme and addeth that this also without warrant of the Scripture is retayned among the Papists Where you see he maketh these three Fathers Papists in that point at the least and though it be true that they acknowledge that Cerimony of Baptisme yet in these places they speake most plainely of Chrisme and the Sacrament of Confirmation For Tâ—rtullian and S. Cyprian compare it with baptisme attributing to it the effects of grace aswell as to Baptisme and S. Augustine placeth it betwixt baptisme and the Eucharist and calleth it Chrisming which is the proper name of this Sacrament Wherefore M. Downam must of force confesse that these Fathers were Papists in this point also and that this marke was long before the yeare 607. Now whether this vnction were vsed in the primitiue Church or no is a new question belonging to another place and it is inough for vs now that it was long before Antichrist came according to the Protestants accompt and that they do not much vse euen the imposition of hands which they acknowledg was vsed in the primityue Church of which M. Downam can giue no better reason then for that it was abused by vs. By which in their opinion they might also leaue off Baptisme Eucharist and all other rites and exercises of How chrisme maketh vs Christians de Consecrat dist 5. c. Vt ieiun Ibid. c. De bis verò Christian Religion as indeed they haue done in great part only they loue to heare themselues talke in a Pulpit though they say neuer a true nor wise word I omit his other impertinent obiections out of the Canon law where first that holy Pope and Martyr Melchiades saith that a man shall neuer be a Christian meaning a strong and valiant or perfect Christian except he first receaue this Sacrament for so he vseth the name Christianus as the Latins vse Vir and the Aurelian Councell saith that this Sacrament is more to be reuerenced then Baptisme if we respect the person of him who ministreth it because he must of necessity be a Bishop How Chrisme is more to be reuerenced then Baptisme and besides this Sacrament supposeth and in some sort includeth baptisme and in that respect is said to be more venerable then baptisme by it selfe And this is all that M. Downam can say for himselfe or against vs for that which he addeth coÌ„cerning the ordayning of the Sacrament as though it were ordayned by the Church and not by Christ is a fond Chymera of his owne For we affirme that it was instituted by Christ as all other Sacraments were and besides it is now from the purpose since our whole question is whether this Sacrament were vsed before the yeare 607. which Bellarmine hath euidently conuinced that it was To the second obiection M. Downam answereth with a distinction that to cleaue to the Roman Church in ancient tyme was the note of a good Christian because then that Church was Apostolicall but now it is the marke of an Antichristian because now that Church is Apostaticall Where you find him still in the same fault of petitro principij And besides you see he graunteth asmuch as Bellarmine would haue him that in old tyme the cleauing to the Roman Church was so far from beeing the marke of Antichrist that it was the chiefest note to know a good Catholike Christian from a false and wicked heretike and consequently it is to be accompted so still For the heretikes in those tymes could say as M. Downam doth that the Roman Church was Apostaticall but they were not able to proue it any more then M. Downam is and all good Catholikes were then and are now certayne that it can neuer be so since Christ hath promised the contrary to S. Peter and his successors And besides it is very strange that Christ Antichrist cannot haue both one marke Christ and Antichrist should both haue one marke And that the argumeÌ„ts which the old Fathers vsed against heretikes should come to be vsed by Antichrist against Catholikes But to these absurdities must they needes fall who call light darkenes and darkenes light as M. Downam and all heretikes doe M. Downam goeth forward with his distinctions and differences affirming that in ancient tymes at other Churches did cleaue to the Church of Rome so did the Church of Rome cleaue to them Now it acknowledgeth no Church besides it selfe All which is false for now also other Churches cleaue to the Church of Rome as to their head and the Church of Rome cleaueth to them as to her members and it acknowledgeth many other particuler Churches besides it selfe still though all subiect and subordinate to it as they were euer How the Church of Rome is vnited standeth with other Churches And that which he addeth is a meere
§ 25. Illyricus cent 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col 435. and all other Sectaries of this time do teach but the Pope of Rome is Antichrist as they themselues also teach in the same places Therfore the Pope of Rome sitteth in the true Church of Christ and is the Prince and head of his Church But the Church of Christ can only be one as Christ is one as Caluin also teacheth lib. 4. Instit cap. 1. § 2. Therfore the Lutheram and Caluinists and as many as are out of the Church which is vnder the Pope are out of the true Church Caluin saw this argument and answered that not so much the Church as the ruines of the Church of Christ are seene vnder the Pope For thus he speaketh lib. 4. Instit cap. 2. § 11. As there remained in old tyme certaine peculiar prerogatiues of the Church vnder the Iewes so neither at these daies do we take from the Papists the steps of the Church which the Lord would haue remaining among them of the dissipation And after God hath wrought with his prouidence that there should be also other remnants extant least the Church should wholy perish And as buildings are often so throwne downe that the foundations and ruines remaine so he hath not suffered his Church to be either subuerted from the foundation or quite throwne downe by Antichrist or els he would haue the building halfe saued from destruction And againe § 12. VVherfore hence it is manifest that we deny not that the Churches remayne euen vnder his Tyranny But this solution affoardeth vs two arguments The first if only the ruines of Christs Church remaine then the Church of Christ is fallen Wherfore the truth hath lyed which sayd Matth. 16. and the Gates of hell shall not preuaile against it The other the Church is fallen and the Papists hold the ruines of it and the foundation yea the building it selfe halfe throwne downe Then the Lutheram and Caluinists haue no Church for they haue not the whole and entire Church of Christ for that is fallen and the ruines yet remaine neither haue they it halfe throwne downe for that is among the Papists vnder Antichrist What haue they thē Perhaps a new building but in that it is new it is not Christs And who that is not altogeather blind seeth not that it is more safe to remaine in the true Church of Christ although halfe throwne downe then in none Now I come to the Scriptures by which it is proued that Hierusalem and not Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist The first is in Cap. 11. Apos where S. Iohn saith That Enoch and Helias shall fight with Antichrist in Ierusalem and be slaine thereby him and their bodies saith he shall lye in the streets of the great Citty which is spiritually called Sodome and Aegipt where also their Lord was crucified vpon which place Arethas Their bodies saith he shall be cast vnburied in the streets of Hierusalem for he shall raigne in that Citty as King of the Iewes In like manner do all other Interpreters expound it and surely it can by no means be denyed that this is spoken of Ierusalem for what Citty is there where our Lord was crucified but Ierusalem Wherfore Chytraeus who would haue this Citty to be Rome letteth passe those words where also their Lord was crucified as though they were not to the purpose Neither is it any hindrance that S. Hierome in ep 17. ad Marcellam endeauoureth to shew that Hierusalem cānot be called Sodome since that euery where in Scripture it is called the holy Citty for in that Epistle he perswadeth Marcella to forsake Rome and come into Palestins and therfore he heapeth vp all that he can in the praise of Hierusalem and in the reprehension of Rome and endeauoureth by all meanes to excuse Hierusalem Neither doth he it in his owne name but in the name of Pauls and Eusto hium whome he thought ought to be pardoued if they explicated any thing some what otherwise then it was For that earthly Hierusalem may be called Sodome for last and offences of the Iewes is manifest out of Isaias who in his first Chapter when he had prefixed the title The vision of Isaias which he saw vpon Iuda and Hierusalem addeth forthwith Heare the word of our Lord you Princes of Sodome harken with your eares the law of my God you people of Gomorrha Neither is that a good argument Hierusalem is called holy therfore it cannot be called Sodome for as S. Hierome sayth in the same Epistle that Rome is called Babylon and the purple harlot by S. Iohn by reason of the Pagan Emperours and yet that it is holy by reason of the Church of Christ the Sepulchers of S. Peter and S. Paul so also Ierusalem is an holy Citty by reason of the Prophets and Apostles which preached there of the Crosse and Sepulcher of Christ and the like and yet it is Sodome and Aegipt by reason of the offences and blindnes of the vnbelieuing Iewes The secōd place is Apoc. 17. where S. Iohn saith that the 10. Kings who shal deuide the Romā Empire among thēselues in whose raigne Antichrist shal come wil hate the purple Harlot that is Rome wil make her desolate wil burne her with fire How then shall it be the seate of Antichrist if it must be ouerthrowne and burnt at that very time Besides as we proued before Antichrist shal be a Iew the Messias and King of the Iewes Wherfore without doubt he shal place his seat in Ierusalem will go about to restore the Tēple of Salomō for the Iewes dreame of nothing els but of Hierusalē of the Temple Neither doth it seeme that they wil euer accept any for their Messias who shal not sit in Hierusalem restore the Tēple in some sort Wherfore Lactantius l. 7. c. 15. saith that in the time of Antichrist the chiefest Kingdome shall be in Asia that the West shall serue the East rule and c. 17. he determineth the part of Asia in which this Kingdome shal be saith that it is Syria that is Iudaea which is part of Syria and which is alway called Syria by the Latins Likewise S. Hierom Theodoret in c. 11. Dan. gather out of Dan. that Antichrist shal fix his tents in the coūtry of Ierusalem at length be slaine in the Mount Oliuet and S. Irenaeus l. 5. said plainely that Antichrist shall raigne in earthly Ierusalem The third place is in those words of S. Paul 2. Thess 2. So that he shall sit in the Temple of God For although there be many expositions giuen by the Fathers and some vnderstand the minds of the faithful in which Antichrist is said to sit whē he hath seduced them as S. Anselme expoundeth it some by the Temple vnderstād Antichrist himselfe with all his people for Antichrist will desire to haue himselfe and his seeme the spiritual Temple of God that is the true Church
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