reprooue in due season and to pacifie the anger of the Lords judgement proceeding to furis and to turne the hearts of the fathers vnto the children and to set vp the Tribes of Iacob In the latter it is said of Enoch as Bellarmine readeth That he pleased God and was translated into Paradise that he might giue peâ—…ance vnto the Gentiles First I answer to both places that although this booke of the sonne of Sirach be very commendable yet it is not of Canonicall authoritie being but a humane writing as appeareth not onely by the former place alledged but also by that erronious conceit concerning Samuel chapter 46. 23. Secondly in neither place is it said that either of them should come to oppose themselues against Antichrist that from hence their returne into the world should be made a signe of the comming of Antichrist But as touching the former place seuerally I answer with I ansenius one of the best writers among the Papists howsoeuer Bellarmine wondereth at him that hee should consent with vs in the trueth beeing a Popish Bishop that although the ancient writers haue thought that Elias was to come againe yet it cannot be euinced out of this place For we may say that Ecclesiasticus did write this according to the receiued opinion of his time grounded as they thought vpon the words of Malachie that Elias was truely to come in his owne person before the Messias when as that was not to be fulfilled in his owne person but in him that was to come in the spirit and power of Elias True indeed it is that not onely the authour of that booke as it seemeth but the Iewes in generall vnderstanding the words of Malachie literally did expect that Elias in his owne person should returne before the comming of the Messias But our Sauiour Christ reformeth this errour applying the Prophecie to Iohn Baptist. And secondly I answer that if Bellarmine will argue out of Ecclesiasticus according to his meaning he must prooue that Elias was to come in his owne person before the first comming of the Messias of which Malachie speaketh and before which this authour as all the rest of the Iewes doe holde that Elias was to come And therefore the Papists might aswell with the Iewes looke for their Messias as for Elias Now as touching the other place it is a wonder that Bellarmine would alledge it for this purpose But that hauing nothing to say to the purpose he is desirous to say some-thing to bleare the eyes of the simple The originall Text hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccl. 〈◊〉 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Enoch pleased the Lord God and was translated for an example of repentance â—…o the generations that is that the generations present and to come might be mooued by his example to turne vnto the Lord and to walke before him knowing by his example that there is a reward laid vp for those that turne vnto the Lord and walke before him as Enoch did But will Bellarmine hence conclude that therefore Enoch is to come againe in the flesh to oppose himselfe to Antichrist 5. The third place is Math. 17. 11. Elias indeed shall come and shall restore all things VVhich words saith Bellarmine are plainely to be vnderstood not of Iohn but of the true Elias For Iohn was already come and had finished his course and yet the Lord saith in the future Elias shall come I answer that by the Euangelist Marke who speaketh in the present tence Elias indeed comming first restoreth all things the meaning of our Sauiour Christ appeareth to haue beene this Elias quidem venturus fuit primum restituturus omnia Elias indeed was to come first and was to restore all things but I tell you that Elias is already come and they haue done vnto him what they listed as it is written of him meaning Mark 9. 12 13. Iohn Baptist. As if he had said The Prophecie indeed concerning Mat. 17. 13 Elias is true but I tell you it is already fulfilled For as he saith in another place Iohn Baptist is that Elias who was to come then which what could be spoken more plainelie Bellarmine answereth That Iohn Baptist was the promised Mat. 11. 14 Elias not literally but allegorâ—…eally So we affirme also and further adde that Elias was not promised literally For our Sauiour Christ plainely affirmeth that Iohn Baptist is that Elias which was promised And both he and the Angell vnderstand that Prophecie of Malachie chapter 4. 5. not literally of Elias the Thesbiâ—…e but allegorically of Iohn Baptist who was as it were another Elias Yea but the Disciples faith Bellarmine who had seene the transsiguration when they asked Christ what is that which the Scribes say that Elias must fyrst come speake of the same Elias whom they had seene with Christ in the Mount and therefore Christ making answer to them that Elias indeed shall come speaketh of the same Elias It followeth not for the Disciples speake according to the erronious opinion of the Scribes who vnderstanding Malachie literallie thought that Elias was to come in his owne person and thereupon as it is thought inferred that Christ was not the true Messias because Elias came not before him But Christ answereth them according to the true meaning of Malachie applying his prophecie to Iohn Baptist who is figuratiuely called Elias Yea but it cannot truely be said that Iohn Baptist restored all things for to restore all things is to call all the Iewes and heretiques and perhaps some of the seduced Catholickes to the true faith as Bellarmine obiecteth This is indeede the Popish conceit that Enoch and Elias shall preach against Antichrist 1260. daies at the end whereof they shal be put to death by Antichrist and after three dayes and an halfe shall rise againe Within a moneth after their death Antichrist shal be destroyed in mount Oliuet and 45. dayes after that Christ shall come to iudgement In the meane time so effectuall shall be the preaching of Enoch and Elias that they shall restore all things that is they shall call all the Iewes and heretickes and perhaps the seduced Catholickes But how doth this agree with the prophecies of our Sauiour Christ concerning the want of faith at his comming and the vncertainty of the time of his appearing As touching the former he saith the sonne of man when he commeth shall he finde faith vpon the earth And as Luk. 18. 8. touching the other he hath foretolde that the end of the world shall be suddaine and vnlooked for euen as it was in the dayes of Noah and Lot But if this conceit of the Papists be Mat. 24. 39 Luk. 17. 26 18. true there shall be more true beleeuers at the end of the world then euer had beene at one time before and the day of Christs coÌ„ming after the reuelation of Antichrist but especially after his death shal be precisely knowne accordingly looked for
testimonies which Bellarmine alledgeth if they were to be vnderstood of Antichrist as indeede few of them are do serue to proue that the destruction of Antichrist shal be in the end of the world which we doe freely confesse But of these places as some make not for him so the rest are against him The 7. of Daniel verse 8. 9. 26. Apoc. 20 4. Mat. 24. 14. are altogether impertinent For Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist or the last iudgement but of Antiochus and Gods iudgements on the Seleucidae Iohn speaketh not of the comming of Antichrist oâ—… last iudgement but of the binding and loosing of Sathan and seats of iudgement erected for the faithfull as Augustine also expoundeth Christ in that place of Mat. speaketh not a worde of De ciuit Dei lib. 20. cap. 〈◊〉 Antichrists comming or of the end of the world but of the preaching of the gospel before the destruction of Ierusalem The rest of the places make against him as he alledgeth them against the trueth For first Daniel 12. 12. Where Daniel saith Bellarmine after he had said that the kingdome of Antichrist should continue 1290. dayes addeth Blessed is he that expecteth and commeth to 1335. dayes From whence the Papists would inferre that Antichrist hauing reigned three yeares a halfe should be destroyed forty fiue dayes before the day of judgement This place as I haue proued is to be vnderstood of Antiochus But suppose it spake of Antichrists reigne and end of the world see what would follow thereof First that the reigne of Antichrist is not three yeeres and a halfe precisely or 1260. dayes but 1290. dayes Secondly that Antichrist shal be destroyed before the end of the world whereas Paid telleth vs that Christ shall destroy him at his appearing 2. Thes. 2. 〈◊〉 and not 45. dayes before Thirdly then so soone as Antichrist is reuealed men shal be able certainly and distinctly to foretell the very day of judgement to wit the 1335. after Antichrists comming and 45. after his death which Christ denieth Math. 24 36. And lastly if this were true then after the comming or at least after the death of Antichrist all men would be in expectation of Christs second comming And therefore those dayes will not be as Christ saith like the daies of Noah neither will his Maâ—… 24. 37 38. 39. comming be suddaine vnlooked for as himselfe saith Mat. 24 if the very day of his comming be knowne before hand accordingly Mat 24. 44 1. Thes. 5. 2. 3. looked for But let Christ be true and all Papists lyars 3. 2. Mat. 24. 29 Shortly after the tribulation of those dayes the sunne shall be darkened c. In this chapter of Mathew our Sauiour speaketh not at all of Antichrist vntill the 23. 24. verse which diuers of the Fathers yea and the Papists themselues vnderstand as spoken of Antichrist There shall arise false Christs and false Prâ—…phets and they shall worke great signes wonders c. From whence it appeareth that Antichrist is not one onely man as Bellarmine saith that the signes of Christs coÌ„ming are to follow the tribulations vnder Antichrist which we do confesse 3. 2. Thes. 2. 8. And then shall that out-law be reuealed whom the Lord Iesus shall consume with the spirit of his mouth c. Whence Bellarmine would prooue that the second coÌ„ming of Christ shall follow very shortly after the comming of Antichrist But we must distinguish betwixt the first comming of Antichrist and his reuelation and acknowledgement And it cannot be denied but 〈◊〉 there is a great distance betwixt his reuelation and destruction For he wâ—… to be reuealed as the Apostle saith when that which hindered was taken out of the way which we haue proued to haue beene done many hundred yeeres since and consequently that Antichrist appeared long since howsoeuer he shall not vtterly be destroyed vntill the second comming of Christ. And lastly we are to distinguish betwixt Christs consuming him with the spirit of his mouth and his vtter destroying him at his glorious appearance There are therefore these degrees to be noted betwixt the first comming of Antichrist and his destruction For after he is come he sheweth himselfe in his colours and that by degrees more more aduancing himselfe vntill he come to his full pitch height of his AntichristiaÌ„ pride After he is come to his height he is acknowledged and that by degrees after he is acknowledged Christ consumeth him by the spirit of his mouth that is by the preaching of the euerlasting gospel Apo. 14. 6. 7. After which followeth the destruction of Babylon that is Rome Apoc. 14. 8. effected and brought to passe by the Kings of the earth who assisted the beast vntil Christ laid him open consumed him with the breath of his mouth after that in the last place followeth the vtter destructioÌ„ of Antichrist at the second coÌ„ming of Christ. 4. Lastly 1. Ioh. 2. 18. Children this is the last houre and as you haue heard that Antichrist coâ—…meth c. Where Bellarmine maketh the Apostle reason thus We know Antichrist shall come in the end of the world and now we see many petite Antichrists as it were his fore-runners therefore we know that this is the last houre and age of the world But if this reason of Bellarmines framing were good we might vpon his former grounds conclude thus At the fulnesse of time Christ was to come But euer since the beginning there haue bin Patriarchs Prophets which Bellarmine calleth the fore-runners of Christ therfore the fulnesse of time hath bin euer since the beginning But whether shall we say that Bellarmine is so ignorant that he knoweth not how to make a syllogisme or so shamelesse as to make the Apostle argue sophistically The Apostles reasoÌ„ is this When the Antichrist commeth it is the last houre Now saith he Antichrists are come meaning by Antichrists the same with the 〈◊〉 Iohn 4. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7. antichrist which else where he affirmeth was theÌ„ entred into the world or else there are 4. termini foure termes in th'Apostles argument therfore now is the last houre And if then were the houre of Antichrist his comming what reason haue the Papists to restraine his comming vntill three yeeres a halfe before the end of the world And thus as you see Bellarmines allegations are either altogether impertinent or else against himselfe 4. But as I said before suppose they all spake of the day of judgement end of the world following vpon Antichrist yet none of them joineth the end of the world with his comming birth but with his death destruction And the like may be said of his allegation froÌ„ the common consent of the fathers confession of his aduersaries For our aduersaries saith he confesse that Antichrist shall raigne we say he shall continue vnto the end of the world therfore shâ—…rtly after his death shal be the end
foretold do now come to passe The king of pride meaning Antichrist is at hand and that which is horrible to be spoken an army of priests is prepared for him Whereby he would also insinuate that he should be the prince of priests Now this is a principle in the church of Rome that the Pope especially such a Pope as Gregory the great speaking definitâ—…uelie and confidentlie can not erre And if this be true as they may not deny the Pope being the foundation of all their trueth then must they needs confesse that Antichrist was come almost a thousand yeers since and that the Pope their prince of priests who not onely succeedeth Iohn of Constantinople in that Antichristian title but also farre exceedeth him in all Antichristian pride challenging a soueraigne and vniuersall authority not onely aboue all other Bishops and priests but also aboue all kings and Emperours is that Antichrist 5 To this testimony of Gregory I might adde diuerse other witnesses But my purpose is not to draw mine arguments from the writings and as it were the cisternes of men who liued before the reuelation of Antichrist and therefore except themselues had bene prophets could not fully expound these prophecies but from the pure fountaines of holy scriptures expounded by the history and euent the best interpreters of prophecies For as Daniell saith of the like or rather as the Papists say of these same Dan. 129. prophecies concerning Antichrist The words are closed vp and sealed vntill the appointed tyme. And accordingly was it said by Augustine prophetias citiùs impleri quà m intelligt that prophecies are fulfilled sooner then vnderstood and by Irenaeus whome Bellarmine also alleadgeth to the same purpose omnes prophetiae Lib. 〈◊〉 aduers. haeres c. 43. Bell. de pont R. lib. 3 c. 10. saith he priusquam habeaÌ„t efficaciam aemgmata sunt ambiguitas hominibus All prophecies before they haue their complement are vnto men darke and doubtfull speeches And therefore speaking of some part of the prophecies concerning Antichrist hee Apoc. 13. saith Certius sine periculo est sustinere adimplet ionem prophetiae quà m suspicari c It is more sure and safe to wait for the fulfilling of the prophecie then before hand to deliuer vncertaine ghesses Lib. 5. advers hares pag. antepenult Omitting therefore the vncertaine coniectures of men for such are diuerse opinions of the fathers concerning Antichrist as Bellarmine confesseth of some from the sacred scriptures the Lib. 3. de pont R. c. 10. vndoubted oracles of God I frame this demonstration 6 Vnto whomesoeuer the prophecies of holy scripture describing Antichrist the head of the Antichristian body doe wholy and onely agree hee is that graund Antichrist who is foretold in the scriptures Vnto the Pope of Rome the prophecies of holy scripture concerning Antichrist the head of the Antichristian body do wholy and onely agree therefore the Pope of Rome is that graund Antichrist which is foretold in the scriptures The proposition I take for graunted For seeing the holy ghost hath of purpose in diuerse places of the scripture taken vpon him fully and sufficiently to describe Antichrist and that to this end that he might bee knowne we neede not doubt but that this description of Antichrist is so perfect and so proper vnto him as to whome that description agreeth not he is not Antichrist contrarywise whom it wholy and onely fitteth hee must be held and acknowledged to be that Antichrist All the controuersie therefore is concerning the assumption namely whether the descriptions of Antichrist in the scriptures agree to the Pope or not Antichrist is described by the holy ghost especially in three places viz. in the second chapter of the second epistle to the Thessalonians in the thirteenth of the Reuelation from the eleuenth verse to the end and in the seuenteenth chapter of the same booke For I omitte those places in the prophecie of Daniel which vsually are alleaged because they speake properly of Antiochus Epiphanes Chap. 7. 8. 11. 12. who was but a type of Antichrist as Bellarmine also confesseth and the ninth of the Apocalypse because it is by some expounded Lib. 3. de pont R. c 18. 21. of the Turks 7 And that the description of Antichrist in the scriptures fitly agreeth to the Pope it appeareth by this induction For whereas all the arguments and notes whereby Antichrist is described in the scriptures may be reduced to these heads to wit the place or seat where we are to find him the time when we were to looke for him his condition and qualities that he is an aduersary opposed vnto Christ in aemulation of like honour a man of sinne in generall and more particularly an horrible Idolatour his actions and passions that is such things as he shall either do or suffer I will make it euident by the helpe of God whose all-seeing spirit I humbly beseech to guide me into the truth that all and euery one of them doe so fitly and properly agree to the Pope of Rome that in the descriptions of Antichrist in the scripture the Pope may behold himselfe as it were in a glasse Chap. 2. Of the place or seate of Antichrist 1. ANd first as touching the place or seate of Antichrist I reason thus Mysticall Babylon spoken of in the seuenteenth and eighteenth of the Apocalypse is the seat of Antichrist Rome is Mysticall Babylon spoken of in the seuenteenth and eighteenth of the Apocalypse Therefore Rome is the seat of Antichrist As touching the proposition you are to vnderstand that Babylon in the scriptures is taken sometimes literally and sometimes mystically literally for Babylon either in Chaldaea or in Egypt Babylon in Chaldaea was the Metropolis or imperiall city of the Babylonian and Assyrian Monarchy Babylon in AEgypt is called Babylis and Cayrus of which some vnderstand the Apostle Peter to speake 1. Epist. 5. 13. Babylon mysticall in the Apocalypse is the seat or chiefe city of Antichrist resembling the 1. Pet. 5. 13. Apoc. 17. 5. Assyrian Babylon in pride idolatry filthinesse and especiallie in most cruell persecution of the church of God And for the same causes Apoc. 11. 8. is called spiritually Sodom and Egypt Sodom Ap. 11. 8. for pride and filthinesse Egypt for idolatrie and for cruelty towards the Israel of God And as the church of Christ in the Apocalypse is called Ierusalem mysticallie or the holy city so the church especially the Metropolis or chiefe city of Antichrist is mysticallie called Babylon This as it is the receiued opinion of the faithfull so may it euidently be gathered out of the seuenteenth and eighteenth of Apocalypse which without all doubt are prophecies concerning Antichrist and the Antichristian city and seat as the Papists themselues often confesse Bellarm. lib. 3. de Pâ—…t R. c. 2. Sander demonstr 13. 18. c 2 For that which the Papists sometimes obiect That by Babylon is
Bellarmine De pont Rom. lib. 3. c. 10. 15. one of the heads of the former beast By the description of this beast that we may now note that which serueth for the present purpose reseruing the residue vntil their due time place it is apparant that there is one the same principall seate of both the beasts that in that seat the second beast succeedeth the former practising al the power or authority of the former beast Verse 12. that before him that is to say euen at Rome and that his chiefe endeuors teÌ„de to magnifie the beast that is the Romane state as in making meÌ„ to worship it in causing meÌ„ to make an image of to the beast wherunto he giueth spirit speach enforcing men to worship the same finally in compelling men to take vpon theÌ„ the marke of the beast his name nuÌ„ber of his name All which as they argue Antichrist to be a Romane succeeding the Emperors in the gouernmeÌ„t of Rome so also they fitly properly agree to the Pope who succeedeth the Emperours in the gouernmeÌ„t of Rome where he vsurpeth all more then al the power of the Emperours chaleÌ„ging a more vniuersal soueraigne or rather diuine authority then belonged to theÌ„ whose maine endeuors are to aduaunce the Romane state which he calleth the See Apostolik which he maketh al meÌ„ to worship causing them also to make an image of the Empire which was the head that had receiued the deadly wouÌ„d to in behoofe of the Romane state an image I say partly in the Emperour of Almaine reseÌ„bling the title ornameÌ„ts shew of the former Emperours partly in his owne courts not onely in Rome but in all other couÌ„tries represeÌ„ting the former imperial authority tyraÌ„ny both in Rome it selfe and in the prouinces thereunto beloÌ„ging This image both in the Empire popish courts he animateth authorizeth For as there is no question to be made hereof in respect of his courts so is it as true in respect of the Empire if that be true which themselues professe Namely that what the Emperor hath he hath it wholy froÌ„ theÌ„ that the Empire in the West was renewed by the Pope who traÌ„slated the title of the Emperor of Rome froÌ„ the Emperor of the East first to the FreÌ„ch after to the GermaÌ„s that the Pope caused this new Emperor to be made that he crowned authorized him that he appointed 7. Electors in Germany reseruing the coÌ„firmation of the electioÌ„ coronatioÌ„ of the Emperour to himself of which points we shal hereafter speake more at large Further he causeth al meÌ„ to worship the image by him Chap. 7. erected coÌ„pelleth all men to receiue the marke of the beast as also the name of the beast which caÌ„ be no other but either Romane or Latine the nuÌ„ber of his name i. to liue insubiectioÌ„ to the See of Rome to professe theÌ„selues to be Romanes Latines in respect of their religioÌ„ as herafter shal be shewed Chap. 8. 9. The same is proued out of the 17. chap. of th'apocalyps 3. where be reckened 7. heads that is 7. kinds of principall rulers as it were heads of gouernment whereby Rome hath bene gouerned euery one succeeding another The sixt head being the Emperours the seueÌ„th Antichrist which is the Pope For Antichrist is one of the 7. heads of the beast which hath 7. heads 10. hornes And this beast signifieth the Romane state therfore Antichrist is a head of the Romane state All which Bellarmine after a sort coÌ„fesseth Now it is most certaine that Antichrist is Lib. 3. de pont R. c. 15. none of the first 5. heads for they were past in th'apostles time neither is he the sixt head which was of the Emperours that then was for that was to be done out of the way as the Papists theÌ„selues do teach before the reuelatioÌ„ of Antichrist It remaineth therfore that the seuenth head which is the Pope is Antichrist The eight head which also is one of the seuen is the Empire renewed by the Pope is said to be the beast which was is not though it be wheron the whore of BabyloÌ„ sitteth If it be obiected that the seuenth head wherby Antichrist is signified was to continue but a short time as it is said vers 10 and that this therfore cannot agree to the Pope who hath raigned already in Rome many 100. yeares I answere that this is spokeÌ„ of purpose to arme the faithfull with patience who otherwise would thinke the reigne of Antichrist very long our Sauiour Christ also to be slowe in coÌ„ming Whereas in truth neither is our Sauiour Christ slow in coÌ„ming as Peter sheweth neither is 2. Peter 3. the kingdome of Antichrist long But in respect of God with whom a 1000. yeares are as one day in coÌ„patison of the eternal kingdome of Christ with whoÌ„ the faithful are to raigne after they haue suffered vnder Antichrist it is to be accompted very short And surely if the whole time from the Ascension of of our Sauiour vntil his returne vnto iudgement is noted in the Scriptures to be very short and that to this end that we should not thinke it long then is the raigne of Antichrist which is but part of this time much more short The holy Ghost in the beginning of the Reuelation signifieth that the time of fulfilling Apoc 1. 3. the prophecies therein mâ—…tioned was at haÌ„d And our Sauiour Heb. 10. 37. Christ promiseth by the Apostle that after a very litle while he would come in the last chapt of the reuelatioÌ„ he saith yea I Apoc. 22. 20. come quickly And Iohn likewise in his Epistle noteth that the 〈◊〉 Iohn 2. 18. whole time of Antichrist was but a part of the last howre 10. And further whereas the Papists obiect in respect of the time that Antichrist is not yet come because the Romane Empire is not yet dissolued and consequently that the Pope is not Antichrist it may notwithstanding euidently be shewed out of the same chapter of the Apocalypse compared with the Apoc. 17. euent both that the Empire is dissolued and that Antichrist is already come For the Empire is then knowen to be dissolued when it is diuided among ten who shall haue receiued power as kings as Iohn noteth the fathers teach the Papists themselues confesse But it is most certaine that the old Empire of of Rome is diuided among ten kings at the least who before the dissolution had not soueraigne authority and that the Empire which now is being but a title and contayning no such kingdomes is not capable of such a partition And that Antichrist also is come it is as euident For those ten hornes which in the Apostles time had not receiuèd the kingdome nor soueraigne authority but were gouernours of the prouinces by deputation froÌ„ the Emperour were after the
worth yet he was content to make a flourish with it because he had some of the Fathers to father it vpon Afterwards he commeth nearer to the purpose and saith that Caluin as some of the Fathers before him to wit Cyprian and Ierome affirmeth and so doth Bellarmine himselfe else where that Daniel speaketh of Antiochus Epiphanes who was a type of Antichrist Therefore leauing his former hold he reasoneth thus Such as is the type or figure such is the thing figured Antiochus the type was but one singular person therfore Antichrist that is figured is but one The proposition is to be vnderstood of the proportion and likenesse onely in those things in respect whereof the type is a figure and not generally in all things As for example the High-priest was a type or figure of Christ but therefore it doth not follow that there was but one High-priest because Christ is one The Papists holde that Melchisedec who was but one was a type of their Masse Priests which are many Iosuah Dakid and Salomon were types of Christ but therefore not like vnto him in all things So Antiochur may not vnfitly be said to haue beene a type of Antichrist because as Pharaoh was a type of other tyrants which oppressed the Church of God so he in falshood deceit pride idolatry cruelty and persecuting of the Church of God resembled Antichrist the man of sinne which is an enemie and is listed vp about all that is called God or that is worshipped In which respects Antiochus was so fit a type of Antichrist that R. Leui Gerson alledged by Bellarmine in the end of the 12. chap. applieth whatsoeuer is spoken of him Dan. 7. 11. to the Pope of Rome If therefore you vnderstand the proposition generally it is false if particularly the whole argumentation is a fallacion 8. His fift testimonie is Apoc. 13. 17. For these places are to be vnderstood of Antichrist as Irenaeus teacheth and as it is plaine by the likenesse of the words in Daniel and Iohn c. His reason is thus framed If Daniel spake of one King then also Iohn but the former is true therefore the later The proposition wherin there is indeed no coherence he prooueth by the similitude of their words First because both make mention of ten Kings which shal be in the earth when Antichrist shall come It is true that both make mention of ten hornes but with such difference as that otherwise there is no likenesse Antiochus in Daniel by whom Bellarmine would haue vs to vnderstand Antichrist is the last of the ten not one besides the ten otherwise the fourth beast were a beast of eleuē hornes Antichrist is one besides the ten hornes in the Reuelation and of Bellarmine somtimes is called the eleuenth Bellarmines Antichrist in Daniel is the little horne signifying indeed but one man but the true Antichrist in the Reuelation is called not an horne but the beast whereby not one man but a state is signified The ten hornes in Daniel are so many kings which succeed one another in the kingdome vsurped ouer the Iewes before the cōming of the Messias the ten hornes in the Reuelation are so many rulers ouer diuers kingdomes which receiue their kingdome together not only after the incarnatiō of Christiō but also after the dissolutiō of the Roman Empire So that in truth nothing is here alike saue that in both there is mention of ten hornes Secondly saith Bellarmine both of them foretel that the kingdome of Antichrist shall continue three yeares and an halfe But I answer that neither of both assigne that time to Antichrist For first Daniel assigneth a time and times and parcell of time that is three yeers and ten daies to the persecution vnder Antiochus wherby the publick worship of God was for that time interrupted viz. from the 15. day of the month Casleu in the 145. yeare of the kingdome of the Seleucidae See Chap. 16. 1. Mac. 1. 57. vnto the 25. of the month Casleu in the yeare 148. 1. Mac. 4. 52. But of this more hereafter Neither doth Iohn any where assigne three yeers an halfe to the raigne of Antichrist but to the beast with seuē heads ten hornes which signifieth the Roman state either generally as it is opposed vnto Christ or particularly as it was gouerned by the sixt head that is the emperors he assigneth fortytwo Apoc. 11. 2. 7. and 13. 1 5. months which are not literally to be vnderstood Now Antichrist is not the beast with seuē heads but one head of the seuē is described vnder the second beast as our aduersaries also confesse which in plaine terms is called another beast For how can he be that beast if he be another Apoc. 13. 11. And of this also I shal haue better occasiō to speake more fully hereafter Lastly he flieth to the authority of the fathers as his last refuge but neither do these fathers expresly say that Antichrist shal be See Chap. 8. but one man neither if they did can any sound argument be drawne from their testimonies vnlesse Bellarmine be able to prooue that whatsoeuer these fathers haue written concerning Antichrist is true And againe diuers of the Fathers as Irenaeus Origen Chrysostome Ierome Ruffinus Primasius Augustine expounding that place Math 24. 24. which speaketh of more then one as spoken of Antichrist they could not vnderstand Antichrist to be but one Yea but the Fathers say that Antichrist shall be a most choise instrument of the Diuell that in him shall dwell all the fulnesse of diuellish malice bodily euen as in the man Christ dwelleth the fulnesse of the diuinitie corporally But although this allegation were true as I will not thereof dispute yet is it impertinent for the Pope meaning the whole succession of Antichristian Popes may be a notable instrument of the diuell c. and yet hereof it followeth not that there hath beene but one Pope As touching the other assertion of Antichrists raigne three yeares and a Chap. 8. halfe we are hereafter to intreate 9. Now that Antichrist is not one singuler man but a whole state and succession of men it may appeare by these arguments First by conference of 2. Thes. 2. with the Epistles of Iohn for Iohn plainely 1. Ioh. 4 3. 2. Iohn 7. 1. Ioh. 2. 18 saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antichrist of whom they had hard that he should come was in his time And of whom had they heard it but of Paul in the 2. Thes 2. where in like sort the Apostle saith that euen in his time the mysterie of iniquitie that is Antichristianisme was working noting that Antichrist in some of his members was already come although he were not reuealed vntill that which hindered was taken out of the way Now as Paul and Iohn doe both testifie that the Antichrist was in their time so Paul also sheweth that Antichrist shall remaine vnto the second comming of Christ
this interpretatioÌ„ is signified by Apostasie doth not signifie one man but the whole body and company of those that doe reuolt that is the whole body and kingdome of Antichrist which we haue prooued to be the Apostaticall Church of Rome And so Augustine whom Bellarmine alledgeth in the very same place which he citeth reading in the concrete nisi venerit refuga primum vnlesse the Apostate first come and expounding what is meant by De ciuit Dei lib. 20. cap. 19. the temple not the temple at Ierusalem but rather the Church of God because the Apostle would not call the temple of the diuell the temple of God propoundeth the opinion of some which hee doth not mislike Vnde nonnulli non ipsum principem c. Whereupon some vnderstand in this place not the Prince himselfe but his whole body as it were that is the company of men pertaining vnto him together with their Prince to be Antichrist and they thinke that it might more rightly be said in Latine as it is in the Greeke that he sitteth non in templo dei sed in templum dei not in the Temple of God but as the Temple of God as though he were the Temple of God which is the Church Which as hath beene shewed notably sitteth the Pope and Church of Rome And here we are by the way to note whereas Bellarmine saith that Antichrist shall be such a notable Apostate as that he may be called the Apostasie it selfe that seeing none can be an Apostate which hath not beene a Christian by this assertion therefore of Bellarmine Antichrist shall not be a Iew but a backslyding and reuolted Christian 16. Secondly he saith by Apostasie we may vnderstand a reuolt from the Romane Empire as many of the Latin fathers doe expound To omit the dissension of the fathers which prooueth that their exposition can be no good rule of interpreting the Scriptures we doe confesse that before the manifest reuelation of Antichrist there was to go noâ—… onely a defection from the faith but also a reuolt from the Romane Empire But as the reuolting from earthly kingdomes is neuer in the Scriptures termed Apostasie so is it not here signified but as the word elsewhere is vsed and by the most and best writers here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a falling away from God a defection or departure from the true faith as heretofore I haue shewed Augustme saith quem refugam vocat vtique a domino Deo whom he calleth a Lib. 20. cap. 19. §. 2. runnagate namely from the Lord God Neither can it be denied but that this Apostasie is that which afterward the Apostle calleth the mystery of iniquity which was working in and by the heretiques of those times whom also Bellarmine calleth the forerunners of Antichrist because they peruerted the faith and therefore the defection caused by Antichrist is an Apostasie from the faith according to the prophesies of the Apostle that in these latter times diuers should make an Apostasie 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. Tim. 4. 4. from the faith and should turne away their hearing from the truth and shal be turned vnto fables 17. Thirdly although we should grant saith he that by Apostasie is to be vnderstood a defection or reuolt from the true faith and religion of Christ yet it is not necessary that it should be an Apostasie of many yeares For it may be that the Apostle speaketh of one great Apostasie which shal be onely in that most short time of Antichrists raigne that is of three yeares and a halfe But this bare ghesse of Bellarmine ought not to be of so great waight with vs as the plaine speech of the Apostle compared with the euent And therefore it is but vaine to tell vs what might be seeing we haue seene the contrary to be which the Apostle foretold should be For as the Apostle tolde vs that there should be an Apostasie so he saith that the mysterie of iniquity whereby many were seduced did worke already euen in his time and insinuateth that it should worke vntill the full reuelation of Antichrist And the euent hath shewed how by degrees this Apostasie hath bin wrought euen from the primitiue Church vntill it came to that height wherein it continued vntill Antichrist began to be acknowledged And surely as this generall Apostasie could not grow at once but by degrees so can it not be abolished at once but by degrees and therefore was not like to be an Apostasie of three yeares and an halfe onely Neither is it credible that by one man the greatest part not onely of Christians but also of the Iewes should be seduced in three yeares and an halfe seeing Christ in the like space of time could not as he was a man and minister of the circumcision conuert many of the Iewes notwithstanding that his doctrine was more effectuall and his miracles more admirable then those of Antichrist can be yea the Apostlès some other of the disciples who for so long time scarce went out of Iewry were able to preuaile but with a few of the Iewes in coparison of those which reiected their doctrine And shall wee thinke that Antichrist who as the Papists hold shal be but one man shall in three yeers an halfe seduce the remnant of the Iewes and al the visible Church of God dispersed into so many parts of the world And wheras he alledgeth Augustine as a fauourer of this ghesse therein he abuseth the authority of that learned father to seduce the ignoraÌ„t who onely deliuereth the Iudgement of others concerning the mysterie of iniquity that to this effect That the mystery of iniquity worketh in De ciuit Dei lib. 20. cap. 19. euill men in the Church and counterseit Christians when as they reuolt from the truth and that vnto this mystery belongeth the reuolting of those of whom S. Iohn speaketh They went out from vs but 1. Ioh. 2. 19 were not of vs c. And that this mystery should stil worke that is that vnsound men in the Church should more and more reuolt vntill they make a sufficient number for Antichrist But there is neuer a word of this defection caused either by one man or in so short a time but rather the contrary as hath beene shewed 18. Fourthly he answereth that although it should be granted that this Apostasie is of many ages which he saith cannot well be denied seeing th'apostle saith it began to worke in his time yet it is not necessary that it should appertaine to one body vnder one head neither that it appertaineth to the kingdome of Antichrist but rather is a disposition thereunto happening in diuers dominions vpon undry occasions c. But this fourth answer is ouerthrowne by the first wherein this Apostasie was made so proper to Antichrist as that by it Bellarmine thought we might most fitly vnderstand Antichrist himselfe or rather as we shewed the whole body
or full growth in Gregorie the seauenth in whose time and in all ages since the Pope hath been by some acknowledged to be that Antichrist 3. Now as touching his comming or birth which is the chiefe matter in question all agree Illyricus and the other writers 2. of the Centuries as Bellarmine coÌ„fesseth hold that about the yeare 606. Antichrist was borne when Phocas granted to the Bishop of Rome that he should be called the head of the whole Church Of the same judgement is Chytraeus For although he 3. confesse that the smoake of false doctrine ascending out of the In Apoc. 9 bottomlesse pitte began sooner to obscure and darken the truth yet he saith that in the yeare 607 Boniface the third was by Phocas ordained the Angell of the bottomlesse pit meaning thereby Antichrist when he receiued from him the title of oecumenicall Bishop Luther perceiuing that the Papacie consisteth of 4. the two swords teacheth that there is a two-fold comming of De supput annorum Mundi Antichrist the first with the spirituall sworde after the yeare 600. when Phocas gaue him the Antichristian title the latter with the temporall sworde after the yeare 1000. Bullinger doth not say as Bellarmine falsely chargeth him that Antichrist first 5. appeared Anno 763. for he aboue all others most plainely and In Apoc. 13. distinctlie hath deliuered that truth which we doe hold Pontisex Romanus saith he initium quidem dominij jecit sub Phocá sub regibus Francorum fundauit regnum ampliauit autem sub Henricis et Fridericis confirmauit demum sub sequentibus aliquot regibus regnat nostro seculo ac praecedentibus aliquot The Pope of Rome laide the beginning of his dominion vnder Phocas vnder the French Kings he founded his kingdome vnder the Henries and Fredericks he enlarged it vnder some other Kings which followed he confirmed it bereigneth in our and some former ages Musculus whom he nameth in the sixt place dooth not say that Antichrist 6. came about the yeare 1200 but by the tyrannie of the Popes and vsurped dominion ouer the Church by their shamelesse symony by their excessiue riote and diuellish pride by their abominable lusts and vncleannesse he concludeth that the Church of Rome is Babylon and the seat of Antichtist and addeth that Bernard was of the same minde Who seemeth to haue signified that Antichrist was then come and that onely it remained that the man of sinne should be reuealed that is acknowledged and detected as Musculus vnderstandeth him which discouerie of Antichrist saith he hath followed in our age And thus you see a notable consent of all our writers whom he alledgeth in the maine point concerning the time of the comming of Antichrist 4. Now let vs see what he objecteth against this receiued truth Concerning the time of his comming with the spirituall sword he objecteth that Phocas did not giue the title of vniuersall to the Pope but called him the head of the Churches as Iustinian before him had done and also the councell of Chalcedon And therefore no reason why the comming of Antichrist should be placed in the time of Phocas As touching the title good authours affirme that he receiued from Phocas both the title of the head of the Church and also of vniuersall or oecumenicall Bishop And no doubt he sought for and by suite obtained that which Iohn of Constantinople had before claimed Neither is there any great difference betwixt these two titles as they are now giuen to the Pope saue that to be the head of the vniuersall Church is the more Antichristian stile And although titles of honour and preheminence were sometimes giuen to the Church of Rome as the chiefe or head of the Churches the mystery of iniquitie working before the reuelation thereof in the Papacie yet before this graunt of Phocas which was obtained with much adoe and contention the Church of Rome had the preheminence and superioritie ouer all other Churches excepting that of Constantinople not in respect of authoritie and jurisdiction which after this graunt it more and more practised but in respect of order and dignitie And that for this cause especially because Rome whereof he was Bishop was the chiefe citie as it is specified in the councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the councell of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And for the same cause was the Patriarch of Constantinople sometimes * Concil Chalced. matched with him sometimes ‖ Tempore Maâ—…itii preferred aboue him because Constantinople which they called new Rome was become the imperiall seate Yea and the Bishops of Rauenna because their city was the chiefe in the exarchate of Rauenna whereunto Rome was for a time subject stroue with the Bishop of Rome in the time of the exarches for superioritie Seeing therefore that now the Pope of Rome had with great contention and ambition obtained the supremacie and soueraigntie ouer the vniuersall church and now intituled himselfe the head of the vniuersall Church a title peculiar vnto Christ the head I say not onely in respect of excellencie and dignitie as a chiefe member of the Church as he had beene in former times by some acknowledged because he was the Bishop of the chiefe citie but also in respect of authoritie and Iurisdiction as beeing the prince and supreme gouernour of the Church vniuersall we doe therefore worthily call this soueraigne dominion challenged ouer the vniuersall Church the first reuelation or open comming of Antichrist 5. Concerning the comming of Antichrist with the temporall sworde after the yeare 1000. he obiecteth that from the 700. yeare the Pope had receiued teÌ„porall dominion that about the yeare 715. he excommunicated the Greeke Emperour c. But Bellarmine knoweth well enough that we speake not so much of the Popes temporall dominion ouer those parts which they call the patrimonie of Saint Peter but of that which they call and challenge to themselues Utriusque potestatis temporalis spiritualis Monarchiam The Monarchie of both powers temporall and spirituall I answer therefore that the Pope indeed had a temporall dominion before but not generall and that he had long endeuoured to get the superioritie ouer the Emperours but neuer so fully attained vnto it as in the times of Gregorie the seauenth and afterwards For Gregorie the seauenth as Auentinus saith Primus imperium pontificium condidit c. First founded the Papall Annal. Bâ—…cm lib. 5. Empire which his successours saith he reckoning vnto his owne times for these 450. yeares in spight of the world and maugre the Emperours haue so held that they haue brought all in heauen and hell into subjection From this time forwarde the Emperour is nothing but a bare title without substance c. And thus haue I answered whatsoeuer is in his third Chapter pertinent to the matter in hand omitting as my maner is his other wranglings as being either altogether impertinent or meerely
personall The 4. Chapter maintaining against Bellarmine his first demonstration that Antichrist is come 1. TO prooue that Antichrist is not yet come and consequently that the Pope is not Antichrist he bringeth sixe slender conjectures from sixe signes which as shall be shewed are neither proper nor necessarie And these by a strange kinde of Logicke he calleth forsooth sixe demonstrations For so haue I read of some troubled with melancholie who haue thought euery Strawe or small Reed in their hands to haue beene so many Speares We must know saith he that the holy Ghost in the Scriptures hath giuen vs sixe certaine signes of the comming of Antichrist Whereof two goe before viz. the preaching of the Gospell throughout the whole world and the desolation of the Romane Empire Two accompanie Antichrist to wit the preaching of Enoch and Elias and the most grieuous persecution of the church insomuch that the publicke seruice of God must wholy cease Two come after namely the ruâ—…e of Antichrist after three yeares and a halfe and the end of the world Of which signes none saith he is yet fulfilled We hold the contrary namely that all those signes which the holy Ghost hath giuen concerning the comming of Antichrist are fulfilled and that those which are not yet fulfilled are none of those signes which the holy Ghost hath assigned For I will not stand now to tell you how fitlie he maketh the death of Antichrist and the end of the world which according to Bellarmines conceit followeth after his death to be two signes of his comming 2. The first signe which goeth before the comming of Antichrist is the Preaching of the Gospell throughout the world From whence he reasoneth thus If the Gospell hath not as yet beene preached throughout the world then is not Antichrist as yet come But the Gospell hath not as yet beene preached throughout the world therefore Antichrist is not yet come But in this argument nothing is sound no necessitie of consequence in the proposition nor truth in the assumption The proposition notwithstanding he would prooue because our Sauiour Christ maketh this vniuersall preaching of the Gospell a fore-runner of Antichrist Mat. 24. 14. This Gospell of the kingdome shal be preached in all the world for atestiâ—…onie to all nations But our Sauiour Christ doth not say that the Gospell shall be preached throughout the world before the comming of Antichrist but before the end as it followeth in the very same verse and then the end shall come Whereby we are to vnderstand either the destruction of Jerusalem which is most like or the end and consummation of the world as Bellarmine expoundeth it And therefore vnlesse he take it for granted that the comming of Antichrist shall not be before the very end of the world which we do constantly denie as being the matter in question betwixt vs there is not so much as any shew of reason in this allegation being vnderstood according to his owne exposition which also is false Neither is it the purpose of our Sauiour Christ to signifie vnto his Disciples the time of Antichrists comming but by way of answer to the question propounded by his Disciples verse 3. to shew them when Ierusalem should be destroyed as also to giue them some signes of his comming and of the end of the world But because the former part of this Chapter is diuershe abused by the Papists in this matter concerning Antichrist I thinke it needfull by way of a short analysis to giue you the true meaning thereof that by one labour all their cauils may be refuted 3. Whereas therefore our Sauiour Christ had foretolde his Disciples the vtter desolation of Ierusalem and destruction of the temple they being perswaded that the temple and citie of Ierusalem should not haue an end before the end of the world demand therfore of our Sauiour Christ when should be the end of both Tell vs say they vers 3. when these things shal be that is when the temple shall be destroyed what shal be the signe of thy coÌ„ming of the end of the world Which questioÌ„ hauing two parts receiueth an answer to both To the former concerning the destruction of Ierusalem from the 4. vers to the 23. To the latter concerning the comming of Christ and the end of the world from thence to the 42. As touching the former our Sauiour prophecieth first of the calamities and troubles which should go before the destruction of Ierusalem vnto the 15. verse And secondly of the destruction it selfe and the greeuousnesse thereof vnto the 23. The troubles and calamities which were the forerunners of the destruction of Ierusalem were either temporall or spirituall The temporal either publique and common or peculiar to the disciples of Christ among the Iewes The publique warres and rumors of warres famine pestilence earthquakes which were but the beginning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of sorrowes in the land of Iewry being about to be deliuered of her inhabitaÌ„ts verse 6. 7. 8. The peculiar troubles to the Christians persecution and hatred for Christs sake and the effects thereof in the vnsound falling away and betraying and hating one another verse 9. 10. The spirituall in the teachers spirits of errour and heresie vers 5. 11. In the heaters seduction by false Prophets and falling away verse 11. 12. Now vnto this Prophesie are admixed both admonitions and consolations Admonitions that they should take heed of false Prophets verse 4. that they should not be troubled or dismaide with rumors of warres verse 6. Consolations grounded vpon a two-folde promise first of saluation to those who notwithstanding these temptations shall perseuere to the end verse 13. Secondly of the successe of their Ministery that before the desolation of Ierusalem the Gospell should be preached throughout the world for a testimonie to all nations verse 14. And therefore that they should not feare least together with Ierusalem his Church should bee ouerthrowne For before the destruction of Ierusalem he would by their Preaching to all nations both Iewes and Gentiles plant his Church in many nations of the world And for asmuch as the Temple and Citie of Ierusalem were types and figures of the Church of Christ which were to be abolished when the church of Christ should be established therefore he addeth that vpon the planting of his church by their ministery should the end and destruction of Ierusalem come And these were the calamities which went before the destruction of Ierusalem The destructioÌ„ it selfe is described partly by the efficient foretold by Daniel chap. 9. 27. that is to say the Romane armies besieging Ierusalem Luke 21. 20. which because they were Idolators are called Sic Augustine ad HesychiuÌ„ et Chrysost homil 49. in Mat. oper imperfect abominable and because of the desolation which they were to bring vpon Ierusalem are called desolators and by a metonymy Mat. 24. 15. the abomination of desolation and by a Synecdeche Dan. 9. 27. abominable wings that
the answering in his fourth Chapter 6. For to what purpose should I tell you of his argument which notwithstanding he saith it was now no time to prooue to wit that before the comming of Antichrist the Gospel should be preached throughout the world because the cruel persecutioÌ„ of Antichrist should hinder al publicke exercises of trus religion therfore was to be preached generally throughout the world either before the time of Antichrist or not at al which we shall in part finde time to answer in his fourth demonstratioÌ„ In the mean time we answer first that the greeuous tribulation before which our Sauiour saith the Gospel was to be preached in al the world is not the persecution vnder Antichrist but the affliction of the Iewes at and before the destruction of Ierusalem by the Romanes as I haue manifestly prooued And secondly that if the generall preaching of the Gospell were made a signe of Antichrists comming as it is not but of the end yet is it not necessary that it should be preached generally throughout the world at one time for it might suffice that in one age it were preached to one nation and in another age to another people And therefore although during the persecution of Antichrist the Gospell were not preached generally and at once to all nations yet in that time it might be preached to some nations where it had not formerly beene preached and therefore might be preached to all nations before the destruction of Antichrist though it were not before his comming Or to what end should I spend any time in answering the testimonies of the fathers who supposed that the Gospell should be preached in all the world before the comming of Antichrist seeing according to the meaning of our Sauiour Christ it was to be preached in al the world before the destruction of Ierusalem Or what account should we make of his obiections wherein he alledgeth that the Gospel hath not as yet beene preached throughout the world seeing our Sauiour who cannot he hath prophecied and the Apostle by the same spirit of truth hath testified that before the destruction of Ierusalem the Gospell of the kingdome was preached in all the world And therefore the Papists in this point whiles they study to contradict vs are not afraide to giue the lye to our Sauiour Christ. Neither are his cauillations wherby he indeuouteth to auoide elude those testimonies of Scripture which doe testifie that the Gospell was in the Apostles times preached in all the world worth the mentioning For whereas Paul saith No doubt their souÌ„d went out through all the earth their words into the ends Rom. 10. 1â—… of the world Bellarmine cauilleth that the Apostle vseth the time past insteed of the future as if he had said no doubt their sound shal goe through all the earth But say I the Apostle prooueth that the Iewes had heard the Gospel because the sound of the Preachers thereof was gone through all the earth and therefore they from whom the Gospell proceeded to other nations could not be ignorant thereof And againe whereas the same Apostle saith that the Gospell in his time was in all the world and addeth that Col. 1. 6. it did bring forth fruite euen as it did among the Colossians Bellarmine answereth that the Apostle would not say that it was actually but virtually as they say in all the world But how could it bring forth fruite vnlesse it were actually and besides the Apostle in the same Chapter saith the Gospell had been preached 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod agit est non solum actu primo sed etiam actu secundo Col. 1. 23. to euery creature vnder heaueÌ„ which is a more large speech then this prophesie of our Sauiour Mat. 24. 14. To conclude if by the end in that place is to be vnderstood the end of the world as Bellarmine will needs haue it contrary to the text yet the Gospell before the and might be preached throughout the world and yet not before the comming of Antichrist If by the end is to be vnderstood the end of Ierusalem as I haue manifestly prooued then according to our Sauiours prophesie the Gospell was preached in all the world in the Apostles times But that the generall preaching of the Gospell should be a signe of Antichrists comming the Scripture hath neuer a word The 5. Chapter maintaining against Bellarmine his second demonstration that Antichrist is already come 1. THe second signe going before Antichrist is as Bellarmine saith he vtter desolatioÌ„ of the Romane Empire From whence this demonstration is raised If the Roman Empire be not yet vtterly destroyed then is not yet Antichrist come for the vtter desolation of the Romaine Empire is a certaine signe going before his comming But the Roman Empire is not yet vtterly destroied therfore Antichrist is not yet come We coÌ„fesse that before antichrist could be reuealed by exercising a soueraigne dominion in Rome it was necessary that the Emperour so farre forth as he hindred this reuelation of Antichrist should be taken out of the way But that there should be such an vtter desolatioÌ„ of the Empire as that there should not remaine so much as the name of the Emperor or king of the Romans that we doe vtterly dony He that hindred was taken out of the way partly when the imperiall seate was remooued from Rome to Constantinople and that to this end as they haue set downe in the donation of Constantine that the City of Rome might be left to the Pope but especially when as after the diuision of the Empire into two parts the Empire in the West which properly was the Empire of Rome was dissolued and lay voyde for many yeares All which was accomplished before Boniface 3. attained to the Antichristian title Neither doth the reuiuing of the Westerne Empire in Charlemaine after it had bin voide 325. yeares hinder the reuelation or dominioÌ„ of Antichrist but rather proueth that Antichrist was then come For this new Empire erected by the Popes meanes it is the image of the beast that is of the old Empire which Antichrist Apoc. 13. the second beast causeth to be made putteth life therinto It is the beast wheron the whore of Babylon sitteth therfore is so far froÌ„ hindring Antichrist that it supporteth him This beast which was an imperiall state but is not indeed though in title it be as being but an image of the old Empire is said to be the eight head of the beast yet one of the seuen wheras Antichrist Apo. 17. by the confessioÌ„ of papists is the seueÌ„th Wherfore although the old Empire in the West which hindred was done out of the way and indeed dissolued before the reuelation of Antichrist yet euen with and vnder Antichrist there was to be an imperial state in name and title which is the beast whereon the whore of Babylon sitteth as I haue heretofore prooued Lib. 1.
were his groud-worke he buildeth three conclusions as you shall heare after we haue also considered of his assumption The assumption he proueth by experience as though it did testifie that the publicke seruice of God had not beene taken away vnder the Pope 〈◊〉 the sacrifice of Christians ceased But if by the publicke seruice of God he meaneth his true worship and seruice in spirit and truth assuredly it hath beene taken away in the Papacy except will-worship superstition and Idolatry be the true worship of God As touching Christian sacrifices we acknowledge the sacrifice of praise the sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart the Heb. 13. 15 Psal. 51. 17 Rom. 12. 1. Heb. 13. 16. sacrifice of obedience wherein we offer our selues the sacrifice of almes wherby we offer our goods these sacrifices no Antichrist can wholy take away As for the sacrifice of the masse we holde it to be a moâ—…strous abomination wherein the holy sacrament of the Lords supper is turned into an abominable Idoll Seeing therfore there is no soundnesse of truth either in the proposition or assumption must we not needes thinke that the question in hand is soundly concluded And yet vpon these grounds Bellarmine doth not only infer the question in hand but two more also From hence saith he three things may be gathered First that Antichrist is not as yet come becà use the daily sacrifice yet continueth He might as well haue concluded with the Iewes that Christ is not yet come for he was to abolish the daylie sacrifice Dan. 9. 27. partly by his owne sacrifice vnto which the shadowes of the Law were to giue place and partly by the ouerthrow of the temple in which and not elsewhere it was to be offered His second conclusion is that the Pope of Rome is not Antichrist but rather an aduersary vnto him seeing hee doth adore and maintaine this sacrifice which Antichrist is to abolish Nay rather by ordaining this propitiatory sacrifice and erecting a new priesthood to offer the same the Pope sheweth himselfe to be Antichrist For by this Priesthood Christ is denyed to bee our onely Priest by this Sacrifice his sacrifice on the Crosse is supposed not to be sufficient in this sacrifice the humanity of Christ as hath beene shewed is ouerthrowne and a God of bread set vp in his roome to be worshipped and adored In this sacrifice Christ alter a sort is made inferiour to euery masse-monger who as they can make their creatour by breathing out a few words hoc est corpus meum so when they haue made him in their conceit they offer him vp to God to be a sacrifice propitiatory both for the quicke and the dead His third conclusion is that the heretickes of this time aboue all others are forerunners of Antichrist because they desire nothing more then the ouerthrow of this sacrifice of the masse Nay rather as appeareth by the former answer they shew themselues the limmes of Antichrist who ouerthrowing the sacrament of the Lords supper which we haue reduced to the first institution seeke to vphold this masse and heape of all abominations and sacrilegious Idolatry And how are all these things prooued forsooth because Daniel hath prophecied that Antiochus was to take away for a time the daily sacrifice of the Iewes therefore Antichrist is not yet come therefore the Pope is not Antichrist therefore those that mislike the masse are forerunners of Antichrist And so with these three conclusions as it were so many roapes of sand he knitteth vp his fourth demonstration Chapter 8. Answering his fift demonstration concerning the terme of Antichrists raigne viz. 3. yeeres and a halfe 1. THere remaine two demonstrations as he calleth them proouing that Antichrist is not yet come taken from those signes which follow Antichrist to wit the death of Antichrist after three yeers an halfe and the end of the world Where Bellarmine teacheth vs not to looke for Antichrist vntill he be gone not to expect his comming vntill the world haue an end For if these be signes that Antichrist is not yet come as Bellarmine maketh them then may we argue now and so may argue euen vntill the end of the world Vntill Antichrist be dead and the world haue an end Antichrist commeth not but at yet may we say now and so may say vntill the end Antichrist is not dead neither as yet hath the world an end therefore as yet Antichrist is not come By this argument therefore you see how fitly these two signes are made the ground of two demonstrations that Antichrist is not yet come Now as touching the former Bellarmine reasoneth thus The fift demonstration viz. to proue that Antichrist is not yet come is taken from the continuance of Antichrist Antichrist shall not raigne but three yeeres and a halfe But the Pope hath raigned spiritually in the Church aboue 1500. yeerâ—…s neither can any be assigned that hath bene taken for Antichrist who hath raigned precisely three yeers and a halfe The Pope therfore is not Antichrist Wherefore Antichrist is not yet come His reason is thus to be resolued If neither the Pope be Antichrist nor any other who hitherto hath beene taken for Antichrist then is not Antichrist as yet come But neither the Pope is Antichrist nor any that hitherto hath beene taken for Antichrist therefore as yet Antichrist is not come Where you see by a circular disputatioÌ„ the Iesuit for want of better arguments bringeth the maine question namely whether the Pope be Antichrist as an argument to proue that Antichrist is not yet come and consequently that the Pope is not Antichrist The Pope is not Antichrist why because Antichrist is not yet come and why is not Antichrist yet come because the Pope is not Antichrist He may as well goe on for there is no end in a circle and why is not the Pope Antichrist because Antichrist is not yet come and why is not Antichrist yet come because the Pope is not Antichrist And thus Bellarmine as you see danceth in a round 2. But to come to the purpose how doth he prooue that neither the Pope is Antichrist nor any other that hath beene taken for Antichrist by this syllogisme Antichrist shall raigne but three yeeres and a halfe precisely but neither the Pope nor any other that hath beene taken for Antichrist hath raigned three yeers and a halfe precisely therefore neither the Pope is Antichrist nor any other that as yet hath bene taken for Antichrist The assumption which he might haue proued by a truth he chooseth to proue by a falsehood For whereas he might haue said and that truely that the Pope hath raigned spiritually in the church aboue 900. yeeres and therfore aboue three yeers a halfe he saith he hath raigned meaning an vniuersall raigne ouer the whole Church or else he proueth not his assumption aboue 1500. which is vntrue For he could not obtaine this vniuersall raigne before the yeere 607. But all the controuersie is
Bellarmine would prooue by the authority of Irenaeus as if he should haue said This name was not certainely knowne in Irenaeus his time therefore not in our time I deny the consequence Irenaeus liued before the fulfilling of this prophecie as himselfe professeth as the truth is for he liued aboue 1400. Non ante mul'um temporis pene sub nostro saeculo Iren. Lib. 5. yeeres agoe and as himselfe saith the reuelation was giuen to Iohn but a little before his age For it was giuen in the end of the first Century and he liued in the second and therefore it is more safe saith he to waite for the fulfilling of this prophecie then before hand to determine any thing For if the Lord would haue had this name knowne in Irenaeus his time he would haue made it knowne by Iohn himselfe to whom the reuelation was giuen But as before the fulfilling of this prophecie he saith this name was very obscure so he signifieth that after the fulfilling it should be more plaine And therefore that which he could but ghesse at in his time we may now define time hauing reuealed that trueth which vntill the prophecie was cleared by the euent lay hidde otherwise it shall be lawfull for men to reason from the authority of Irenaeus as Bellarmine doth euen vnto the end of the world But may we then reason thus this name was not knowne in Irenaeus his time therefore it shall neuer be knowne to what end was this prophecie giuen if it shall neuer be vnderstood Whereas therefore he vseth the arguments whereby Irenaeus prooueth that this name could not be knowne in his time to prooue that it cannot be knowne in our time he is ridiculous There are many names saith Irenaeus that haue this number therefore it is heard before hand to tell which is this name Againe if in Irenaeus his time God would haue this knowne he would haue reuealed it by Iohn 3. It is dangerous to define before hand his name for missing of his name we shall not know him when he commeth and therefore shall be in the more danger to be decoiued by him All this we grant But will Bellarmine needs be so ridiculous as to conclude In Irenaeus his time men were not able to tell which of those names that containe the number 666 is the name of the beast therefore 1400. yeeres after none shall be able to tell God would not have it knowne in Irenaeus his time therefore he will not haue it knowne now It was dangerous then before the fulfilling of the prephecie to define what this name should be therefore it is dangerous now when the prophecie is expounded by the euent to apply the one to the other And what doth he inferre hereuppon Therefore no doubt the Protestants who thinke the Pope to be Antichrist shal be deceiued of the true Antichrist when he commeth But blessed be God that hath already reuealed vnto vs the true Antichrist that knowing him we might auoyde him whereas vpon the Papists he hath sent strong illusions that they may beleeue lyes because they loued not the truth that they might be saued 2. Thes. 2. 11. 6. Againe he prooueth this name not to be knowne because there is great controuersie about it what it should be But by the same reason he may conclude that few points of religion are yet knowne because there be few concerning which there is no controuersie Notwithstanding as in other controuersies the trueth is knowne of those which are Orthodoxall howsoeuer others will not acknowledge it so I doubt not but that the trueth in this matter is knowne although some cannot and others will not as yet see it For seeing the hardest matter in this mystery is knowne it is not to be thought that the easier is hid or vnknowne especially seeing the knowledge of the one maketh the other euident The chiefe thing here to be considered is what this beast is For if the beast be knowne it will not be hard to tell what his name is especially if the number of the name be 666. The beast as appeareth by the whole context is as I haue shewed the former beast which without doubt figureth the Romane or Latine state The name of this beast is Romane or Latine If therefore this name in the learned tongues containe the number 666. and be such a name as he to whom all other notes of Antichrist doe agree shall enforce men to take vpon them then without doubt this is the name where of the holy Ghost speaketh but these properties agree to the name Latine or Romane For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew signifying Romane 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke signifying Latine and Romanus in Hebrew Characters doe containe the iust number 666. and are besides such names as Antichrist compelleth all men to take vpon them as hath beene shewed heretofore See Lib. 1. Chap. 8. 7. But let vs see what Bellarmine obiecteth against this truth Of those many reasons which we doe vse Bellarmine maketh choise of two as being the easiest to answer as his maner is and against them he argueth namely the conjecture of Irenaeus and the agreement of the number But besides these we produce three other arguments as you haue heard which together with Lib. 1. c. 〈◊〉 these make the matter euident It is true indeede that Irenaeus besides Latinus produceth two other names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and seemeth to prefer the latter of these before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But we build not vpon Irenaeus his authority but vpon those reasons whereon his conjecture is groūded which are two the one because it is the name of that kingdome which is figured vnder the former beast Apoc. 13. 7. whose authority Antichrist was to vsurpe the other because it containeth 666 his words be these But the name Lateinos also comprehendeth the number 666. et valde verisimile est and it is very likely For it is the name of that which most truely is called the kingdome For they are the Latines that now raigne Which in effect is as much as if he had said this name is very likely because it is a name containing 666. and is the name of the former beast spoken of Apoc. 13. 1. which figureth verissimum regnum that kingdome which most truely is called a kingdome that is the Latine or Roman state Yea but this coniecture saith Bellarmine which in Irenaeus his time was of some force now it is nothing worth for then the Latines bare the sway now they doe not For Antichrist as he shall be Potentissimus Rex 〈◊〉 most mighty king so without doubt he shal seize vpon the most mighty kingdoms Whereas therfore the kingdome of the Latines was in those times most mighty but now otherwise there was some likelyhood then that he might by subduing them be called Latinus but now there is no such probability I answere the name whereof Iohn speaketh
Paul that Christ hath loued thee or giuen himselfe for thee Gal. 2. 20. Must thou beleeue that Christ is thy Sauiour redeemer theÌ„ must thou beleeue that thou art redeemed by Christ and shalt be saued by him Must thou beleeue that thou hast redemption by Christ then must thou also beleeue that by him thou hast remission of sinnes Ephe. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. But this to beleeue without speciall and extraordinary reuelation is damnable presumption saith the Papist Therefore they professe Christ but they receiue him not Nay they are so farre from receiuing Christ by a lustifying faith that they might be saued that they haue not so much as the historicall faith which consisteth in knowledge of the truth assent thereto For the most of them haue no knowledge pleasing themselues in their implicite faith vnder which name grosse palpable ignorace is commended in the laitie of the church of Rome And the rest assent not to the truth but set themselues against it So that whereas all the faith which they professe themselues to haue is but that faith which is also in the diuels yet they haue not euen that little which they do professe But the Apostle saith Bellarmine speaketh in the pretertence which haue not receiued the loue of the truth c. not in the future therefore this speech cannot be vnderstood of any other but those who before the Apostle wrote this had refused to beleeue the preaching of Christ his Apostles that is to say the Iewes Answ. The Apostle speaking both of the sinne of the Antichristians and of their punishment which presupposeth their sin going before he expresseth their sin in the pretertence which is to be referred not to the time of the Apostles writing but to the time of their punishment Antichrist shal be receiued of those that perish But why shal they perish because they haue not receiued the loue of the truth c. But this appeareth more plainly ver 12. God shal send theÌ„ stroÌ„g illusioÌ„s to beleeue lies that al may be condemned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that haue not beleeued that is that shall not haue beleeued the truth Qui non crediderint veritati but haue delighted that is but shall haue delighted in iniquitie Sed acquieuerint in iniustitia Conferre with this place Mar. 16. 16. Goe preach the Gospell saith our Sauiour Christ to euery creature baptising them as it is in Mathew 28. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hâ—… that hath Qui crediderit bap tizatus sueâ—…it c. beleeued and hath beene baptised shall be saued that is shall haue beleeued and shall haue bene baptised but he that hath not beleeued that is shall not haue beleeued shall be condemned Otherwise if Bellarmine will needes vrge the pretertense as though the Apostle meant that Antichrist should bee receiued onely of those who before that time had reiected the truth he must with all hold that Antichrist shall be receiued in the end of the world of those who died aboue 1500. years since 8 To these testimonies of scripture he addeth the authoritie of diuers Fathers who supposed that Antichrist was to be receiued of the Iewes and accordingly expound the place alledged out of 2. Thess. 2. 10. 11. Ans. So they held that Antichrist should come of the Tribe of Dan accordingly expounded some places of scripture which no man now vnlesse he will be too ridiculous can vnderstand of Antichrist Therefore as Bellarmine in that point answered a whole dozen of Fathers so may I answere here with as good reason that although this opinion might seeme probable to the Fathers in their time liuing before the reuelation of Antichrist yet now there is no probabilitie in it seeing it cannot onely not be proued out of the scripture but as you heard is confuted both by the scripture and the euent 9 Let vs therefore in the third place consider his reason Antichrist shall without doubt ioyne himselfe first and chiefly to those who are readie to receiue him But the Iewes are readie to receiue him not the Christians nor the Gentiles therefore Antichrist first and principally shall ioyne himselfe to the Iewes First to the proposition I answere that Antichrist shall ioyne himselfe not to any whatsoeuer but to those in the Church that are readie to receiue him For as Cyprian truly noteth They be the seruants of Epist. 1. lib. 1. God whom the diuell troubleth and they are Christians whom Antichrist impugneth Neque enim quaerit illos quos iam subegit aut gestit euertere quos iam suos fecit For he seeketh not those whom he hath alreadie subdued or desireth to ouerthrowe those whom hee hath already made his owne the enemie aduersary of the church whome hee hath estraunged and kept foorth of the Church them he neglecteth and passeth by as captiues and ouercome those he assaulteth in whom he perceiueth Christ to dwell If therefore Antichrist be ledde by the spirit of Sathan then no doubt he shall passe by both Iewes Insidels set himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Thess. 2. 4. that is both in the Church of God and against it that the vnsound he may seduce and the sound he may persecute The assumption standeth on two parts 1. affirmatiue that the Iewes are readie to receiue Antichrist 2. negatiue that the Christians and Gentiles are not readie to receiue him The former hee proueth because the Iewes do yet looke for their Messias who shall be a temporall King such a one as Antichrist shall bee But this reason is built on false suppositions First that Antichrist shall be one particular man which we haue proued to be false Secondly that Antichrist shall professe himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes which as it hath bene disproued out of the scriptures so can it not with any colour of reason be proued out of the same For as hath bene shewed Antichrist is the head of the Catholike Apostasie or Apostate Christians sitting in BabyloÌ„ that is Rome professing her selfe the church of God being one of the seuen heads of the Romane state succeeding the â—…mperours in the gouernment of Rome c. Thirdly as Antichrist shall not be such a one as the expected Messias of the Iewes so there is no necessitie that there should such a one come to the Iewes as they expect The second part also of his assumption is false For although sound and constant Christians bee not readie to receiue Antichrist but alwayes haue bene readie to resist him euen vnto the death yet vnsound and back-sliding Christians who embrace not the loue of the truth that they might be saued either are as readie to receiue Antichrist as they are apt and prone to decline from the truth a searefull caueat to those which waxe wearie of the Gospell or alreadie haue reuolted from Christ to Antichrist haue receiued the marke of the beast Yea but Christians saith he doo not expect Antichrist as
may be called the church of God bicause once it was a true church and stil is in title professiō the church ofChrist although in truth it be but little more the church of Christ then Antichrists imaginary temple at Ierusalem would be the temple of God 5 His second syllogisme which is inferred vpon the former is this If the Pope sit in the true Church of God then the church of Rome is the onely true Church for the Church of Christ is one as Christ is one but the Pope sitteth in the true church of God as was proued in the former syllogisme therefore the church of Rome is the onely true church of Christ. First I answere to the proofe of his proposition The Catholike inuisible Church of Christ is one sheepfolde vnder one shepheard Christ but particular visible churches are more then one as the church of Corinth the church of Rome the seuen churches in the Apocalyps and all the Churches of the Gentiles mentioned Rom. 16. 4. and therefore the church of Rome although it were a true visible church yet were it but a particular church and therefore not the onely true church But now the church of Rome is not a true visible church of Christ but the whore of Babylon an adulterous and Idolatrous and Apostaticall church which once was Rome as Petrarch saith now Babylon once Bethel now Bethauen once the Church of Christ now the synagogue of Antichrist as hath bene proued And therefore there being no truth either in the proposition or the assumption I answere the proposition by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although the Pope did sit in the true church yet it followeth not that therefore the church of Rome is the onely true Church and the assumption by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Pope doth not sit in the true church and therefore there is no shewe of reason in this cauill 6 His third syllogisme is inferred vpon the second If the Church of Rome be the onely true Church then those which are not members of this Church whereof the Pope is head as namely the Protestants are out of the Church But now say I the church of Rome is so farre from being the onely true church as that it is that Babylon Apoc. 18. 4. from which we are commaunded to seperate if wee will bee saued there being no saluation in that Church for those that receiue and retaine the marke of the beast Apoc. 14. 9. therefore this also is a fond and sophisticall cauill Notwithstanding as the adulterous and apostaticall state of Israel vnder Ieroboam and Achab so the Church of Rome vnder the Pope may be called the church of God in respect both of some notes and signes of a visible Church as the administration of some sacraments and profession of the name of the Lord and also of some reliques and remainder as it were the gleanings of the inuisible Church In Israell although an Apostaticall and Idolatrous state the sacrament of circumcision was retained so in the church of Rome the sacrament of baptisme The church of Israel professed Iehouah to be their God although they worshipped him Idolatrously so the church of Rome professeth the name of Christ but exceedeth Israel in Idolatry In Israel euen vnder Achab the Lord had reserued 7000. who neuer bowed their knee to Baal and so we doubt not but that in the corruptest times of Popery the Lord hath reserued some who haue not receiued the marke of the beast And as the church of Sardis was still called the church of Christ although greeuously fallen from Christ because they still professed the name of Christ and retained no doubt the Sacrament of Baptisme and had among them some fewe names that had not defiled themselues so I confesse with Caluin that the church of Rome may be called a church of Christ both in respect of some vestigia and outward notes of a visible church as administration of Baptisme and profession of the name of Christ and some secret reliques of the inuisible church which haue not bowed their knees to Apo. 20. 4 Baal But that which is saide to the church of Sardis may most iustly be avowed to the church of Rome Thou hast a name that thou liuest but indeed art dead thou professest Apoc. 3. 1. thy selfe to be the church of Christ but art the synagogue of Antichrist thou art called the church of Rome which once was famous for her saith but art the whore of Babylon the Apo. 3. 4. mother of all the fornications and abhominations in the christian world 7 Heere Bellarmine obiecteth two things If there remaine in the church of Rome but ruines and reliques of a true church then the church may be ruinated and the truth hath lyed who saith that the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile against it Ans. The Catholike and inuisible church of Christ which is the whole company of the elect can neuer faile But visible and particular churches which consist of hypocrites many times and vnsounde christians which are in the visible church but are not of the inuisible as the greater part may faile and fall away although not one sound christian that 1. Ioh. 2. 19. is of the inuisible church doth fall away As the lamentable experience of the church of Israel seuered from Iuda the examples of Corinth Ephesus and many other famous Churches which were planted by the Apostles Againe saith Bellarmine If the Church be ruinated and the ruines remaine in Poperie then the Papists haue the Church although decayed and ruinated but the Protestants haue no Church not entyre for the entyre Church is ruinated not ruinated or decayed for the ruines are among the Papists What haue they then a new building which because it is new is none of Christs and therefore who seeth not that it is safer to liue in the church decayed then in no church at all But in this cauill there is not so much as any shew of reason vnlesse he take that for graunted which we do most confidently denie and they are neuer able to proue that the church of Rome not onely is the true church of Christ but also the onely true church For otherwise the church of Rome may fall and yet the Catholike church of Christ may stand yea shall stand maugre the force of Antichrist and malice of Sathan himselfe And as for the church of the Protestants it is no new building as Antichrist vaunteth but is a part of the Catholike church of Christ reformed and renewed according to the word of God and the example of the primitiue church euen as the Church of Iuda vnder Iosias was no new building but the olde frame as it was vnder Dauid renewed and reformed according to the lawe of God 8 The exceptions which he taketh against our arguments concluding that Rome is the seate of Antichrist I haue for the Lib. 1. cap. 2. most part taken away before It shall suffice therefore
he shall aduance himselfe against God against Christ our Sauiour list vp himself aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped yet he shall professe himselfe to be the seruant of Christ and a worshipper of God Fourthly the words of the text do not ascribe to Antichrist so great an extolling of himselfe as the Iesuit imagineth For first he is called a man of sinne sonne of perdition therfore we are to conceiue of such an aduancement of himselfe as is incident to a mortall wretched man SecoÌ„dly he is said to extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped By all that is called God we are to vnderstand all to whom the name of God is communicated as to Angels in heauen to kings and Princes on earth And of this aduancing aboue Kings we are the rather to vnderstand this place because afterwards it is said that the Romane Empire hindered Antichrists aduancing or reuealing himselfe And by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to vnderstand any thing which is worshipped as God or wherein God is worshipped Such in the Church of Rome are the Host the Crosse the Saints their Images reliques Aboue al which a man may aduance himselfe as the Pope doth and yet may acknowledge some other God besides himselfe Thirdly the greatest height of pride that is incident to any creature whatsoeuer is not to seeke to be aboue God for that cannot be imagined but to be as God And indeed the height of Antichrist his pride and aduancing of himselfe is noted in the words following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in so much that he shall sit in the temple of God as God Whosoeuer therefore being but a mortall man shall aduance himself aboue all that is called God worshipped insomuch that he shall sit in the temple of God as God that is ruleth in the church of Christ as if he were a God vpon earth he is to be deemed Antichrist that is aemulus Christi one that would faine be equall to Christ although he neither professe himselfe to be the onely God who onely is to be worshipped neither yet abolish all other worship of God both true and false And if in this sense this place do properly agree to the Pope as indeed it doth then can it not be auoided but that he is Antichrist 13 The second testimony which he alledgeth to prooue this fond conceit is Dan. 11. 37. neither shall he care for any of the Gods but shall rise against all I answere Daniel in this place speaketh not of Antichrist and he of whom he speaketh was an Idolater and therefore this allegation is altogether impertinent As touching the first it is euident that Daniel from the 21. verse of that chapter to the end doth most plainly properly describe Antiochus Epiphanes For howsoeuer in this place Bellarmine would proue by the authoritie of Ierome that these words are to be vnderstood of Antichrist not of Antiochus yet in another place when part of this verse is obiected Li. 3. ca. 21 by some protestants as sitting the Pope he telleth vs plainly that Daniel speaketh ad literamâ—… literally of Antiochus who was a figure of Antichrist Secondly hee of whom Daniel speaketh was an Idolater and establisher of Idolatry So farre was hee from professing himselfe to be the onely true God or suffering none to be worshipped besides himselfe For if he speake of Antiochus Epiphanes as most certainly he doth it may easily be proued both by Historie of the Machabees and by other stories that he was both an Idolater himselfe and an inforcer of Idolatry vpoÌ„ others See I. Maccab. 1. 50. 2. Mac. cab 6. 2. c. Polybius also testifieth that in sacrifices honouring the Graecian Gods he surpassed other Kings which went before him Apud Athenaeum as might appeare by the Olympiaeum at Athens and the Images about the altar at Delos This Ierome also auoucheth and Bellarmine confesseth But of whomsoeuer Daniel speaketh he doth plainly describe him in the next verse to be an Idolater Ver. 38. And it is a world to see what silly shiftes the Iesuit maketh to auoyd this truth For first he readeth the words thus And he shall honor the God Maozim in his place Secondly he omitteth the words following the God which his fathers knew not he shall honour with golde c. which most plainly specifie his Idolatry who is here described and busieth himselfe wholy in giuing a false interpretatioÌ„ to the god Maozim The God Maozim saith he signifieth either Antichrist himself and then the meaning is he shall honor himselfe that is cause himselfe to be worshipped or else it signifieth the diuel whom Antichrist being a sorcerer shall worship in secret which interpretation he preferreth before the other And therefore this place doth not proue that he which is here described shal be an Idolater 14 I answere first that although either of his interpretations of the God Maozim were true as neither is yet the one hindreth not and the other proueth that he which is heere described is an Idolater For let the word Maozim signifie what it may yet the words following plainly conuince the partie here described of Idolatry the God which his fathers knew not he shall worship with gold And if the God Maozim signifie any but the true God and if also the words are so to be read as Bellarmine readeth them And he shall honor the God Maozim and the God whoÌ„ his fathers knew not he shall worship with gold and siluer c. then by these words the Idolatry is encreased For first it is said that he shall worship the God Maozim according to Bellarmines reading whereby is not meant as he saith the true God nay he saith to make Christ the God Maozim Li. 3. ca. 21 it is intollerable blasphemy O therefore first in these words is signified an Idolater and secondly it is added that the God also which his fathers knew not hee shall worship where againe his Idolatry is most plainely noted 2. But indeede Bellarmines interpretation is meerely false and that which he inferreth therevpon altogether absurd The God Mahuzzim signifieth the God of fortitudes that is the most mightie or almightie God which title as it is proper to the Lorde as Ieremy calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iehouah my Iere. 16. 19 strength and fortitude And likewise Dauid Psal. 31. 5. so may it not be ascribed to any other And therefore it is a sencelesse imagination that Daniel by the God of fortitudes would signifie either Antichrist himselfe a wicked and wretched man or the father of Antichrist the Diuell And further as touching the former interpretation it seemeth to be absurd that when Daniel according to his reading saith he shal worship the God Maozim his meaning should be that Antichrist should worship himselfe as though he that worshippeth and hee that is worshipped were one and the same And theÌ„
writings before to be the scriptures Why then Ierome saith so vpon Daniel 11. 24. where Daniel speaketh of Antiochus his dealings in Egypt that he did that which his forefathers neuer did Nullus Iudaeorum absque Antichristo in tot◅ vnquam or be regnauit These be Bellarmines scriptures But where do the scriptures indeede say that Antichrist shall subdue seuen of the tenne Kings Nay the contrary may rather bee gathered out of the scriptures The tenne hornes whereof Daniel speaketh were tenne Kings which successiuely raigned ouer Iudaea as hath bene shewed And although Antiochus Epiphanes might helpe away three of his next predecessors yet hee could not hurt the other sixe for there were but nine besides himselfe which were all dead and gone before he came to yeares Yea but this opinion of the Fathers is plainely enough deduced out of Apoc. 17. 12. where we reade and the tenne hornes which thou sawest are tenne Kings these haue one minde and they shall giue their power and authoritie to the beast No maruell though some of the Papists call the scripture a nose of waxe seeing they can frame and fashion it at their pleasure and giue vnto it what sense they list Doth Iohn speake of Antichrist his either killing three or subduing seuen Or doth Iohn speake of the same tenne hornes wherof Daniel doth Daniel speaketh of tenne Kings which were to bee dead and gone before the comming of the Messias Iohn speaketh of such as in his time had not yet attained to their kingdome verse 12. Daniel speaketh of tenne Kings of the Seleucidae and Lagidae which succeeded one an other Iohn of tenne Kings among whom the Romane Empire was to be diuided who also were to haue their kingdome together with the beast Daniel telleth vs what the little horne which was one of the tenne should doo to three of the other nine without mention of the rest Iohn sheweth what all the tenne hornes should doo to Antichrist which is none of the tenne hornes but one of the heades of the beast If therefore Bellarmine can proue from hence that these are the same tenne hornes spoken of in Daniel and that Antichrist shall kill three of them subdue the other seuen he may hope to proue any thing But what other scriptures hath hee forsooth Chrysostome and Cyrill For Chrysostome on 2. Thess. 2. saith that Antichrist shall bee a Monarch and shall succeede the Romanes in the Monarchy as the Romanes succeeded the Greekes the Greekes succeeded the Persians and they the Assyrians And Cyrill saith that Antichrist shall obtaine the Monarchy Catech. 15 which was the Romanes I answere that for substance these Fathers held the truth For what Monarch hath there bene in the West these fiue or sixe hundred yeares besides the Pope who calleth himselfe King of Kings and Lorde of Lords to whom all power is giuen in heauen and in earth who hath as they say the double Monarchy both of spirituall and temporal power who forsooth is Lord of the whole earth in so much that he taketh vpon him authoritie to dispose of the new found world And that he succedeth the Emperors in the Alexand. 6. gouernment of Rome as it becommeth Antichrist who is the second beast Apoc. 13. and the 7. head of the beast Apoc. 17. whereof the Emperour was the sixt I shall not neede to proue 15 There remaineth the fourth argument Antichrist shall persecute with an innumerable army the Christians throughout the world and this is the battell of God and Magog but this agreeth not to the Pope therefore the Pope is not Antichrist I answere to the proposition that no such thing can be proued out of the scripture Hee alledgeth Ezech. 38. 39. Apoc. 20. 7. 8. 9. 10. But Ezechiel speaketh not of Antichrist nor of the persecution of the Christian Church by him But hauing foretold chapter 37. the restitution of the Iewes from the Babylonian captiuitie and also prophesied of the comming of Christ in those chapters hee foretelleth of the afflictions and troubles which the people of the Iewes should sustaine in the meane time to wit after their returne out of captiuitie before the comming of the Messias and withall denounceth the iudgemēts of God against the Seleucidae who were the kings of Syria and Asia minor and their adherents who should be the chiefe enemies of the church and people of the Iewes after their returne For Gog signifieth Asia minor hauing that name from Gyges the King thereof Magog is Hierapolis the chiefe seate of Idolatry in Syria built by the Scythians and frō them hath that name So that by the land of Magog wee are to vnderstand Syria and by Gog Asia minor And the rest of the peoples that Plin. lib. 5. cap. 23. are named in Ezechiel were such as assisted the Seleucidae who were the kings of Syria and Asia minor in their warres either as their subiects or as their friends or as their mercenary souldiers And for as much as the princes and people of Syria and Asia minor were the most grieuous enemies of the Iewes by Ad Tremell Iun. in Ezech 38. 39. whom they sustained the chiefest calamities after their returne before the comming of Christ therefore by an vsuall speech in the Iewish language the mortall and deadly enemies of the church are called Gog and Magog And in this sense Iohn the Diuine vseth these names Gog and Magog to signifie the enemies of the church meaning not the same enemies whereof Ezechiel speaketh but the like enemies of the Church which should afflict the true Christians as Gog and Magog afflicted the Iewes Neither doth Iohn in this place speake of the persecution of Antichrist properly but of Sathan after he was loosed his inciting the enemies of the Church to battell and of Gods iudgements against them signified by fire And so much shall suffice to haue answered to this argument For after so long a Treatise I will not trouble the Reader with the tenne seuerall opinions which Bellarmine reciteth cōcerning Gog and Magog neither yet with any further answere to his cauillations and exceptions against some of the arguments of diuers Protestants which he thought were more easie to answere seeing in the former booke I haue sufficiently cleared those arguments whereby the Pope is more euidently proued to be Antichrist neither is the controuersie betwixt vs whether euery argument that hath bene produced by euery one doth necessarily conclude the Pope to be Antichrist That discourse therefore being rather personall then reall I let it passe Chap. 17. Being the conclusion of the whole Treatise HAuing therefore both by sufficient arguments manifestly proued that the Pope is 1. Antichrist and by euidence of truth maintained the same assertion against the arguments of the Papists let vs now consider in the last place what conclusions may vpon this doctrine be necessarily inferred for our further vse For first if this be true that the Pope is Antichrist as