A TREATISE OF ANTICHRIST. CONTAINING The defence of Cardinal Bellarmine's Arguments, which invincibly demonstrate, That the Pope is not Antichrist. AGAINST M. GEORGE DOWNAM D. of Divinity, who impugneth the same. By Michael Christopherson Priest. THE FIRST PART. Si Patrem familias Beelzebub vocaverunt: quantò magis domesticos eius? Matth. 10. If they have called the Goodman of the house Beelzebub: how much more them of his household? Imprinted with Licence, M.DC.XIII. TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. MOST MIGHTY PRINCE, I HOPE it will not be deemed any presumption, but rather a just and necessary prevention, for me to offer this my Treatise concerning Antichrist to your Sovereign Majesty. Sure I am that it proceedeth from a loyal and dutiful mind desirous to avoid all occasion of offence, and ready to employ my best labours, yea my life itself in your majesties service. My adversary likewise hath provoked me hereunto who together with M. D. 〈…〉 powel have taken the same course with their disputations of the same subject. And though they may seem to have the better hand, by reason of your majesties education, and present profession: yet I want not reasons of encouragement, whereby I may be induced to hope and expect your majesties favourable patronage and protection. At least your Majesty giveth all men good leave, to dispute of this Controversy, by accounting the Protestants proofs but bare conjectures: yea promising to yield to the Truth, when it shallbe manifested by more forcible Arguments, and more probable Interpretations; which we have good cause of hope to see shortly performed, by the labours of so many learned men of foreign Nations, who have endeavoured to give your Majesty satisfaction in this kind. In the mean space, we cannot but highly extol this rare modesty in so great a Monarch; especially when we hear M. powel, and other such unlearned Upstarts protesting with full mouth, that they know as certainly, that the Pope is the great Disput. de Antichr. in initio. Antichrist, as that God is in Heaven, and jesus Christ our Saviour, and Redeemer. Certainly, it is strange, how any man could fall into a fit of such extreme, and impudent madness, were it not that God permitteth sometimes such excess of malicious folly, for the reclaiming of others misled and seduced by these erring guides and false Prophets. In which respect I have always thought this Question very profitable, and of great importance, to omit how necessary the discussion thereof may prove sooner than we are aware, in regard of the true, and great Antichrist himself; whose coming we have far more reason to expect in our days, than the Ancient Fathers had in theirs. Thus the divine Goodness always turneth evil into good, and maketh all things concur to the welfare of his Elect; and by this strange paradox and calumniation, preventeth and prepareth us against antichrist's coming, with an exact Discovery of his whole proceeding, and persecution: which whosoever considereth attentively, as it is laid down in the sacred Scripture, and declared by the holy Fathers, will easily perceive that hitherto the chiefest signs, and notes of Antichrist have not been fulfilled by any. So that indeed there can be no doubt, or question, whether he himself be come; only some controversy might be moved, which of his forerunners doth most resemble him. And in this also the matter may easily be decided; for who seethe not, that the false Mahomet draweth nighest unto him both in name and deeds? His name containing the number 666. which is by S. john assigned to Antichrist, and his impiety, enmity, and persecution against Christ, and Christians is notorious to the whole world. For which cause there have not wanted some, both Catholics, and See Pe●erius in Apoc. Protestants, who have persuaded themselves, that there is no other Antichrist to be expected. But these are evidently confuted by many invincible arguments. Notwithstanding this their error, though never so gross, may seem in some sort excusable because they impugn a certain, and manifest enemy. But what shall we say of those who take their mark so much amiss, that they make the chief visible Pastor of Christ's Church a member of Satan, yea Antichrist himself? Can any thing be more absurd, or intolerable? Is it possible, that any Christian would give Luther the hearing, when his proud spirit of contention, and contradiction made him first break forth into this open blasphemy? How did not Princes perceive, that this was the high way to all rebellion? Can they conceive or imagine, that Temporal Authority & jurisdiction would be regarded, where the chiefest spiritual power upon earth was thus impudently contemned, and trodden under foot? Can they trust to their Pedigrees, when they see the continual succession of 1500. years so lightly esteemed? What better Title can they pretend for themselves, than the express words of our Saviour, with which he established S. Peter, and his Successors? Your Majesty wisely observed, that unless In the conference at Hampton court. the Authority of Bishops were maintained, that of Princes could not stand: No Bishop, no King, saith your Majesty. And certain it is, that no lawful Bishop can be upholden against the Pope's Authority, to which all other spiritual jurisdiction is subordinate. Can any judge or Magistrate of the Realm be independent of your Majesty? This is so evident, that even the Puritans themselves, though otherwise never so blinded with malice against the Pope, could not choose but see it. For which cause they stick not to protest to all the world, that if the Prelates have the Truth (especially in this point) the Pope and the Church of Rome (and in them God, and Christ jesus himself) have great wrong and indignity offered unto them, in In the Christian and modest off●r etc. published anno 1606. pag. 16. that they are rejected, and that all the Protestant Churches are Schismatical in forsaking unity, and communion with them. Thus than it plainly appeareth that the Protestants, neither according to the Truth itself, nor in the Puritans judgement, can defend themselves, & their pretended Bishops, but by establishing the Pope, and Roman Church. And all the vehemency which they use against the Pope to prove him Antichrist, falleth upon themselves, who participate with him in admitting the Hierarchy of Bishops. And as for other proofs proper to Puritans, they are enforced to answer them as well as we; yea most of all these Arguments be such; as might very easily be turned against any lawful Prince whatsoever; and much more against such Protestant Princes, as besides their Temporal power make claim to spiritual jurisdiction. Let any discreet Reader reflect upon all particulars, and he will easily discern, that if Catholics had been no more moderate than Luther and other Protestants were, King Henry could not have entitled himself Head of the Church in spiritual, and Ecclesiastical affairs, without having the name of Antichrist applied, and appropriated unto him. For if such contumelious inferences be made against the Pope in great part, because he is supposed (though falsely) to arrogate more to himself in Temporal affairs, then of right he ought; how much more would the same imputation fall upon such a Prince, as did first usurp spiritual jurisdiction, without either example or other probable pretence? But I will not urge these odious inferences any further: your Majesty will easily conceive how far this project might be pursued. And by perusing this small labour of mine, which I now offer to your Majesty, it will manifestly appear, that we have evident, and invincible Arguments taken out of Scripture and all Antiquity, to free our chiefest Pastor, the Pope's Holiness, from this most absurd and false calumniation: and that whatsoever any Protestant can answer to these our proofs, is without any difficulty overthrown, and confuted. As likewise their railing invectives, and frivolous objections are presently dissolved, & returned upon themselves. All which considered, I account it no presumption to be an humble Suppliant to your most Excellent Majesty for some release and mitigation in the pressures, and persecutions which Catholics endure, under this pretence of the Pope's being Antichrist. For how can it possibly stand with justice or reason, that a lawful Prince should punish his loyal subjects for performing their duty to their spiritual and lawful Pastor? That Rebels should uphold Heretics, who are Traitors against God and his Church, it were no marvel, since they all agree in the impugnation of superior powers. And yet it is too notorious to the world, what Catholics suffer for their conscience in your majesties Dominions? what loss of livings, & liberty, yea sometime of life itself? How busy are Pursuivants in ransacking their houses, abusing their servants, and apprehending their persons? What insolencies and vexations are they constrained to endure? And to omit the generality, and severity of this persecution, from which neither frailty of sex, nor band of matrimony, nor Nobility of birth can exempt any; how many things lie hid and unknown, which would astonish and amaze the world if they were laid open to the view thereof? What prying and enquiring into men's secret actions; in somuch that even ordinary provision for the sustenance of nature, cannot be made without suspicion of Treason, as appeared not long since by the pot of pears, which were supposed to have been balls of wildfire. How many are beaten, and tormented even to death in private houses, without any public trial? Some Prentices in the City of London can give good testimony hereof. I might add such other particulars, as the rods kept in store by some of no small account, for young youths under twenty years, whom they use like scholars, thinking it not to be against their gravity to whip them privately with their own hands. But I will not offend your majesties ears with the recital of such base, and unworthy actions. Only I will humbly beseech our Blessed Saviour to move your majesties heart to take pity and compassion of these abuses, by giving present Order for the redress, and reformation of so much, as your Majesty already misliketh, which we hope to be the greatest part. And for the rest, we only crave this favour, that we may be spared, until we be heard: for we nothing doubt, but that if your Majesty would once resolve to inform yourself thoroughly of the truth, God would not be wanting to our just desires, and to your Majesties so Honourable and necessary endeavours. GOD of his goodness direct and protect your Majesty. AMEN. Your majesties most faithful Subject, and humble Orator. Michael Christopherson P. THE PREFACE to the Reader. TO some I doubt not, this my labour, which I have taken in discussing this question of Antichrist, will seem superfluous, or at least not so well bestowed, as it might have been in many other subjects. And they will be much confirmed in this their opinion, if they consider, that among so many learned men, as have written in our language, and evidently confuted the heresies of our times; none of them have vouchsafed to yield so far to our Adversaries, as to handle this question of set purpose, which doubtless they omitted not without great consideration and weighty reasons: the chiefest of which, if I be not deceived, was for that they persuaded themselves, that few or none, especially of the prudent and moderate sort, did indeed, and in their heart hold this absurd paradox, though they were content to let it pass, because it served for a motive to withdraw the common people from the Catholic faith, which in their conceit contained other errors. And for this cause those worthy and zealous writers endeavoured chief to take away this false persuasion of the Churches erring, partly by confirming and demonstrating the infallibility of her authority, and partly by descending to particular controversies, and most evidently convincing the Church's doctrine in every one of them to be conformable to the divine Scriptures and all antiquity. For they did easily discover, that by this course they should not only confute this abominable blasphemy; but also with one and the same labour confirm and establish the contrary truth: viz. that the Catholic Church, together with her supreme Pastor, is the pillar of Truth and the building of Christ, against which no force of errors or heresies either hath or ever shall be able to prevail. Which course of theirs as most prudent in itself, so likewise most profitable to others, I am far from misliking, but do altogether approve and admire it. And yet notwithstanding, I hope, that this my labour may be in some sort profitable also. For all are not so quick witted, as to make these necessary inferences, but rather many are withheld from yielding to the manifest truth in other points by a prejudicate opinion, which they have conceived in this; and the just and discreet silence, which hath hitherto been used, ministereth to them some cause of suspicion, that the Protestants have reason for that they say; especially since they urge this point so much both in their Writings and Sermons, and the matter is of so great importance and consequence, that whosoever hath the truth on his side in this, ought justly to be believed in the rest, since that Antichrist can neither agree with Christ, nor so great a calumniation as this is of the Pope (if it be false) can agree or stand with the spirit of truth. Besides, the Protestants out of this their doctrine make most odious inferences against Catholics, as to go no further, we may see in M. Downam's last Chapter, where he deduceth out of it six conclusions. First, that out of this all other controversies may be decided; and that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is to be rejected, as the errors of Antichrist. Secondly, that their separation from us, is warranted, yea commanded by the word of God, and all returning forbidden. Thirdly, that all they which partake with us, are reprobates, and to be damned. Fourthly, that the Recusant Papists, but especially jesuits and Seminary Priests ought not to be favoured or spared in a Christian Common wealth. Fifthly, that there can be no reconciliation betwixt Protestants and the Church of Rome Sixtly, that Protestants ought to be thankful to God, who hath not suffered them to be carried away with this Catholic Apostasy. By which last words we may also note, that if this their position of the Pope being Antichrist doth fall, they have no colour left to accuse the Catholic Church of schism or heresy, and consequently it remaineth evident, that she is the true Church of Christ. For no schism or heresy can be Catholic or universal, as the Roman Church is; only the persecution and Apostasy of Antichrist may in some sort usurp this name; because, though it shall want the universality of time, being to remain but a very short time, yet it shallbe very universal in respect of place, as is manifest by that, which is said in this Treatise. Thus much shall suffice of the importance and necessity of this my small labour. And now I will briefly say some thing of Cardinal Bellarmine, whom I defend, and of M. Downam whom I confute. And concerning this renowned and m●st learned Cardinal, I shall not need to use many words, his fame being spread over the whole world by his large, and profound disputations against all sorts of heretics which have risen or are extant in these our days. Wherefore it shallbe sufficient to note, that which maketh to our purpose, that in this his Treatise of Antichrist he useth not so many arguments as some others have done; only contenting himself with those which are proper and peculiar to this place; omitting others, which do rather prove, that the Pope is the chief Pastor of Christ's Church then disprove that he is not Antichrist, which in him proceedeth from two causes: the one is, his exactness in the method, and division of his disputations, which contain every one several questions and arguments: the other, for that having before sufficiently discussed the affirmative position that the Pope is, and aught to be acknowledged to be the chief Pastor of God's Church, he would not make any needless repetition of those demonstrations, but rather proceed to other which hitherto he had not touched, and which directly concluded, that the Pope, not only by reason of his office, but also in respect of his person can in no sort be that Antichrist, which the Scriptures and Fathers affirm, that we are to expect towards the end of the world. I shall not need to add any more in commendation of this his work for that the whole Treatise following hath no other subject, & I have translated his whole Book verbatim, so that the Reader may peruse it, and judge of it himself. It were superfluous to give any reason, why in my allegations of this worthy Cardinal, I only mention his name for the most part: for any man may easily perceive, that I do it for brevities sake, and according to the use of Schools, and not for any want of respect to his place and person, whom I honour from my heart, and defend him in this Treatise, so far, as my poor ability will give me leave. Concerning M. Downam (for so I commonly call him, to give him to understand, that I impugn not his person, but his detestable heresy) I shall have something more to say: for first the Reader must not be ignorant that he hath perverted the order of this disputation. For, whereas Cardinal Bellarmine first demonstrateth, that the Pope is not Antichrist, and afterward answereth the objections of his Adversaries, M. Downam took it to be his best course, first to object whatsoever either former heretics had invented, or he himself could add, omitting altogether the answers, which Bellarmine gave; that by this means, he might possess his Readers mind by inveighing against the Pope at his pleasure, without any contradiction: and so have him the more favourable when he came to make show of answering to Beauties' arguments. This is the cause, why I am constrained to confute M. Downam's second book in the first place; not producing the arguments without his solutions, as he dealt with the Cardinal, but examining whatsoever he answereth distinctly; in so much, that, one Chapter excepted where his confusion would not permit Cap. 4. it, in all the rest, every number of my confutation answereth to the same in him: so that if any man hath a desire to confer, what both he and I say, he may easily do it, by reading first one section or number in him, & then the same in me; which I would require of all such as do any way doubt of my sincere dealing, because he findeth not M. Downam's words verbatim alleged; which could not be without great prolixity. But he that goeth thus far, should also do well to read so much in Cardinal Bellarmime, as is discussed in every several number, which, that the Reader may conveniently do, I have also prefixed numbers to the cardinals discourse, and noted in the margin, where that, which is handled in every several place, may be found in him without difficulty. And by this means I hope the Reader may peruse this my labour with clarity, and profit, and discover M. Downam's false dealing, aswell in this point specified, as in many other, which now it is no time to rehearse, they being very near as many as there be leaves in this whole Book, and they may easily be found, by either perusing the marginal notes, or seeking in the table at the word Downam. And yet perhaps it will not be amiss to note one or two of them in this place, which especially discover the badness of M. Downam's cause. For what can be more absurd or hateful to Christian ears, then to hear the enemies of Christ, and his Church, commended and embraced, and his true Servants and Doctors insolently rejected and accused of errors? And yet this is M. Downam's case, not once or twice, but throughout the whole course of this disputation: for he doth not only agree in substance with the Samosatens, who are known heretics, and condemned by his own judgement, but also joineth himself ex professo with that vile Apostata and capital enemy of Christ Porphiry, not only against S. Hierome, who most earnestly and learnedly confuteth him at large, but also against all other Ecclesiastical writers, yea even the very jews themselves, who in that point agree with the Christians; but in another, where they are opposite to us, there M. Downam joineth with them: so that it seemeth, that M. Downam and his fellow Protestants seek of purpose, how they may oppose themselves to Christ and his Church, yea that they esteem more of Gentiles and jews, than they do of Christian writers, though never so many, so worthy, or so ancient. And surely whosoever shall consider attentively, how often, and how scornfully the ancient Fathers and pillars of Christ's Church, be rejected by M. Downam, cannot choose but admire, yea ●hould up his hands and bless himself, to think, how it hath been, and is still possible, that either they themselves, or others by them should be so bewitched. Neither can there any probable cause be given of so great blindness, and so enormous a crime, but only the want of God's grace, which their sins have with drawn, and deserved, that they should be in this sort as it were given over to a reprobate sense. What can be said in defence of this detestable excess? Deny it they cannot, the thing being so evident, and so often reiterated. And dare they excuse it, by telling us, That the Fathers are only forsaken, when they forsake the Scripture? Is not this plainly to make Infidels and Heretics better Interpreters of Scripture than the Church of Christ, and all Christians in general, and the most learned Pastors thereof in particular? If they answer, that it is not the authority of these Infidels, which they follow, but the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which they experience in themselves; is this any thing else in effect, then to acknowledge that Porphiry, and the jews had the true spirit of Christ, and that the ancient Fathers, and the Church of Christ in their time had it not? For if the Protestants, have the spirit of Christ now, it is manifest, that those others had it then, since their expositions be all one. But who is so foolish and sacrilegious, as to deprive God's Church and saints of his spirit, and it tribute it to his professed enemies, and consequently how shall we believe the Protestants, when they tell us that they are full of God's Spirit, since we see their spirit to agree with that of the devils instruments, and to be quite opposite to that of Gods elect? Hear is no starting hole to be found, neither have they any thing to reply, but only to stand upon their bare affirmation; which M. Downam doth so often in his disputation, still desiring to have that granted which is chief in question. But I will omit this, and the rest of his absurdities, remitting the Reader to his own experience, after that he hath with diligence perused the whole. Hear I would make an end of this Preface, having said as much, as I think necessary concerning the disputation, which followeth. But because I have lately seen two Sermons not long since preached by this our Doctor, by which it seemeth, that he hath resolved to relinquish Puritanisme and turn Protestant, I thought it good to admonish my Reader of this point also; because I rather inclined before to think, that he was a Puritan, and insinuated so much in a place or two. And withal Chap. 10. & 13. by this occasion, I must entreat my Reader to mark the great difference betwixt M. Downam in these his Sermons, and the same man in his book of Antichrist: for in this he every where rejecteth all antiquity, as I have said, but in his Sermons he singeth us a new song, and can tell us. that it never yet happened that the newest things did prove the truest, and argueth chiefly from authority, objecting still to his Puritan Adversaries, That they go against the whole stream of all Antiquity, yea he can allege S. Augustine lib. 4. de Bapt. con. Donat. cap. 24. & ep. 118. to prove that the consent of the whole Church argueth either the definition of a Council, or an Apostolicali Tradition, though he corruptly translateth (Traditum, Ordained) and likewise in the second place, where S. Aug. affirmeth that, Insolentissimae insaniae est, it is a most insolent madness to dispute against that which (universa Ecclesia) the whole Church observeth; he addeth of his own the word (Primitive) that so he may have some stareing hole against us, when he is urged with the same Authority of S. Augustine, which if he would follow himself, as he would now have the Puritans do, he must of force retire himself from the Protestants also, and betake himself to the Catholic Church, which all Antiquity most manifestly defendeth. And surely whosoever considereth the arguments, which Protestants make against Puritans, cannot but evidently perceive, that the very same principles do overthrow the Protestants themselves. And I marvel much, how they can defend themselves from that terrible sentence of S. Paul, Inexcusabilises o homo omnis, qui iudicas: quo enim iudicas alterum, teipsum condemnas, eadem enim agis, quae iudicas. And the very same judgement falleth upon the Puritans themselves, when they go about to impugn the Brownists, Familists, Anabaptists, Arians, or any other sect whatsoever. For this they cannot do, but by Antiquity, which notwithstanding they are forced to reject in all those points, in which they differ, and dissent from the Cathelike Roman Church. I will not descend to any particulars, though I easily might; for what can be more evident, then that the autherity of S. Cyprian & other Fathers, who urge the necessity of a Bishop, for the conservation of unity, is much more to be understood of one chief Bishop in the whole Church, then of particular Bishops in particular Dioceses, since there can be no question, that unity is as necessary in the whole world, as in one Diocese, and much more easily maintained in this, then in that? Likewise M. Downam can tell us not only of Bishops, but also of Metropolitans and patriarchs, and allegeth for his purpose the Council of Nice; but he will not acknowledge that in the same Council, Rome hath the first place, and is preferred before all others, as likewise Alexandria, and Antiochia are before jerusalem (which M. Downam would willingly have the chief) of which there can be no other true reason given, but the excellency of S. Peter above the other Apostles, who founded three Churches, and placed or fixed his Sea in Rome, where he ended his life with a most happy Martyrdom. Now if we a●ke M. Downam a reason why he seethe not this, aswell as that which favoureth the Protestants against the Puritans, I cannot imagine, what he can answer us, but only that by this means he should incur the disgrace, and overthrow of his Ministry, which he esteemeth so highly. But I entreat both him, and all other, even as they tender their own salvation, to look about them in time, and not to suffer themselves to be carried away with the sway of the time, and the desire of worldly pleasures and preferments, which M. Downam, and all others may easily conceive not to be very great, if his complaints of poverty, and contempt, which he maketh in his former Sermon be true, as no doubt they are in great part, and these miseries will daily increase, as their credit doth decrease, so that if now that pitiful (y●t ridiculous) complaint of M. Downam be true, That not only every mean man almost Ser. 1. pag. 67. preferreth himself before the Minister, but also disdaineth to bestow either his Son on the Ministry, or his Daughter on a Minister, the time no doubt will come, and that shortly also, that they ●halbe enforced to marry only within their own Tribe; for I can assure him, that neither the Kings, nor the Nobility of England will imitate those of juda in this; and it will be their only way to get a Law enacted, that their generation may succeed them in their Ministry; which M. Downam seemeth to wish, and to mislike that law not a little, which (in a parenthesis) he telleth us hath otherwise provided. These are the base and carnal cogitations of these new gospellers; and yet all will not serve: for they shall never find a remedy for this their grief except they return to the Catholic Church, whom they may thank for the living they have. But in it God hath provided for this, & all other inconveniences, that can any way arise: and in particular for the deciding of all questions and controversies. Wherefore if the Protestants and Puritans will have an end of this of their Bishops and Presbytery, they must of necessity stand to the Catholic Church's judgement, in which they shall find Bishops established, and yet sometimes, by reason of persecution, Priests only without Bishops, as now we see in our Country, where conformable to that which in their judgement was practised in the Primitive Church in many places, at least for a time, we have hitherto only Priests subordinate to an Archpriest; but yet we are far from misliking Bishops, but do both wish, and expect them, when our lawful Superior, who succeed the chiefest of the Apostles, shall see it convenient. M. C. A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS of this first Part of Antichrist. THE disputation of Antichrist is propounded, and the first Argument from the name itself discussed. CHAP. I. That Antichrist shallbe a certain determinate man. CHAP. II. That Antichrist is not yet come. CHAP. III. The first demonstration, That Antichrist is not yet come. CHAP. FOUR The second demonstration. CHAP. V. The third demonstration CHAP. VI The fourth demonstration. CHAP. VII. The fifth demonstration. CHAP. VIII. The sixth demonstration. CHAP. IX. Of Antichristes Name. CHAP. X. Of Antichristes Character. CHAP. XI. Of Antichristes Generation. CHAP. XII. Of Antichristes Seat. CHAP. XIII. Of Antichristes doctrine. CHAP. XIIII. Of Antichristes miracles. CHAP. XV. Of Antichristes Kingdom & wars. CHAP. XVI. Of Gog and Magog. CHAP. XVII. The dotages of Heretics are confuted, with which they do not so much prove, as impudently affirm, that the Pope is Antichrist. CHAP. XVIII. The trifles of the smalcaldical Synod of the Lutherans are confuted. CHAP. XIX. Caluins' lies are refuted. CHAP. XX. The lies of Illyricus are refuted. CHAP. XXI. The fooleries of Tylemanus are refuted. CHAP. XXII. The lies of Chytraeus are refuted. CHAP. XXIII. The arguments of Caluin and Illyricus are confuted, who go about to prove, that the Pope is no longer a Bishop: where also the fable of Pope joane the Woman is confuted. CHAP. XXIIII. CARDINAL BELLARMINE'S THIRD BOOK of the Pope. THE FIRST CHAPTER. Wherein the disputation of Antichrist is propounded. WE have demonstrated hitherto (saith Bellarmine) that the Pope succeed S. Peter in the chiefest Princedom of the whole Church. It remaineth that we see, whether at any time the Pope hath fallen from this degree, for that our adversaries contend, that he is not at this time a true Bishop of Rome, whatsoever he was before. And Nilus in the end of his book against the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, speaketh thus: But let that be the sum and head of my speech, that while the Pope keepeth in the Church a convenient, heavenly, and of ancient time appointed order, while he holdeth and defendeth the heavenly truth, & while he cleaveth to Christ, the chief and true Lord and head of the Church, I will easily suffer him to be both the head of the Church, & the chiefest Priest, & the successor of Peter, or else if he will, of all the Apostles, that all obey him, and that whatsoever belongeth to his honour, be in nothing diminished: but if he be departed from the truth, & will not return to it, he ought deservedly to be accounted of, as one that is condemned and rejected. But he should have showed, into what errors the Bishops of Rome are fallen, and when, and by whom they were condemned. For we know, that in the General Lateran Council under Innocentius the third, and of Lions under Gregory the tenth, and of Florence under Eugenius the fourth, the Greeks' being convicted of error, returned to the Faith of the Latins, and afterward always returned to their vomit again, and were therefore most grievously punished by God; but we never read that the Latins came to the Faith of the Greeks'. Neither can there any Ecclesiastical judgement be produced against the Latins, as we bring many against the Greeks'. Now Caluin Lib. 4. cap. 7. §. 22. Let (saith he) all those things be true, which notwithstanding we have now wrested from them, that Peter was by the voice of Christ, appointed Head of the universal Church, & that he left the honour given unto him in the Roman Sea, that this was established by the authority of the ancient Church, & confirmed by long use▪ that the chiefest authority was always due from all to the Bishop of Rome, and that he was the judge of all causes and men, that he was subject to the judgement of none; let them have more also if they will: Yet I answer in one word, that nothing of this standeth in force, except the Church and Bishop be at Rome. And after §. 24. Let the Romanists untie me this knot: I deny that their Pope is the Prince of Bishops, since that he is not a Bishop. And after. Let Rome in times past have been the Mother of all Churches: but since she began to become the seat of Antichrist, she left to be that which she was. And after §. 25. We seem to some, backbiters and slanderers, when we call the Bishop of Rome Antichrist, but they which think so, understand not that they accuse Paul of immodesty, after whom we speak, yea out of whose mouth we speak so. And lest any object, that we wrongfully wrist Paul's words against the Pope which pertain to another purpose, I will briefly show, that they cannot be understood otherwise, then of the Popedom. So he. The like teach all the heretics of this time, & chiefly Luther in supput. temporum, & in assert. art. 28. & 36. and often in other places. Likewise the Magdeburgenses Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. colum. 434. & sequent. and in all the following Centuries cap. 4. 7. 10. Illyricus in lib. de primate. David Chrytraus in cap. 9 & 13. Apoc. Likewise Wolsgangus Musculus in loc. commun. tit. de Ecclesia. Theodor. Beza in Com. 2. Thessaly. 2. Theodor. Bibliander in Chron. tabul. 10. 11. 12. & 14. Henricus Pantaleon in Chron. Henricus Bullinger praesat. in suas homil. ad Apocal. And before all these john Wicklisse art. 30. amongst those which are condemned in Concil. Constantiensi sess. 8. pronounced the Pope to be Antichrist. Wherefore that this question may be diligently explicated, nine heads are to be treated of. First of the name itself of Antichrist. 2. Whether Antichrist be one man or a kind of men. 3. Of the time of his coming and death. 4. Of his proper name. 5. Of what nation he shallbe borne, & by whom he shall chief be received. 6. Where he shall fix his seat. 7. Of his doctrine and manners. 8. Of his miracles. 9 Of his kingdom and wars. For out of all these, it will most clearly appear, with what impudency the heretics make the Pope Antichrist: to which we will add a Chapter, wherein we will prove, that the Pope is not only not Antichrist, but that he hath in no sort left to be the Bishop and pastor of the whole Church, that nothing may remain not solved of Caluins' objections. For the first, some of our adversaries teach, that the name of Antichrist doth properly signify the Vicar of Christ, and therefore that the Pope, who affirmeth himself to be Christ's Vicar is Antichrist. So teacheth Wolfgangus Musculus in locis cap. de potest. Ministrorun, and he proveth it, because that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth vice, whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; is vice-Christi, in Christ's place, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth him who obtrudeth himself for Captain, that is, who will be accounted the Captains Vicar. The Magdeburgenses cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. colum. 435. do teach, that the Pope is therefore the true Antichrist because he maketh himself the vicar of Christ. But without doubt they are deceived, or endeavour to deceive, for the name of Antichrist cannot in any sort, signify the Vicar of Christ, but only some that is contrary to Christ: and contrary not howsoever, but in such sort, that he striveth with him for the seat & dignity of Christ, that is, who is aemulus Christi, at emulation with Christ, and would be accounted Christ, having cast him down who is truly Christ. That this is the signification of this name, it is proved three ways. First because among the Grecians the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth properly signify opposition, and because not only those things are said to be opposed, which are repugnant one to the other, but also those, which are of equal value, from thence it proceedeth, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition, sometime signifieth contrariety, sometime equivalence, as is manifest in the examples of all such names, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth an emulous in a combat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a contrary remedy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a contrary speech, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equivalent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal to God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the thumme, because it is opposed against, and is equivalent to all the rest of the hand, and so of the rest. But a Vicar doth not signify opposition, but subordination to another, and therefore it cannot be expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify the captains Vicar, but ordinarily a contrary Captain, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make war, and sometime him that is in the captains place, not as subject to him, but as equal, as among the Latins, Propraetor or Proconsul doth not signify the Vicar of the Praetor or Consul, but him that is in some Province, that which the Praetor or Consul is in the City: and in this Musculus was deceived; for because he read in Budaeus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify a Propretor, he thought that it doth signify the Vicar of the Praetor, which is false. Secondly the same is proved out of the Scripture: for although this name were of itself ambiguous, yet as it is taken in Scripture it is not doubtful: and our question must not be of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolutely, but as it is taken in the Scriptures. Now in the Scriptures, Antichrist is said to be him who is extolled above all that is called God, 2. Thess. 2. which certainly is not to be the Vicar, but the enemy of Christ. And 1. joan. 2. Antichrist is said to be him, who denieth jesus to be Christ, that he may sell himself for Christ. and Matth. 24. Antichrist is said to affirm himself to be Christ, which certainily is not the part of a Vicar, but of an Emulous. Thirdly out of all the Authors, who have written of Antichrist, and out of the common sense of all Christians, who by Antichrist understand a certain notable false Christ. In which sort expoundeth also this word of the ancient Greeks S. Damascen lib. 4. de fide cap. 28. and after the same manner doth S. Hierome expound it of the Latins, who notwithstanding was also most skilful in the Greek tongue, quaest. 11. ad Algasiam. lastly so also expoundeth it in his Thesaurus lingnae Graecae Henricus Stephaenus, who withstanding is one of the heretics of Geneva. Hence we have our first argument against our adversaries. For since the name of Antichrist signifieth the enemy and emulous of Christ, and the Pope confesseth himself to be Christ's servant, and subject to Christ in all things, and in no sort saith, that he is Christ, nor maketh himself equal to him, it is manifest, that he is not Antichrist. M. Downams Answer confuted. 1. FIRST M. Downam telleth us of two great advantages that Bellarmine hath against him and all Protestants in this point. 1. In respect of his great learning & much reading. 2. In that he is to prove the negative part, so that it is enough for him, if he Beauties' advantages in this controversy. can but show plainly and evidently, that any one several & essential mark ascribed unto Antichrist in the Scriptures, doth not agree to the Pope. All which we willingly acknowledge, and from hence do infer M. Downam's ignorance and impudence, that whereas it had been enough for Bellarmine to have disproved him in one point, it is not enough for him that he is disproved in all, as the Reader will easily perceive in perusing the particular arguments. Likewise we acknowledge the controversy to be of that importance and consequence, that it manifestly convinceth them to be the limbs of Antichrist The importance of this controversy. who are in error concerning this point: for this consequence doth not only touch us, if we were in the wrong, as M. Downam seemeth to insinuate by only naming us, but it concerneth them also as fully, since that it is evident that none but heretics can charge any, and much less the chief Pastor of Christ's Church, with so foul an imputation. Now how true it is, that all heretics are limbs of Antichrist, I need not show, since that it is granted on both sides. And therefore it behoveth M. Downam and his fellows to have as great a will to clear themselves in this behalf, as it doth us, and so much the more also, because we are but the defendants, and they are the slanderous calumniators; & likewise, for that some of their own brethren do much condemn their insolency and rash boldness in this assertion. 2. Now whereas he affirmeth, that the conceits of the elder Papists who lived in the dares of our forefathers, concerning Antichrist, were mere dotages, he only saith it, and thereby discovereth his spiteful spirit, which provoketh him to rail without reason, and to slander against all truth. For the Catholics of former days, held the very same, that we do now, though Bellarmin agreeth with the elder Catholics. they explicated not themselves so fully, as Bellarmine and others do now. In which respect only these may in some sort be truly called the refiners of Popery, that is, the explicators and confirmers of Catholic doctrine against heretics. But the reason of this difference betwixt the elder and later writers is evident, for in their days Heretics were not so impudent as to urge so palpable and gross errors, as they are in our time: for otherwise Bellarmine sufficiently declareth the antiquity of his doctrine, by proving whatsoever he saith by the authority of the ancient Fathers. Now whether many have contributed to Beauties' books, or no, it is little to the purpose, though the truth is, as those know that are best acquainted with his studies, that they are all his own labours. And that this may not seem strange, M. Downam may easily inform himself, that divers other of his order, that lived in the same time, and some in the same place, have in divers kinds written as large volumes, as Bellarmine hath in this. Whereof Salmeron, Tolet, Valentia, Molina, Suarez, Vasquez and others may serve for example. Well to come to the matter, M. Downam seemeth to allow of Bellarmine's method and division, since that he objecteth nothing against it, but cometh presently to his first argument. 3. In which to make a good beginning, he corrupteth Bellarmine's argument, by altering both words and sense: for thus he setteth it down: Antichrist is hostis & aemulus Christi, Downam corrupteth Bellarmine's argument. that is, such an enemy, as is opposed unto Christ in emulation of like honour. The Pope is not an enemy, nor opposed unto Christ in emulation of like honour, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. Whereas Bellarmine endeavoureth to prove nothing else in this Chapter, but that the name of Antichrist signifieth not the Vicar of Christ, but only some that is contrary to Christ, and contrary not howsoever, but in such sort, that he striveth with him for the seat and dignity of Christ, so that he would be accounted Christ, having cast him down who is truly Christ: which is not to be opposed unto Christ in emulation of like honour, but of the same and equal honour, which are far different matters. For who seethe not, that many things are like, which are not the same? or rather speaking in rigour, that nothing is like, that is the same? And so likewise of equality, there be many things like, which are not equal. As for example, the unity of Christ's servants among themselves, is like to the union of Christ with his Father, but not the same, nor joan. 17. equal unto it. And in this our question, who doubteth that the Vicar of Christ, as of any other, is like unto him in honour, but yet he hath not in any sort the same or equal honour to that which Christ hath; as not to explicate other differences, it is evident, that whosoever is Vicar to another, acknowledgeth dependency of another, which the principal doth not. Now than the whole controversy being about this sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whether it may signify not only an enemy or emulous of Christ, but also his Vicar or Vicegerent, no marvel though Bellarmin wholly insisteth upon the proof thereof: and in this he showeth not himself to be a sophister, but M. Downam proveth himself to be a calumniatour and a falsifier, as is manifest. But yet in some sort he seemeth to acknowledge and amend this fault by affirming that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition, commonly signifieth three things, opposition, equality, substitution, by which as afterward he explicates himself, he understandeth subordination, which indeed is that which Bellarmine denieth, and M. Downam proveth only by repeating the example of Musculus, & adding two others to it which he interpreteth after that manner, and saith in general, that Greek writers and Lexicographers do teach see, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proconsul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proprator, or legatus praetoris, or, qui est vice praetoris, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the putting of one case for another. And in this sense (saith he) the sacraments of the new Testament substituted and ordained instead of the old, are called the Downam repeateth his fellows argument, omitting Bellarmine's answer. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them. But it is marvel he saw not that, which Bellarmine had written against Musculus, who alleged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as M. Downam doth, and Bellarmine answered to them both, that it signifieth not the Vicegerent of a Captain, but ordinarily a contrary captain, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make war against, and sometimes him that is in the captains place, not as subject to him, but as equal, as among the Latins Propraetor, or Proconsul doth not signify the Vicegerent of the Praetor or Consul, but him who is in some Province, that which the Praetor or the Consul is in the City. And in this was Musculus deceived, for reading in Budaeus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth Propraetor, he thought that it did signify the Vicegerent of the Praetor, which is false. Thus far Bellarmine. By which M. Downam might have understood the cause of Musculus his error, whose authority, as it should seem by that he citeth no other, he only followeth: and in the other examples, which he bringeth, there is the same reason, because one case is equivalent with the other, and the Sacraments of the new law are not only equal, but also of greater value, and withal opposite to those of the old law, with which they could not stand or be in use, at the same tyme. 4. To Beauties' second proof out of Scripture M. Downam granteth the Conclusion, though he would feign wrangle How Antichrist is taken in the Scripture. about 2. Thess. 2. and Matth. 24. for that Antichrist is not named there, though he and all other grant, that they are to be understood of Antichrist, and consequently he shallbe such as is there described. Likewise he would cavil about the place in S. john's Epistle, in which he saith the name 1. john 2. of Antichrist is ascribed to such as being enemies, notwithstanding professed the name of Christ, as the heretics of those times. Where he seemeth to have forgotten, what he and Bellarmine have agreed Bellar. cap. 2. Dow. lib. 1. cap. 1. 3. upon, that the name of Antichrist is taken either properly or commonly, as also the name of Christ, and consequently as the members of Antichrist do oppose themselves to the members of Christ, contending which of them are to have that appellation; so Antichrist properly taken, shall strive with Christ whether of them is to be accounted truly and properly Christ. And when S. john speaketh of such enemies as profess the name of the true Christ, he meaneth only of antichrist's forerunners and members, which are only the members of Antichrist, and not properly Antichrist himself, who notwithstanding at the first, till he hath gotten credit & authority, will perhaps deal deceitfully, but afterwards will plainly oppose himself to Christ, as S. Matth. S. Paul & S. john also do teach in the place, which Bellarmine allegeth, in which S. john speaketh of an open & professed enemy as is manifest. And M. Downam should have answered to that place directly, and not have run to others, and so boldly affirmed, that S. john speaketh only of hidden enemies, against the express place which he was to answer. To the third proof, he only answereth, that if all Authors mean that Antichrist, shallbe such a false Christ, as shall plainly and directly affirm himself to be Christ the only Messiah, than their affirmation Downam rejecteth all authors agreeth not with that Antichrist, whom the Scriptures describe; which is in effect to admit, that all those authors are against him, but that he understandeth the Scripture better than they all: only he vouchsafeth to answer in particular to his good friend Henricus Stephanus, saying, that neither he, nor any approved author denieth, but that Antichrist may signify him, who being an enemy of Christ, professeth himself to be his Vicar. Now you must suppose, that no Authors are approved whom M. Downam mislikes: and beside consider how any Author can take occasion to deny that which they never heard brought in question, and withal we are to note that (may) of M. Downam's, which only importeth that the name of Antichrist may be applied to his members; but now our question is, what is the proper signification of that word, as it is understood of the chief Antichrist himself, and not of his members. 5. To the assumption, he answereth, granting it in all, that the Pope confesseth of himself in word, but in deeds he saith, that the Pope in many things matcheth himself with Christ, and in some things advanceth himself above him: which he saith, that he hath proved else where, which we are to examine in that place. Now it is sufficient for us, that the Pope is See cap. 14. no open enemy of Christ, as Antichrist shallbe. For of this it followeth evidently, that the Pope is not the chief Antichrist, properly so called, which is all that Bellarmine intendeth to prove in this place. THE SECOND CHAPTER. That Antichrist shallbe a certain determinate man.. NOw concerning the second (saith Bellarmine) we agree with our Adversaries in one thing, & differ in another. We agree in that, that as the name of Christ is taken in two sorts, sometime properly for one excellent & singular Christ, who is jesus Nazarenus, sometime commonly, for all those who have likeness with Christ in being anointed, in which sort all Prophets, Kings, & Priests are called Christ's, Psal. 104. Touch not my Christ's: So also the name of Antichrist sometime is taken properly for one notable enemy of Christ, of whom there is mention 2. Thess. 2. joan. 5. and in other places, and sometime commonly for all who in any sort impugn Christ. For 1. joan. 2. we read, You have heard that Antichrist cometh, and now many are become Antichrists. That is, you have heard that Antichrist shall come, and now thought that singular Antichrist be not yet come, yet many seducers are already come, who also may be called Antichristes'. But we disagree of Antichrist properly so called, whether he be one singular man. For all Catholics think so, that Antichrist shallbe one certain man: but all the heretics before alleged teach, that Antichrist properly so called, is not any singular person, but a singular Throne, or Tyramnical Kingdom, and Apostolical seat of them who govern the Church. The Magdeburgenses cent. 1. lib. 2. c. 4. col. 435. The Apostles teach (say they) that Antichrist shall not be only one person, but an whole kingdom, by false Doctors ruling in the temple of God, that is in the Church of God, in the great City, that is, in the Roman City, gotten by the work, fraud, and deceit of the Devil. So they. The like are in others before alleged. Their reasons are these. First, S. Paul 2. Thess. 2. saith, that already, even in his time Antichrist had begun to be in the world, the mystery of iniquity doth work now. And notwithstanding he saith in the same place, that Antichrist shallbe slain by Christ in the end of the world. From hence Beza concludeth thus upon 2. Thess. 2. They are manifestly deceived, whosoever thought, that this was to be understood of one Man, unless they give me some one, who may remain alive from Paul's time until the day of judgement. So also doth Caluin argue in the place which I cited before. This reason is confirmed out of S. john, who in the first Epistle and fourth Chapter saith: Every spirit that dissolveth jesus, is not of God, and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and now he is in the world. Beza's second reason is, because Daniel in his 7. Chapter by the particular names of the beasts, a Bear, a Lion, and a Leopard, doth not understand particular Kings, but several Kingdoms, one of which containeth many Kings: therefore after the same manner Paul. 2. Thess. 2. who doth wonderfully agree with Daniel, by the man of sin, and son of perdition, doth not understand one particular person, but as it were a certain body of many Tyrants. The 3. reason is Caluins upon the 2. Chap. of first Epistle of S. john, where he saith, that they do dote, and wilfully err, who believe that Antichrist shall be one man, seeing that Paul 2. Thess. 2. hath written, that the Apostasy shall come, and that Antichrist shallbe the head of it. For Apostasy is a certain general failing, or defection from the Faith, which indeed maketh one body. ●nd one Kingdom, & is not a matter of a few years, that it can be accomplished under one King. For all this the truth is, that Antichrist shallbe one particular man, which is proved out of all the Scriptures & Fathers, who treat of Antichrist. The places of Scripture be five: the first is in the Gospel of S. john cap. 5. I came in the name of my Father, and you received me not: if another come in his own name, him will you receive. Musculus & Caluin in Marlor. in Comment. huius loci, will have these words to be understood of false Prophets in general, and not of any one: but their exposition is repugnant to the ancient Fathers, and with the text itself. For that these words are spoken of Antichrist, do witness S. Chrysostome, and S. Cyril upon this place, S. Ambrose upon the 2. Chap. of the 2. Epist. to the Thessalonians, S. Hierome in his Epistle to Algasia, the 11. question, S. Augustine in 29. Tract. upon S. john, S. Irenaeus in the 5. book against the herefies of Valentinus, Theodoretus in the Epitome of the divine Decrees in the chap. of Antichrist. Besides in this place, our Lord doth oppose to himself another man, that is person to person, not Kingdom to Kingdom, nor sect to sect, as it appeareth in those words, I, Another, In the name of my Father, In his own name, Me, Hym. Wherefore as Christ was one particular man, so shall Antichrist be one particular man. Moreover Christ saith in this place, that Antichrist shall be received for Messiah by the jews, and it is certain that the jews expect one certain and particular man. In like manner all false Prophets came in the name of another, and not in their own name, jerem. 14. The Prophets do falsely prophetize in my name, I sent them not &c. But here our Lord speaketh of one certain man, which shall come in his own name, that is, who shall acknowledge no God at all, but shall extol himself, as S. Paul saith, above all that is called God. Finally very many false Prophets were come before Christ, very many also were to come afterward, therefore our Lord would not have said, if another shall come, but, many do come, if he would have spoken of false Prophets. The second place is 2. Thess. 2. Unless there come a revolt first and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition etc. And a●●er: And then the wicked one shallbe ravealed, whom our Lord jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth. These words the Adversaries themselves understand of the true Antichrist, but the Apostle speaketh of a certain determinate & particular person, as appeareth by the Greek articles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For as S. Epiphanius haeres. 9 which is of the Samaritans; teacheth, the Greek articles do contract the signification to one certain thing, so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth man in common, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a particular man. And surely it is marvel, that none of the Aduersaties, who notwithstanding do boast of skill in tongues, have observed this. The third place is where we read thus, 1. joan 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where he putteth the article before Antichrist, so properly called, & he pronounceth the name of Antichrist, commonly taken, without the article; most plainly showing that Antichrist properly taken is one certain person, but Antichrist commonly so called is no certain person, but in general all heretics. The fourth is Dan. 7. 11. & 12. Chapters, where he speaketh of Antichrist, as S. Hierome & Theodoretus upon that place, Irenaeus lib. 5. August. lib. 20. de Civitate Dei cap. 23. yea Caluin, the Magdeburgenses, & Beza ubi supra do teach. And there Antichrist is not called one Kingdom, but one King, who often Kings which he shall find in the world, shall take three quite away & shall subject unto himself the other seven Besides, Caluin saith, that literally Daniel speaketh of Antiochus Illustris, & allegorically of Antichrist, whom Antiochus figured which S. Cyprian teacheth in his book of Exhortation to Martyrdom cap. 11. & S. Hierome upon the 11. & 12. of Daniel. But Antiochus was a certain & particular person. Therefore Antichrist must be also one certain person. The fifth and last place is Apoc. 13. &. 17. where S. Irenaeus lib. 5. affirmeth, that Antichrist is spoken of, and it is plain by reason of the likeness of daniel's & S. john's words: for both of them make mention of ten Kings which shallbe in the world when Antichrist shall come, and both of them foretell, that Antichristes' Kingdom shall endure three years and a half etc. As therefore Daniel speaketh of one determinate King, so also doth S. john in the Apocalyps. The same is proved out of the Fathers, who with common consent do teach of Antichrist: First, that he shallbe a most chosen instrument of the Devil, so that in him shall inhabit all fullness of the devils malice corporally, as in Christ being a man doth inhabit all plenitude of Divinity corporally. Secondly that Antichrist shall not reign more than three years and a half, and consequently they teach, that Antichrist shallbe only one man. See S. Irenaeus lib. 5. towards the end, Cyril of jerusalem, Catechesi 15. S. Chrysostome in 2. Thess. 2. Theodoret in cap. 7. Dan. Lactant. in epit. divin. Inst. cap. 11. S. Ambrose in cap. 21. Luc. S. Hierome in cap. 7. Dan. & q. 11. ad Algasians. S. Augustine lib. 20. de Civitate Dei, in many Chapters, and upon the 9 Psalm. S. Gregory lib. 32. Moral. cap. 12. S. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 28. & S. Hippolytus Martyr in his Oration of the Consummation, or end of the world. To the first argument of Beza I answer, that in the Apostles time Antichrist did begin secretly to give onsetts, not in his own person, but in his forerunners. For as Christ began to come from the beginning of the world, in the patriarchs and Prophets, who went before him, and did signify him, so that the mystery of piety may be said to have begun to work from the beginning of the world, and notwithstanding he came not in his own person, until he took flesh of the B. Virgin: So Antichrist strait after the Ascension of Christ into Heaven began to come in his forerunners, & the mystery of iniquity began to work, to wit in the heretics and I yrants which did persecute the Church, and chiefly in Simon Magus, who called himself Christ, and in Nero, who first began to impugn the Church; and yet notwithstanding in his own person he shall not come, but in the end of the world. Wherefore the spiritual persecution of Simon Magus, and the temporal of Nero, is called the mystery of iniquity, because they were signs & figures of antichrist's persecution. That this is the true explication of the place of S. Paul, may be proved in two sorts. First by all the interpreters of that place: for all do, by the mystery of iniquity which S. Paul mentioneth, understand either Nero's persecution, as S. Ambrose, and S. Chrysostome upon this place, and S. Hierom quaest. 11. ad Algasiam, or the Heretics, who do deceive secretly, as Theodoretus and Sedulius upon this place, & S. Augustine lib. 20. de civitate Dei cap. 19 Secondly by a reason taken from the adversaries confession. For they say, that Antichrist properly is the seat of the Bishop of Rome. If therefore Antichrist so properly called was borne in the Apostles time, it doth follow that S. Peter & S. Paul were properly called Antichrists, although secret, and that Nero or Simon Magus were the true Christ. For it is well known, that in the Apostles time, there were no other Bishops of Rome, but S. Peter & S. Paul. For Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. doth plainly affirm, that the Sea of Rome was founded by S. Peter and S. Paul, and that they were the first Bishops there, which all the ancient Fathers, which I cited before, do also testify. It is also well known that both Simon Magus and Nero did contend with S. Peter and S. Paul Wherefore if the adversaries mislike, that S. Peter and S. Paul were antichrist's, and Simon & Nero the true Christ, they are forced to confess, that in the Apostles time Antichrist was not come in himself, but only in a certain Type of his: by which means Beza's consequence with which he concluded, that Antichrist cannot be one man, unless we could give him one man who should live from the Apostles time to the end of the world, is showed to be ridiculous. To confirm this I say, that S. john doth speak in that manner, as our Lord speaketh of Elias, Matth. 17. Elias indeed shall come, and restore all things, and I say unto you, that Elias is already come, and they did not know him: that is, Elias in his own person shall come, but Elias in his like is come already, to wit, in S. john Baptist. To the second Argument. First it is denied, that always Daniel by particular beasts, doth understand several Kingdoms: for by one beast he doth sometimes signify one Kingdom, as in the 7. Chap. where by the Lion he understandeth the Kingdom of the Assyrians, by the Bear the Kingdom of the Persians, by the Leopard the Kingdom of the Grecians, by the other beast unnamed the Kingdom of the Romans. Sometimes one King, as in the 8. Chap. where by the Ram he doth understand Darius the last King of the Persians, by the Goat Alexander the Great. Secondly I deny the consequence of his argument: for S. Paul by the man of sin, doth not understand any of the four beasts described by Daniel, but he understandeth that little horn, which as Daniel writeth prevailed against the ten horns of the fourth beast, that is, that one King, who from a little beginning did so increase, that he subdued all the other Kings unto him. To the last Argument I answer many ways, that it may be understood how impudently Caluin wrote, that they do wilfully err, who do not gather out of that argument of his, that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist. First by the Apostasy in S. Paul, most rightly Antichrist himself may be understood, for so with common consent do the Greek Interpreters teach, S. Chrysostome, Theodoretus, Theophilactus, and Oecumenius, and besides S. Augustine lib. 20. the civit. Dei cap. 19 and Antichrist is called the Apostasy, both by the figure called Metonymia, because he shallbe the cause, that many forsake God: and also by a certain excellency, for he shallbe such a notable Apostata, that he may be called the Apostasy itself. Secondly by the Apostasy, may be taken the defection, or falling from the Roman Empire, as many of the Latins do expound, as S. Ambrose, Sedulius, and Primasius. For as in the Chapter following we will demonstrate that Antichrist shall not come, before the Roman Empire doth wholly perish. Thirdly if we admit, that by the Apostasy is meant the defection or failing from the true Faith & religion of Christ (as Caluin doth show) we are not driven into any straits or difficulties. For it is not necessary, that S. Paul speaketh of the Apostasy of many ages, for he might speak of some very great and singular apostasy, which shall only be in that very short time, in which Antichrist shall reign, and so S. Augustine in the place before cited, that is l. 20. the civit. Dei. cap. 19 writeth, that this place was understood of many Ancients, who probably did teach, that Antichrist appearing, all Heretics or feigned Christians should wholly come to him, & by that means there would be at that time a very great Apostasy, such as never had been before. Fourthly, if we grant to Caluin, that S. Paul speaketh of another Apostasy of many ages, yet he shall get nothing. For we may say that, that Apostasy doth not necessarily belong unto one body & Kingdom of Antichrist, nor require one head, but that it is a disposition to antichrist's Kingdom, & that it is made in divers places, under divers Kings, and upon divers occasions, as now we see that Africa is failed, or revolted to Mahomet, a great part of Asia to Nestorius and ●●●●●hes, and other Provinces to other Sects. Fiftly and lastly, if we should grant to Caluin, that the general Apostasy from the faith, and which endureth now many years is antichrist's Kingdom, it would not straightway follow, that the Pope is Antichrist: for that question were to be handled, who hath failed or revolted from the Faith or Religion of Christ, we or they; that is, the Catholics or the Lutherans? Though they say, that we are those, which have failed, notwithstanding they have not yet proved it, nor hath it been declared by any common judge. And truly we can far more easily prove, that the Lutherans are those, who have failed, than they prove, that the Catholics have failed. For that they have failed from the Church, in which they were before, they themselves do not deny. For to let pass the rest, Erasmus Sarcerius upon that of the 2. Thessaly. 2. Then the wicked one shallbe revealed, doth plainly confess, that almost all the predecessors of the Lutherans, and he also did sometimes obey the Bishop of Rome, therefore they have failed from the Church, and Religion of their predecessors. But that we have failed from any Church, neither have they demonstrated hitherto, neither will they ever be able to demonstrate. Wherefore when they read in S. Paul, Unless the revolt or Apostasy be come, and the wicked one revealed etc. and think that they are departed from the Church, in which they were, and that we do persever always in the same ordinances, it is marvel, if at least they do not fear, lest S. Paul spoke of them. Out of this second head, we have the second argument, to prove that the Pope is not Antichrist. For if Antichrist be only one person, and there have been and shall be many Popes, endued with the same dignity and power; certainly Antichrist is to be sought else where, then in the Roman Sea. M. Downams Answer confuted. 1. MASTER Downam denieth, that Antichrist shall be one particular person, and to Beauties first place of Scripture he answereth, that in that place of S. john, Christ speaketh indefinitely of any false teacher, which should come to the jews joan. 5. in his own name, that is not sent of God. Secondly he speaketh also conditionally, If another come. Thirdly he speaketh of those jews, to whom he speaketh, and not of those jews, which shallbe in the end of the world. In which exposition of his, and especially in the first and third point, he is contrary to Bellarmine. Let us see therefore, how he answereth to Bellarmine's reasons. First to the Fathers he saith, that none of them hath that word uno, as though it were not sufficient, that they have others equivalent, and yet S. Augustine lib. 2. contra Aduersar. legis cap. 12. expressly distinguisheth the chief Antichrist from others, in that he is vn●● maior ceteris, and they multi. And S. Hierom in Dan. 7. calleth him, unum de hominibus. Secondly he saith, that the Fathers understand that place also of S. Matth. 24. v. 24. Matth. 24. where our Saviour speaketh in the plural number of Antichrist: as though the chief & proper Antichrist may not be one man, because there will be others like unto him, though far inferior in malice. Wherefore when our Saviour speaketh generally of all false Prophets, no doubt, he excludeth not the chiefest of them, but includeth him in the first place, so that whatsoever is common to all, doth most fitly agree to him: and therefore it is no marvel though the Fathers take it, as spoken principally of him. But on the other side when our Saviour maketh mention only of one, he is not to be understood of all. And this is the difference between the Father's exposition, and M. Downam's, that they observe the first and he the second, and therefore it is no marvel though they do not agree. Neither is it against the Fathers, that the jews have received more than one; but it is against M. Downam, that they have not received all that came: beside, that it is hard to show, that so many of the jews received any one false Prophet, as those were that received the true Christ; whereas our Saviour plainly affirmeth, that they shall generally receive him, of whom he speaketh. Wherefore thirdly, he telleth the Fathers roundly, that they had no reason to restrain those words Downam rejecteth the Fathers. unto Antichrist alone, & against them all opposeth Nonius a Poet, in his paraphrase, who expoundeth it thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. but if any other come: As though this Poet's authority were equal to all the Fathers, or (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) might not signify aliquu, or quidam, aswell as ●ll●●, or quis, some, or ascertain, aswell as any, especially in a Poet, who is sometime constrained to strain the sense, to make up his verse. Lastly he addeth, if these answers of his will not suffice, them yet he will not yield, except he see first proved, that whatsoever those Fathers wrote concerning Antichrist, is true. But I hope he will be better advised, and think it sufficient, that whatsoever our Saviour saith of Antichrist is true, and that in understanding his meaning, we must rather believe such learned men as have the authority of the Fathers on their side, then those that trust only to their own wits, having neither more learning nor judgement, than the other. For I persuade myself, that M. Downam will not prefer himself before Bellarmine in either. 2. To the first confirmation he answereth, that when alius is taken definitely, as Io. 18. 16. & 20. 2. 3. 4. then it is true; but where it is used indefinitely, as job 31. 8. 1. Cor. 3. 10. and in this place, than it is not. And by his citing of the Greek word in the first sense, with an article, and in the second without, it Downam mistaketh Bellarmine. should seem, he would have that to be the sign, in whether sense it is to be taken. But all this discourse proceedeth from want of understanding Bellarmine's confirmation; for he goeth not about to prove, that our saviour speaketh of the chief and proper Antichrist, but this supposed, gathereth that he shallbe one particular man, for that he opposeth him as one person, to himself, who was one particular person also. To which M. Downam answereth not, but only denieth the supposition, as though Bellarmine had gone about to prove that with this confirmation: neither doth that rule of the greek article hold always, especially in M. Downam's sense and opinion, as we shall see a little after. To the second confirmation, he denieth, that Christ foretell foretelleth, that Antichrist shallbe received of the jews for their Messiah. First because his speech is conditional, and only showeth them, what in respect of their present disposition, they were ready to do. As though this were not enough for Bellarmine's confirmation: for it is certain they would not have received him as their Messiah, if he were not a particular man, which is all that Bellarmine intendeth to prove Now, beside in the Scripture, the word (if) sometime signifieth (when) which the Fathers judge also (If) for (when) Esay. 4. 4. joan 14. 3. to be in this place. Secondly M. Downam saith, that the word alius, is indefinite. But that is only his own interpretation against the Fathers. Thirdly he saith, that our Saviour did not say, that they would receive him for their Messiah, but so he is to be understood. For that they were to receive him, as they were bound, and refused to receive our Saviour, for of this he speaketh. Fourthly he saith, that the jews, to whom, & of whom our Saviour speaketh, shall not be alive at the coming of the great Antichrist, according to the opinion of the Papists themselves. But M. Downam should have remembered, that not a whole leaf before, he himself said, that Bellarmine, and the rest of the Papists understand Christ to speak of those jews, which shallbe in the end of the world. To the third Confirmation, first M. Downam saith, that it would prove Antichrist to be us false Prophet: which is true, if he speak of the inferior sort of false Prophets. After he giveth another exposition that he shall come unsent of God, or as Lyra saith, that he shall not have testimonies from God, as Christ had: neither of which are contrary to Bellarmine's exposition, but rather both included in it. But besides the negative, he shall also have the affirmatine, as both our Saviour & S. Paul saith, against whom M. Downam's argument concludeth not, which is thus: The jews expect their Messiah from God, and consequently, he shall profess himself to be sent from God; for what knoweth M. Downam whether he will say, that he is their God himself, not sent by any other person, for that he will deny the Trinity: or though at the first he should deal otherwise, it is certain, that at length, he will extol himself above all Gods, as S. Paul saith, and consequently than he will profess himself to come in his own name, for that he acknowledgeth no Superior or equal in whose name he should come. To the fourth Confirmation he answereth, that because our Saviour speaketh conditionally and indefinitely, there is not so much as any show of reason in it. But Bellarmine proved, that our Saviour spoke definitely of the chief and proper Antichrist, and though he speaketh conditionally, his confirmation is in force, for that hindereth not the particularity of him, whom he speaketh of. 3. About the second place, M. Downan taketh occasion to show his skill in Greek & maketh a large discourse, that many times, the greek article doth not signify a particular thing, 2. Thess. 2. which both S. Epiphanius & Bellarmine knew aswell as himsel●e. 4. But when he cometh to that part of S. Epiphanius his observation which maketh to the purpose, he hath little When the Greek article signifieth a particular thing. to say against either of them both. For S. Epiphanius his rule, as M. Downan interpreteth it, is this: Where the article is added unto some definite and notable thing, there is always confirmation by the article. which confirmation he will have to be, that the word is not to be understood indefinitely or indifferently of any. Which interpretation cannot stand with S. Epiphanius his words, which do suppose, that there is no doubt, but that the word doth signify of itself, some definite, & notable thing, and yet the article is added to add some other confirmation, which can be only the particularity, as Bellarmine concludeth. So that Epiphanius and Bellarmine agree very well, and Doctor Downam cannot otherwise answer Bellarmine's argument, but by impugning S. Epiphanius his rule, which he doth by denying two of his examples, for the other was too evident; and those two he first refuteth by our English phrases, in which we will easily grant that M. Downam hath more skill then S. Epiphanius or Bellarmine, so that he will grant us. that they have more skill than he in Greek, out of which Bellarmine's argument is drawn. Secondly he allegeth 2. Tim. 2. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the man of God, and Luke 11. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the unclean spirit, but these are from the purpose since that neither place speaketh of the most eminent man of God, nor of the most eminent unclean spirit, which is necessary for S. Epiphanius his rule, who only speaketh of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which M. Downam translateth not well in the positive degree, and cannot deny the rule itself, which is confirmed by all the examples which he bringeth of Apostle, Poet, Orator, and Wiseman, and the same is evident of King, Man etc. when we only speak of the most eminent King, Man etc. as S. Paul doth here of the most eminent Antichrist. Now as for the second part of S. Epiphanius his rule, which M. Downam translateth thus; but without the article, it is to be taken of any one indefinitely, that is indeterminately, we grant it him, when it is the name of some definite and most notable thing, of which S. Epiphanius speaketh, but when it is only an adjective, or a pronoun, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, then it is out of S. Epiphanius his rule, especially when by some other circumstances, it is sufficiently declared, that some particular person or thing is meant, as it happeneth in our case. 5. Concerning the third place, it pleaseth M. Downam to be a little merry with Bellarmine, saying, that he thought the argument drawn from the article to good to go for one, and so divided it 1. john 2. into two. And yet he knew well enough that Bellarmine did not draw his argument from the article, but from places of Scripture, or rather bringeth many places of Scripture, to make one argument. But in good earnest I marvel, why M. Downam troubleth himself so much with an argument already answered in the former: for first he bringeth forth 2. Thess. 2. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that hindereth, which signifieth the state and succession of the Roman Emperors. As though this did signify the most notable Emperor, which is necessary for to verify S. Ephiphanius his rule. After this, he allegeth Matth. 1. 16. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon this rock, by which he saith, the Papists understand the whole succession of Popes, and yet there is not only the article, but also the pronoun demonstrative. But M. Downam should have considered, that the Papists do not otherwise understand the place of the whole succession of Popes, then by a necessary consequence, that whatsoever is given to one Pope, is given to all, and so this speech being used to S. Peter, as Pope, is by consequence to be understood and verified of all the rest. After this, he cometh back again to 2. Thess. 2. 3. which he had handled so largely before, and saith, that some Downam mistaketh Bellarmine and S. Augustine. do understand the Man of Sin, of the whole multitude of those who toyne with Antichrist, and addeth, that Augustine reciteth this opinion, and is so far from misliking it, that Bellarmine allegeth it as Augustine's. At which oversight of his I much marvel. For neither do those Authors speak of the Man of sin, but of the Apostasy or revolt: nor doth Bellarmine attribute the opinion to S. Augustine, as M. Downam or any other may easily see, if it please them to look upon the place in this Chapter, §. XXIII. yet M. Downam goeth on with his examples of the Woman, and the Harlot out of the Apoc. 12. 6. and 17. 1. 18. by which are signified the Church of Christ, and the City or Church of Antichrist. And yet he cannot choose but know, that first they signify those women, which were showed to S. john in the form of particular Women: and besides that which is signified by the women, is also as particular, as the nature of those things do permit, the Church of Christ in that time, of which S. john speaketh, and the material City of Rome, which is a particular City. 6. At length he cometh to the place which Bellarmine citeth, and he maketh the Apostle to reason thus: When the 1. joan. ●. Downam corrupteth the text of Scripture. Antichrist is come, it is the last hour, now Antichrists are come: therefore now is the last hour. Where I marvel how he durst be so bold with the holy Scripture, as to change (cometh) into (is come) If he saith that S. john might not have 4. * termini. terms in his argument, he should rather have said, that S. john did not argue at least in form, but rather that he did use a more brief and compendious manner of reasoning, by putting down two arguments, almost in two lines, as indeed he doth. For if M. Downam will needs bring it into form, it is thus: When the great Antichrist cometh, it is the last hour. But now he cometh. Ergo etc. the minor which might seem obscure he proveth thus: The great Antichrist is then said to come, when many are become Antichrists. But we see many such now. Ergo etc. And then he repeateth his former conclusion: Therefore it is the last hour. After this, M. Downam goeth to the 22. v. where S. john saith: This is the Antichrist, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which denieth the Father and the Son. Out of which there can no more be gathered, then that Antichrist shall deny both the Father and the Son: for S. john speaketh not generally of every one, that denieth jesus to 1. john 4. 5. be Christ, as M. Downam affirmeth. Likewise Cap. 4. 5. S. john only affirmeth, that it is the spirit of Antichrist to deny Christ, and that he was to come in himself, and was then in the world in his members: and the like he repeateth Epist. 2. v. 7. that all those which denied Christ to be come, were 2. john 7. members of the chief Seducer and Antichrist, which was to come after, and teach that doctrine more than any of the former. The rest which M. Downam hath in this place, be the objections which Bellarmine maketh, & solveth, as we shall see not long after. 7. To the fourth place M. Downam answereth, that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist at all, which he proveth by the authority of the learned of our times, but nameth not any: perhaps because Dan. 7. 11. & 12. he was ashamed to oppose them to those, which Cardinal Bellarmine cited, especially to his good Masters Calwin. the Magdclurgenses, and Beza. Afterward he proveth the same Downam perverteth Daniel egregiously. with reason, for that Daniel describeth him, whom M. Downam will have to be Antiochus only as the tenth, and Cardinal Bellarmine maketh him the cleaventh, as if it were a beast of cleaven horns: which truly is a strange boldness in M. Downam, the words of Daniel being so clear: for having said Cap. 7. v. 7. that the fourth beast had ten horns, he forth with added ●. 8. Consideraham cornua, & ce●● cor●u aliud par●●ulum orium est de medio eorum etc. I did consider the horns (no doubt the ten, which he had said that the beast had) and behold another little horn rose up in the midst of them, so that he distinguisheth it from the other ten by three notes. 1. calling it another. 2. a little one, no doubt in respect of the other ten: and 3. that it rose up in the midst of them, signifying that they appeared before this: and that it was not the tenth may also be gathered, by that it arose in the midst, and not in the same place, as it should have done, if it had signified one of the ten Kings of the Seleucida and Lagidae in Syria and Egypt, as M. Downam would have it. Where we may also note that these 10. Kings were all of distinct Provinces, and at one time, for otherwise this last horn could not have risen in the midst of them. And again v. 20. he that expounded the vision to Daniel saith thus; Et de cornibus decem, quae habebat in capite, & de alio quod ortum fuerat etc. And of the ten horns, which he had on his head, and of the other which arose etc. can any thing be more plain, than that the other which arose was none of the ten? But v. 24. more plainly, porrò cornua decem ipsius regni decem Reges erunt. & alius consurget post eos, & ipse potentior erit priorib●●, etc. Moreover the ten horns of his kingdom, shallbe ten Kings, and another shall arise after them, & he shallbe more potent than the former etc. Now what a strange man is M. Downam to say, that he is the tenth. And by this it is easy to gather how true his exposition is in the rest, as that those 10. Kings ruled succeffivelie ever the jews, and that 6. for the most part were dead before the 10. was borne, of which we shall have Chap. 16. occasion to speak hereafter. Now it is sufficient to note, that Bellarmine addeth that of the subving seven, out of the 12. 23. and 17. of the Apocalyps, together with the 7. of Daniel, for in all those places there is mention made of the 10. horns, but with this difference, that in the 12. chap. of Apoc. 3. v. there be together with the 10. horns, 7. heads, with 7. diadems, & in the 13. there be also 7. heads, & upon the horns 10. diadems; of which difference in the diadems, that in the former place they be but 7. and in the latter ten, the reason is, for that Antichrist shall kill three Kings, and so there shall only 7. remain. But of this we shall likewise have occasion to speak more hereafter. Now therefore, let us go forward with M. Downam who saith, that if Antiochus be Chap. 16. spoken of, and Antichrist be by him figured, it followeth not, that Antichrist shallbe a particular man, as Antiochus was, for that the likeness doth not hold in all things, but only in those in respect whereof the type is a figure, as the high Priest of the jews was a figure of Christ, and yet they were many. Melchrsedeth was (as Papists say) a figure of their Priests, and yet was but one. josuah, David & Solomon types of Christ, and yet not like him in all. As though Bellarmine said, that Antichrist shallbe like Antiochus in all things, or in any other thing, then that which is set down in the Scripture, and confirmed again in the new Testament, & so understood by the Fathers, as in his victories, and such other circumstances, that cannot agree to many, but only to one particular man as Antiochus was, and Antichrist shallbe. 8. To the 5. place M. Downam answereth, that S. john & Daniel speak of divers matters. For confirmation whereof he denieth again the 11. horn in Daniel, adding this proof, Apoc. 13. 17. that otherwise the 4. beast, were abeast of 11. horns. To which it is easy to answer, that before that little horn arose, that beast is described with 10. horns, and after he had but 7. left, for three of them were pulled up by this little horn, and by See cap. 1● this all the difference he putteth betwixt the 10. Kings in Daniel and S. john is overthrown. After he cometh to the time of the persecution of Antiochus & Antichrist, & for the former he granteth, that it endured only from the 15. day of the month Casleu, in the 145. year of the Kingdom of the Seleucidae 1. Macah. 1. 57 unto the 25. of the month Casleu, in the year 148. 1. Macab. 4. 52. which make 3. years and ten days, which is all that Daniel assigned by a time, and times, and parcel of a tyme. Where he maketh bold with Daniel, changing half a time unto a parcel of a time: for the Prophet saith plainly Downam corrupteth the text of Daniel Dan 7. 12. both cap. 7. v. 25. usque ad tempus, & tempora, & di●●diunt temporis, and again cap. 12. v. 7. he saith, that the Angel swore by him that liveth for ever, quia in tempus & tempora, & dimidium temporis, and after he counteth it also by days, dies mill duceuts ●●naginta, and yet all this will not keep M. Downam from taking away so much as he thinketh necessary, for to make his interpretation good. But when he cometh to the Apocalyps, See cap. 8. there he will not have the number to be literally understood, because it made too much against him, who will have antichrist's reign to endure many hundred years, & not only 42. months, as S. Io. affirmeth cap. 13. v. 5. which cap. 12. v. 6. he counteth also by days 12●0. and v. 14. with the very same words of Daniel, a time, and times, and half a time: and v 12. a little time, which is the short time he also speaketh of cap. 17. v. 10. Lastly he cometh to the Fathers, and it is strange to see how light he setteth by their authority, Downam rejecteth the Fathers. saying, that no sound argument can be drawn from it: and yet he would make a shift to seem to say something, repeating that which he had said before, that the Fathers do not expressly say, that he shallbe but one, and then, that some of them do expound Matth. 24. (where our Saviour speaketh in the plural number) of Antichrist. To both which I have already answered, that the Fathers use other words equivalent, and the place of S. Matth. is chief to be understood of the chief and proper Antichrist. Finally he would feign shift of those two proprieties of Antichrist, which Cardinal Bellarmine aleadgeth out of the Fathers, in his proof: and to the first, though faintly he affirmeth, that it might all be said of the whole succession of Popes; but he saw himself how false that was & therefore he would have willingly denied the assertion of the Fathers, and yet he durst not adventure upon that neither, saying, that he will not thereof dispute. Where it is pitiful to see how poor M. Downam was met withal on every side, and remained so perplexed, that he could not tell which way to turn himself. But when he cometh to the second propriety, he saith, that he will take heed, how he cometh any more into such perplexity, and so he thinketh better to crave pardon for this time, and refer it till another meeting, See cap. ●. at which you shall hear what he will be able to say for himself. In the mean time, he will try his cunning, whether it will serve him to reach Cardinal Bellarmine one little veny at the least, since he hath been sound thwaked & cudgeled by him, and at last made to run out of the battle with a broken head; and so he layeth down his defensive weapons, and betaketh himself to the offensive, bringing the arguments which Bellarmine allegeth out of other Heretics, as though they were his own. 9 And yet he would feign seem to add something to the force of the first argument: and for this purpose he maketh a Conference betwixt Paul and john, and in the margin citeth 3. places out of S. john's Epistles, & after putteth the argument 1. john 4. 3. 2. Io. 7. 1. Io. 2. 18. in form, but in substance addeth nothing at all, but rather weakeneth it much by a new interpretation of his own, how our Saviour shall kill Antichrist with the spirit of his mouth, that is (saith he) with the Ministry of the word: & so it shall Downam weakeneth his fellows argument. not be necessary to expect our saviours coming to kill him, for that M Downam, and his fellow Ministers of the Word, will take the matter upon themselves, But then I ask M. Downam, how he knoweth that Antichrist shall continue to the end of the world, in which the force of the Argument consisteth? 10. After this, he beginneth to reply to Cardinal Bellarmine's answer, saying, that he cannot deny either the proposition or the assumption, & that he only distinguisheth of the former part of the assumption: which I cannot think that M. Downam said for any disgrace to the solution; for if there be any fault in that kind of answering, it will redound to the disputer, who committeth a vice in arguing which is called Equivocation, & the answerer that findeth it out, is worthy of commendation. But M. Downam goeth about to overthrow the distinction, with impugning first the explication, which Bellarmine useth by the similitude of Christ's coming, which it pleaseth M. Downam to call his first proof, and to note out of Plato, that it is a most slippery argument. But neither Plato nor he will deny, but that it is a good kind of explication, which is all that Bellarmine used it for, as M. Downam might have easily considered, seeing Bellarmine begin to prove in two sorts strait Downam taketh Bellarmine's explication, & answer for his argument. after. But you must give one, that hath an ill cause in hand leave to seek to help himself by all the tricks, and fetches he can invent, for it was not without a further purpose, that M. Downam would needs have Bellarmine prove, and not answer in this similitude, if you consider his words. In which similitude (saith he) there is no proportion, unless that which is in question be taken for granted, namely that Antichrist is but one particular person, as Christ is. So that there is proportion in it, if Antichrist may be said to be a particular person, which willbe always lawful for Bellarmine, or any other defendant to affirm, till his Adversary drive him from that assertion by some forcible argument, and likewise to explicate in what sense he saith so, by some example, which his Adversaries themselves cannot deny. Wherefore M. Downam cometh to the protasis, or proposition of the similitude, and saith plainly, that it is untrue: which he proveth first, for that the Holy Ghost maketh a kind of opposition betwixt Gods sending of the Prophets, and the coming of Christ. As though all kind of opposition did make that proposition untrue, or rather some kind of opposition were not necessary to make it true, as of the figure, and that which is prefigured, the forerunner and he that is forerunner, the member & the head. Secondly for that the Prophets or patriarchs are not any where called the forerunners of Christ, but only S. john Baptist, for that he went a little before. So that M. Downam granteth, that he who goeth a little before, may well be Downam's absurd folly. said to go before, but he that goeth far before, may not: which is a strange affirmation, except he meaneth to make it good by affirming, that S. john Baptist did prepare Cgrists' way, because he only lived in Christ's time, and pointed him out with his finger, which I am sure M. Downam will not say, and consequently upon better deliberation he will grant, that Christ came in the patriarchs and Prophets aswell as in S. john Baptist, since that they went before aswell as he, and prepared also the way for Christ's coming: and there is as much opposition made betwixt S. john Baptist and our Saviour, as betwixt him and the patriarchs or Prophets. After this, he maketh an idle objection of his own, & answereth it as slightly, both which I leave also to himself to consider. lastly he cometh to the reddition or application, which he saith is contradictory to 1. Io. 4. 3. 2. Io. 7. who saith, that Antichrist with the article prefixed, and whom they heard was to come, was already come: which you heard Bellarmine grant with a distinction, not in his own person, but in his forerunners, and now M. Downam proveth it very substantially, by repeating the former argument for want of another, and so he standeth at a non plus, only he confirmeth it by the argument, which S. john maketh 1. Io. 2. 18. which I have put Nu. 6. down & confuted in the answer to the third place of Scripture, whither I remit the Reader, not to weary him with so many idle repetitions of the same thing, as M. Downam maketh, which also I mean (God willing) to observe hereafter. 11. To the first proof of Bellarmine's answer, he rejecteth the former interpretation of those 3. Father's S. Ambrose, Downam rejecteth the Fathers. S. Chrysostome, and S. Hierome, by his own absolute authority. For when he began to think how he might deceive some of the simple sort, by making a show that the Pope is Antichrist, he did put this down for a chief Principle, that Antichrist should be no open, but a disguised enemy, and a pretended Christian: and this he will defend against all the Fathers, yea against the Apostles, & Christ himself, though with this difference, that against the Fathers, who without all doubt, were the members of Christ, he opposeth himself manifestly: but against Christ and his Apostles only covertly, by false expositions of his own head, with which he convinceth, that he is only a member of that great Antichrist, and not the great Antichrist himself. But I hope well, that both M. Downam himself and all that follow him, or join with him against those ancient Fathers the true members of Christ, will at length join with them against those disguised enemies and pretended Christians, of which number, they themselves are for the present. And in the mean time, till they amend themselves, they must give us leave to think with the holy Fathers, that both Antichrists members, as also himself have been, and shallbe not only disguised, but also open enemies of Christ, as you see those holy Fathers affirm of Nero and the other of the Heretics, who deceive secretly, which both M. Downam, and we also antichrist's members sometimes open enemies to Christ. admit. And yet we may note, that this secrecy of the Heretics is not so great, but that many times it containeth manifest opposition against Christ, as we see in Simon Magus, who named himself Christ, and in Montanus who would needs be the Holy Ghost. And if M. Downam had rather have new examples he may remember George David, and M. Hacke● with his two Prophets. But now I would ask M. Downam, what it maketh against Bellarmine, whether the members and forerunners of Antichrist be disguised or open enemies, so that it be granted, that then there were some such, and yet the great Antichrist was not yet come, as M Downam himself confesseth, that the Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not revealed until 606. years after; so that till than Antichrist was come only after a sort, that is (as after he explicateth) in some of his members, which is all that Belarmine pretended. But perhaps M Downam will say, that he knew well enough what he said when he only affirmed that Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not then revealed, though be were come. But then I would ask him how he was otherwise come, then in the Heretics his members, which is that which Bellarmine answereth. And if he can show us no other manner, than we may see how easy a matter it is to understand, that Antichrist might be so said to be come in S. Paul's and S. john's time, and yet that the chief & proper Antichrist, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not yet come in person, but shallbe one man in the end of the world. 12. To the second proof. First M. Downam answereth, that it cannot be proved out of Scripture, or by any sound argument, that Downam rejecteth all ancient writers. Pete● and Paul were Bishops of Rome. For you must unerstand that the authority of S. Irenam, or of all ancient writers is of no force at all with M. Downam: and besides, he knoweth well enough, that S. Paul is said to have been in Rome in the Scripture, and S. Peter also, if he will stand to his own exposition of the would Babylon; and supposing they were there, I hope he will as soon grant them the Bishopric, as any other. But to let this pass, M. Downam will be twice advised before he grant, that the Bishop of Rome at that time (whosoever he was) was Antichrist, which is as much as Bellarmine would have denied at this present, and M. Downam doth him that courtesy; yea and to agree with him in the exposition of S. Paul and S. john. For thus he writeth. When we say, that Antichrist was come in the Apostles time, we speak of the body of Antichrist with S. john: when we say that Antichrist hath his seat in Rome, we speak of the head of this body: so that now you see here be distinct persons, part of which were come, and part not come in S. john's tyme. But M. Downam goeth about to deceive the Reader by telling him a long tale of the Pope, without Downam speaketh from the purpose. any proof, and from the purpose. But he must be put in mind to answer Cathegoricè, whether Antichrist, that S. Paul and S. John saith was come in their time, were the same, that was to have his seat in Rome or no? If he saith yes, than he must also grant, that S. Peter and S. Paul, or whosoever had the seat at that time was Antichrist. If he will stick to his noe; than it is plain, that there is no consequence in Beza● argument: Some manner of Antichrist was come in the Apostles time: Ergo no other, that shallbe only one man can come after, unless he were alive at that tyme. Yet for all this M. Downam maketh the best shift he can, saying, that in Bellarmine's argument there is no consequence, vulesthiss be taken for granted, that Antichrist is but one man, which is the question; & after he frameth arguments as it pleaseth him. But M. Downam should have considered, that Bellarmine supposed not, that Antichrist was but one man, neither was it much material in this place, if we speak only of the chief and proper Antichrist, whom Bellarmine only affirmeth to be one: but he supposeth that which M. Downam and his Master Beza put in their probation, if they will conclude any thing, that Antichrist of whom S. john speaketh is the same, that is to have his seat at Rome, for than it followeth very well, that he in person had his seat in Rome: in the Apostles time, & not only in the heretics his members. For if this second were enough, it were not necessary, that he himself should bealive at that time, and consequently he might well enough be shine at the end of the world, & yet be no very old man neither; for that it is uncertain, when he was to be borne. For certain it is, that he needed not to be in S. Paul's and S. john's time, if they speak not of him in person, but only of some of his members, which for aught S. Paul and S. john say, or M. Downam can prove, might be in the world before he himself came in person, not only many an hundredth year, which M. Downam granteth of 600. but also many thousands. 13. Lastly M. Downam cometh to Bellarmine's answer to the confirmation, where first he censureth that tradition, which the Fathers gather commonly out of the Scripture, that Elias shall come in person, before the second coming Downam censureth the Fathers. of Christ, for a jewish fable: and yet doth he not so much as go about to prove with any argument, that it shall not be so, but only confirmeth, that S. john Baptist was called Elias, and giveth the reason why he was so called, in which there is no controversy. And at least wise he might have vouchsafed, to have told us out of his high learning, what our Saviour meant in that place which Bellarmine citeth, by saying, that Elias indeed shall come, for this cannot be understood of S. john Baptist, who as our Saviour affirmeth in the same place, See Chap. 6. was already come: wherefore till M. Downam bringeth some better proofs, I take it, any wise man will not only suppose as he giveth him leave to do, but also hold for certain, that Elias shall come in person, though he be said to have come Elias shall come in person. in S. john Baptist: for that he had a spirit like unto his, & consequently that it is not necessary, that there shall come no other Antichrist in person, at the end of the world, because S. john saith, that he was come in his time in some of his members, whose spirit was like his: for Bellarmine disputeth not now, but answereth by producing another place of Scripture like unto that which is objected, which cannot be denied to be a good manner of answering. But M. Downam bringeth forth a place of Scripture, where David is promised to come after he was dead, and yet it is not understood Ezech. 34. of King David, but of Christ: and therefore neither is Elias to come again. But M. Downam will easily see, if it pleaseth him to put this argument in form (in which he seemeth to take particular delight) that one may well answer him, nego consequentiam, and withal he may note, how that name David is sometime taken properly, and sometime for a distinct person which is figured by the former, which is somewhat harder, then that the type should take the name of the chief and principal in that kind, which it figureth: and as it were no good argument to say, David shall come, therefore he is not come, for there be two to whom the name of David agreeth; so likewise the argument which we have been discussing all this while, concludeth not, since it is only thus: Antichrist is already come, therefore he shall not come in the end of the world, for that there be more than one Antichrist, and the chiefest is not come any otherwise yet then in his members. 14. Concerning Bezas second reason M. Downam addeth to the 7. of Damel also the 11. and besides the 13. and 17. Apoc. and saith that in all these places under the name & figure of a beast is not described one singular thing or person, but a whole state or succession, and in the assumption instead of 2. Thess 2. he putteth down Apoc. 13. where he saith, Antichrist is described under the name & figure of a beast: then he proveth the proposition by induction out of the 7. & 8 of Daniel and Apoc. 13. so that he hath made a Downam cannot defend Beza. new argument of his own, for that belike he could not save his M. Beza from absurdities, if he should have followed his Argument against Bellarmine's answer, and yet he putteth down Bellarmine's answer, as though it had been given to this new Argument, which he hath coined himself. In Downam apply Bellarmine's answer to a wrong argument. Dan. 8. which he showeth less upright dealing then Bellarmine doth, with the Scriptures, by saying, that in the 8. Chap. of Daniel the Ram and the Goat signify but two several Kings, which M. Downam thinketh to be against the Scripture, for that in the 20. v. where the vision is expounded, there is in Hebrew, the word Kings, in the plural number, and for that afterward Daniel addeth of the Goat, that the great horn which was betwixt his eyes is the first King namely Alexander, and consequently the Goat, whose horn this was, could not be the same Alexander. For the first part of which objection M. Downam must be content, that we attribute as much to S. Hierome both in skill in the Hebrew tongue, and in Scripture, as to himself, and S. Hierome translateth the Hebrew word in the singular number, Rex Medorum est, atque Persarum: so that either he thought that the plural number was put for the singular, as it is usual in Scripture, or else in the Hebrew text in his time, it was also in the singular number: and the first reason hath the more probability in this place, for that Darius was in effect two Kings, since he had two Kingdoms, which is also signified by the two horns, which the Ram had. And this is so much the more plain for that it is manifest, that he who was overthrown by Alexander was no other than Darius one King, as we read in 1. Machab. 1. and justine lib. 11. and Plin. lib. 10. cap. 7. do also testify. Now for the second part, M. Downam might easily see, that both the Goat, and the horn being called a King in the same 21. v. either do both signify Alexander, or else if the one do signify the King, and the other the Kingdom, he must give us some reason, why rather the former should be taken for the kingdom, than the latter, especially since we see in the same Chapter, that by the two horns of the Ram, are signified his two Kingdoms; and beside, it is well known that he who did conquer and overcome the King of the Medes and Persians, was no other than Alexander, who is also called Hircus caprarum, after the Hebrew phrase, which signifieth a young Goat (as I might prove by many examples, but that I suppose M. Downam to be so cunning both in Scripture and Hebrew, that he will not contradict it for that he was not passed 20. years old when he began his Monarchy by his admirable victories, for which in the 5 verse he is said, to have gone so swiftly, as though he had slowen in the air, and not touched the earth. By which means, the little horn which he had betwixt his eyes, that is the Kingdom which he governed, came to be very great & strong in a short space & at his death was divided into four little ones, in respect of his great Monarchy, which contained all those 4. After this M. Downam cometh to Bellarmine's second answer, to which he granteth, that S. Paul speaketh not of any of the 4. beasts, spoken of by Daniel, which in effect is to grant, that Bezas consequence was nothing worth: and poor M. Downam had no other shift, but to say, that no man said so, because he meant not to say so himself. And yet to set the better face on it, he denieth also that Antichrist is the little horn, as Bellarmine affirmeth. But he should have considered that the other was that which was necessary, that the argument might stand in force, and that now Bellarmine is the defendant, and therefore it is not enough for M. Downam to deny what he saith, but he must also prove the contrary. Thus much for Bezas argument which as you see Bellarmine hath solved even by M. Downam's own confession, and therefore he hath added otherplaces of Scripture, to hold it up from falling, or rather he hath let Bezas argument fall, for that it was past recovery, and hath patched up another of his own. To which I answer that in all the places which he citeth, only in the 7. of Daniel, by the beasts be signified Kingdoms; for in the 11. of Daniel there is not once any Beast named, and Apoc. 13. there be two Beasts, but the former signifieth only one man Antichrist, & the latter his chief false Prophet, and Apoc. 17. the Beast signifieth the Devil. All which M. Downam must not put me to prove now, till it be my turn, and then he shall see I shallbe better stored both with arugments & authority than he is who bringeth neither. And as for the assumption, that in the 13. of Apoc. Antichrist is the second Beast, I have already denied it; for M. Downam was in some need of Scripture, & so he was enforced to use one place, both in his proposition & assumption, and to thrust in other which made nothing to his purpose. 15. About the third objection M. Downam had little to add, only he explaineth what a substantial ground they have for the exposition of that word (Apostasy) which is no other, but because it pleaseth them to understand it so. And to Bellarmine's first answer, he saith: that it doth rather make against himself, than otherwise, for that he cannot infer thence, that Antichrist is but one man.. As though he that answereth were to infer any thing, and not only to show, how his adversary inferreth nothing. Wherefore M. Downam addeth, that rather the contrary is to be inferred: for if Apostasy be put by a Metonymy of the adjunct, for the subject, or rather of the effect for the cause, that is for the parties which do revolt, than it followeth, that Antichrist signifieth the whole body and Kingdom of Antichrist. In which Downam mistaketh Bellarmine. reply of his, I can see no other reason but want of consideration of that which Bellarmine hath said: for the interpretation, which is given by him in his first answer of the word Apostasy is only this, that Antichrist is called the Apostasy, for that he shallbe the cause that many forsake God: so that not those which forsake God, but he that is the cause thereof, is called the Apostasy. And so though those that forsake God be many, yet he that is the cause may be only one. If M. Downam hath any thing to reply against this, either he must show, that the cause of the Apostasy, may not be called the Apostasy, or else, that one man may not be the cause that many forsake God, and not speak so confusedly and darkly as he doth, lest he make Downam speaketh from the purpose. men think that he useth that art, to seem to say something, when he hath nothing to say indeed, which may be also suspected, by that which he addeth out of S. Augustine of an opinion which he misliketh not, and which Bellarmine allegeth in his third answer, as also of antichrist's sitting in the Church; all which he knoweth well enough to make nothing to the force of this argument, nor to be against this first answer of Bellarmine, and therefore is but an idle addition for want of matter to the purpose. About the second reason, that Bellarmine giveth, why Antichrist may be called the Apostasy, M. Downam hath nothing to say against it, but Antichrist shallbe an Apostata. only noteth, that seeing none can be an Apostata which hath not been a Christian, Antichrist shall not be a jew, but a back sliding and revolted Christian: which if we take the name properly, as it signifieth one that falleth from Christ, is a probable argument, that Antichrist shallbe baptised: but yet he may be a jew, both by birth, as also by profession, as julian was a Gentile in profession, and yet a notable Apostata. But this name may also be understood of those which fall from God, though they were no Christians. And in this sense it is more ample, and therefore more fit for Antichrist, who shall not only oppose himself to Christ, but also extol himself above all that is called God. And this is all, that M. Downam replieth to Bellarmine's first answer, for he hath not so much as gone about to prove, that Antichrist may not be understood by the Apostasy, because he shallbe the cause that many forsake God, or because he shallbe a most notable Apostata; nor that one man may not be called so for these two reasons, which be only the points that could make against Bellarmine's answer. 16. To the second answer M. Downam replieth first, that the dissension of the Fathers, proveth that their exposition can be no good rule of interpreting the Scriptures. Which note I would he would apply to himself, and his fellow-Ministers: for no doubt The Protestants exposition of Scripture not much worth. he would find, that their expositions are not much worth, since they agree so little; and if when the Fathers do diversly expound the same place, it is a sign, that it is not certain which interpretation is to be followed, but that either may be admitted, so far as they serve not from any point of Faith; how much less certainty can we have of M. Downam and his fellows, who many times do not only differ from all others, but also among themselves, and that in matters which belong to Faith, in which one holdeth against the other, and both against all the world beside? After this M. Downam goeth about to prove that the Apostasy cannot signify the revolt from the Roman Empire, because in other places of Scripture, it signifieth a falling away from God: and for that, afterward it is called the mystery of iniquity, which was working in, and by the heretics of those times, and because S. Augustine expoundeth it so. All which, as you see, do only confirm the former exposition, but nothing impugn this latter, specially since M. Downam confesseth himself, that the defection from the Roman Empire was to go before antichrist's coming, and so this exposition containeth nothing against Faith, and consequently may be probably defended, which is enough for to solve the argument, especially since it cannot be denied, but that the word may have this signification; and S. Paul's drift and context doth favour this explication, for that he giveth reasons, why the coming of Christ was not to be thought so near at hand, as some gave out: which he doth more fully, if we understand it after this manner, especially since, as concerning Antichrist, he speaketh plainly enough after. As for the mystery of iniquity which M. Downam will needs have to be all one with the Apostasy, or departure, it is manifest that they be two distinct things, for that S. Paul supposeth evidently v. 3. that the revolt was not yet The apostasy and the Mystery of Iniquity not all one. See cap. 14. 11. 3. come, and v. 7. he affirmeth plainly, that the mystery of Iniquity did work then. For now (saith he) the mystery of Iniquity worketh, only that he which now holdeth, do hold until he be taken out of the way, and then that wicked one shallbe revealed. In which words he seemeth to repeat that, which he had said before in other words, assigning plainly the time of antichrist's coming, by the taking away of him, which holdeth, that is, the Roman Emperor; and consequently it is very probable, that he meant the revolt from him before, by the Apostasy, which the latin Interpreter considering, did not retain the Greek word Apostasia, which seemeth to be How far divers expositions are to be admitted. more appropriated to the falling from God, but translated it Discessio, which may very well be applied to this other. Now it is no marvel, that S. Augustin favoureth the other exposition, which he taketh for the best, but yet he refuteth not this: & it is his rule, that when divers expositions be conformable to Faith, they are all to be admitted, as Bellarmine admitteth Aug. lib. 12. Confess. cap. 31. them. But M. Downam will disprove and disallow of what misliketh him, or hindereth his heresies, and this with his own private, but yet most absolute authority, which he presumeth the holy Ghost hath given him in all such affairs. But the best is, that all men are as free from obligation to believe him, as he and his fellows are ready to take so much upon them. 17. To the third Answer M. Downam replieth, that the event hath showed, that this general revolt hath been made by little & little. Downam's petitio principij To which (to answer him in form) I deny his Antecedent for that it is the chief matter in controversy, and therefore should not have been taken for the Antecedent, but for the Consequent. Next he saith, that as this revolt did grow by degrees; so it cannot be abolished at once, but by degrees, and therefore was notlike to be an Apostasy of three years, and a half only. To which I answer that if it did not grow by degrees, than it may be abolished at once, and therefore is like enough to be an Apostasy of three years and a half only. Besides that, it is not necessary, that it should be so long in abolishing, as it was in growing, especially when God himself taketh the matter in hand, and useth his absolute power, as he will do in this case, as S. Paul testifieth 2. Thess. 2. Thirdly he draweth an argument from the conversion of the jews, whom he saith, neither our Saviour as he was a man, and the Minister of Circumcision, nor the Apostles and other Disciples could for many years convert, notwithstanding their doctrine and miracles were more effectual and admirable, than those of Antichrist. Where first M. Downam is very bold with our Saviour, Christ's knowledge & power, is not to be limited by that which he did. though he speak of him only as man, limiting his knowledge and power to that only which he did: whereas the rule thereof is far different, except M. Downam doth also think, that he had not all perfect knowledge, and power from the beginning, which I will not charge him with all, until I hear him say so, for that I have a better opinion of him, then that he will fall into so great folly or blasphemy. Wherefore I doubt not, but that he will easily see, that our Saviour taught and wrought according to that which was set down by the heavenly wisdom of his Eternal Father, who gave to the jews such outward means, as were very sufficient in that kind to have drawn them to acknowledge and receive their true Messiah; but yet no doubt, could have taught them more plainly, and not in Parables, as our Blessed Saviour said, and did also to his Apostles, and likewise could have wrought greater miracles, as well as the Apostles, and their successors, but he wrought those which were determined to be wrought in that time, and which were foretold in the Scriptures, & denied flatly to work some other, as to give them signs from Heaven, and to come down from the Cross. But besides these outward means, he used other inward, which are far more effectual, and therefore I marvel much, that M. Downam forgot them, for I will not suspect, that he was either so ignorant as not to know them, or so addicted to Pelagius as to deny them: and yet in these also he used such moderation as on the one side, the jews had no want of them, if they would not have been wanting themselves, and yet our Saviour could have given them far greater inward helps than he did. Neither must M. Downam urge his distinction too far of Christ as Man; for either it will prove too much, or nothing at all. For if he speak of the humanity of Christ, considered in itself, and not as the instrument of his Divinity, than he could not do any miracle at all of those which he actually did; and therefore I always suppose, that M. Downam speaketh not in this base and unworthy sense, by which Christ is considered, not only as man, but also as if he were no more, nor no better than a pure man; but if it be considered, as the instrument of his Divinity, than his power extendeth itself so far, as the power of God himself, though actually he putteth not all in execution, but only that which Gods eternal wisdom hath appointed. But now to M. Downam's reply, I grant the Antecedent, but deny the Consequent, chiefly, for that we have sufficient ground to think so, though we could not understand the reason of it: and beside, that very obstinacy of the jews doth give a sufficient cause of this event. For if, being assailed by such effectual and wonderful means: as the doctrine and miracles of Christ, his Apostles and Disciples were, notwithstanding it was forcible enough to keep them in their former sins, and to draw them into far greater; what marvel is it, that being destitute of such extraordinary helps, and set upon by Antichrist and his followers, who shall abound with all power and deceitful means, and such especially as they expect; that they yield unto his doctrine, & take him with one accord to be the Messiah, whom they have so long expected. And as for the rest of the world that shall join with him, it shall not come, especially at the first, so much for the liking of his doctrine, as for desire of liberty, coldness of charity, and abounding in sin, which be the chains by How Antichrist shall draw men to follow him. which men are drawn into errors, heresies, and infidelity, as both our Saviour and S. Paul teach, and the experience of all ages, and particularly of this of ours, doth manifestly show, which I could wish M. Downam and others of his mind to consider attentively, & they may perhaps come to know more plainly, the ground of their new gospel, by this consideration duly weighed, then by all the books that they can read written, either for it, or against it. And besides M. Downam may consider what great overthrows in Faith, temporal commodities and persecution will cause, of which he may also find store of examples in this our miserable Country, where no small multitudes join with Protestants, only for these respects, as would easily appear, if it would please his Majesty to give all men liberty to use their conscience, and profess the Religion which they believe in heart to be true. Lastly M. Downam taketh up Bellarmine very short, for abusing the authority of S. Augustine: and yet with reading the place in Bellarmine he should have seen, that Bellar. saith only, that S. Augustine writeth, that the place of S. Paul Downam mistaketh and abuseth Bellar. and other Authors. was so understood by many ancient writers: so that in this M. Downam dealt very hardly with Bellarmine; but after abuseth not only Bellarmine, but also those Ancient writers, and S. Augustine himself, by affirming, that they only speak of the mystery of Iniquity, teaching that it should still work, that is, that unsound men in the church shall more & more revolt, until they make a sufficient number for Antichrist, but that there is never a word of this defection caused either by one man, or in so short a time, but rather the contrary. The cause of which rash assertion is his mistaking, for Bellarmine citeth those, which S. Augustine allegeth for the exposition of the word Discessio, or as he readeth it, Transsuga, by which he saith some understand not ipsum Principem, the chief Antichrist himself, but his whole body, that is, the multitude of men which belong to him, together with the chief himself. By which it plainly appeareth that he speaketh of the defection caused by this Prince; the time of whose reign, is manifest in the Scripture itself. 18. To the 4. answer, M. Downan replieth (having first made aparenthesis in Bell. name, as though he thought that the apostasy whereof the Apostle spoke, were to endure many ages, though he could not chose but see, that he thought nothing less) that this 4. answer is overthrown by the first. In which he is either very simple, or deceitful: for it is plain, that when one giveth divers answers to one argument, he is not bound to make them all agree together, but every one by itself. After he saith that he hath showed, that the whole body of Apostates, and Heretics professing the name of Christ, is Antichrist, about which I remit the Reader to that, which hath been answered to what he hath said hitherto. Thirdly he answereth instead of replying, that all degrees going before the revelation of Antichrist, were a disposition not to the being, but to the revealing of Antichrist: for (as S. john saith) Antichrist was in the Apostasy neither could he be revealed, unless he first were. But to this Bellarmine answered long since, that Antichrist was not in the Apostles time in person, but only in his forerunners; and the distinction of being, and revealing is impertinent, even in M. Downam's own opinion, if he speak antichrist's coming & revelation all one. of the chief Antichrist in person, whom he will have to have been revealed so soon as he came, & so likewise were his forerunners also; which is no marvel, if we consider, that their coming is, when they begin to teach false doctrines, by which they are also necessarily known to be come, to all such as know those doctrines to be false: so that it is plain, that their coming and their revelation is all one, as the coming of the sun & the light, by which it is revealed. And the like is of any thing, that is necessarily conjoined to some manifest token, by which it may be known, as heretics and Apostates are if they declare themselves for such by doctrine and works, of which M. Downam may have examples in his Masters, Luther, Caluin, and the rest; who were forthwith revealed to be Heretics, so soon as they began to teach new doctrines: only it may be, that they may for some space dissemble, and seem to be Catholics though in heart they be Heretics. But this maketh nothing to the purpose, for all that time they are not come in the sight of men, but only in the sight of God; and no man will deny, but that Antichrist may come in this sort before he begin to teach. But this is not the coming, which M. Downam talketh of, since he saith, that Antichrist was come in Simon Magus, and others who taught Heresies, and yet he will not have him revealed, till the chief Antichrist come also. After this, he citeth Theodoretus, who by Apostasy understandeth Antichristes presence. As though Bellarmine had not admitted and answered that interpretation before. lastly he noteth for a thing very unlikely, that the preparation for Antichrist should be 1500. years in making, & that he should continue only 3. years and a half. As though the preparation for our Blessed Saviour had not been as long, & the time of his preaching and working miracles as short. Besides that Antichrist was not to come till the Gospel of Christ had been preached over all the world; & many parts fallen away from the Faith, which they had received, and the rest in great disposition, by reason of their corrupt customs to do the same. All which could not be done in few years, as neither was Antichrist to be suffered to reign any long time, lest he should overcome, even the very chosen, if it were possible, and therefore our Saviour was to destroy him in so short a space. 19 To the last answer he vaunteth, as though he had gotten a great advantage, for that Bellarmine goeth so far, as supposing all that which they would have were true, yet Downam● vain bragging. it maketh nothing against us. And here M. Downam braggeth of the goodness of his argument, & yet strait way after he calleth it only an answer. But the poor man is deceived in thinking that when one saith, transeat, because the argument is impertinent, that he doth it, because the argument is very good, whereas indeed it is only because it is nothing worth as M. Downam might easily have seen in this of his, by the 4. precedent answers. And there can no argument be more fully answered, then by showing, that it may be answered many ways, and in all opinions. And lastly, that though it were admitted, yet the chief question remaineth as doubtful as before. But M. Downam saith, that none of their side make this argument: Antichrist is not one man: Therefore, the Pope is Antichrist: which because he saith it, we will believe him: but then I must ask him, whether any of them make this argument or Noah, The head of the general Apostasy, which endureth many years is Antichrist: but the Pope is the head of this Apostasy. Ergo, the Pope is Antichrist: for this M. Downam himself setteth down in the end of his discourse: and this is the argument which Bellarmine answereth by letting pass the proposition with a transeat though it be false, & denying the Assumption. 20. And so at last M. Downam is content to prove it, which he doth very worshipfully, by an argument that is called petitio principij, alleging certain points in controversy, Downam's petitio principij and supposing that we teach false in them all, as about Marriages & Fast, though he know well enough that we allow the Sacrament of matrimony, & forbidden none to marry, but such as of their own accord have bound themselves to the essate of continency: nor command any fastings, for that we think any creature of God unclean or defiled, nor adore Images as Idols, or Gods; nor refuse any part of Scripture, or admit any thing against Scripture, as he falsely affirmeth, but only deny Heretical interpretations, and admit certain and undoubted Traditions, and Definitions, which agree with Scripture, and are both commended, and many times insinuated in Scripture, though not so plainly explicated, as other points of doctrine, which are held, aswell by Tradition, as by manifest Scripture, expounded by the uniform consent of holy Fathers. But it is strange how M. Downam slippeth over that which, Bellarmine urgeth Downam dissembleth the difficulty. against him, which is, that they have plainly apostated from our Church, even by their own confession, and that they cannot show, that ever weapostated from any Church at all; and consequently that there is far more likelihood, that they belong to the general Apostasy, of which Antichrist is head, since it is plain that in some sort they are Apostates, than we, who in no sort can be proved to have apostated at all. 21. Hitherto you have seen, how M. Downam hath replied against Bellarmine. Now you shall here one objection of his own in these words: To the 3. former arguments a fourth may be added: the 7. heads of that beast which signifieth the Roman estate, Apoc. 17. are not so many persons, but so many heads or States of government, whereby the commonwealth of the Romans hath been at divers times governed: the sixth head was the state of Emperors: the 7. Antichrist, as the Papists confess (for which he citeth Rhem. in Apoc. 17. and Bellarmine:) the eight (which also is one of the 7.) the state of the Emperors renewed. Whereby it evidently appeareth, not only that Antichrist is not one man, but also that the Pope (who is the 7. head) is Antichrist. To which I answer, that all or the most part of this exposition is false, and especially that which appertaineth to the present purpose. For first he bringeth neither author nor reason to prove, that those 7. heads did signify 7. states of government in Rome; and others as good authors as M. Downan do expound it far otherwise. Secondly, though we admit this exposition as probable, and that the head is Antichrist yet it followeth not, that he shallbe any more than one man, for he may have a different government, which is to endure but only in his own time, especially since in the same place he is said to stay a short time, and else where it is plainly explicated, that it shallbe only three years and a half; and so it appeareth not so evidently, as M. Downam weeneth, that Antichrist or the 7. head shall not be one man, even in his own exposition, and much less that the Pope is Antichrist. For neither is he the 7. head, since the 6. still remaineth; neither hath he endured a short time, as the 7, head shall. And as for the 8. which M. Downam would make an head also (for Downam addeth an head of his own to the 7. of the beast. which he must be feign to lend him his own head, for otherwise there willbe only 7. found in the Scripture) it is manifest, that M. Downam's interpretation is most foolish, for that he maketh the beast with 7. heads to have 8. and himself to be one of them, and so to be also only one head, he being indeed no head at all, but a beast which hath 7. heads, and is said to be the 8. in number, not of heads, but of distinct rulers or governors; for that he is distinct from all the other 7. which are called his heads, and yet is of them, as he whose instruments they have been, and whom he hath moved & incited to all manner of evil: which plainly discovereth M. Downam's folly, in applying it to the Emperors, which now are. And so all his objection is showed to be frivolous, of which I shall have occasion to speak hereafter, whither I remit the Reader for further proofs. THE THIRD CHAPTER. Wherein it is showed, that Antichrist is not yet come. ABOUT the third (saith Bellarmine) concerning the time of antichrist's coming, there have been many false suspicions, & many errors, aswell of Catholics, as of Heretics; but with this difference, that the Catholics knowing, that Antichrist shall not come, but in the end of the world, which is the truth, they erred notwithstanding, in that they thought, that the end of the world had been nearer, than indeed it was. But the Heretics do err, in that they think, that Antichrist shall come long before the end of the world, and that in very deed he is already come. Let us therefore speak of both errors. First all ancient Writers, considering the malice of their times, suspected that the times of Antichrist were at hand. So the Thessalonians in the Apostles time, did think that the day of our Lord drew near, whom the Apostle doth correct 2. Thess. 2. In like manner S. Cyprian lib. 3. ep. 1. Antichrist (saith he) drawing near, prepareth soldiers for the battle. And lib. 4. ep. 6. You must know (saith he) and believe, and hold for certain, that the day of oppression hath begun to be over our heads, and the end of the world, and time of Antichrist is approached. S. Hierome. ep. ad Ageruchiam de Monogamia: He which did hold, is in making out of the way, and do we not understand that Antichrist approacheth? S. Gregory. lib 4. ep. 38. All things which have been foretold are in doing: the King of Pride is near. And in his Homilies upon the gospels, he doth boldly pronounce, that the end of the world draweth near: but these were suspicions, and not errors. For these Holy Fathers durst not set down any certain tyme. Others more boldly appointed a certain tyme. One judas, as S. Hierome relateth l. de Viris Illust. thought that Antichrist should have come, and the world ended the two hundredth year after Christ, who as is manifest, was deceived. Lactantius l. 7. cap. 25. divin. Instit. saith, That all expectation seemeth to be for no more than two hundred years etc. Where he teacheth that Antichrist was to come, and the world to end within two hundred years after his time, and he lived in Constantine's time, in the three hundredth year after Christ, so that he thought the worlds end should have been the five hundredth year after Christ. But he also was deceived, as experience witnesseth. S. Augustine lib. 18. de civitate Dei cap. 53. mentioneth the error of some others, which said that the world should be ended the four hundredth year after our Lord's Ascension, and of others, which appointed the thousandth year, who were all deceived, as it happened also to the Pagans, who (as S. Augustine witnesseth in the same place) out of the answer of some Oracle, gathered, that Christian religion should endure only three hundred threescore and five years. There was also a Bishop of Florence, about the year of our Lord, a thousand an hundredth and five, who affirmed, that Antichrist was then borne, and therefore that the worlds end was at hand. For which cause there was a Council of three hundred and forty Bishops gathered at Florence by Paschalis the second Pope of that name. See the Chronicle of Matthew Palmer, and Platina in the life of Paschalis the second. Lastly it hath always been a famous opinion of many, which affirm, that the world shall last six thousand years, since God created the world in six days, and a thousand years are with God as one day. So teach S. justine Martyr q. 71. ad Gentes. S. Irenaeus lib. 5. Lactantius l. 7. cap. 14. S. Hilar. in cap. 17. Matth. S. Hierom. in Psal. 89. ad Cyprianum: with which doth also agree the opinion of the Thalmudists, who say, that they have a Prophecy out of the Prophet Hely, by which it is affirmed, that the world shall endure six thousand years. This opinion cannot yet be refuted by experience, for according to the true Chronologie or account of times, there are about five thousand, and six hundredth years past since the world was made. Wherefore S. Ambrose who l. 7. in Luc. cap. 2. rejecteth this opinion, affirming that in his time there were 6. thousand years past, is manifestly deceived. S. Augustine's moderation is very good, who thought this opinion probable, and followed it as probable l. 20. de Civit. Dei c. 7. Neither doth it follow from hence, that we do know the time of the last day, for we say that it is probable, that the world will not endure above 6. thousand years, but we do not say, that it is certain. Wherefore S. Augustine sharply rebuketh those, who affirm that the world shallbe ended at some certain time, since our Lord said Act. 1. that it doth not belong to us to know the times and moments, which the Father hath put in his own power. See S. Augustine epist. 80. ad Hesychium in Psal. 89. & lib. 18. de civitate Dei, cap. 53. But omitting these, let us come to the Heretics. Whereas all the Heretics of this time do teach, that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist, and that he hath appeared already, & is now in the world: notwithstanding they do not agree among themselves of the time when he appeared, for there be six opinions of theirs. The first is of the Samosatenes, which live in Hungary and Transiluania, who in a certain book which they entitle, Forewarnings of Christ and the Apostles, of the abolishing the true Christ by Antichrist, do teach, that Antichrist appeared a little after the Apostles time, to wit, when that doctrine began first to be preached, that Christ is the everlasting Son of God, for they think, that Christ is only man, and that in God there is only one person, and that this faith was preached by Christ, and his Apostles: but that a little after the Apostles death, the Roman Antichrist came, and having abolished the true Christ, which was only man, brought in another eternal Christ, and made a threefould God, and a twofould Christ. This opinion besides the arguments which afterward we will bring against all Heretics, is most easily refuted in two sorts. First, for that Antichrist when he cometh shall make himself God and not any other, as the Apostle saith 2. Thess. 2. but the Bishop of Rome, as they themselves say hath not made himself God, but preached Christ, and of only man hath made him God. Secondly because they say, that strait after the death of Christ and his Apostles, the true faith of Christ was wholly extinguished by Antichrist, and afterward in the whole world Christ was adored for God. But Christ foretold that the gates of hell should not prevail against his Church, Matth. 16. and the Angel fortould, that Christ's Kingdom should endure for ever, Luc. 1. and David foretold, that all Kings should serve Christ, Psal. 71. how therefore is it true, that in the very beginning, the Church being yet but newly borne, was destroyed by Antichrist? The second opinion is of Illyricus, who in his Catalogue of witnesses, teacheth that Antichrist came, when the Roman Empire began to incline to destruction: but it is manifest that the Roman Empire began to decline after the tenth year of Honorius, when Rome was first taken, that is, in the year four hundredth and twelve, as Blondus doth show in the first book of the first Decade of Histories, from the declination of the Roman Empire. But Illyricus doth seem to understand this of the conception, & not of the nativity of Antichrist for he himself Cent. 6. Cap. 1. in the beginning saith, that Anchrist was conceived after a certain manner, in the beginning of the 400. year, after quickened, form, and nourished in his Mother's womb about the five hundredth year, and lastly borne the 6. hundredth and sixth year, to wit, when Phocas granted to the B. of Rome, that he should be called the head of the whole Church. Again cent. 1. l. 2. cap. 4. colum. 438. he affirmeth, that Antichrist should reign, & tyrannize with the spiritual sword, a thousand two hundred and threescore years, and with the temporal sword 6. hundredth 3. score, and 6. years, & that then the end of the world should come. He gathereth the former number, out of Apoc. 11. where it is said, that the time of Antichrist shall endure a thousand two hundred and threescore days, for Illyricus will have a day taken for a year: he gathereth the latter number out of Apoc. 13. where the number of the Beast, is said to be 666. This opinion may be refuted in two manners. For first it followeth that Antichrist is already not only borne, but also dead, and consequently that the end of the world is already come. For the Roman Bishop began to have the Temporal sword, that is, temporal dominion at least, from the year 699. for them did Aripertus give the Costian alpes, where Genua is now situated to the B. of Rome, and afterward in the year 714. Luitpr and confirmed that donation, as Ado Vienensis writeth in the Chronicle of these years, Blondus l. 10. decad. 1. and the Magdeburgenses confess the same cent. 8. cap. 10. col. 685. and Theodor. Bibliander, who noteth that, in this year 714. the first Papistical Province was made. Not long after, to wit in the year seven hundred fifty & five, Pipin gave to the Bishops of Rome the Exarchy of Revenna with a great part of Italy, as Rhegino, Ado, Sigebert, Blond. l. 12. decade. 1. Aemilius, and the Centuriators themselves, cent. 8. cap. 10. col. 724. and Theodor. Bibliander in his Chronicle do witness. If therefore the Kingdom of Antichrist did begin in this 755. year, and endured 666. years, it ended in the year of Christ 1421. and so it is more than 150. years since Antichrist died: and if the beginning of his kingdom be taken higher up, to wit in the year of our Lord 699. then the end is to be put in the year 1365. and there willbe more than two hundred years past, since the death of Antichrist. Perhaps, they will answer, that Antichrist shall not die after the 666. year of his temporal kingdom, but shall only lose his temporal command. For since they say that the spiritual kingdom of Antichrist shall endure 1260. years, which should not yet be ended, though they had begun from the 606. of Christ; they must say consequently, that the spiritual kingdom of Antichrist shall endure for some space, after that his temporal kingdom be destroyed. But verily it is absurd, and against all authors; and beside at least it followeth, that two hundred years past, the Popes should have lost their temporal dominion, which is against experience. Secondly the same error may be refuted, for that it followeth, that the Centuriators do know exactly, when the world shallbe ended, which notwithstanding is against the words of our Lord, Act. 1. and Matth. 24. and that it doth follow, is manifest; for they know, that Antichrist did begin to reign with the spiritual sword the year 6. hundredth and 6. They know also, that he shall reign only 1260. years and that strait after our Lord will come to judgement, as they themselves gather out of S. Paul 2. Thess. 2. & consequently they know, that the last judgement shallbe in the year of Christ 1866. or if they know not this, they must also of force be ignorant, whether Antichrist be come or no: The third opinion is of David Chytraeus, who in his Commentary upon Apoc. 9 doth hold with Illyricus, that Antichrist appeared about the year of our Lord 600. & he doth manifestly enough signify, that S. Gregory was the first Antichristian Pope. But upon the 12. and 13. Chapters Chytraeus doth not agree with Illyricus about the time that Antichrist shall endure, but doth wisely admonish, that it is not rashly to be defined; and he proveth with three reasons, that Antichrist did appear the 600. year. First, because at that time Gregory established the Invocation of saints, & Masses for the dead. Secondly because in the year 606. Bonifacius the third did obtain of Phocas the title of universal Bishop. He addeth a third reason in his Commentary upon the 13. Chap. for that this time doth plainly and evidently agree with the number of the name of Antichrist, which containeth 666. Apoc. 13. Chytraus addeth in the same place, that out of this same number of antichrist's name, is gathered the time, in which Antichristes' Kingdom was confirmed by Pipin, for there be almost so many years from the 97. year, in which S. john wrote his Apocalyps, until Pipin, to wit 666. And in like manner that the time is gathered, in which the Pope was first designed and declared Antichrist by john hus. For there be almost 666. years from Pippin, to john Husse. This opinion may easily be refuted, for it is founded only in lies. For first S. Gregory was not the first, which taught to call upon saints, and offer Masses for the dead. All other ancient writers taught the same, as we have elsewhere demonstrated. Now only S. Ambrose sufficeth, who lived before S. Gregory 200. years lib. de viduis. The Angels (saith he) are to be earnestly beseeched, as also the Martyrs. & lib. 2. ep. 1. ad Faustinum de obitu sororis. Therefore (saith he) I do not think, that she is so much to be bewailed, as to be helped with prayers, nor to be mourned for with thy tears, but that her soul be commended to God with oblations. Neither did Phocas give the title of Universal to the Pope, but called him the Head of the Churches. But long before, justinian ep. ad joannem 2. had done this same; and before that also the Council of Chalcedon in ep. ad Leonem: without cause therefore is the coming of Antichrist put in the time of Phocas. Now that which Chytraeus addeth of the number 666. is altogether foolish, because that number doth not precisely agree with the times, in which Chytraeus would have Antichrist to have appeared, or to have been confirmed or declared. For from Christ to Phocas his decree, there be 607. years, not 666. from the revelation of the Apocalyps to Pipin, there be 658. years: from Pippin to Io. Husse there are, as he himself saith 640. years. But S. Io. in the Apocalyps noted a precise number, since he addeth also the least particles. Moreover john Husse declared not first the Pope to be Antichrist: for Wickliss had done so before: yea john hus never said, that the Pope was Antichrist, for in the 19 article condemned at Constance, he saith, that Clergy men by their covetousness prepare the way for Antichrist. Finally all Lutherans boast, that Antichrist was discovered by Luther. The 4. opinion is Luther's, in the Computation of time, who putteth two come of Antichrist, one with the spiritual sword after the year of our Lord 600. to wit, when Phocas called the B. of Rome head of all Churches, where he also saith, that S. Gregory was the last B. of Rome. Another with the temporal sword, after the year of our Lord 1000 Bibliander teacheth altogether the same in his Chronicle tabula 11. & 13. wherefore in the first coming Luther & Bibliander agree with the Centuriators and Chytraeus, excepting that Luther and Bibliander say, that S. Gregory was a good and holy Bishop, but the Centuriators cent. 6. cap. 1. colum. 2. and Chytraeus say, that S. Gregory above all other procured the introduction of Antichrist, and therefore was a very naughty man: which is a most horrible blasphemy. In the second coming, Luther and the Centuriators do manifestly disagree. This opinion besides the common arguments, which shallbe made afterwards, is easily refuted. For altogether without reason putteth Luther the coming of Antichrist in the years of our Lord 600. and 1000 And of the first we spoke in the consutation of Chytraeus. Of the year 1000 it may easily be proved. For therefore Luther at that time, putteth the beginning of the temporal reign of Antichrist, because then Pope Gregory the 7. deposed the Emperor Henry the 4. and had temporal dominion, and made war. But all these things were done before also, for Gregory the 2. excommunicated the Emperor Leo, and deprived him of the Kingdom of Italy in the year of our Lord 715. as Cedrenus and Zonaras testify in the life of the same Leo. And we have already showed, that the Bishops of Rome had temporal dominion from the year 700. that is, three hundredth years before the year 1000 Finally the Magdeburgenses testify cent. 8. cap. 10. that Stephen the third made war about the year 750. and the same may be said of Adrian the first, and of other their successors. Likewise about the year 850. Leo the 4. an holy man, and a worker of miracles, made war against the Saracenes, and had a notable victory, and fortified the City of Rome with bulwarks and fortresses, and beside compassed the Vatican hill with a wall, which afterward of him was called the Leonine City, as almost all the Historiographers of that time do write, and the Magdeburgenses themselves Cent. 9 cap. 10. The fifth opinion is Henry bullinger's, who in his Preface to his Homilies upon the Apocalyps writeth, that Antichrist appeared in the year of our Lord 763. which opinion disagreeth from all the former, and may easily be refuted, for that it is grounded upon a most weak foundation. For Bullinger saith, that in the 13. chap. of the Apocalyps, where the number of the name of the beast is put down, by that number is signified the time of antichrist's coming, that is, how many years after the writing of the Apocalyps, Antichrist was to come. And for that it is manifest out of Irenaeus lib. 5. that the Apocalyps was written about the end of Domitian's Empire, that is about the year of our Lord 97. he gathereth, that Antichrist was to come in the year 763. for so many there are, if 666. be addeth to 97. Hither may bereferred the opinion of certain Catholics, who as I●d●c●s Clicthonem rehearseth in his commentaries upon the 28. cap. of the 4. book of S. john Damascene de side, think that Antichrist so properly called was Mahomet, because he came about the year 666. as S. john foretold. But this reason is nothing worth. For first the Magdeburgenses gainsay and contend, that the number in the Apocalyps signifieth not the time of antichrist's birth, but the time of his death. And S. Io. the Evangelist cap. 13. Apoc. rejecteth both Illyricus and Bullengers' fiction, for explicating himself he saith, that that number, is the number, not of the time, but of the name of Antichrist, that is, that Antichrist shall have a name whose greek letters shall make the number 666. as Iraeneus lib. 5. and all others expound him. Moreover this year 763. there was no mutation made that we read of, in the Bishops of Rome, neither did Mahomet come: for he was borne the year of our Lord 597. & afterward died in the year of our Lord 636. as Palmerius witnesseth in his Chronicle. Wherefore he came not to the year 666. The sixth opinion is of Wolsegangus Musculus, who in his places 'tis. de Ecclesia cap. 12. affirmeth, that Antichrist came a little after S. Bernard's time, that is about the year 1200. & he proveth it, because S. Bernard serm. 6. in psal. 90. having reckoned many vices of men, and especially of the Clergy, and most grievous persecutions of the Church, addeth; It remaineth that the man of sin be revealed. But this opinion also is easily confuted. For S. Bernard guessed by the evils which he did see, that Antichrist was near, as we also said, that S. Cyprian, S. Hierome, and S. Gregory guessed in their times, and all their guesses were false. Besides, there were worse Popes without comparison from the 900. year to the 1000 then from the 1100. year to the 1200. Wherefore if they were not Antichrists, why should these be? M. Downams' addition, and reply confuted. 1. MASTER Downam hath little to say, about the ancient opinions, only he affirmeth, if you will believe him upon his word, that there is a great difference betwixt the Father's opinions, concerning the approaching of Antichrist, The difference betwixt Catholics and Heretics concerning the coming of Antichrist. which they held (saith he) according to the Prophecies of the Scripture (& he citeth in the margin 1. Io. 2. 18. 2. Io. 7. 2. Thess. 2. 7. compared with the event: and their conceit of Christ's approaching unto judgement, grounded not so much upon the Scriptures, as upon their own conjectures, which are confuted by experience. But he might have done well to have disproved Beauties distinction betwixt Catholics and heretics, which he affirmeth to consist in this, that Catholics know, that Antichrist shall not come but in the end of the world: but Heretics think that antichrist shall come long before the end of the world: and so we see, that all the Fathers, which thought that Antichrist was at hand, thought the same likewise of the end of the world. So that, if they had lived so long that they might have seen their conjectures about the end of the world confuted by experience, they would have been far from M. Downam's opinion, who thinketh that their arguments, concerning the coming of Antichrist, are confirmed by experience. And the reason would have been, for that they would still have remained Catholics, who join both together; and not have been of M. Downam's crew, whom Bellarmine calleth Heretics, which severeth them far asunder. And the poor man had nothing to help himself withal, but only to recite S. Hieromes and S. Gregory's words, which Bellarmine had alleged, and took them to be so plain and easy (as they are indeed) that they needed no exposition. And it should seem that M. Downam Downam translateth not well. thought so too, and therefore he thought it necessary to falsify them in his translation, for, de medio fit, translating, is taken out of the way, whereas it being the present tense, signifieth only that it was not yet done, but was in doing, as it hath been ever since; and so he should have translated, is in taking out of the way, and then we shall easily answer to the argument, See cap. 5. nu. 4. that a thing in doing is not done, and consequently that Antichrist is but coming, and not come. For the removing of the Imperial seat from Rome, the taking of Rome by the Goths, the decay of the Empire, are not sufficient for M. Downam to make it good, that the Empire was taken away, but only that it was in taking away; that is, in decay, not subverted or perished. And beside, if M. Downam bethink himself well, it will be a little with the soonest for him and his friends (whom Bellarmine calleth Heretics) to affirm, that Antichrist was come in S. Hieromes tyme. As for the Scriptures, which M. Downam noteth, it is not necessary to explicate them now, since we have had, and shall have often occasion to handle them at large: only I will ask M. Downam, what he meant to say, that Bellarmine thought to discredit the arguments of the Fathers, by reckoning them among erroneous conceits, since Bellarmine expressly saith, that the opinions of these Fathers, were suspicions, and not errors, because they durst not set down any certain time? 2. Now then let us come (as M. Downam likewise inviteth us) to Bellarmine's heretics, where he taketh upon him to defend all those opinions, but the first of the Samosatenes, whom he is content with Bellarmine to call heretics, but taketh it very ill at his hands, that he would number them among Protestants, which notwithstanding he hath no reason to do, since Bellarmine telleth but the truth, and giveth his reason why he doth so, because they all agree in this, that Antichrist is come, and that he is the Pope; which will How much the protestants agree with the Samosatenes & all other heretics. be thought a greater agreement, than Christ hath with the wicked: which comparison it pleaseth M. Downam to use, though if others had done far less, he would have been ready to have called it blasphemy, if he be not more temperate than many of his fellow Ministers; and beside he might have considered, that all the arguments, which Bellarmine useth against the Samosatenes, make as much against the Protestants; so that his boasting of his men which have sound confuted their heresies, will seem ridiculous; except they had confuted this opinion likewise, which they could not do, except they would confute themselves. And the nip which he giveth the Papists for holding their peace, will make some think, that either he hath not read so much, as the titles of Bellarmine's whole books, or else that he is very forgetful, if not malicious, since it is evident, that he hath not omitted those heretics, no more than the rest; neither in other heresies, nor in this; in which he is as exact, as M. Downam can desire, since he telleth us in what they differ from him & his crew, which is but in a nice point, God knoweth (to wit in the circumstances of time) if we consider the other two main points, in which they agree; & besides here M. Downan saith, that even in the Apostles times, Antichrist had as it were set his foot in the Church, which is something before that, which the Samosatenes affirm, who only think, that he appeared a little after the Apostles time, so that all the fault will light upon M. Downam, and his fellows, who will needs make themselves so like to those, and all other heretics, that none but themselves can see any other difference among them, but material; to wit, that every one chooseth this, or that matter, in which they differ from the Catholic Church: but all agree in this, that they chose their Religion out of their own private judgements and spirits, by which they take upon them to explycate the Scripture, every one after his own fashion; but none of them will subject their spirits to the spirit of truth, which is according to Christ's promise only in the Catholic Church, and consequently they willbe still accounted formal Heretics till they amend this general fault of theirs. 3. Concerning the other 5. opinions which Bellarmine From X. to XVII. rehearseth M. Downam would feign make an agreement, by affirming, that the constant opinion of the learned is that of the revealing or manifest appearing of Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for the rest is impertinent) there were two principal degrees, the first about the year 607. the second after the year 1000 Where first we may note, how Downam nothing Scrupulous in his account. cunningly he bringeth it in, with an (about) and an (after) both which may comprehend one or more years. And it must be no little, nor nice difference, which will break any square in this man's conceit: but you must bear with him, for he was enforced to enlarge his conscience, and to be nothing scrupulous, because otherwise he could hardly have made any one to agree with himself or any other; for they which come nearest, differ in a year, since Illyricus, Chytraeus, and Luther put that title, which was given by Phocas The Protestants disagreement about antichrist's coming. to Pope Boniface the third, in the year 606. and not 607. as M. Downan doth, who leaving his Rabbins, is content to join with Bellarm. in this account. But there is a greater difference betwixt Luther & Bibliander on the one side, & the Centuriators, and Chytraeus on the other side about S. Gregory, whether he did belong to Christ, or to Antichrist; which M. Downam wisely passed over in silence, with being content to go about. And yet he must fetch a far greater compass to comprehend Bullenger, who putteth antichrist's coming more than a 100 yeeares later than any of these, so that by that word (about) we must understand a 100 years sooner or later. And yet the word (after) hath a larger scope since Musculus will have antichrist's coming to have been about the year 1200. But M. Downam stoutly denieth, that Bullenger putteth antichrist's coming the year 763. yet mentioneth not the place which Bellarmine citeth, which is as plain, as plain may be; but thinketh it sufficient to allege another place out of Bullenger, where yet he nameth not once Antichrist, but explicateth, how in his opinion the Pope's dominion increased & was confirmed; which only showeth, that Bullenger either did not think, that antichrist's appearing, & the Pope's dominion was all one, or else, that he is contrary to himself; of which too I will give M. Downam good leave to choose which he listeth. He would also feign excuse Musculus, but that the matter is too plain; since he would found his opinion upon S. Bernard, who plainly affirmeth, that he expected antichrist's appearing or revealing, and consequently thought, that he was not revealed at that time: so that Musculus following S. Bernard, must needs think so too, howsoever of his own head he addeth, that Antichrist was come, which as it is foolish in itself, since he could have no certain ground to think so, unless he had appeared in some sort: so is it also impertinent to the matter we have in hand, since our question is about his appearing: and they which put it latest (which are Luther and Bibliander) make him to come even with the temporal sword, which cannot choose but appear, after the year of our Lord 1000 And this is the notable consent, which M. Downam hath found among all his writers whom Bellarmine allegeth in this main point, concerning the time of the coming of Antichrist. 4. After having laboured to make an agreement betwixt his Doctors, with the event which you have seen, he maketh a show, as though he would answer all Bellarmine's arguments against them, beginning thus: Now let us see what he objecteth against this received truth: but coming to the point he only chooseth out Bellarmine's answer to Chytraeus his second proof for the first degree of antichrist's coming, to wit, with the spiritual sword, which as you see is no argument at all, but a piece of an answer to an argument; so that to do well M. Downam should reply and not answer. But let Downam answereth when he should reply. us not urge the poor man too far, for it is pure want, that driveth him to these miserable shifts. Wherefore let us see, how he can avoid Bellarmine's answer. Chytraeus proof was this. In the year 606. Bonifacius the third, did obtain of Phocas the title of universal Bishop: ergo Amichrist appeared about the year 600. To which Bellarmine answereth in these words: Phocas gave not the title of Universal to the Pope, but called him the head of the Churches. But long before justinian ep. ad joan. 2. had done the same, & before that also the Council of Chalcedon in ep. ad Leonem. Without cause therefore is the coming of Antichrist put in the time of Phocas. To which first, as I have noted, M. Downam saith, that Bellarmine objected this, whereas it is most manifest that he answereth an objection. secondly he addeth, that good authors Phocas gave not the title of Universal to the Pope, & that which he gave, the Pope had before. affirm, that he received from Phocas, both the title of the Head of the Church, and also of Universal or Ecumenical bishop: but they are too good to be named, or else M. Downam was ashamed of them and therefore he must pardon us, if we believe neither him, nor them, till we know what they are. thirdly he avoucheth that, there is no doubt, but that Bonifacius sought for, and by suit obtained that, which john of Constantinople had before claimed. But if he had remembered, what himself wrote in his 1. chap. of his former book, of S. Gregory the great, his dislike of that title in john of Constantinople, he would have seen, that there had been great doubt, whether Bonifacius were not more likely to approve his holy predecessors judgement in refusing that title for due respects, though otherwise never so due to him, rather than his proud adversaries opinion in desiring, or using it at that time, when at leastwise in that john of constantinople's sense, it was not only scandalous, See part. 2. Chap. 1. but perfidiously false also. Wherefore keeping the dignity itself, they used such words as might modestly express, what they had, and no way signify that which they had not themselves, and much less john of Constantinople, who most arrogantly usurped that false, and also foolish title, being taken in the sense, in which he usurped it. Fourthly M. Downam would shift of the matter, with saying, that there is no great difference betwixt these two titles, as they are now given to the Pope, save that to be the head of the Universal Church, is the more Antichristian style. But this will not serve his turn neither, for howsoever these titles be all one in substance, yet since Chytraus and others will give us a reason, why they assign the first degree of antichrist's coming in the time of Phocas; to wit, because he first gave the Pope the title of Universal Bishop, it is not enough, when this is denied, to tell us, that at least, if he gave him not that, he gave him another as great: for all the force of the argument consisteth in this, that this title of Phocas is a new one, which the Pope never had given him before; for otherwise there is no reason, why Antichrist should be thought more to come in Phocas his time, than before. And this was that which Bellarmine answered, and M. Downam hitherto hath not said any thing to the purpose against him. Wherefore lastly he goeth about to make us believe, that though he cannot deny, but that the Pope had the same title which Phocas gave him long before: yet there was a great difference in the sense and meaning. For he affirmeth, that before this grant of Phocas, the Church of Rome had the pre-eminence and superiority, over all other Churches, excepting that of Constantinople, not in respect of Authority and jurisdiction; but in respect of order and dignity, and for this cause especially, because Rome whereof he was Bishop, was the chief City: for which he citeth the councils of Chalcedon & Constantinople. And for the same cause (saith he) was the Patriarch of Constantinople sometimes matched with him: for which he citeth Concil. Chalcedon: sometime preferred above him; for which he noteth in the margin tempore Maurity; because Constantinople (which they called new Rome) was become the Imperial seat: yea he addeth, that the Bishops of Ravenna, because their City was the chief in the Exarchy of Ravenna, whereunto Rome was for a Downam's answer or reply confuted by Bellarmine in other places. time subject, strove with the Bishop of Rome in the time of the Exarchies, for superiority. But all this discourse of his, is refuted at large by Bellarmine in his second Book of the Pope: and if M. Downam will lose so much labour about the answering of that, as he hath done about this other, which is the third, he shallbe confuted, & I hope fully satisfied in this point also. But now it were to great a labour to put down all Bellarmine's proofs. Wherefore both I and M. Downam must of reason be content with briefly answering his objections, though that also in truth were not to be expected in this place, but that I desire that M. Downam should have no reason to complain. And first that the reason, why Rome had the pre-eminence The reason of Rome's pre-eminence is not because it is the chief City. over all other Churches, was not because it was the chief City, as M. Downam would prove out of the Counsels of Chalcedon and Constantinople, Bellarmine proveth by the authority of S. Leo. ep. 54. ad Martianun, where inveighing against the ambition of Anatolius then Bishop of Constantinople, which he had discovered in that very Council of Chalcedon which M. Downam mentioneth, he hath these words. Let the City of Constantinople have, as we wish her, glory and Gods right hand protecting her; let her enjoy a long reign of your Clemency: Alia tamen ratio est rerum saecularium, alia divinarum etc. Yet worldly, and divine things have different reasons: neither will any other building be firm and stable besides that rock which our Lord hath put in the foundation. He looseth his own, who desireth those things which are not his due. Let it suffice that by the foresaid help of your Piety, and by the consent of my savour, he hath obtained the Bishopric of so great a City: non dedignetur Regiam Civitatem, quam Apostolicam non potest facere Sedem, let him not disdain a Kingly City, which he cannot make an Apostolical Sea. So that M. Downam in S. Leo his judgement confoundeth worldly and divine things by going about to make us believe, that Rome had the pre-eminence of an Apostolical Sea, because it was the chief City, which as you see S. Leo saith, by no means can be. Likewise Bellarmine bringeth the authority of Gelasius, Epistola ad Episcopos Dardaniae, who likewise reasoneth thus. Milan, Ravenna, Syrmium, Trevers and Nicomedia were the Seats of the Empire many times, and yet the Fathers never gave any pre-eminence or Primacy to those Bishops, as neither they would have done to Rome only for that respect. And as for the authority of the two councils, M. Downam must know, if he be ignorant of it, that the first of Chalcedon was not confirmed by S. Leo, but only in matters of The Council of Chalcedom. See Paralelus Tortiac Tortoris cap. 4. The Canons of the 6. general Council. Faith: and in this point was by him expressly rejected, as may be seen in the Epistle already recited, & in divers others add Anatolium, ad Pulcheriam, ad Maximum, ad Iwenalem. In which likewise, as also in the 16. Act of the Council itself, it appeareth, that this Decree was made in the absence of the Pope's Legates, who had the chief place in that Council, and that they did afterward openly gainsay, and resist it. And if by the Council of Constantinople he meaneth the Canons, commonly called the Canons of the sixth General Council (as it seems he doth) he must likewise be told, that those Canons, are of no account, as not made by that Council, but by certain Bishops, which afterward met privately together, as appeareth by the beginning of the Canons themselves and by the confession of Tharasius, Bishop of Constantinople in the 7. general Council Act. 4. and Bede calleth them, Erraticam Synodum, an erring Synod, & moreover writeth, that Sergius then Pope, rejected them lib. 6. the sex atatibus, in justiniano juniore. And all this, and much more to the purpose might Downam seemeth not to have read so much of Bellarm. as he impugneth. M. Downam have learned out of Bellarmine himself, if he would have taken the pains to have read him over, or at least so much as he meant to impugn, as it was good reason he should have done, before he had gone about to answer him. Neither shall I need to spend any more time in this matter since his chiefest authorities are out of these two Counsels. For what he meaneth by that which happened tempore Mauritij, I cannot yet conjecture; for it were too absurd for him to defend john of Constantinople against S. Gregory, as likewise the Bishops of Ravenna, whose arrogancy & ambition is condemned & contemned also by the whole world. But it is no marvel though in so bad a cause M. Downam can find no better Patrons. 5. Concerning the coming of Antichrist with the temporal sword, which is the second degree, M. Downam goeth about to juggle with us after a strange manner. For whereas Bellarmine in the confutation of Luther, confuteth three grounds, which Luther built his opinion upon. I. the deposition of the Emperor Henry the 4. II. the having temporal dominion. III: the making of war; by showing that all these three Acts had been exercised, by the Pope before this time, putting Downam's silly juggling. particular examples of every one; M. Downam very cunningly, as he thought, but indeed very seelily, as it will appear now that he is taken with the manner, answereth, that true it is, that the Popes had a temporal dominion before, but not general; and so with granting one part, he thinks he may safely deny the other, without ever troubling himself to examine Bellarmine's instance any further. But we must put him in mind, that when Gregory the second deprived Leo the Emperor, of the Kingdom of Italy, he did not only show himself to have right to the patrimony of S. Peter, which could only have warranted him to have kept that from the Emperor; but The pope hath power to depose Princes for the spiritual good of Christ's Church. likewise to have a general authority to deprive Princes of their own dominions in some cases, and for some causes, which he could not do but by a general power, though we will not much stand with M. Downam about the name of Temporal power; for that we rather think it to be spiritual, & therefore cannot be exercised by the Pope, but for the spiritual good of Christ's Church; as M. Downam may see largely explicated by Bellarm. in his 5. book; where also he shall find divers other examples to this purpose; to which it will not be enough for him to oppose his heretical author Aventinus; Of Aventine See part 2. Chap. 3. n. 6. for we will at any time take M. Downam's own word, so soon as any other of his mind, except they bring better profs than he doth. And this is all, which M. Downam hath to say against Bellarmine; wherefore he concludeth in these words: And thus have I answered whatsoever is in his 3. Chapter. pertinent to the matter in hand, omitting (as my manner is) his other wranglings, as being altogether either impertinent, or merely personal. Where I will only crave the judicious Reader, to look over Bellarmine's whole discourse, and if he findeth nothing in it, but which directly impugneth the opinions and not the persons, which he allegeth, and withal that he doth it so invincibly, that there can be no evasion, as I verily persuade myself any Downam's manner to omit that which he cannot answer. indifferent man will easily see: then let him know, that whatsoever M. Downam hath omitted, was because he could by no means make so much as any show of answering it, as he hath gone about to do in this, which we have examined: and withal let him know also, that this is M. Downam's manner as he himself affirmeth, and make account of the Man accordingly. THE FOURTH CHAPTER. In which is explicated the first demonstration, that Antichrist is not yet come. WHEREFORE the true opinion is (saith Bellarmine) that Antichrist hath neither begun to reign, nor is yet come; but is to come, and to reign about the end of the world; which how far it is off, can by no means be known. This opinion, which overthroweth all the former and clearly showeth that the Bishops of Rome are not Antichrists, is demonstrated by six reasons. For we must know, that the Holy Ghost in the Scripture hath given us six certain signs of antichrist's coming, two going before Antichrist himself to wit the preaching of the gospel in the whole world, and the desolation of the Roman Empire; too accompanying him, to wit the preaching of Henoch and Helias, and a most huge & manifest persecution, so that public Holies shall wholly cease: two following, to wit the destruction of Antichrist after three years and a half, and the end of the world: none of which we see yet extant. Wherefore the first demonstration is taken from the first sign going before Antichrist. The Scriptures do testify, that the Gospel is to be preached in the whole world before the last persecution cometh, which shallbe raised by Antichrist, Matth. 24. This Gospel of the kingdom shallbe preached in the whole world, in testimony to all nations. And that this shallbe before Antichrists coming, might be proved by that reason, because in antichrist's time the cruelty of that last persecution shall hinder all public exercise of True Religion. But because the adversaries admit not this reason and it is no time now to deduce it out of her principles: let us prove the same out of the Father's testimonies. Wherefore S. Hilary cap. 25. in Matth. expounding those words: This Gospel of the Kingdom shallbe preached in the whole world, and then the consummation shall come, plainly teacheth, that Antichrist shall not come, whom he calleth the Abomination of Desolation, unless the preaching of the Gospel in the whole world goeth before. The same is expressly taught by S. Cyrill catechesi 15. Theodoret in 2. Thess. 2. S. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 28. and others. And besides the same is gathered out of the text, for it is said, that the Gospel is to be preached before that greatest and last tribulation cometh, what manner of one, neither hath been before, nor shallbe after. By which tribulation that antichrist's persecution is signified, the Fathers teach, and chiefly S. Augustine lib. 20. de civitate Dei, cap. 8. & 19 And that the Gospel was not preached in the whole world at that time, when the new Samosatenes say, that Antichrist came, that is, about the year of our Lord 200. or 300. is manifest by Origen, who Homil. 28. in Matth. affirmeth, that in his time the Gospel was not yet preached every where. Likewise by Ruffinus, who lib. 3. hist. cap. 9 testifieth, that in the time of Constantyne the Emperor, that is, after the year of our Lord 3●0. the Gospel was preached to the more remote Indians: whereas, before that time, they had never heard any thing of Christ. Finally by S. Augustine who in his 80. epist. saith, that he had found by most certain experience, that in his time, there were many nations which had heard nothing of Christ. And that the preaching of the Gospel was not accomplished about the year 600. or 700. at which times the Centuriators, Chytraeus, Luther, and Bullinger put the coming of Antichrist, is manifest b● the conversion of the Vandals, Polonians, Moravians, and the like, who as it is well known heard not the preaching of the Gospel, until after the year of Christ 800. as also the Centuriators confess centur. 9 cap. 2. col. 15. & 18. & cent. 10. cap. 2. col. 18. & 19 In like manner that the preaching was not complete in the time of S. Bernard, at which time Wolfgangus Musculus putteth the coming of Antichrist is manifest out of S. Bernard himself lib. 3. the consider. where he affirmeth, that yet in his time, there were Nations which had not heard the Gospel. Finally, that also in our time, the Gospel is not preached in the whole world, experience teacheth, for there are most vast Regions found in the haste & West, in which there is no memory of the Gospel. Neither can it be said, that the Faith was there, but was afterward extinguished. For at leastwise, some signs would remain either there, or in the writings of the Ancients. Besides we know, that where all the Apostles preached, the places were known to many if not to all; but the new world is now found, & was not known from the Apostles time, but a little before our age. Against this Demonstration, there can only one objection be made, to wit, because perhaps the Scriptures, which say that the Gospel is to be preached in the whole world speak not simple of the whole world, but by the figure of intellection, take the whole for a part, as Luc. 2. where it is said, There went out an Edict from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be described, otherwise, that will be false, which S. Paul saith Rom. 10. even then in his time, That the sound of the Apostles was gone forth into all the earth, and that which he saith Coloss. 1. The Gospel which is come to you, as it is in the whole world, fructifying and increasing. And after, Which is preached to all creatures, which are under Heaven. I answer without doubt, not by any figure, but properly and simply in the whole world, that is, in every Nation the Gospel must be preached, and Churches instituted. For first so expressly teacheth S. Augustine ep. 80. ad Hesychium, and the other Fathers alleged think the same, and besides Origen and S. Hierome, and others in cap. 24. Matth. It may also be proved by three reasons. First, Christ saith that the preaching in the whole world is a sign of the consummation of the world, for so he addeth forthwith; and then the consummation shall come; but if not properly, but by Synecdoche the Gospel were to be preached in the whole world, that sign were nothing worth; for in that manner the Gospel was preached in the whole world the first 20. years. Secondly as S. Augustine reasoneth, properly all Nations are promised to Christ Psal. 71. All Nations shall serve thee. And Christ died generally for all, and therefore Apoc. cap. 7. the elected are described out of all Nations, and people, and tribes, and languages. Wherefore the preaching also must properly be general. Finally Match. 24. it is said, that the Gospel is to be preached in the whole world in testimony to all Nations, that is, lest any Nation in the day of judgement might excuse their infidelity, by the pretext of ignorance. Wherefore before the general judgement the general preaching must be. To those places of S. Paul, S. Augustine answereth epist. 80. and saith, that S. Paul, when he saith Rom 10. their sound is gone out into all the earth, took the time passed for the time to come, as David had done, whose words those are. And when he saith Colloss. 1. that the Gospel is in the whole world, he would not say that it is actually, but virtually, to wit, because the seed of God's word had been cast into the world by the Apostles, which fructifying and increasing by little and little, was to replenish the whole world: as one that had put fire to divers parts of a City, might truly be said to have set all the City on fire, because he had applied the fire, which increasing by little and little, was to consume the whole City. And this very same signifieth the Apostle when he saith, in the whole world, it is fructifying and increasing; for it had not taken possession wholly of the whole world, seeing it was yet more and more spread afterward abroad, and yet in a certain manner it had taken possession, that is virtually, and not actually. We might also answer with S. Hierome, in Matth. 20. & S. Thomas in Rom. 10. that the Gospel came to all in two manners: one way by fame, another way by peculiar preachers, and foundation of Churches; and that in the first manner, the Gospel came to all Nations of the whole world then known in the time of the Apostles; and that S. Paul speaketh of this: in which sort also S. Chrysostome in Matth. 24. is to be understood. But in the second manner, that it came not then, but is to come in the time appointed, and that our Lord Matth. 24. Luc. vlt. & Act. 1. speaketh of this. Add lastly, that it is not absurd, if we grant, that our Lord spoke properly, and the Apostle figuratively. For the reasons which compel us to take our lords words in a proper signification, have not the same force, if they be applied to the words of S. Paul, especially seeing our Lord spoke of a thing to come, and S. Paul of a thing past. M. Downams Answer confuted. 1. IT pleaseth M. Downam to be a little merry about these 6. Demonstrations, calling them six slender conjectures, and thinking Bellarmyne troubled with melancholy, for deeming otherwise. But I will leave it to the Readers judgement, if it be not more likely, that he is loaden with folly. Afterward he jesteth at Bellarmine, for making antichrist's death, & the end of the world, which shallbe after his death, to be two signs of his coming. As though all this were not to fall out within 3. or 4. years after his coming: and consequently did not plainly demonstrate, that he came not a 1000 years since, which is that, which Bellarmine goeth about to prove, and so might very well use these signs to demonstrate his not coming so long ago. 2. But coming to answer the first demonstration, it is wonderful to see how many words he spendeth in vain, and how few to the purpose. For he being to answer Bellarmine's proofs, which I have alleged, he scarce ever toucheth any of them, but maketh a long discourse altogether frivolous, about the exposition of that whole place Matth. 24. Wherefore I shallbe enforced to gather up here and there some scattered denials, and so reply to this his broken and confused answer. 3. And first to the Fathers which Bellarmine allegeth as his chiefest proof, I find only these words of his: Or to what end (saith he) should I spend my time in answering the Testimonies of the Fathers, who supposed that the Gospel should be preached in all the world, before the coming of Antichrist, seeing according to the meaning of our Saviour Christ, it was to be preached in all the world, before the destruction of jerusalem? And is not this a wise answer, think Downam rejecteth the Fathers. you, to accuse the Fathers to be against Christ, because their doctrine is contrary to M. Downam's? But I take it, few will believe him upon his bare word against Bellarmine alone, & much less having so many ancient Fathers joined with him. 4. Bellarmine's other proof was out of the text, because by that great tribulation, before which it is said, that the Gospel shallbe preached in the whole world; the Fathers, and in particular S. Augustine understandeth antichrist's persecution. But M. Downam never mentioning S. Augustine, or other Father, flatly denieth their doctrine in this point, as he had done in the former, & therefore indeed, never goeth about to answer the argument, but to deny the conclusion, whatsoever the proofs be. 5. Yea, that which is worse, because he would seem to say something, he beareth the Reader in hand, that Bellarmine had been so simple, as to prove his conclusion only Downam omitteth Bellarmine's proofs & answereth his own. out of those words Matth. 24. This gospel of the Kingdom shallbe preached in the whole world in testimony to all Nations. And then he answereth very gravely. But our Saviour Christ doth not say, that the Gospel shallbe preached throughout the world, before the coming of Antichrist, but before the end. And is not this to get himself out of his adversaries reach, and then to show great valour in playing his prize by himself alone, and beating the air? 6. Another trick of M. Downans is, to answer an argument which Bellarmine thought better for brevities sake to leave unproved: that is, that in antichrist's time, the cruelty of the last persecution shall hinder all public exercise of true Religion. To which M. Downam answereth: That it is not necessary, that the Gospel 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 so in antichrist's time it might be preached to some Nations, where it had not been formerly preached; & therefore might be preached to all Nations before the destruction of Antichrist, though it were not before his coming. But Bellarmine never affirmed, that the Gospel should be generally preached throughout the world at one time: but M. Downam dreameth it. And if he would have said any thing to the purpose, he should have told us, how the Gospel can be preached to any Nation, when the persecution is so great and general, that all public exercise of true Religion doth cease in all places, throughout the whole world. And this is all, that he bringeth in answer to the arguments. Wherefore only there remaineth, that we see, whether he proveth his own exposition in those two points, in which he is contrary to Bellarmine and the Fathers, any better. 7. For first, he will needs have the consummation of which Matth. 24. our Saviour speaketh, to be the destruction of jerusalem, and not the end of the world, but yet never answereth to any of those arguments, which Bell. hath in his answer to the objection; three o● the which, namely the authority of the Fathers, and the two latter reasons are so manifest, that M. Downam Downam dissembleth the difficulty. dealt very politicly in dissembling them, since he could not answer them. And to prove his own exposition, he bringeth a conceited invention of his own, to wit, that our Blessed Saviour would comfort his Disciples by telling them, that the success of their Ministry should be such, that before the desolation of Jerusalem, the Gospel should he preached throughout the world, for a testimony to all Nations verse. 14. And therefore that they should not fear, lest together with Jerusalem his Church should be overthrown: for be o'er the destruction of Jerusalem he would by their preaching to all Nations both jews and Gentiles, plant his Church in many nations of the world. And for as much as the Temple and City of Jerusalem were types and figures of the Church of Christ which were to be abolished when the Church o● Christ should be established; therefore he addeth, that upon the planting of the Church by their Ministry, should the end and destruction of Jerusalem come. 8. But this is not only doubtful, since o● I M. Downam's Downam expoundeth Scripture childishly. authority is not sufficient to make it certain but also altogether childish and foolish. For how could the Apostles fear, lest together with jerusalem Christ's Church should be overthrown? since as he himself saith, the Temple and City of Jerusalem were Types and figures of the Church of Christ, which were to be abolished when the Church of Christ should be established, and consequently the Apostles should never have greater hope, that Christ's Church should be established, then when they should see the Temple and City of Jerusalem, and in them the jews Synagogue abolished. And were not he a wise man, think you, that would go about to comfort Catholics, by telling them, that they must not be afraid, though they see heretics abolished, who are their chiefest adversaries? since that the prevailing of Catholics consisteth chief in the abolishing of heretics? But by this we may see to what absurdities, such men as M. Downam are brought, when leaving the exposition of the Fathers, they will follow their own private newfangled inventions. 9 After this again he saith, that we may not think, that our Saviour Christ would intermingle the Prophecies, concerning the destruction of jerusalem, and the end of the world, thereby to nourish the The prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem & the end of the world intermingled. error of his Disciples, who imagined that the end of jerusalem should not be before the end of the world, as appeareth by their question. But on the other side the Fathers tell us, that we must think, that our Saviour did intermingle these Prophecies of purpose, to let them be in continual expectation of the end of the world, and that when they should see the subversion of the Temple, they should not be secure, that the end of the world was not also very near. And this experience also teacheth, since as Bellarmine in part showeth in the former Chapter and first opinion, the holy Fathers expected our saviours coming every one in his tyme. And this is that which they think to appear both by the Apostles question, and our saviours answer; for they seemed to be doubtful of it, and our Saviour leaveth them as doubtful in this point. 10. Thirdly, M. Downam goeth about to confirm his opinion by those words of our Saviour: Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, until all those things (pointing as it seemeth (saith M. Downam) towards jerusalem, as he sat on the Mount Olivet) be fulfilled. But by this exposition of his, he intermingleth these Prophecies more than any Catholic doth, for he maketh the last words to appertain to the former part only: & to have no coherence with that, which goeth immediately before, which is as great a confusion as may be. And because he saw it himself, he imagineth our B. Saviour upon the sudden only, while he pronounceth these words, to Downam's fond imagination. point towards jerusalem. But we are not bound to believe all his imaginations, nor reports neither, since he is no Evangelist, and therefore we also think that he took somewhat to much upon him, when he presumed to change one only letter in this narration, because it favoured his imagination more than that which he should have left, if he had been a faithful translator, which indeed belonged unto him. For our Saviour saith not (all those things) as though they were things a far of, but (these things) of which he had spoken. S. Matthew, Omnia haec, S. Mark, Omnia ista, & S. Luke, only Omnia. So that me thinks since all three Evangelists, were so diligent to repeat the word (All) he should not have been so Downam corrupteth the thxt of Scripture. bold as to change it into (some) by applying it to part only of our saviours speech, and to the further part also. But we think ourselves more bound to believe the Evangelists, & the holy Fathers expounding them, than these far fetched devices of M. Downam; and so we doubt not, that before this generation, that is, this corruptible world passeth, and both heaven and earth be renewed, all those things shall come to pass. And this our Saviour signifieth, when he immediately addeth, that Heaven and earth shall pass, and not continue always, as now we see them: but his words shall not pass unfulfilled. 11. Neither can M. Downam help himself, by telling us Luc. 21. that Luc. 21. The question concerning jerusalem is propounded alone: for well we may grant him, that S. Luke only mentioneth that question, but we shall still think ourselves bound to believe S. Matthew, telling the same story, and rehearsing the other questions also, which S. Luke answereth aswell as he, though he omitteth the questions for brevities sake. And this very circumstance of preaching the Gospel in the whole world, was not omitted by S. Luke, but rather very particularly signified in those words, donec impleantur tempora Nationun, while the times of Nations be fulfilled, that is, till all Nations have had the gospel preached unto them, as S. Mark, and S. Matthew do explicate, & S. Paul repeateth the very same Rom. 11. Caecitas ex part contigit in Israel, blindness hath happened in part in Israel, which S. Luke said, jerusalem calcabitur à gentibus. But how long? S. Paul, donec plenitudo Gentium intraret, until the fullness of Nations should enter, which is the very same, that S. Luke saith in the words following already rehearsed. 12. Finally M. Downam is content to cite S. Chrysostome Downam maketh much account of one Father if he favour his fancies. for his opinion, for it is the property of such men to e●●e me more the authority of one Father, which favoureth their conceits, then of never so many, if they be against their fancies: & so now we see this man, who would not vouchsafe the Fathers, which Bellarmine alleged, so much as a word, is yet content to bring out S. Chrysostome for himself, and he seemeth to mean the place which a little after he citeth again Homil. in Matth. 24. And though we might oppose many against one, and so think ourselves before M. Downam: yet we would have him know, that our doctrine standeth not so much upon denials, as his doth; but rather upon the affirmative; Catholic doctrine standeth not so much upon denials, as that of Protestant's. and so though we affirm and prove, that the Gospel is to be preached in the whole world, before the end of the world; yet we deny not, but that it was in some sort so preached before the destruction of jerusalem, & think that our Saviour with his divine wisdom comprehended both in the same words: for the one being a figure of the other, the same words may very well be understood of both, as we see they were by the Fathers, though chief & for the most When the proper exposition is to be preferred. part of the proper & distinct preaching in the whole world as the words properly taken do import. And we think S. Augustins rule very true that when the words may be so taken, without manifest absurdity, that is the true sense, & most certain: for otherwise we should have no certainty lib. 3. the doct. christia. cap 7. in understanding Scripture at all; and in this case, admitting both senses, may fitly be used that vulgar saying of the Mathematicians: Quod fit in circulo, fit in caelo: that which agreeth in a circle, may (due proportion observed) be applied to the Heavens, which are like to a circle in being round as likewise the end of the world is to the destruction of Jerusalem in many things. And thus much for the first difference about the word Consummation. 13. But now there remaineth another about the great Tribulation, which M. Downam likewise denieth to be any other, then that of the jews, and would feign father this exposition upon S. Chrysostome also; which as in the other we may grant to be probable; but only M. Downam will deny that of S. Augustine and other Fathers; for none of them By the great Tribulation Matth. 24. is meant the persecution of Antichrist a little before the end of the world. are so forward as he in denying, because they had not his spirit of contradiction: and indeed the matter is so plain, that he had need to have an hard forehead that should deny it. S. Mark cap. 13. saith: In illis diebus post tribulationem illam sol contenebrabitur etc. In those days after that Tribulation, the sun shall be darkened &c. which happened not after the destruction of Jerusalem, except M. Downam will run to that shift to say, that it happened after, though it were long first: which though it were very ridiculous and absurd in itself, yet S. Matth. also wholly excludeth it, with adding statim, forthwith: Statim autem post tribulationem dierum illorum sol obscurabitur etc. And strait after the tribulation of those days, the sun shallbe darkened etc. And here I leave M. Downam in this strait, hoping he will learn to attribute more to the Father's expositions hereafter, seeing them so conformable to God's word. 14. And to conclude this Chapter, let us see, what M. Downam hath replied against Bellarmine's answer to the objection, where we must note, that he endeavoureth only to impugn the first answer, and to the other two hath not so much as a word to say; for that indeed whatsoever he had said against them, had been also against himself, as likewise against all experience, and the proofs with which Bellarmine proved his Minor, to wit, that at none of those times, which the heretics assign for antichrist's coming, and much less in the Apostles times, the Gospel had been preached properly in the whole world, and therefore when the Apostle saith, that it had been preached in the whole world, he were either to be understood figuratively, or by fame, which are Bellarmine's two latter solutions, not misliked by M. Downam; though if his distinction of preaching, but not receiving the Gospel in the whole world, were to the purpose, he should grant the preaching to have been properly in the whole world, and so contradict himself and fall into the absurdities before mentioned, or else be enforced to yield to Bellarmine's first solution also, which he so eager impugneth, that S. Paul Rom. 10. took the time passed for the time to come, which he calleth a cavillation, Rom. 10. thinking that he may be bold with Bellarmine: but yet he might have borne a little more respect to S. Augustine, whose Downam's immodesty. solution it is, especially having so little to say against it. You shall hear his own words. But say I, the Apostle proveth, that the jews had heard the Gospel, because the sound of the preachers thereof, was gone through all the earth, and therefore they from whom the Gospel proceeded to other Nations, ca●●not be ignorant thereof. And now let any man judge, if it had not been more wisdom & modesty for M. Downam, to have alleged S. Chrysostome whose exposition this is, as Bellarmine did S. Augustine, then to come out with an (I say) only affirming but proving nothing, neither by authority or reason, as likewise to have admitted both these expositions for probable, as Bellarmine doth, and not set one Father against another, who agree well enough, and are not so addicted to their own private judgement, that they condemn any other probable opinion, though they think their own more probable. Now whether of these two opinions is more probable, I leave to others to examine, since it were from my purpose to discuss that question. But if M. Downam will needs contend, I remit him to Cardinal tolet's exposition upon this place, where he explicateth, and defendeth S. Augustine's opinion, against whom if he hath any thing to say in this point, he shall not go unanswered. But I would wish him rather to prove, then to scoff, especially at S. Augustine & other Fathers; otherwise to any discreet Reader he will seem too ridiculous, though he useth all his Sophistry, as he doth here, by telling us, that the Gospel could not bring How the Gospel was in the whole world in the Apostles tyme. forth fruit, unless it were actually; and to show his great learning noteth the same sense in the margin both in latin and greek. But he must know, that as it is necessary, that the Gospel should be actually in some place of the world, before it bringeth forth fruit; so is it sufficient, that it be virtually in the whole world: & the very increasing & extending itself, is one manner of ●ringing forth fruit, of which the Apostle speaketh; which could not be, if already the Gospel had been actually in the whole world, and therefore it is to be understood only virtually, in respect of the whole world, as is well declared by the example of a City set on fire in some places, which may truly be said to be all on fire virtually, though actually only some parts of it be so. And thus we have seen what M. Downam hath been able to say for himself, not having omitted any shift of his, except he would have us repeat the same thing as often as he doth, as now at the very end, citing afresh those words of S. Paul, that the Gospel is preached among all creatures, that are under Heaven; which Bellarmine did put in objection, and answered three ways, as we have seen. THE FIFTH CHAPTER. Containing the second Demonstration. THE second demonstration (saith Bellarmine ) is taken from the other sign going before antichrist's times, which shallbe an utter desolation, and overthrow of the Roman Empire; for we must know that the Roman Empire is at length to be divided into ten Kings; of which none shallbe, or be called the King of the Romans, although all of them shall occupy some Provinces of the Roman Empire, as now the King of France, the King of Spain, the Queen of England, & perhaps some others do hold some parts of the Roman Empire, and yet are no Roman Kings, or Emperors, and so long as this is not effected, Antichrist cannot come. This Iraeneus proveth l. 5. out of Dan. cap. 2. & 7. & out of the Apocal. cap. 17. for in the 2. chap. of Dan is described the succession of the chiefest Kingdoms, unto the worlds end, by a certain Statue or Image, whose golden head signifieth the first Kingdom, that is of the Assyrians; the silver breast is the second Kingdom, that is of the Persians: the brazen belly the third kingdom, that is of the Grecians. the Iron legs the fourth kingdom, that is of the Romans which for the longest space, was two-fold, as the legs are two, and longest. Furthermore out of the two legs there grew ten toes, and in them the whole Statue ended; for that the Roman Empire was at length to be divided into ten Kings, none of which shallbe the King of the Romans, as none of the toes is a leg. Likewise in the 7. Chapter, the Prophet Daniel most clearly designeth the same 4. Kingdoms by 4. beasts, and addeth that out of the last Beast, there shall arise ten horns which signifieth the ten last Kings which shall arise out of the Roman Empire, but shall not be Roman Emperors, as the horns arise out of the Beast, but are not the Beast itself. Finally S. john cap. 17. Apoc. describeth a beast with 7. heads & ten horns, upon which a certain woman did sit; and he explicateth the woman to be the great City, which is situated upon 7. hills, that is Rome, & that the seven heads are those 7. hills, and likewise 7. Kings; by which number are understood all the Roman Emperors. The ten horns he saith to be ten Kings, who shall reign together at one tyme. And lest we should think, that these shallbe Roman Kings, he addeth that these Kings shall hate the harlot and make her desolate, because they shall so divide the Roman Empire amongst themselves, that they shall utterly destroy it. Besides the same is proved out of S. Paul. 2. Thess. 2. where he saith: And now what detaineth, you know, that he may be revealed in his time only, that he which now holdeth do hold, until he be taken out of the way, and then shall that wicked one be revealed. etc. where S. Paul not daring to write plainly of the overthrow of the Roman Empire, which notwithstanding he had by word of mouth plainly explicated unto them, speaketh in that sort; and the sense is: You know what hindereth the coming of Antichrist: for I have told you, that the Roman Empire hindereth, for that their sins are not yet at their full height; and Antichrist shall not come before, who shall take away this Empire for their sins. Therefore let him that now holdeth the Roman Empire, hold it still: that is, let him reign till he be taken out of the way, that is, abolished; and then that wicked one shallbe revealed. So do the Greek & Latin Fathers expound it, S. Cyril Catechesi 15. disputing of this place. The foresaid Antichrist (saith he) shall come when the times of the Roman Empire are expired S. Chrysostome upon this place: When the Roman Empire shallbe taken away then shall Antichrist come, Theophilactus, and Oecumenius write to the same effect. Of the Latins, Tertullian in Apologerico cap. 32. saith, that Christians do pray for the continuance of the Roman Empire, because they know, that when that Empire is overthrown, there shall a great calanuty fall upon the world. And Lactantius l. 7. cap. 15. explicating those things which shall go before Antichrist, and the end of the world, saith: the Roman name by which the world is now governed my mind is afraid to speak it, but I will speak it, because it shallbe shallbe taken from the earth, & the Emptre shall return into Asia, & the East shall rule again, and the west serve. S. Ambrose upon. 2. Thess. 2. saith, that after the defection, and abolition of the Roma Kingdom, Antichrist shall come. S. Hierome quaest. 11. ad Algasiam expounding the a me place of S. Paul saith: Unless there come a revolt first that all Nations which are subject to the Roman Empire, revolt from them; and vides the Roman Emotre be first desolate, and Antichrist go before, Christ will not come, only that the Roman Empire which now holdeth all Nations, pass and be taken away, and then Antichrist shall come. Finally S. Augustine lib. 20. de ●iuitate dei, cap. 19 expoundeth the same place thus: Only let him which now reigneth, reign till he be take out of the way and then that wicked one shallbe revealed, by whom no man doubteth, but that Antichrist is signified. Now that this sign was not fulfilled at those times, in which the Anti trinitarians of Transiluania say, that Antichrist came, that is about the year of our Lord 200. it is manifest, because than most of all did the Roman Empire flourish, and so continued long after. Likewise that it hath not been fulfilled at any time hitherto, it is plain, because as yet there remaineth the succession and name of the Roman Emperors, and by the wonderful providence of God, when the Empire failed in the West, which was one of the legs of daniel's Statue, the empire of the East remained sound, which was the other leg. But because the Empire of the East was to be destroyed by Turks, as we see now it is, God erected again the former leg in the West, that is, the West Empire, by Charles the Great, which Empire lasteth still. Neither is it any obstacle, that Rome itself, according to S. john's prophecy, is after a certain manner fallen, & hath lost the Empire, for the Roman Empire may well stand without the City of Rome, and he be called the Roman Emperor who hath not Rome, so that he succeed another Roman Emperor in the same dignity & power, whether he hath more or fewer Provinces under his empire: otherwise neither Valens, nor Arcadius, nor Theodosius the younger, nor other their successors to justinian, none of which had Rome, could have been called Roman Emperors. Neither Charleses the Great, and his successors, who likewise enjoyed not the City of Rome had ever been Emperors, which is manifestly false, for two reasons. First, because for this only respect the Emperor which now is, hath the precedence before all Christian Kings, though otherwise greater, and more potent than he. Secondly because it is well known, that Charles was created Emperor, by the consent of the Romans, as Paulus Diaconus testifieth lib. 23. rerum Romanarum, and was saluted Emperor from the Greek Emperor himself, by his Ambassadors, as Ado testifieth in his Chronicle of the year 810. & honoured as Emperor with presents by the Persians and Arabians, witness Otho Frisingensis lib. 5. cap. 31. Finally the Lutherans boast, that they have three Princes Electors of the Roman Emperor: therefore they cannot deny, but that the Roman Empire lasteth still. Wherefore rightly Orosius lib. 2. cap. 4. comparing the babylonical Empire with the Roman, saith; that God hath dealt far more mildly with the Romans, then with the Babylonians, for after 1164. years that Babylon was builded, in one day Babylon the head of that Empire was taken, the Emperor slain, and the Empire overthrown and destroyed. But after as many years, that is 1164. that Rome had been, Rome was taken by the Goths, but the Emperor Honorius, who then governed, and the Roman Empire being in safety. Hence appeareth how our Adversaries are deceived: for they thought that the declination of the Roman Empire was sufficient for antichrist's coming: but S. Paul, S. john, & Daniel, and the Fathers S. Irenaeus, S. Cyril, S. Chrysostome, Theophilactus, Oecumenius, Tertullian, Lactantius, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome and S. Augustine say, that not a declination, but a desolation is necessary. But Luther, Illyricus & Chytraeus, object, that this demonstration maketh most of all for them: for it was foretold by S. john Apoc. 13. that the Beast, which signifieth the Roman Empire, was to be wounded to death, and healed again by Antichrist, which surely was then done, when the Pope restored again the west Empire which was almost perished, by giving to Charles the Great the title and dignity of Emperor: therefore out of this transferring or restoring of the Empire it is manifestly gathered, that the Pope of Rome is truly Antichrist. See Illyricus l. contra primatum Papae. & Centur. 8. cap. 10. col. 751. and Chytraeus in cap. 13. Apoc. Illyricus confirmeth this argument out of S. Ambrose who expounding the words of S. Paul 2. Thess. 2. saying, that Antichrist shall restore the Romans their freedom, but under his own name: which the Pope seemeth to have done, when he created an Emperor for the Romans, who notwithstanding should depend upon him. I answer, we read not in S. john, that Antichrist should heal the Beast which signified the Roman Empire; but this we read, that one of the Beasts heads should die, & a little after rise again by the dragons, that is, the devils means, which almost all the ancient writers expound of Antichrist himself, who will feign himself dead, and by the devils art will rise again, that he may imitate the true death, and resurrection of Christ, and by that means he will seduce many. So expoundeth it S. Gregory l. 11. ep. 3. Primasius, Beda, Haymo, Anselmus, Richardus, & Rupertus in cap. 13. Apoc. and the text itself doth plainly compel us, by that head of the Beast which was dead, and became alive again, not to understand Charles the Great, but Antichrist; for that head as S. john writeth had power only two and forty months, and blasphemed God, and those which dwell in Heaven, and ruled over all Tribes, People, Languages & Nations, and all which dwell upon the earth adored it; of which things we have not seen or read any in Charles the Great, or in any of his successors: for Charles reigned longer than 42. months, neither did he blaspheme God and his Saints, but rather gave them wonderful reverence, and many of his successors have imitated his piety. Finally neither Charles himself, nor any of his successors ruled over every Tribe, People, Tongue, & Nation, as is manifest to all men. Now S. Ambrose saith not, that Antichrist shall create a new Roman Empire which the Pope did, but that having overthrown the Roman Empire, he shall restore the Romans their liberty; which we read not that any Pope hath done. M. Downams Answer confuted. 1. MASTER Downan utterly, denieth that there should be such an utter desolation of the Empire, as that there should not remain so much as the name of the Emperor or King of the Romans, and then explicateth at large, how far he thinketh it necessary that the Emperor should be taken out of the way. But now it is no time for him to explicate his own opinion, but to answer to Bellarmine's argument: wherefore having denied the assertion, let us see, what he can say to the proofs, for all the rest is altogether impertinent. 2. First then he answereth to the two places of Daniel 2. and 7. together, seeking many silly shifts to escape the force of them, as that upon the desolation of the Empire in the West, it was divided among ten Kings at the least; whereof none was called King of the Romans. Whereby he would infer, that the division Ten Kings shall divide the whole Roman Empire among them, so that there shallbe no Roman Emperor in their tyme. of the Roman Empire into ten Kings, argueth not the utter desolation thereof, since at that time there were 10. Kings at the least, and yet besides a Roman Emperor in the East. But I would ask M. Downam, whether those ten Kings had all, or only part of the Roman Empire divided amongst them? and if he must needs answer, only part, them it is no marvel, though there were a Roman Emperor together with them; but the miracle had been, if M. Downan could have showed us ten Kings, that had all the whole Empire divided among them; and yet have found us a Roman Emperor that had some part of it; which because he neither hath, nor can do, therefore when those ten Kings shall come, that Daniel speaketh of, there shallbe no Roman Emperor as there was in the time of those Kings which M. Downam mentioneth, by which we plainly see, that he spoke from the purpose of a quite different matter from Daniel, who likewise speaketh of ten Kings who should succeed the Roman Emperors: even as they had succeeded the Grecians, and these the Persians, and these again the Assyrians; whereas M. Downam telleth us of 10. Kings, who lived together with the Roman Emperors. And by this time I think M. Downam will wish, that he had not returned Bellarmine's argument upon him, since he seethe, how little credit and how great shame will return to himself by this returning. For not only Bellarmine, but any other, though never so mean a scholar will laugh to hear M. Downam infer upon the coming of those his western Kings, the coming of Antichrist also, who they know is not to come, so long as there is any Roman Emperor remaining, how many Kings soever beside come or go; and they will likewise smile at M. Downam's cunning, which he used to bring in this returning Argument, in that he putteth Beauties' argument into a new form, and maketh him immediately infer the not coming of Antichrist, by the not coming of the Downam changeth Bellarmine's argument. 10. Kings, whereas he only proveth the utter desolation of the Roman Empire by their coming, and succeeding in all the Dominions of that Empire; & finally some of his friends will wish, that he had kept that diversity of reading the Scripture (some having after the Beast, others with the Beast) Apc. 17. 12. till it might have stood him in better steed. But yet you shall hear M. Downam dispute more deeply, for having cited part of Bellarmine's words, he setteth down his first answer in these words. Answer 1. This argumentation of Bellarmine implieth a contradiction for if there be in Daniel described a succession of Kingdoms, which shall continue to the end of the world, whereof the Roman is the last; then the Roman Empire shall not utterly be destroyed before the coming of Antichrist, which goeth before the end of the world. But what will you say, M. Downam, if the Roman Empire be not the last Kingdom, which Daniel describeth? Will you confess that it shallbe destroyed, before the coming of Antichrist, as well as before the end of the world? Doth not Bellarmyne urge out of Daniel, as the last succession, ten Kings signified by the ten toes, and the ten Downam forgetteth what he impugneth horns? Is not all this disputation about them? Are you grown into that heat of passion, that you forget what you impugn? Surely then it is time for you to dispute no longer, and if you will needs be doing, at leastwise, take heed of these returning arguments. Thirdly M. Downan confessing, that he leaveth the common opinion, and followeth another of the learned, especially of these later times, affirmeth, that the 4. Kingdom mentioned in those Chapters of Daniel, is that Kingdom of the Seleucidae, & Lagida which tyrannised over the people of jury; the former being Kings of Syria, & the later of Egypt: but this he proveth not any otherwise, but by a bare repetition of the same assertion, though he beginneth with a (For) as though he would have said something, but we are content to think, that he hath somewhat in store for hereafter: since he promiseth, that hereafter this shallbe showed to be most true, only in the mean time he must give us leave to hold the common opinion till we know who See. Chap. 16. these learned men be, that durst invent a new particular opinion except they can prove it most clearly, as M. Downan saith and we will believe, when we see it, for now it seemeth very probable, that those iron legs signify the Roman Empire, as well for their length, as Bellarmine well noted, & M. Downan negligently if not craftily omitted in the allegation of his words, putting in an (etc.) when he came to that place, as also for their strength, in which the 4. Beast also excelleth, The Roman Empire signified by the 2. iron legs of Nabucodonozors' statue & the 4. beast. Dan. 7. as the Prophet himself expresseth: Quomodo ferruncomminuit & domat omnia, sic comminuet, & conteret omnia haec. As iron breaketh and tameth all things, so shall (that kingdom) break and tear in pieces all these former kingdoms: neither would I have the Reader deceived with the opposition of learned, to common, which he findeth made by M. Downam, by thinking that he meant, that the ancient opinion was holden only by the common sort of people: for no doubt he will acknowledge Bellarmine to be as learned as himself, no dispraise to him, who is the only learned man that yet he expresseth to hold this new opinion; and beside he will not easily condemn S. Irenaeus, whom Bellarmine citeth for unlearned; and yet his once not vouch safing to name him, may make some doubtful, and therefore I will add S. Hierome, whom no man but an ignorant will account unlearned. He therefore upon this very place Daniel 2. saith: Regnum quartum perspicuè pertinet ad Romanos. The 4. Kingdom perspicuously belongeth to the Romans: & cap. 7. Quartum quod nunc orbem tenet terrarum, Imperium Romanorum est. The fourth which now possesseth the world, is the Empire of the Romans. Thus much for the fourth Beast, and Iron legs. But now concerning the ten toes, and ten horns, M. Downam's learned opinion is, that by them were signified the ten Kings of the two foresaid Kingdoms, which successively usurped dominion over the jews, but for his proofs and authors, By the 10. toes of Nabuchodonozor's Statue & the 10. horns of the 4. beast Dan. 7. are signified the ten Kings which shall divide the Roman Empire among them. he remitteth us to hereafter, as in the former, and so we must be content to expect his leisure: neither will we do him that injury, to account Porphyrius, against whom S. Hierome writeth cap. 7. to be one of his great learned men, though his opinion be somewhat like; for by the 4. Beast he understandeth not the Roman Empire, but Alexander the great his 4. successors: and afterward for the ten horns reckoneth up ten Kings, till Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes, which ruled in Macedonia, Syria, Asia, & Egypt, and all this to the end, that those words osloquens ingentia, might be thought to be spoken of Antiochus, and not of Antichrist. But howsoever M. Downam willbe ashamed to partake with this Apostata: yet am I sorry, that he cometh so near, and must be enforced to oppose himself, not only against S. Hierome, but also against all Ecclesiastical writers till his time, for so he affirmeth: Dicamus, quod omnes Scriptores Ecclesiastici tradiderunt, in consummatione mundi quando regnum destruendum est Romanorum, decem futuros Reges, qui orbem Romanum interse dividant, & undecimum surrecturun etc. Let us say that which all Ecclesiastical Downam joineth with Porphyry an Apostata against all Ecclesiastical writers. writers have delivered unto us, that in the end of the world when the Roman Kingdom is to be destroyed, there shallbe ten Kings, who shall divide the Roman world among them, & that there shall arise an eleventh little King etc. But if M. Downam willbe so mad, as to oppose himself to them all; surely we have no reason to follow him, but rather to endeavour to recall him, as we heartily wish we might. Finally M. Downam is content to suppose, that Daniel had spoken in those places of the Roman Empire, and then he will have the 10. horns, and 10. toes, to signify the several Kings of that kingdom; which evasion very worthily he confirmeth by the example of the Seleucidae & Lagidae their Kingdoms and Kings, which were not all one, and yet the Kingdoms in his exposition were signified by the fourth Beast and iron legs, and the Kings by the 10. horns, and 10. toes. And is not M. Downam a wise man, think you, to confirm one absurdity with another far greater, and which he knoweth his adversary will much less grant, then that, Downam childishly confirmeth one absurdity with another far greater. which he goeth about to prove? Besides that, this devise is so foolish that every child will laugh at M. Downam for it; for who seethe not, that the King succeed not his Kingdom, as the ten toes do the iron legs, and the ten horns by the consent of all Ecclesiastical writers the 4. beast; but must of force be united together? except we will make the Kingdoms of the Seleucidae, and Lagidae, or of the Romans, to have been without their Kings and Emperors, and afterward again the Kings & Emperors without their States: which is so gross an absurdity, as me thinks M. Downam should see it; and it is little less, to call these Kings the toes of their Kingdoms, whereas every man else accounteth them the heads, in respect of their own Kingdoms, howsoever in respect of others, they may be called toes, because of their succession in the last place. And by this, that hath been said, I doubt not it will appear to the judicious Reader, whether Bellarmine's argument, or M. Downam's answer be more impertinent and frivolous. 3. To the second proof out of the Apocal. 17. M. Downam hath very little to answer & therefore he is glad to take hold Apoc. 17. of every word spoken obiter, and by the way; as that Rome is the Harlot, whereof S. Io. speaketh, and that the seven heads signify all the Emperors of Rome: the first of which M. Downam liketh very well, but the second he affirmeth to be untrue, because they are numbered, five are fallen, the sixth is, and the 7. is not yet come; in which point I will not now much contend; because M. Downam confesseth, that it is beside the purpose. And if hereafter he can bring any other exposition more probable, he shall find me very ready to allow of it, though he might have used more moderation in his censure, Downam not moderate in his censure. since he cannot choose but know, that many great authors have taken the number of 7. in this place indefinitely; as without all question in many other places it is to be taken; and his difficulty must be solved by himself, since that in this very chapter he affirmeth that Apoc. 13. by the Beast with 7. heads is meant the Roman State, and that under the Roman Emperors especially: and yet by the head which was wounded, which he maketh the 6. he likewise understandeth the State of the Emperors, which besides the difficulty common to Bellarmine, involveth a contradiction peculiar to M. Downam. Neither will I stand now to discuss with M. Downam, whether Rome be the Seat of Antichrist or no, or how, and in what state; only I must advise him, that Bellarmine affirmeth not, that the Whore of Babylon is the seat of Antichrist, as neither that Rome after the desolation of the Empire is the Whore of Babylon: but these are M. Downam's own additions, See cap. 13. which if he will have granted, he must first prove them in their due places. But now to come to that, which Bellarmin would prove; M. Downam first is enforced to yield, that these ten horns signify 10. Kings, which shall reign together, and only can help himself with affirming, that these are not the same ten horns whereof Daniel speaketh, which reigned successively. For which point I remit myself to that, which hath been said in the former proof; besides that it is no small confirmation that S. john must needs be understood of 10. Kings, which reign together, since their words are so like, and S. john may be thought to expound Daniel, whom here M. Downam citeth cap. 11 perhaps through the Printers fault; since that chapter maketh not to his purpose, and therefore was never mentioned in the whole precedent discourse. Well it is now at length agreed upon, that there shall 10. kings reign together. Wherefore it only remaineth to prove, that in the time of these 10. Kings, there shall be no Roman Emperor, & consequently that the Roman Empire shallbe utterly destroyed; and so it is time for M. Downam to bestir himself: and to use all his juggling tricks. First then he bringeth in Bellarmine's first proposition, in the beginning of the question for an argument in this place, and not truly neither. But it will be best to hear M. Downam's own words. How then (saith he) doth Bellarmine prove, that before Antichrist cometh, the Roman Empire shallbe so utterly destroyed, as not the name of a Roman Emperor or King of the Romans should remain? because the Empire shallbe divided among 10. Kings which are not Roman Kings etc. Whereas Bellarmine's words are these: We must know that the Roman Empire is at length to be divided into ten Kings, of which none shallbe, or be called King of the Romans: where you see not only the being, but also the name of Roman Kings is excluded. But (saith M. Downam) he that is none of those 10. Kings, may have the name of the Emperor or King of the Romans; as namely the beast which was, & is not, though it be, which is the 8. head, and is one of the 7. that is to say, the Emperor erected by the Pope. This found and foolish conceit, that the beast which was, and is not, is the Emperor erected by the Pope, shall in other places be largely confuted. Now I would only know, how this Emperor can be, when the whole Empire is divided among those other 10. Kings, as Bellarmine affirmeth, and proveth out of this very place, as we should have seen ere this, had not M. Downam interrupted us with his impertinent disgressions, which perhaps foreseeing and fearing, he putteth another question somewhat more to the purpose. And why may none of these be called the King of the Romans? first forsooth, because they shall hate Rome, and make her desolate. But he might have kept his (first) & (forsooth) in his purse instead of money: for Bellarmine giveth but one reason, which is the foresaid words of Scripture, adding only the exposition of them, which because M. Downam could not impugn, he though best to divide, that so having separated the exposition from the place of Scripture, the one might want authority, and the other be easily shifted of, as he doth in these words: As though he that hath the title of the King of the Romans, may not hate Rome, notwithstanding that title, as indeed some of the Emperors have done: which evasion had been too ridiculous, if he had added Bellarmine's exposition, to wit, that the Scripture testifieth that these Kings shall hate the harlot, and make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire, because they shall so divide the Roman Empire amongst them, that they shall utterly destroy it. Where by the way M. Downam may understand, The Roman Empire destroyed by the 10 Kings. that by Rome is not only understood the particular City, but also the whole Roman Empire, of which in S. john's time Rome was the head, and so denominated the whole, as that which the Logicians would call principal Analogatum. Now, how can the utter destruction of this Roman Empire be more significantly declared, then by being hated, made desolate, and naked, have her flesh eaten, and finally be burnt with fire? And how can any man imagine, but that the 10. Kings which shall bring all this to pass shallbe utter enemies aswell of the Emperors so long as there are any, as likewise of the Empire? And by this time I imagine M. Downam will be persuaded that Bellarmine used no circular disputation, but confirmed his doctrine by an express place of Scripture. But least there should want a circular disputation, M. Downam bringeth in an experience approved only Downam's petitio principij. by his own opinion, but altogether denied by Bellarmine & all Catholics, of the Roman Empire already dissolved, & divided betwixt Antichrist & ten Kings, the title & name of Emperor still remaining; by which to any judicious Reader he maketh himself so ridiculous, that his bragging of his former proofs out of this place, that Antichrist is come, and that the Pope is Antichrist, will hardly be believed, and at leastwise I doubt not, but men will stay their censure, till they see those proofs examined. 4. M. Downam coming to the third proof, very courteously admitteth it, because it is so manifest that he could not deny it, that 2. Thess. 2. is to be understood of 2. Thess. 2. the Roman Empire: but then he manfully denieth that either the Apostle or any of the Fathers, excepting Lactantius, whose prophecy (saith M. Downan) in this point the Papists themselves do think to be erroneous, do say that the Empire of Rome shall so utterly be abolished, as that not so much as the name of the Emperor or King of the Romans shall remain. Where first we have the authority of Lactantius so plain, as no evasion can be found to shift it of; and therefore M. Downam is enforced to call his prophesy erroneous, and is not ashamed to affirm, that it is held so by Catholics, even in this point. For cofirmation of which he is alleged by Bellarmine, which no doubt is a point of egregious impudence. But we see no cause, why we downan's impudency. should not more esteem the authority of Lactantius, so ancient and learned a writer, then of a thousand M. Downam's, especially since both the Scripture, and Father's favour his opinion so greatly. For what is de medio fieri, but to be quite taken away? and I believe M. Downam would be loath to stand to the hazard, if there were order given by some in authority, ut ipse de medio fieret. And this the Fathers took to be so plain, that they thought it needed no exposition, though sometime they use other words, which signify the same utter desolation, as S. Cyril, when the times of the Roman Empire are expired; Tertull. when the Empire is overthrown; S. Ambrose, after the defection & abolition; S. Hierom, except all Nations which are subject to the Roman Empire, revolt from them: and unless How many waves the Fathers affirm the utter destruction of the Roman Empire & why they spoke sparingly of this point. the Roman Empire be first desolate, pass, and be taken away. And S. Augustine opposeth to be taken out of the way, to reigning. So that when the Emperor is taken out of the way, he shall reign no longer, which is all one as to say, he shallbe no longer Emperor. Surely it is hard to express the utter desolation of any Kingdom, with more significant words. And yet Bellarmine told M. Downam a very good reason, why both the Apostle, and the Fathers would speak somewhat sparingly in this point, to wit lest it might be offensive to the Roman Emperors, in whose times they lived, and therefore we see how fearfully Lactantius speaketh, & how Tertullian bringeth it in without offence, saying, that Christians pray for the continuance of the Roman Empire. And M. Downam might have done well to have found us out some one Father, that had favoured his exposition; which he neglected, not for want of good will, as we see plainly by his citing of S. Hierome, Qui tenebat, de medio sit etc. which he translateth, He which held, is taken away etc. putting the preter-perfect, Downam translateth not well. for the present tense, and so he should have said, He which held, is in taking away, or have added some other sign, which might have signified that it was in doing, but not done, which is most true, both in S Hieroms time, and ever since, & before too; and the nearer we see the Roman Empire to draw to an end, the nearer we may likewise think, that Antichrist draweth, as S. Hierome affirmeth: but till that (fit) be made (factus est) that is, till the Roman Empire be utterly overthrown indeed, Antichrist shall not come, how near soever he be, which S. Hierome, and all the Fathers plainly affirm, as we have seen. Neither can M. Downam himself think, that the Empire was taken away in such sort in S. Hieromes time, as was necessary before antichrist's coming and revealing, since that he himself dareth not affirm, that he came then in such sort, as S. Paul describeth 2. Thess. 2. Wherefore he must either reject S. Hierom in this also, or else expound him, as I have done. And it is a pretty matter, that the Apostle, and the Father's telling us, that the Roman Empire hindereth antichrist's coming, M. Downam should still bear us down, that the Empire as it is now, hindereth not Antichrist, but rather furthereth. But I hope men will rather have the Apostle, and the Fathers to stand by them in the day of judgement, when they shall give account of their faith, in this point, than M. Downam, who will have more than he can do, to answer for himself. The Holy Ghost well foresaw, that the Roman Empire should be in these times, as we now see it, and no doubt would not have affirmed so absolutely, that it hindereth antichrist's coming, if at any time it could have been together with him, or have furthered him; otherwise we might have a just excuse for our mistaking. Neither is the Empire now so greatly diminished, as M. Downam There now a Roman Emperor indeed, & not in name or title only. would give us to understand: for there is now an Emperor of the Romans indeed, and not only in title without the thing itself, as we see the whole world acknowledgeth, even the Protestants themselves; and who but M. Downam would affirm that the Emperor that now is, hath no Provinces? For as for Rome he granteth, that it is not necessary, that he should have it. Is a great part of Germany nothing with M. Downam? It should seem, that he is become a great despiser of the world, since that which all Christian, & Infidel Princes and people esteem so much, he accounteth nothing. 5. To conclude this Chapter, M. Downam goeth about to reply upon Bellarmine's answer to the objection of Luther & the rest; and telleth us, that it is evident, that the former Beast Apoc. 13. figureth not Antichrist, but the Roman state, and that under the Roman Emperors especially; but it had been well, that he would have showed us this evidence: for neither we, nor the Fathers which Bellarmine citeth, to whom we may add S. Irenaeus l. 5. cap. 28. Arethas, S. Methodius, and S. Hippolytus in orat. de The former beast, Apoc. 13. signifieth Antichrist. Apoc. 13. See cap. 15. §. 3. & 4. & part. 2. c. 3. n. 8. consummatione mundi, can see any such evidence, but rather the contrary, to wit, that the former beast signifieth Antichrist at least in one of his heads, which might be plainly gathered out of the Text, if it were our turn to prove, as it is M. Downam's. But since we must answer, only his authority avouching a new exposition without reason, moveth us very little. Secondly M. Downam telleth us, that it is not said, that one of the heads did saigne itself dead, and by the help of the Devil did rise again (which needeth not (saith he) if the death were counterfeit) but that one of the heads had received a deadly wound, and was cured again. But we knew thus much before he told us so; neither doth Bellarmine affirm, that the Scripture hath that exposition in itself, for then what need we seek for any other. The words of the Scripture are, Vidi unum de capitibus suis, quasi occisum in mortem. I saw one of his heads, as it were slain to death. Where we see a (quasi) which M. Downam omitted, but the Fathers made so great account of it, that they chiefly grounded their exposition upon it, especially because they knew very well, that if it had been no feigned, but a true and real death, it had passed the devils cunning to have recovered him; except M. Downam will think that the Devil can do true miracles, as he seemeth to insinuate, by saying, that the devils help needed not, if the death were countersait; but yet we will think better of him, then that he will fall to open blasphemy, and will only tell him, that the devils cunning was very needful to make this wound seem so desperate and mortal, and to feign death so cunningly, that all should remain so fully satisfied, and verily persuaded, that the head had been dead indeed, and was risen again by the power which the beast had by the Devil. But here we must not pass over in silence M. Downam's juggling tricks: for in his opinion the second Beast with two horns is Antichrist; for so he objecteth to Bellarmine, that he might have read, that the second beast which is Antichrist, causeth the Image of the beast, that is, the new Empire to be made, and putteth life into it. Now, this second beast had not yet appeared to S. john, when the head of the former beast was healed by the power, which the Dragon had given to the former beast: yet is M. Downam content to apply this to the Pope also, not caring (as it seemeth) what he saith, so that he may seem to say something against the Pope. But by the former beast, as we have seen, & Luther, Illyricus & Chytraeus in their objections suppose Antichrist is signified, by the latter his chief Precursor, and false Prophet, who shall cause his followers to erect statuas, & Images of Antichrist, out of By the later beast which by his procuring the Devils shall speak, & give answers, & other signs of life, as sometimes happened among the Apoc. 11. is signified Anticrists false Prophet. Pagans' & idolaters. And this is the exposition of the ancient Fathers: by which all M. Downam's devise of the new Empire erected by the Pope, becometh too too foolish and ridiculous. And if I were to dispute, and not to answer, I would ask how the Roman Empire came to have 7. heads together? Perhaps he might have found two horns, as the second beast had, by reason of the East and West Empire. But now I will not urge him any further, since his folly is more than notorious already. 6. Finally M. Downam would make us believe, that Bellarmine fighteth with his own shadow, when he invincibly proveth, that the head which was healed, is not Charles the Great, for (saith he) by the head is not meant any one Man, but the state and succession of Emperors. And hath he not amended the matter well, think you, that whereas Bellarmine proveth, that it could not be Charles, because he reigned longer than 42. months, M. Downam answereth it is true, it could not be Charles, but yet it might be the State and succession of Emperors, as though this endured less time than Charles, containing both him and all the other Emperors? Can there be any Downam's ridiculous absurdity. thing more ridiculous than this? And is M. Downam any better than a shadow for Bellarmine to fight withal? But yet he will have one saying more, and so he telleth us, that which is added concerning the Universality either of worship or rule is not spoken of the head which was revived, but of the beast which was to have one of his seven heads wounded to death, and cured again. Well then, let M. Downam show us, where, or by whom the Roman Empire had either worship or rule after the head was healed, that is (in his opinion) after the Empire was restored by the Pope, but only in Charles the Great, and his Successors? If he cannot show us any such matter any where else, let him confess, that this Universality of rule and worship cannot befound in the Roman Empire, but only in Antichrist; as neither he can show us, that any of the Roman Emperors after Charles the Great blasphemed God and his Saints, so as this head or beast is said to do. But yet to do him a courtesy, we will not stick much to grant him as probable, that Whether the wounded head. Apoc. 13. be Antichrist or no. the head is not Antichrist himself, but one of the 7. Kings, which shall continue with Antichrist, and follow & assist him in all his wickedness, as he may see learnedly expounded in Ribera one of Bellarmine's religion and order. And thus we will conclude, leaving the judicious Reader to judge, whether the Protestants are deceived, thinking that the declination of the Empire was sufficient for antichrist's coming, as Bellarmine modestelie affirmeth, after evident proofs: or the Catholics be in an error, who think that Antichrist cometh not before the utter desolation of the Roman Empire, as M. Downam rashly avoucheth, only because he would exceed Bellarmine in words, since he cannot come near him in proofs. THE sixth CHAPTER. Containing the third Demonstration. THE third demonstration (saith Bellarmine) is taken from the coming of Henoch and Helias, who live still, and to this end, that they may oppose themselves to Antichrist, when he cometh, & conserve the elect in the Faith of Christ, and at length convert the jews, which notwithstanding without doubt is not yet fulfilled. There be four places of Scripture concerning this matter; the first Malac. 4. Behold I will send Elias the Prophet unto you, before the great day of the Lord cometh, and he will convert the hearts of the Fathers to the Children, and the hearts of the children to their Fathers. The second, Eccle. 48. where we read of Helias: Who wert received in a whirlwind of fire, in a whirlwind of fiery horses: who art written in the judgements of times; to assuage the lords anger, to reconcile the heart of the Father to the son, and to restore the Tribes of Israel. And cap. 44. Henoch pleased God, and was translated into Paradise, to give to Nations penance. The third Matth. 17. Helias indeed is to come, & shall restore all things. The fourth Apoc. 11. I will give to my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy 1260. days. Theodorus Bibliander allegeth also all these places in his Chronicle tab. 14. but he saith, that by Henoch and Helias are understood all faithful Ministers, which God raiseth in the time of Antichrist, of which sort were Luther, Zuinglius, and the rest, and at length he concludeth. Wherefore (saith he) it is a childish imagination, or a jewish dream to expect either Helias or Henoch, as people described by their particular proprieties. And the same teacheth Chytraeusin Comment. Apoc. 11. and they prove it, because those things, which are said of Helias by Malachi, our Lord taught us to be understood of S. john Baptish, Matth. 11. He is Helias who is to come. And S. Hierom in cap. 4. Malach. expoundeth it of all the choir of Prophets, that is to say, of the doctrine of all the Prophets. But to us it seemeth not a childish imagination, but a most true opinion, that Henoch and Elias shall come in their persons, and that the contrary is either an heresy, or an error next door to heresy. It is proved first out of those four Scriptures: for that the words of Malachi cannot be understood of any Doctors whatsoever, as of Luther, Zuinglius, & the like, it is manifest, for Malachi saith, that the jews are to be converted by Helias, and that he is chiefly to be sent for the jews, as is manifest by that: I will send unto you. And in Ecclesiasticus, to restore the Tribes of jacob. But Luther and Zuinglius have converted none of the jews. That also they cannot be understood literally of S. john Baptist, but only of Helias, it is manifest, because Malachi speaketh of the second coming of our Lord, which shallbe to judge: for so he saith: Before the great and horrible day of the Lord cometh: for the first coming is not called, a great and horrible day, but an acceptable time, and the day of salvation. For which cause, it is also added, Lest perhaps coming, I strike the earth with anathema and curse, that is to say, least coming to judgement, and finding all wicked, I condemn all the earth: therefore I will send Helias, that I may have some to save. But in the first coming our Lord came not to judge, but to be judged, not to destroy, but to save. To the words of our Lord Matth. 11. we will answer a little after. To S. Hierome Isay, that though in Comment. Malach. he did not think, that Malachi did speak of the true Helias: yet in comment. Matth. 11. & 17. he thinketh & teacheth the contrary. Finally S. Augustine. lib. 20. Ciu. cap. 29. witnesseth, that this is the common interpretation of the faithful. That likewise Ecclesiasticus speaketh of the persons of Henoch & Helias, and not of some other, it is proved; for Ecclesiasticus saith, that Henoch shall come to give the Nations penance, who is translated into Paradise, and that Helias shall come to restore the tribes of Israel, who was taken away in a chariot of fiery horses, which certainly agree not, but to those particular persons. In which place I cannot sufficiently marvel, what came into Bishop jansenius his mind, that expounding this place, he should write: Although it be the opinion of all the Ancients, that Helias shall come, yet it is not convinced out of this place: for it may be said, that Ecclesiasticus wrote that according to the opinion received in his time, by which it was believed out of the words of Malachi, that Helias shall truly come before the Messiah in his own person; whereas it was not to be fulfilled in his own person, but in him who was to come in the spirit and virtue of Helias. For if it be so as jansenius saith, it followeth, that Ecclesiasticus erred, and wrote false things. But if I be not deceived, jansenius changed his opinion, for writing in Cap. 17. Matth. he teacheth that the place of Malachi cannot be literally understood but of the true Helias, which he is likewise compelled to say of the place of Ecclesiasticus, who without doubt expoundeth Malachy. Now that the words of our Lord Matth. 17. are understood of the true Helias, it is plain; because S. john was already come, and had absolved his course, and yet our Lord saith, Helias shall come: and that they are not understood of all doctors, but of one true Helias, it may be proved, first, because the Apostles, who moved the question of Helias, where S. Peter, S. james, and S. john, and they took occasion by the Transfiguration of our Lord, where they saw Moses & Helias; wherefore when they ask; why therefore do the Scribes say, that Helias must come first? they speak of that Helias, whom they had seen in the mountain with Christ. Therefore Christ answering, Helias indeed shall come & restore all things, speaketh also of that particular Helias who had appeared in the Transfiguration. Secondly the same is manifest out of those words, and he shall restore all things; for S. Io. Baptist nor any other hath done that: for torestore all things is to recall all jews, and heretics, and perhaps many Catholics (deceived by Antichrist) to the true Faith. But Bibliander urgeth, because our Lord Matth. 11. saith of S. Io. Baptist, He is Helias, who is to come, as if he had said: He is the Helias promised by Malachy. I answer: Our lords meaning is, that S. john was the Helias promised, not literally, but allegorically; for therefore he said first, and if you will receive him, as if he said, Helias indeed promised in his own person is to come in the last coming; yet if you will have also some Helias in the first coming, receive john; Therefore also he addeth: He that hath ears to hear let him hear, signifying, that it was a mystery, that he had said S. john to be Helias. Finally that the words of S. Io. Apoc. 11. are understood of the particular persons Henoch and Helias, not of all teachers, it is manifest by that which S. john saith in the same place, that they were to be killed by Antichrist, and that their bodies should remain unburied three days in the streets of Jerusalem, & that, after three days they should rise again, and ascend into Heaven; which never happened to any hitherto. Notwithstanding David Chytraeus goeth about to answer in his Commentary upon that place, and he saith first, that S. john would signify, that many Lutheran Ministers were to be slain by the Papists, whom notwithstanding God restoreth to life, when he taketh them up to Heaven to live for ever. Secondly he addeth a little after, that those slain Ministers shall have their corporal life restored them in the last day of Resurrection. thirdly and lastly he addeth in the same place, that by this restoring to life, may also be signified, that we see many other Ministers raised by God, instead of those which were slain, with the same zeal & virtue. But these answers are too light: for the first cannot be defended, because the blessedness of the soul, is not the restoring of our life lost, but an obtaining of a new life. Besides, those two witnesses in the Apocalyps shall rise again before many, and shallbe lifted up in Body, which certainly is not fulfilled in the blessedness of the soul. Likewise the second solution is nothing worth, for S. john saith, that those two witnesses shall rise again, before the last day, to wit, while the state of this world endureth, for S. john addeth, that their enemies shallbe strooken into a great fear by that resurrection, and that a little after, there shallbe an earth-quak & that 7000. men shall perish. Finally the third solution is not to the purpose, for the Scripture saith, that the very same which were dead shallbe raised again, and assumpted into Heaven. But yet we see not any Lutheran Minister rise again, or be taken up to heaven. Likewise S. john saith, that Henoch and Helias, shall preach in sackcloth, and the Lutherans bear such an hatred to sackcloth, that if peradventure they have any when they become Lutherans, they forthwith cast them away. secondly, it is proved that Helias, and Henoch shall come in their own persons in antichrist's time, by the consent of the Fathers. For of Helias so affirm S. Hilary, S. Hierome, Origen, S. Chrysostome, and all other interpreters of S. Matth. in cap. 17. Likewise Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 17. and Theodoret in cap. ultimum Malachiae, & S. Augustine tract 4. in. joan. and Primas. in cap. 11. Apoc. Of Henoch and Helias together, so affirm many which writ upon the Apoc. as Bede, Richardus, Arethas, who also addeth, that it is without variety believed by the whole Church, that Henoch and Elias are to come to oppose themselves to Antichrist. Likewise S. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 28. S. Hippolytus martyr in orat. de consummatione mundi, and S. Greg. lib. 14. cap. 12. & lib. 9 cap. 4. moral. and S. Augustine lib. 9 c. 6. de Gen. ad literam. Thirdly it is proved, because otherwise there can be no reason given, why these two were taken away before their death, & live still in mortal flesh, being at length to die: for although the jews as Rab. Solomon in c. 5. Gen. do say, that Henoch was slain by God before his time, because he was light & inconstant; and they affirm that Helias, when he was carried up in a fiery chariot was wholly consumed in body by that fire, and perhaps the Lutherans think the same, who deny, that they shall return: yet all Catholics certainly believe, that both of them live in their bodies: for that Henoch is not dead, the Apostle teacheth Heb. 11. Henoch was translated, that he might not see death; and that neither he, nor Elias be dead, and yet shall die, besides the already cited, S. Irenaeus, Tertullian, S. Hierom, S. Augustine, and Ephiphanius do teach. S. Irenaus lib. 5 speaking of Henoch & Helias. The Priests (saith he) which are the Disciples of the Apostles affirm, that those which are translated, are translated thither (to terrestrial Paradise) and remain there until the consummation, contemplating incorruption. Tertull. lib. count judaeos cap. 1. of Henoch saith thus: Who hath not yet tasted death, as pretending eternity. S. Epiphanius in Ancorato, of Henoch and Helias saith thus: These two remain in body and soul in respect of hope. S. Hierome in epist. ad Pamach. contra joannem Hierosolymitanum. Henoch (saith he) is translated in flesh: Helias being in flesh is taken up to Heaven, not yet dead, and now inhabitors of Paradise etc. S. Aug. lib. de peccato orig. cap. 23. Henoch (saith he) and Helias we doubt not, live in the bodies, in which they were borne. M. Downams Answer confuted. 1. MASTER Downam's first answer is, that though all this were true, to wit, that Enoch & Helias were to come in their own persons, before the second coming of Christ, and to oppose themselves against Antichrist (all which he meaneth in his second answer to deny:) Yet it followeth not, that therefore Antichrist should not be come before their coming. It is sufficient (saith he) that they come before his overthrow, and the second coming of Christ: and therefore, if they were indeed to come, their coming might be yet expected, notwithstanding the truth of our assertion, that Antichrist is already come. But M. Downam did wisely not to stand much upon Helias & Henoch are to preach in a manner as long as Antichrist is to reign. this solution, for he could not choose, but know, that Henoch and Helias were to preach very near as long as Antitichrist was to persecute and reign, since that Apoc. 11. the time of their preaching is appointed to be 1260. days which wanteth not much of three years and a half, or 42. months; which both S. john, and Daniel appoint for antichrist's Kingdom, and therefore Bellarmine had reason to affirm, that they were to come together, and to accompany one another, which likewise must needs be granted by them, which admit that the cause of their coming shallbe to oppose themselves to Antichrist, for it would be very late to come a thousand years after, especially for them, which are dead so many years before; wherefore M. Downam was something to free in this first answer, but he will make a mends in his second, where he meaneth to deny all, that either the Scriptures or Fathers have affirmed, concerning the coming of thesetwo divine witnesses. 2. And to begin this his second Answer, he first citeth Bellarmine's words falsely, making him say thus: There be 4. Scriptures to prove that Henoch and Helias in their own persons shall come against Antichrist. As though Bellarmine had affirmed, that in every Scripture of these four, both Henoch and Helias had been named, or at leastwise spoken of; for so M. Downam seemeth to charge him saying forth with: Howbeit this is a manifest untruth, for no place of Scripture speaketh of Henoch his return. But Bellarmine's words are these: Quatuor Scripturae exstant de haec re. There be four Scriptures concerning this matter. Now whether any of these places speak of Henoch his return or no, we shall see Downam allegeth Bellarmine's words falsely. ere long: in the mean time it is sufficient, that the Reader note M. Downam's shuffling, and that Bellarmine affirmeth not that all these Scriptures speak of Henoch, nor yet that he is named in any of them; wherefore his note in the first place, is either malicious, or foolish, that this place maketh no mention of Henoch, but only of Helias: for of this there was never made any question, but by himself. Wherefore leaving these his shifts, let us hear what he can answer to that place of Malachy. He denieth that by Elias, is meant Elias the Thesbite, but john the Baptist: which he Malach. 4. will needs prove also, because Luc. 1. the Angel saith, that S. john should go before our Lord in the spirit and virtue of Helias, Luc. 1. that he may turn the hearts of the Fathers unto the Children etc. but who seethe not, that this is only to be Helias spiritually and virtually, or as Bellarmine speaketh, allegorically? which no Catholic denieth; but withal we affirm, that Helias literally is to come in the time of Antichrist, as Bellarm. proveth out of the place of Malachy; which it seemeth M. Downam is loath to hear of, and therefore he interrupteth him so disorderly with proving, when it is his turn to answer. But we will bear with his rudeness, so that he will be satisfied with any reason. Wherefore secondly, be bringeth Matth. 11. where he saith, that our Saviour most plainaly affirmeth, I. IX. that john Baptist is that Helias who was to come. But we must Matth. 11. tell him ere he pass any further, that he is somewhat too bold to change our saviours words, who not without great cause said not, who was to come, as M. Downan would make Downam corrupteth the Scripture. him; but who is to come; signifying plainly, that S. john Baptist coming had not fulfilled the prophesy of Malachi, since that Elias was still to come after him, and consequently that S. john Baptist was only Elias spiritually &c. as hath been said; because he endeavoured to convert the jews, which lived then, as Elias shall do those, which shall live in the time of Antichrist, & both of them have for office to prepare for our saviours coming, S. john for the first, and Elias for the second. I omit M. Downam's exposition of the other words in that place as impertinent, because they are not to this purpose: and as for his railing, we must be content to put up that and more, at such good fellows hands. Thirdly M. Downan allegeth S. Hierome, who affirmeth, that the jews and judaizing Heretics think, that before their Messiah, Elias shall come, and restore all things. Hence it is, that unto Christ this question is propounded in the Gospel, what is that, which the pharisees say, that Elias shall come? To whom he answered: Elias indeed shall come, and if you will believe, he is already come: by Elias meaning john. And therefore (saith M. Downam) in Hieromes judgement it is but the opinion of a judaizing heretic to expect the coming again of Elias in his own person. But sure we are, that this is not S. Hieromes judgement, if we speak of the second coming of our Saviour, since he himself in the 17. of Matth. affirmeth of Helias, that he shall come then juxta corporis fidem, in bodily presence, and that in the first coming, he came by S. john in virtue and spirit; by which it most plainly appeareth, that he only condemneth them for jews and judaizing heretics, which will not receive any Messiah, till they first see Elias in his own person, because they expound the Prophet Malachy of the first coming of the Messiah, as M. Downam doth: only they differ that M. Downan thinketh, that Helias is not literally spoken of. In which point he erreth more grossly than they, as we shall see afterward. 3. Now, that M. Downam hath spent his own proofs be is content to begin to answer Bellarmine's, who proveth that Malachy speaketh of the second coming, because he calleth it a great and horrible day. Where M. Downam is not ashamed to say, that Bellarmine giveth the lie to the spirit of God, speaking in the Angel, Luc. 1. and our Saviour Matth. 11. & 17. But Downame impudenty. surely he deserveth to have the lie given him, that is not afraid nor ashamed to behave himself so impudently. Well it is our hard hap to have to do with such men. Let us see, what he answereth: for the application of the Angel, and our Saviour, we have already seen, that it was only a spiritual, virtual, or allegorical application, which hindereth not the literal sense of the second coming, as Bellarmine proveth. Malach. 3. v. 1. But M. Downam answereth to his argument, that the first coming may also be called terrible, which he confirmeth out of Malac. 3. v. 1. where he speaketh most plainly of the first coming, and yet saith: who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall endure, when he appeareth, for he is like a purging fire, and like fullers soap, and he shall sit down to try, and fine the silver. But we may well oppose the authority of S. Augustine to M. Downam, without doing him injury. He therefore lib. 18. Ciu. cap. 35. and lib. 20. cap. 25. & 26. as likewise Euseb. lib. 5. demonst. evang. cap. 28. and Theodoretus expound these words of the second coming, though immediately before the Prophet spoke of the first. But yet we will do M. Downam the courtesy to grant that they are to be understood of the first with S. Cyril, Rupertus and others, so that he will admit their interpretation in other points: for the sense is; who can so much as think how great the glory of this day is, by reason of the benefits which the Messiah shall bring with him to mankind? and who can sufficiently admire or rather look upon so great a light and goodness? For he shallbe like a purging fire, by reason of the labours and afflictions, or rather of the holy Ghost, which shall come in fiery tongues, with which he shall purge the hearts of those which believe in him, & like the soap or her be of Fuller's, by reason of his grace, with which he shall make the souls of men most pure and white; and he shall do this most seriously, and with great diligence All which signifieth not the torrible and horrible day, but an acceptable and healthsome tyme. And here by the way we may note, what little reason M. Downam, and his fellows have to leave S. Hieromes vulgar translation, who Downam admitteth what inpretation, and Translation he listeth hath: Quis poterit cogitare, and translate with other interpreters, Quis sustinebit? Except they would admit the former exposition of them, which read it so? But they will admit what they list, and reject what they list, and one while they will have us believe, that the Gospel terrifieth not at all, and an otherwhile, that it terrifieth as much as the old law, yea much more, even as much as the second coming of our Lord to judgement. But since they take so much liberty to teach what they list, we may likewise take leave to believe them, so far as we list. Well, let us see how M. Downam goeth forward to prove that the first coming of our Lord may be called terrible: Of the same coming (saith he) the prophet speaketh in the beginning of the 4. Chap. Behold the day cometh that shall burn Malach. 4. as an oven etc. showing how terrible it shallbe to the wicked. But unto you that fear my name (saith the Lord v. 2.) shall the sun of righteousness arise, and health shallbe under his wings etc. But here we are constrained to forsake M. Downam, since both jews and Christians consent, that these words are to be understood of the day of judgement, and the words themselves are so plain, that they need no interpretation: and it was time for him to add (&c.) in both periods, for otherwise every man would have seen, that the proud and wicked are not to be consumed as stubble cast into the fire till then, as neither, that they shall be trodden under the feet of the just like ashes, as the Prophet affirmeth that they shall be in this great and terrible Downam cutteth of the words which make most to the purpose. day. Wherefore this illation maketh plainly for us, if M. Downam will show us as much courtesy now, as we did him in the former Chapter, that is, to grant, that the Prophet continueth still to speak of the same coming; though indeed we need no such favour, since that in the very place in controversy, this coming is called great and horrible, as Bellarmine urgeth. But M. Downam goeth on still with his citations Matth. 3. 10. Now is the axe laid to the root of the tree etc. Matth. 3. and verse 11. & 12. He that cometh after me is mightier than I: he will baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire, who hath his sa●e in his hand (using the like fimilitude that Malachy did) and will purge his floor, & gather his wheat into his Granary, but will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. All which maketh very little to the purpose: for the sense is, that hereafter the jews shall have no privilege above other Nations, by being the children of Abraham, except they did imitate his works: and that our saviours Baptism was of more force, than S. john Baptists, because he would send the holy Ghost visible in tierie tongues, for which cause he is said to be mightier than S. john, as likewise, because he will purge his floor in this life with tribulations, and with the holy Ghost (as the Prophet Malachy said) and after at the day of judgement, gather his wheat into his Granary, & burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire; which who seethe not, that it shall be chief at his second coming, and in some sort in every man's particular judgement, but in no wise at his first coming? And the rest seemeth nothing terrible, except perhaps to the jews; but that were without reason also, since they are not made in any worse estate, than they were before, but only other Nations are in better; so that their privilege is made common with others, or rather instead of their particular privilege, they receive a common benefit greater without comparison. Finally M. Downam bringeth the prophecy of old simeon Luc. 2. that our Saviour was put to the ruin, and rising of many: and Rom. 9 he is called a stumbling stone, and a rock of offence; Luc. 2. Rom. 9 upon which stone whosoever falleth, shall be broken in pieces: but upon whomsoever it shall fall, it shall all to grind him, Matth. 21. But these places are less to the purpose than the rest, for true it is, many Matth. 21. by their own fault & want of faith came to ruin by occasion of Christ's coming, but this maketh not his coming terrible, no more than any other benefit can be accounted so, because the abuse of it causeth harm to the ab●sers, & in this sense and no otherwise is he called a stumbling stone, or a rock of offence, for otherwise of itself, his first coming is only in resurrectionem, and lapis summus, angularis, electus, pretiosus, 1. Pet. 2. as S. Peter speaketh, and to fall upon this stone, is to be scandalised, and not to believe in Christ, which is a great misery Apoc. 2. & 21. signified by S. john Apoc. cap. 2. & 21. by the first death, but they upon whom it falleth taste likewise of the second death, which is a far greater misery, and is to befall them in the second coming of our Lord to judgement as a proper effect of that coming: whereas the other is not the effect of our saviours first coming, but of men's own wickedness, by which they are said to fall and stumble upon him, by whom they might have risen, if they had taken that benefit by him, which he came to procure them. And thus we see that the first coming of our B. Saviour was no way terrible Christ's first coming was not terrible, as his second shallbe. of itself, but altogether comfortable and pleasant; so that this great and horrible day of which the Prophet speaketh, must needs be the day of his second coming, which shall of itself, and properly be terrible, as containing rather justice and judgement, than Mercy; which only was to be found in the first, even towards the wicked themselves, whom he came not then to judge, but to call to penance. All these places of Scripture being thus easily answered, it was no marvel, though M. Downan rested not content, & therefore answereth further, that the Hebrew word Norah signifieth also Reverend, to be feared, or had in reverence, as Gen. 28. 17. Deut. 7. 21. and so is translated by Tremelius and junius in this place of Malachi. And thus both that word, and others of the same root are used in the signification of reverence, or filial fear. And he citeth in the margin psal. 13. 4. But M. Downam must know, that we esteem more of S. Hierome, and other ancient interpreters, then of his new Tremelius and junius, who we doubt not will favour their new opinions so much as they may, by any colour they can devise. Wherefore since the word may signify both reverence and terror, and besides most usually it signifieth terror, & particularly in this place by the consent of all ancient interpreters & Fathers; we see no reason why we should embrace this new particular opinion, but rather take the same sense in this place, which is manifest, that the same words have joel 2. except M. Douman can show us, that the Sun was turned into darkness, and the Moon into blood, before the first coming of our Saviour. Finally there is no doubt, but that the second coming is as full of reverence, and filial fear as the first, and consequently even in this sense also were to be called horrible and terrible. Thus much for the 1. proof, that Malac. spoke of the second coming. Cardinal Bellarmine his second proof is, because it is added, lest perhaps I come, and strike the earth with a curse: which M. Downam applieth to the first coming, because our Saviour at his second coming, shall without peradventure strike the earth. But he might easily have bethought himself, that at his first coming, without peradventure, our Saviour was resolved not to strike the earth with curses, but to replenish it with blessings: & this resolution arose not from any merits, or good disposition of any, that lived either then, or before, or after: but from his own infinite mercy and goodness, by which he vouchsafed to make us his friends: being of ourselves his enemies so universally, that there was not one that could appease his wrath: and I marvel much, that M. Downam should upon the sudden, only to avoid an argument, attribute more to merits then ever any Downam attributeth more to merits than ever any Catholic did. Catholic did, wherefore we may well hope, that he will admit free will also, without which there is no merit, and which indeed that (peradventure) signifieth in this place: for in respect of God's decree and knowledge, there could be no doubt, what he was to do at either coming, but only how we would dispose ourselves, which by all probability those, which shall live at our saviours second coming, and above others the jews, would not do in any good sort; especially having then more hindrances, by reason of antichrist's persecution, than ever before; had they not the assistance of these two holy Prophets Henoch and Helias. Finally the authority of Arias Montanus will stand M. Downam in very little stead, though he accounteth him the most learned writer among the Papists; for how learned soever he was, his private exposition plainly both against Arias Montanus the exposition of the Fathers, and the text itself (as Bellarmine hath proved) can have no great force: and indeed this was the fault of that man, that he trusted more to his own judgement, then to the authority of others, which must needs please M. Downam well, and we are content to let it pass, so long as he was content to submit all his private opinions to the Church's censure, which M. Downam will not do; and therefore where the other was sometime rash, he is still headlong, that is an heretic: and so we admit that Arias in a rashness favoured to much some of M. downan's heresies. And this shall suffice for the first place of the Prophet Malachy. 4. Bellarmine's second Scripture is the book of Ecclesiasticus, out of which he allegeth two places, the one for Helias, and the other for Henoch, to which M. Downam answereth: Ecclesiasticus Canonical Scripture. First, that although this book be very commendable, yet it is not of Canonical authority, being but an human writing, as appeareth not only by the former place alleged, but also by that erroneous conceit concerning Samuel Chap. 46. 23. But that this book is canonical, he may see manifestly proved in Bellarmine l. 1. de yerbo Dei, cap. 10. & 14. by the authority of councils and Fathers. Neither could Caluin D. Downam's good Master find any objection against this book in particular, though he censured it more hardly, then M. Downam doth. By which we imagine, that it will be an easy matter to answer to these two objections, which M. Downam maketh in this place: and indeed they are plain fooleries, and therefore no marvel, though Caluin had wit enough to omit them: for what can be more foolish, then to deny the authority of Scripture, only Downans petitio principij. because it favoureth his adversary in some questions in controversy? Did ever any Heretic deny any part of Scripture, with less reason than this? And for the present question, I hope the Reader will remain satisfied with that, which shallbe said in this Chapter: and for the other of Samuel cap. 46. 13. I remit him to that, which Bellarmine writeth lib. 2. de Purgatorio cap. 6. Only I will oppose to M. Downam the authority of S. Augustine, who as Bellarmine well noteth, having been doubtful lib. 2. ad Simplicianun q. 3. whether Samuel himself appeared to Saul or no, affirmed without doubt that it was Samuel, lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 15. citing the place of Ecclesiasticus, which before he had omitted. M. Downam's second answer is, that in neither place it is said, that either of them should come to oppose himself against Antichrist. But what then? at least wise it is said, that they shall come to appease God's wrath, and to reconcile the heart of the father to the son, and to restore the Tribes of Israel: and of Henoch, to give penance to Nations: all which we learn out of the other places of Scripture, & by the exposition of the Fathers, that it shallbe in the time of Antichrist not long before our saviours second coming, and consequently that they shall oppose themselves to Antichrist, since he shall strive to draw both jews and Gentills from Christ, and they will labour to convert them to Christ. And here I would have my Reader note one of M. Downam's ordinary shifts, to tell us what the argument downan's ordinary shift. doth not prove, omitting directly to answer to that, which it proveth, & for which it is brought. Thirdly he answereth severally that Ecclesiasticus in the first place wrote, according to the received opinion of his time, which in M. Downam's opinion was Eccles. 48. false. But surely we have no reason, to believe him better than Ecclesiasticus, and the jews of his time, who were no doubt the true people of God; which (whatsoever M. Downam may persuade himself by his special Faith) others will greatly doubt of him; and as for our saviours, and the Prophet Malachies' words, we have and shall sufficiently prove, that they were not against Ecclesiasticus, nor the received opinion of his time, as neither against us, who all agree, that Elias in person, and literally is to come, before Downam condemneth Ecclesiasticus & the jews of his tyme. the second coming of our Saviour. And surely M. Downam is to bold with Ecclesiasticus, and those of his time, to attribute unto them, the errors of those jews, which lived in our saviours time, and were so addicted to this world, that they would by no means understand, that their Messiah was to come in that humility, in which our Saviour came, which notwithstanding was plainly foretold in the Scriptures which we have no reason to think, but that Ecclesiasticus, and those of his time did understand aright, and consequently knew well enough, that Elias was not to come at our saviours first coming, but at his second, since it is manifest in this place, that they expected his coming literally, and in person. Now as for the authority of jansenius, who M. Downam praiseth, as he did before Arias Montanus, because he jansenius maketh for him, to be one of the best writers among the Papists, there had been no great cause of his commending him, if M. Downam had been disposed to have dealt sincerely, since Bellarmine showed, how he changed his opinion in Matth. 17. where he writeth that the Prophet Malachi cannot be understood but of the true Elias, and consequently must needs Downam dealeth not sincerely taking the objection & omitting the answer think, that Ecclesiasticus was not deceived in understanding him so. But this is another of M. Downam's tricks, to steal an objection from Bellarmine, and omit his answer: where we might marvel at his impudent folly, but that it is no new nor strange thing in him, as it was in jansenius or any Catholic Writer, to attribute an error to Canonical Scripture, which was the cause of Bellarmine's marveling at jansenius, and of his changing so absurd an opinion, or rather error in his later writings, in which he doth not only avouch and prove this truth, but also affirmeth that it is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which none but an Heretic will deny. Concerning the other place which speaketh of Henoch, M. Downam triumpheth, saying, that it is Ecclesiast. 44. a wonder, that Bellarmine would allege it for this purpose. But that having nothing to say to the purpose, he is desirous to say something to blear the eyes of the simple. The original text hath; Henoch pleased the Lord God, and was translated for an example of repentance to the generations; that is, that the generations present and to come, might be moved by his example to turn unto the Lord, and to walk before him, knowing by his example, that there is a reward laid up for those that turn unto the Lord, and walk before him, as Henoch did. But will Bellarmine hence conclude, that therefore Henoch is to come again in the flesh, to oppose himself to Antichrist? Hitherto M. Downam. And this is all he hath to say. Where first we see, that he cannot deny, but that the latin text, which Bellarmine cited, made much for this purpose: and there is no reason, but that we should attribute as much at least, to the latin interpretation, as to M. Downam's interpretation: since it cannot be denied, but that there is The latin interpreter not to be rejected. less suspicion of partiality in him, being so ancient, who made no doubt of the sense, and therefore translated it in that sort, as it were to exclude M. Downam's devise; and since the latin Church hath all this time received this translation for Scripture, we must not deny it now, because it is contrary to some Protestant opinions, especially since we see far greater difference in other parts of Scripture, betwixt the original text, & some interpretations allowed by the Church: neither of which the Fathers durst reject, but rather embraced and expounded them both, as the word of God: and indeed who knoweth not, that the chiefest certainty, that we have of either, dependeth upon the approbation and authority of the Church, which cannot err in matters of this moment. And I believe M. Downam will hardly give us any other sufficient reason, why he believeth these books to be Scripture, rather than others, or this interpretation to be good, and others bad. But besides the authority of the latin text, we think the Greek to be for us also, at leastwise no man can deny, but that our exposition is conformable to the Father's doctrine, who affirm our assertion of Henoch's coming, and consequently we are sure, that we may safely expound it so, without danger of error, and that M. Downam hath no reason to deny our sense so peremptorily, M. Downam's opinion of henoch's translation maketh as much for any other virtue, as for repentance contrary to the Scripture. though he think his own better, which we marvel not at. But further we cannot well see, why henoch's translation should rather serve for an example of Repentance, then of Hope, Religion, justice, Innocency, Faith, Charity, or any other virtue, if we admit M. Downam's exposition; and yet he is said particularly, to be an example of penance, which cometh very fitly for the latin interpreter, and our explication, and agreeth passing well with that, which S. john writeth Apoc. 11. that these two divine witnesses shall preach amicti saceis, in sackcloth, which willbe a good example of penance indeed. 5. About the third place Matth. 17. 11. his first answer is, that by the Evangelist Mark, who speaketh in the present tense, Elias I. VIII. indeed, coming first restoreth all things: the meaning of our Saviour Christ, appeareth to have been this, Elias quidem venturus fuit primum, & restituturus omnia: Elias indeed was to come first, and was to restore Matth. 17. Mar. 9 M. Downam egregiously corrupteth S. Mark & S. Matthews Text. all things. And you must note, that he putteth S. Marks words, as he citeth them, as also his own interpretation in latin, in a distinct character, to blear the eyes of the simple, and make them believe, that they are both very Scripture. And surely howsoever he may excuse the later, the first is somewhat hard, since that S. Marks words are; Elias cùm venerit primò, restituet omnia: which the Protestant English Bible translateth; Elias verily when he cometh first, restoreth all things, where we see a (when) which sufficiently showeth, that Elias was not yet come; and besides both (venerit & restituet) are the future, and not the present tense, and in the words following S. Mark hath an (&) which cleareth this matter greatly, Sed dico vobis, quia & Elias venit. But I say unto you, that Elias is also come, which showeth plainly that in the former clause our Saviour spoke of a future coming, as if he had said, Elias shall come in person, and also is come in spirit in S. john Baptist, which only was required at the first coming of our Saviour. But nothing will serve headstrong Heretics, & therefore M. Downam corrupteth S. Matth. Matth. 11. 11. also, making him say, john Baptist is that Elias, who was to come, putting it down in a distinct letter, as before: whereas the words are, Ipse est Elias qui venturus est, where he could see the first (est) and translate it truly, but not the second, because it was against him. But in this he deserveth some more favour than before, because he followeth his Protestant translation, which hath, this is Elias, which was for to come: so sincerely do these men translate Scripture. But yet he hath one trick of his own here also, for he addeth the word (that) which his Bible hath not, nor the Greek, because he would have us think, that our Saviour alluded to the place in Malachy, and that S. john was that Elias there promised. But by this we see, that all, that M. Downan saith, is not Scripture, and therefore we are not bound to believe him, when he telleth us, that Elias was not promised literally, and that both our Saviour, and the Angel understood not the prophecy Malach. 4. of Malachy literally of Elias the Thes●ite, especially since he bringeth no other proof, but that they understood it allegorically of S. john Baptist, which is rather against himself since that place must not only have an allegorical, but also a literal sense. After this he cometh to answer Bellarmine's proof who inferred by the vision which the Apostles had seen a little before of the true Elias, that they asked of him, & consequently that our saviours answer is of him also. To which M. Downan answereth, that it followeth not, for the disciples spoke according to the erroneous opinion of the Scribes, who understanding Malachy literally, thought that Elias was to come in his own person, and thereupon (as it is thought) inferred, that Christ Downam condemneth the Apostles, and in some sort our Saviour himself. was not the true Messiah, because Elias came not before him. But Christ etc. where you see that the Apostles are condemned as followers of the erroneous jews, as before Ecclesiasticus, and the jews of his time were also: and our Saviour is beholding to M. Downam, that he did him the favour to let him go free from this imputation, though he chargeth him also with not answering to the purpose, and not freeing, but rather confirming his disciples in their error, by telling them, Elias quidem venturus est, & restituet omnia. Elias indeed shall come, and restore all things, to wit, as you think; for otherwise no doubt, he would have rather told them the contrary, that he was not to come, but was already come: but now he no less affirmeth the one than the other. Wherefore if it were true, that Elias was come in S. john Baptist, it must needs be true also that he was to come in his own person, as our Saviour affirmeth, and the Apostles thought, as likewise all other, that will believe our Saviour & his Scripture more than themselves: out of which number we must exclude M. Downam and his associates, and then our Saviour, and his Disciples, and Ecclesiasticus, and all other which follow them will agree well enough: for as S. Hierome expoundeth their meaning the Apostles did not only speak of Elias properly, but also of the second coming of our Saviour in glory: Aestimant ergo discipuli etc. (saith he) Wherhfore the disciples think, that this transformation which they had seen in the mountain, was that of glory, and they say, If thou be'st now come in glory. why doth not thy forerunner appear, chief because they saw Elias was departed. Bellarmine's second proof was, that S. john Baptist did not restore all things, as our Saviour affirmeth that Elias shall; that is (saith Bellarmine) recall all jews and heretics, and perhaps many Catholics deceived by Antichrist, to the true faith. To which M. Downam answereth, that this doth not agree with the prophesy of our Saviour Christ, concerning the want of faith at his coming Luc. 18. 8. The son of man when he cometh, shall he find Faith upon earth? But if this conceit of the Papists were true, there shallbe more Luc. 18. true believers at the end of the world than ever bade been at one time before. Thus argueth M. Downan. Where first I could wish he had observed, that Bellarmine speaketh not absolutely of all jews and heretics, but only of such as were deceived by Antichrist: for many there shallbe then, as there are also now, that would be incredulous jews, & perfidious Heretics, How Elias shall restore all things. though Antichrist had never come. And of these Bellarmine speaketh not, but only holdeth with S. Augustine l. 1. Quaest. evang. quaest. 21. Quod dixit Dominus: Helias quidem venturus est, & restituet omnia; id est, eos, quos persecutio Antichristi conturbauerit. That which our Lord said, Elias indeed shall come and restore all things, that is, those whom the persecution of Antichrist shall disorder. So that now by M. Downam's confession S. Augustine entereth into the number of the Papists. Wherefore Bellarmine, and we all are content to hold our peace, and let him answer M. Downam's argument, as he doth at large in his book de utilitat. credendi cap. 15. where this very place was objected to him by the Donatists, who S. Augustine answereth downan's objection. were something a kin to M. Downam, and he telleth them both, that our Saviour spoke those words, vel propter ipsam fidei perfectionem, quae ita difficilis est in hominibus, ut in ipsis quoque admirabilibus Sanctis, sicut in ipso Moyse inveniatur aliquid ubi trepidaverint, vel trepidare potuerint: either for the perfection of Faith which is so hard for men to have, that even in the great & admirable Saints themselves, as in Moses himself (Exod. 20.) there may be something found, where they have feared or might fear. And then he giveth a second solution, vel propter illam iniquorum abundantiam, & paucitatem bonorum: or by reason of that abundance of the wicked, and scarcity of the good. And of this he addeth an explication, which may serve also for a third solution: Propterea enim tamquam dubitans Downam omitteth this putas. hoc Dominus dixit: Neque enim ait, veniens filius hominis, non inveniet fidem in terra, sed, putas inveniet fidem in terra? Cui utique cuncta scienti, & praescienti de aliqua re dubitare non convenit, sed illius dubitatio nostram dubitationem figuravit; quia propter multa scandala circa finem saeculi pullulantia, hoc quoque erat quandeque infirmitas humana dictura. For this cause our Lord spoke as being in doubt, for he saith not, The son of man coming shall not find faith in the earth, but, thinkest thou, shall he find faith in the earth? To whom doubtless knowing and foreknowing all things, it is not incident to doubt of any thing, but his doubt signified ours, for that by reason of the many scandals arising towards the end of the world, the infirmity of man was at length to utter these doubtful words. Thus far S. Augustine. So that the conversion of the deceived jews, and heretics, may well stand with this doubt, since it is chiefly to be understood in the time of antichrist's persecution, which shallbe so great that if God had not provided this extraordinary help of Enoch and Elias, it might seem at least to weaklinges unpossible The necessity of the coming of Enoch & Elias. to preserve the faith in any sort, & much more in that perfect manner, of which our Saviour speaketh, as S. Aug. understandeth him in this place, and ser. 36. de verbis Domini secundum Lucam; and likewise S. Hierom. dial. contra Luciserianos cap. 6. And all this explication is greatly confirmed by the last words of the Prophet Malachy, where our Lord giveth a reason, why he would send Elias, saying: Ne fortè veniam, & percutiam terram anathemate: lest perhaps I come and strike the earth with a curse, to wit, for the want of Faith, which were likely to be, if Elias were not sent. The other objection, which M. Downam intrudeth in this place of the uncertainty of our saviours coming, belongeth to the next chapter but one, where it shallbe answered. Now it is sufficient to examine that, which is brought in due place, of which sort there remaineth nothing, but M. Downam's interpretation, how S. john Baptist did restore all things, to wit inchoative, which how unproperly it is spoken, may easily appear to any, that will but consider what the words (restituet & omnia) do import; but to our purpose it is enough, that Elias coming before the second coming (in which our Saviour shall restore all things in a much more ample and perfect manner, than he did at his first) may be said also, to restore all things much more properly then S. john in this manner of inchoative, which may also be confirmed by that, which S. Peter saith Act. 3. that our Saviour is to remain in Heaven, usque in tempora restitutionis omnium: until the times of restoring all things, which can by no means be understood of his first coming. And thus I would conclude this third place, but that I have hope that it may be for the good of M. Downam, or at least of others as also for the greater glory of this great Doctor of the Church to cite at large the words of S. Aug. tract. 4. in evang. joan. Where he excellently explicateth this very place: In ●o Dominus jesus Christus etc. Our lord jesus Christ would prefigure his future coming in S. john Baptist, and say that S. john was come in the spirit of Elias, and that which S. john was at the first coming, Elias shallbe at the second: as there are two come of the judge, so there are S. Aug. maketh no more doubt that Elias shall come, than that S. Io. Bap. is come. two criers; the same judge, but two criers, not two judges: & the judge was first to come to be judged; he sent before him his first crier, called him Elias, because Elias shallbe that in the second coming, which S. john was in the first. For let your Charity consider how true it is, that I say, when S. john was conceived, or rather when he was borne, the holy Ghost prophesied thus of him, and he shallbe the forerunner of the highest in the spirit & virtue of Elias. Then he was not Elias, but in the spirit and virtue of Elias. What signisyeth, in the spirit and virtue of Elias? In the same spirit, instead of Elias. Why instead of Elias? Because that which Elias shallbe in the second coming, S. john was at the first. Wherefore rightly S. john answered. joan 1. now properly. For our Lord said Matth. 17. figuratively Elias is john, but he (as I said) properly: I am not Elias. If thou considerest the figure of a forerunner, S. john is Elias, for that which he was at the first coming, the other shallbe at the second. If thou seekest for the propriety of the person, john is john, Elias is Elias: wherefore our Lord for the prefiguration, said rightly, he is Elias, and S. john said rightly for the propriety, I am not Elias etc. And a little after: Numquid tu Elias es? Art thou Elias? Now if he should say, I am Elias, therefore Christ coming now in his second coming should judge, and not as yet be judged in his first. As if he had said, Elias is as yet also to come: I am not, saith he, Elias: but respect him, being humble, before whom john cometh, lest you feel him, being high, before whom Elias is to come. For our Lord also ended so: john Baptist is he that it to come. He came in prefiguration, as Elias is to come in propriety. Then Elias shallbe Elias by propriety, now S. john was Elias by similitude: Now john is john by propriety, than Elias shallbe john by similitude. Both these Criers have given one another their similitudes, and have kept their proprieties, but there is one Lord judge, whether the one or the other Crier go before him. Thus far S. Augustine. Where you see, he maketh no more doubt, that Elias shall come, than that S. john Baptist is come. But he is like to be accounted among the erroneous jews, for his labour by M. Downam, and S. Augustine willbe content to take part with his betters the Apostles, as all other that are wise will also: and let this insolent Heretic go seek other companions like himself. 6. Concerning the fourth place, M. Downam having very little to say to the purpose, enlargeth himself with impertinent discourses, supposing that Enoch and Elias live not in mortal bodies, and consequently being in Heaven cannot Apoc. 11. return into this world to die again. But let us see how he proveth this supposition: If they were not in Heaven, in soul at least (saith he) their estate were worse, then of the rest of the faithful departed, and so their translation should rather have been a punishment, than a blessing or prerogative unto them. And this is all the Scripture or reason he hath for his opinion, against the consent of the Church of God and ancient Fathers, who allege so much, and so plain Scripture for their assertion. But M. Downam shall not need to take any thought for these blessed men, for they think their estates happy though it were much worse, than it is, in that they know, that God is most Enoch and Elias are in Heaven honoured in them so, and his blessed will most perfectly fulfilled, which they, and all other perfect men esteem much more of, then of their own joy and happiness. But least this doctrine should not sink into the Minister's head, we may also put him in mind, that it was always among all people accounted a great happiness to live long in this world, specially in good estate, and at ease; and it may be doubted, that it M. Downam might be well beneficed to his liking, he would content himself to have this privilege, to remain so, without molestation to the world's end; for it is not every man's case to be so desirous to see God, that they would forth with forsake all worldly things, yea embrace death itself, not to have this happiness differed: for very few so long as they live in this world, have their spiritual eyes so clear, as to have so great and effectual a conceit of Caluin thinketh that only Christ is in Heaven & that others stay without. Heaven; and those which have, are of those perfect, who easily conform themselves to God's blessed will in this, & all other things. And here likewise I might put M. Downam in mind, that his great Master, Caluin l. ●. Instit. cap. 20. §. 20. affirmeth, that only Christ is entered into the Sanctuary of Heaven, and all other stay without in the Court, and there expect until the end of the world. And §. 24. he saith, that the souls of the Saints have faith still, as we have: which being so, no doubt he must needs think, that they enjoy not the vision of God, in which our essential happiness consisteth. So that in this man's opinion, there is no great difference betwixt Henoch and Elias, and other Saints. But I am glad to see M. Downam leave his Master in this: would to God he would do so in the rest also, that my joy for him might be complete. Another trifling objection of M. Downam is, that S. john mentioneth neither Enoch nor Elias. As though it were not sufficient that the holy Fathers expound it so, and that the circumstances are such, as that they cannot with any show of probability, be applied to any other, which is the reason that he himself only goeth about to impugn, but dares Downam dareth not defend his fellows. not take upon him to defend his fellow heretics expositions, which Bellarmine confuteth, nor bring any other of his own. And surely, it is a great wonder, that in the Apocalyps S. john should be so overseen, as to speak so darkly, that he would leave out the names of these two witnesses. Fir ally he threateneth Bellarmine with another answer, saying: But if I should add, that Bellarmine cannot prove, that this place treateth of Antichrist, but rather of the Beast with seven heads arising out of the sea, that is the Roman State, either generally or specially under the Emperors, as may be gathered by comparing verse 2. & 7. of the 11. Chap. with the 1. and 5. of the 13. I would then know to what purpose he allegeth this text to prove, that Enoch and Elias shall come against Antichrist, if neither the one nor the other be here meant? Well Sit, put Bellarmine to prove this, when you will, and you shall see, how many Authors he will bring you to prove that both these places are to be understood of Antichrist: & for the later which you think most hard, you may take a view of those, which he cited in the former Chapter; where I also added a few more. And this proof shall suffice for this time: for before you and I part, I doubt not, we shall discuss this matter more fully. 7. After that M. Downan hath thus substantially answered Bellarmine's first argument out of the Scripture, he cometh to the Fathers, whom he will soon dispatch, and send them Downam rejecteth the Fathers. packing; for first seeing, that they all consent about the coming of Elias, his answer is in plain words to tell them, that they were all deceived, but yet he doth them so much favour, as to confess that they had reason to be so, because they followed the corrupt translation of the 72. who Malach. 4. v. 5. read Elias the Thes●ite so that now all the fault is laid by M. Downam upon these Interpreters, at which the latin Interpreter of Ecclesiasticus hath good cause to rejoice, since by this means Downam rejecteth the 72. Interpreters. his case is no worse, then that of these 72. Interpreters, who yet were approved by our Saviour himself, and his Apostles, who were wont to cite the Scripture as they translated it, and all the holy Fathers to expound it also as undoubted Scripture: and this place in particular was approved by S. Hierome in his traslation of the 70. as also in his Commentaries, and by S. Cyril, and Theodoretus ibidem, S. Augustine l. 20. de. civit. cap. 22. where he also saith, that the 70. Interpreters prophetice interpretati sunt, did interpret as Prophets, and not as bare Interpreters. And lib. 18. cap. 42. he acknowledgeth in them universally, mirabilem ac stupendum, planéque divinum in eorum, verbis fuisse consensum: that there was an admirabley wonderful, yea manifestly a divine consent in their The 72. Interpreters not to be rejected. words. And a little after, reverà spiritus erat unus in omnibus; verily they had all one spirit, to wit, the spirit of truth, and of prophecy with which the Scriptures were first written, conformably to which S. Hierome, praesat. in Paralip. acknowledgeth, that the 70. did add some things, vel ob decoris gratiam, velob Spiritus sancti authoritatem: either for ornament, or for the authoritate of the Holy Ghost. But this place in particular is likewise approved by Euthymius in Matth. 17. & Arethas in Apoc. 11. and finally by S. Chrysostom hom. 58. in Matth. where he also saith: Vides exactam etc. Thou seest the exact diligence of the Prophet's prediction, for because S. john might also be called Elias for the likeness of the mystery, to avoid confusion, he added the Country, calling him Elias the Thesbite; for S▪ john was no Thesbite. Secondly he saith, that some Author▪ disagree about enoch's coming, in whose place they put either Elizaeus, or Moses, or Hieremy. But what is this to the purpose, since Bellarmine's argument hath still the same force? For all consent that Elias is to come, and as yet he is not come; and besides the common opinion is, that Enoch shall come with him, though perhaps it be not altogether so certain of him, as of Elias. Lastly he would make us believe that among all the ancient, which Bellarmine citeth, only S. Gregory is alleged to the purpose, whose authority he rejecteth with a scoff. But this is to show himself in his colours, that is a ridiculous scoffing Minister. For any man, that hath but moral honesty Downam scoffeth at S. Gregory. cannot choose but much condemn this his profane spirit to contemn this Saints authority, because he morally expoundeth a place of Scripture, with the received doctrine of the Church, not proving it out of that place, but only affirming, that by a moral application, those words might have that sense, which the very title of that whole book might have given this Minister to understand, if he had either wit in his head or honesty in his heart. Well he is content to grant, that S. Gregory was flat for Bellarmine. But why doth he deny it of the rest? Surely it is hard to imagine, since their words are so plain, and therefore till he giveth us a reason, we may justly think, that he hath none, but was willing to delude his Reader, either by scoffiing or any other lewd trick he could devise, for lightly he could not invent a worse, then to scoff at God's Saints, and particularly at those, to whom we are most beholding, among which in the first place S. Gregory is to be accounted, for the great love he bore to all English men, and the great good he procured them, for which he is worthily called and honoured, as the Apostle of our Nation. 8. Finally M. Downam answereth to Bellarmine's reason, that of Enoch & Elias their translation, there is this reason, that there might be evident examples of reward and happiness, laid up both for the upright in Enoch, and for the zealous in Elias: of their yet living in mortal bodies, if they did so, according to the opinion of some of the Fathers, that reason might be given which they allege, to wit, to convert Downam maketh enoch's translation an example of uprightness contrary to Scripture. the jews. Where, in the first part I only note, that M. Downan maketh Enoch an example for the upright, whereas the Scripture maketh him an example of penance. But indeed according to this explication, he may (as I noted before) be aswell an example of the one, as of the other: yea hardly of penance since we read none he did, but rather that he was always upright, and just. But now the second reason which only maketh to the purpose, is the same which Bellarmine urgeth, if M. Downam understandeth it aright as the Fathers held it, to wit, that these two witnesses shall labour to convert the jews, at the end of the world, when Antichrist shall most labour to pervert them: which willbe to oppose themselves to him. Wherefore M. Downam thought best to retire himself, Downam rejecteth the Fathers. and to tell the Fathers flatly, that it is untrue (which they say) that they live in mortal bodies, or that they shall ever die: and he offereth to dispute this matter with them. And first he asketh them where they live in mortal bodies? To which S. Augustine, lib. 2. de peccato originali, cap. 23. answereth, That S. Augustine answereth to downan's objection. this is one of those questions which pertain not to Faith, where Enoch & Elias are, quostamen non dubitamus, in quibus nati sunt, corporibus vivere: whom notwithstanding we doubt not to live in the bodies in which they were borne. By which opposition he plainly declareth that he taketh this to be a matter of Faith. And in the same place he testifieth that Christian saith doubteth not, but that the paradise where Adam was placed, is; though it be doubtful where or in what manner it is; all which is alleged by Bellar. lib. de gratia primi hominis, cap. 14. to prove that paradise is yet extant; but I cannot find that distinction which M. Downam bringeth out of him lib. 1. de Sanct. beat. c. 3. that although the place remain, yet no paradise remaineth, & in the former place he seemeth to teeth altogether the contrary Secondly, if they be in the earthly paradise, and not in heaven, he asketh how it is said of Elias, that he was taken up into Heaven. To which demand S. Gregory will answer him, if he may be so bold Hom. 29. in evang. Aliud est caelum aëreun, S. Gregory answereth another. aliud aethereum etc. unde & aves caeli dicimus etc. In caelum aëreum Elias sublevatus est, ut in secretam quandam terrae regionem repentè duceretur, ubi cum magna iam carnis & spiritus quiet viveret, quousque ad finem mundi redeat, & mortis debitum soluat. Ille etenim mortem distulit, non evasit. The air is also called Heaven, for which cause we say the birds of heaven (according to the phrase of Scripture) and into this heaven was El as taken up, that he might forthwith be carried into a certain secret Region of the earth, where he might live in great quiet of body and mind, till he returneth at the end of the world, and payeth death his due: for he hath deferred not escaped death. Where also M. Downam may learn, what privilege Enoch and Helias have above others, and how Enoch was said to have been translated, that he should not see death, to wit, at Heb. 11. that time, nor according to the course of nature: then which a great deal less is sufficient, that one hath escaped death. And if M. Downan be capable of so high and perfect doctrine A great happiness to be put to death by Anticrist. here he may be told, that Enoch and Helias think it no misery, but an exceeding great happiness that they shallbe put to death by Antichrist, by reason of the great desire they haveto do and suffer whatsoever for the love of God, and this not for the reward which they expect at his hand, but because he deserveth much more, than we are able to perform. 9 But I will conclude, leaving the indifferent Reader to judge whether it hath not been sufficiently proved, that Enoch & Elias are still in their bodies, and that their bodies are mortal, & that they are to return into the world and die, and that in the time of Antichrist, to oppose themselves against him, and consequently, that Antichrist is not yet come, which if he judgeth to be so; as I persuade myself he cannot otherwise choose, I will also crave him to downan's bragging. give his verdict of M. Downam, whether he think him more foolish, or impudent to deny all these particularities with this flourishing brag; Must not this needs be a good cause, that by so learned a man is so stoutly proved? THE seventh CHAPTER. Containing the fourth demonstration. THE fourth demonstration (saith Bellarmine) is taken from antichrist's persecution, which certainly will be most grievous and manifest, so that all public ceremonies, and sacrifices of Religion shall cease: none of which things we see hitherto. That this persecution shallbe most gricuious, is manifest by Matth. 24. Then there shallbe a great Tribulation the like whereof hath not been from the beginning of the world, nor shall be. And Apoc. 20. where we read, that Satan shallbe then loosed, who until that time was bound. Of which place S. Augustine disputing l. 20. de Civitate Dei cap. 8. and 9 saith, that in antichrist's time the Devil is to be loosed, and therefore that persecution shallbe more grievous, than all the former, by how much the Devil can rage's more cruelly being loosed, then being bound. Wherefore he saith, that the Devil then shall vex the Church with all his own & his followers forces, and S. Hippolytus Mart. in orat de mundi consume. & S. Cyril catechesi 15. do say, that the Martyrs which Antichrist shall put to death, shallbe more renowned, than all those, which went before: because they fought against men the devils ministers, but these shall fight against the Devil himself, persecuting in his own person. But certainly we have experienced no such thing from the year 600. or 1000 The Heretics indeed say, that they suffer great persecution by Antichrist, because sometime some of their number are burnt: but what comparison is there, betwixt such a persecution, and that of Nero, Domitian, Decius, Dioclesian, and others, since that for one heretic which is burnt, there were in times past a thousand Christians put to death, and that in the whole Roman Empire, not in one only Province, & whereas now the greatest punishment is to be burnt, then there were incredible, and innumerable torments, of which see Cornelius Tacitus in Nerone, and Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. S. Damasus in the life of S. Marcellinus writeth, that there were above 17. thousand Christians put to death by Dioclesian: & Eusebius who lived at that time writeth lib. 8. cap. 6. hist. that all prisons were so full of Martyrs, that there was no place for offenders; and in all that book he affirmeth that there were so many put to death within the space of two years, that it is impossible to number them. Besides the heretics of our times have put to death more Catholics within these 20. or 30. years, in France and Flanders, than the Inquisitors have burnt heretics perhaps these hundred years. Wherefore they cannot call this a persecution, but rather a civil war, for as S. Augustine teacheth ep. 80. ad Hesychium, when the true persecution of Antichrist shall come, only the children of the Church shallbe in tribulation, and not their persecutors, as in the time of Dioclesian, and the former Princes, only Christians were persecuted, but did not persecute again. And if this be to be called a persecution, rather Catholics suffer it, than Lutherans and Caluinists: for Catholics are cast out of many Provinces, and have lost their Churches, their Inheritance, and their Country itself, these new Ministers of this Gospel intruding themselves into other men's possessions: and as we said, & may be seen in the Commentaries of Laurence Surius, and other Historiographers of our time, the fury of Caluinists consumed more Catholics in few years, than there have been Heretics punished, by the judgement of Catholic Princes for denying their Faith. Now that the persecution of Antichrist, shallbe most manifest and known, S. Aug. proveth lib. 20. de civitate Dei cap. 11. out of those words of the Apoc. 20. And they compassed the tents of the Saints, and the beloved City: for by these words, it is signified, that all the wicked shallbe together in antichrist's army, and shall with open war impuge all the Church of saints: for now there are many feigned in the Church, which hiding their malice, are in heart out of the Church, and in it only in body. But then all shall break forth (saith S. Augustine) into open persecution, out of their lurking corners of hatred. This surely is so far of from being fulfilled at this time, that there was never almost a greater number of false brethren, and feigned Christians, and this persecution is so far of from being known and manifest, that neither they which say they suffer it, nor we that are said to cause it, can tell when it began. Certainly the persecutions of Nero, Dominan, & other Roman Princes, were diligently noted by Eusebius, Orosius, Sulpitius, & there is no doubt when they began, & when they ended, as likewise the coming of Christ, because it was true & manifest, we know very well when it was, and to whom first manifested, and there is no diversity of opinions among us, concerning this matter. But the heretics, which say, that Antichrist is come, and hath persecuted so long, cannot produce one author, who hath noted the time, when Antichrist came, or to whom he first appeared, or when he began his persecution; and they disagree so among themselves, that one saith he came in the year 200. another in the year 606. another in the year 773. another in the year 1000 another 1200. So that they seem rather to dream in their sleep, then to speak waking. Finally that in antichrist's time the public and daily office, and Sacrifice of the Church shall cease, by reason of the greatness of the persecution, Daniel plainly teacheth cap. 12. from the time that the continual Sacrifice shallbe taken away, M. CC. XC. days: where by the consent of all, he speaketh of antichrist's time, and as S. Irenaeus lib 5. S. Hierome, and Theodoretus upon that place, S. Hippolytus Martyr in orat. de consummatione mundi, and Primasius in cap. 11. Apoc. expound it, the is sense is, that Antichrist shall forbid all the divine worship, which is now exercised in the Christian Churches, and especially the holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist, but that this sign is not yet fulfilled, experience teacheth. Out of which three things may be gathered. First that Antichrist is not yet come, since the continual Sacrifice is still in use. secondly, that the Bishop of Rome is not Antichrist, but most contrary to him, since he doth chief adorn and defend the Sacrifice, which Antichrist shall take away. thirdly, that the heretics of this time above all others are the forerunners of Antichrist; since they wish nothing more earnestly, then utterly to abolish the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. M. Downams Answer confuted. 1. MASTER Downam very courteously admitteth that antichrist's persecution was to be very grievous; but alloweth not of Bellarmine's proofs, affirming that The persecution of Antichrist most grievous. the great tribulation which our Saviour speaketh of Matth. 24. is no other, than the calamities which at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans the jews sustained; which how true it is, may be sufficiently seen by that which hath been said in the 4. chapter. Now it is sufficient that we agree in the conclusion. 2. Wherefore all his long discourse about the thousand years Apoc. 20. is altogether impertinent, and foolish also, in that he understandeth those 1000 years definitely, The 1000: years Apoc. 20. are to be taken indefinitely. which indefinitely signify all the years and space from Christ's Passion, when the Devil was bound, until antichrist's time, when he shall be loosed; and it is false, that any were put to death, by the chief Antichrist within those thousand years. For how could that be, since he was not to come, before they were expired, as all but Heretics agree? But all this, as also the question of Gog and Magog, is from the present purpose, which M. Downan could not choose but see, though he were content to cast this mist before the Readers eyes that he might not see the force of Bellarmine's argument, which consisteth in this, that the persecution of Antichrist is to be most grievous, which he is content to The persecution of Antichrist shallbe greater than the calamities of the jews. grant, because he cannot deny it, & would help to prove it also, though very simply, God wots; but we will accept his good will, since his meaning seemeth to be only to confirm Bellarmine's assertion, which we only request him to grant: though we would not have him afraid to think, that the persecution under Antichrist shallbe greater than the calamities of the jews, since the same words are understood of both, and that of the jews was but a figure in comparison of the other. Wherefore Dan. also cap. 12. writeth, that this shallbe such a time, as hath not been, since the Nations began to be. And surely no persecution can be greater, than that in which the Devil shall use the uttermost of his own, & all his followers forces, as S. Augustine affirmeth he shall in this, being then loosed from his long imprisonment, as S. john affirmeth, whatsoever M. Downam imagineth. 3. Well this supposed, M. Downam will needs make us believe that this great persecution hath been made by the Popes, against men of his Religion: and first he is fain to tell us of the Pope's spiritual persecution, wherein (saith he) he taketh such liberty to himself; that if he carry whole troops of souls into hell no man may say unto him, Sir why do you so? But this is a A shameleslye. shameslye, especially now that it hath been so fully discovered by the author of the Warn-word against Sir Francis Hastings and O. E. otherwise M. Sutcliffe, who patched up a lie out Encount. 2. cap. 13. 11. 16. of two places of the Canon law, whereof one had no connextion at all with the other, as that Author at large declareth, who likewise telleth him where, and when some Catholics were baited by dogs in bears skins, which to him is such great news. Ibid. cap. 2. n. 4. 4. And beside, this allegation of spiritual persecution is from the purpose, and a fault by some called petitio principij, Downans petitio principij because all Catholics count it a great blessing, and no persecution at all. Secondly he goeth into France for Martyrs, where he taketh into his account the Albigenses & Wallenses, & joineth them with his H●gon●●s, & so he may well enough, for they be Martyrs all alike, to wit, of the Devil; since they were all Heretics, though of divers sects, as he may be fully instructed by the same Author I mentioned before, in his Treatise of Fox his Calendar-Martyrs. And yet M. Downam part. 1. cap. 3. shall not find so many Martyrs of these neither, except he will number them who were miraculously slain in lawful war by Simon Momford them Earl of Leicester & after of Tolosa, which were plain rebels against their King & Country. And john Fox could only find 13. of these two sects, which he thought worth the putting into his Calendar, as the same Author showeth, & every man may see in Fox himself. After France he cometh into the Low Countries, & there numbereth 36000. which the Duke of Alba caused to be executed, which how many soever they were, as all the world knoweth, were open rebels, as likewise those 40000. if they were so many, killed in the Massacre at Paris. But M. Downam's religion hath this virtue in it, that holding but one or some few points downan's Martyrs, Heretics & Rebels of it, a man may safely die for any other heresy, or crime, & yet by his fellow Hugonots be accounted a Martyr. Lastly he citeth Vergerius and in the margin quoteth Io. Bale de act. Pontif. who witnesseth, that within the space of 30. years, there were put to divers fearful deaths, by the bloody Inquisition, an hundredth and fifty thousand Christians. But we must have better proofs, then only the testimony of two most violent, and lying heretics, before we believe this: and besides it were necessary for M. Downam to prove, that all those Christians were of his religion, which willbe very hard for him to do, since that these his Authors affirm no such matter. 5. But why doth not M. Downam answer to Bellarmine, who telleth him, that all this persecution is but a civist war, since Protestants put Catholics to death, as well as they do Protestants; and S. Augustine telleth us, that in Downam flieth the difficulty. antichrist's persecution, only the children of the Church shallbe in Tribulation, and not their persecutors. The cause of this was, because he saw there was no show of answer to be made, and therefore he thought it best to pass it over in silence, hoping that the Reader would not take the pains to look upon Bellarmine, nor any other to discover his follies▪ for he cannot deny, but that Catholics have been persecuted by Protestant's, & yet he would fain diminish these persecutions against Catholics by his brethren; & first he avoucheth plainly, that the wars which have been undertaken by the Hugonots in France and Flanders for their own defence, that they Downam maintaineth open Rebellion & treason. might be free from their Prince's outrages, were lawful battles: even as when the Maccabees resisted: Antiochus and other Tyrants. So that you see open rebellion and treason maintained for lawful by this new Ghospeller, which defence notwithstanding cannot comprehend the manifold murders of Priests, Religions and others which these Hugonots committed in cold blood, & out of battle, of which M. Downan could not be ignorant. But let us see, what he saith of our English persecution, for he is not afraid forthwith to charge all Priests and Catholics put to death in our Country, of treason, and to complain greatly of the favour which the Prince in some sort hath used to them in durance; so cruel and bloody a mind carrieth this Minister with him, being not ashamed to affirm, that the life of the prisoners The persecution of Catholics in England. in Wisbich & Framingham, hath been more easy and pleasant, and maintenance more plentiful, then of the Students and ministers of his crew; which all wise men will easily laugh at, except he should speak of spiritual and heavenly comforts, which this poor Minister never tasted of: for other ease, pleasure, or maintenance, it were hard for them to have, living in prison, and often in chains, & having no other maintenance, than the alms of poor Catholics, many of them being so impoverished with oppressions for their conscience, that they should scarce be able to maintain themselves, and their families, were they not content to live within their compass, and under their degrees, whilst a sort of married Ministers feed upon their substance; which is another kind of persecution which Bellarmine urgeth, and M. Downan passeth over in silence, to wit to be cast out of their Churches, and church-livings, Universities, and the like, which were instituted for Catholics by their Ancestors, and are now usurped by Protestant's, altogether against the Founders will & intention: and the like is of the Inheritances in some, and of their Country in many. And this shall suffice for these persecutions or rather the civil wars of this time betwixt Catholics & Heretics: only I could wish my Reader to reflect a little upon the Christian Princes, in whose dominions at this day there is The difference betwixt the Catholic & the Protestant Princes. diversity of Religions, & he shall find, that all the Catholic Princes tolerate in some sort their Heretical subjects, as the Emperor, the King of France, the King of Poland, & now the Archduke in Flanders, whereas here in England the Catholics canfind no such favour, who, that they suffer for Religion, and not for treason none but impudent Ministers and their mates can deny. Neither is this craft of Protestant's any great glory for them, who by reason of the distrust which they have in their own cause, use to put catholics to death under the name of Treason, Catholics are put to death for Religion by Protestants. though they can prove nothing against them, but the exercise of their Religion. For in this they imitate the jews who dealt so with our Saviour, and some other Tyrants, but chief julian the Apostata, which were always accounted the greatest and worst persecutors. Whereas Catholics have always punished heretics directly for their heresy, esteeming it (as it deserved) a far greater crime than treason, as being committed against the King of Heaven, whom all earthly Princes are bound to respect more than themselves, & so we see in Queen Mary's time, Bishop Cra●mer had his Treasons pardoned, but not his heresies, for which he was burned. And so it appeareth by the proceeding of our adversaries that we are free from heresy: & how false their imputations of treasons are, is proved by many, and lastly by W. R. in his Confutation of O. E. aliâs Sutcliffe's vaunting challenge, in the last chapter, to which I remit my reader. And this shall suffice for the greatness of the persecution under Antichrist. 6. Touching the manifestnes of it, M. Downam is not of Bellarmine's mind, yea he thinketh his doctrine contrary to our saviours, who hath said, that the good and bad shall grow together like wheat and tars, until the day of the great harvest. But M. Downam antichrist's persecution most manifest. Matth. 13. may understand, that Bellarmine holdeth with S. Augustine quaest. 11. super Matth. that this is to be understood of the whole world, in which Bellarmine denieth not, but there willbe store of tars in this time of Antichrist; and besides our Saviour only willeth his servants not to root out all the tars, when there is danger, that the corn may also he destroyed by that means. But now we speak of his enemies who partly by persecuting, partly for fear of persecution will separate themselves of their own accord, from among God's wheat, to wit, his elect; and yet are to be separated also in the day of judgement against their wills, which is all that the place alleged doth prove. To the authority of S. Augustine alleged by Bellarmine he giveth two answers. First, if he had said so, we might have Downam rejecteth S. Augustine esteemed his speech to have been but a human conjecture, rather than a prophecy divine: so that it is no matter, what S. Augustine, or any other can say. For if it please not M. Downam's vain fancy, it shall be accounted but an human conjecture, though he gather it out of Scripture, as S. Augustine doth this. But secondly, saith M. Downam, Bellarmine without all shame falfifieth his words, who speaketh of the Devil alone, and not of all the wicked, saying: Now it is said, that he shall go forth, viz. into open persecution: he shall break forth of the coverts of hatred: for which we must note, that S. Augustine interpreteth the depth into which the Devil was put, to be their hearts which hate the Christians, in quorum (saith he) quotidie velut in abysso, Bellarmin unjustly charged by M Downam cacis & prosundis cordibus includitur. cap. 8. In whose blind and profound hearts, he is daily enclosed, as in a depth. Which exposition he mentioneth again cap. 11. which Bellarmine cited, where he expoundeth, how he is said to come forth out of this depth, to wit, out of the coverts of hatred, within which he was enclosed, into open persecution, because he shall seduce those, whose hearts he possessed to make war against Christians, which before he hated, but was not permitted to hurt; all which, that he meaneth of all the wicked, the words following immediately declare. Haec enim erit novissima persecutio no●issimo imminente judicio, cùm sancta Ecclesia toto terrarum orb patietur, universa scilicet civitas Christi ab universa Diaboli civitate, quantacumque erit utraque super terram. For this shallbe the last persecution, the last judgement being at hand, which the holy Church shall suffer over all the world, to wit, the whole city of Christ, by the whole city of the Devil, how great soever either of them shallbe upon the earth. Can any thing be more plain than this? And after again he saith▪ that the holy Church shallbe environed ab omnibus inimic●● suis, by all her enemies: yea he repeateth the very like words to those, which he had spoken in the singular number, again in the plural, speaking of the Nations, quae sunt in quatuor angulis terrae, in the four corners or quarters of the earth, in apertum odium de operto erupturae sunt: they shall break forth into open hatred of their hidden malice. Wherefore let any man judge, whether Bellarmine changed S. Augustine's sense, though for brenity and perspicuities sake he cited his words in the plural number, as they were to be understood, & are repeated also by S. Augustine himself. All the Church's enemies shall join to impugn her in Antichrists tyme. 7. Now, that all that hate Christians or the Church, have not hitherto joined against them, is so manifest, that M. Downam cannot deny, and therefore granting it, he only turneth to ask: whether they shall do so when Antichrist cometh or no? To whom we return answer, that they shall, as hath been sufficiently proved, and therefore it is manifest, that Antichrist is not yet come. To the second part of Bellarmine's proof he answereth, that the uncertainty of the beginning of antichrist's persecution, if it were true, doth not disprove the greatness: but argueth the length. As though now we treated of the greatness, and not of the manifestnes of this persecution, Downam forgetteth what he impugneth. which surely is plainly disproved, if it were so secret, that no man can tell when it began. Secondly he saith, the persecutions under Nero & the rest, were well known when they began, and when they ended, because there was some intermission of them, but these now, have no end, nor yet intermission, except it be when they have none to persecute. And is not this a wise answer think you, to tell us that the beginning of a persecution cannot be showed, because it hath no intermission, nor end? Except he would have us to understand him, that he meaneth, that it hath had no beginning: neither to which we likewise willingly agree, for the time was, and that An invisible persecution of an invisible Congregation within these hundred years when there was no Protestant in the world to persecute, so that this is an invisible persecution of an invisible Congregation, which he maketh so much ado about, and will needs have it to be the great persecution of Antichrist. Finally he would willingly bring his brethren to an agreement, about the time of antichrist's coming, but he laboureth in vain, and bringeth nothing, but that which is already confuted in the third chapter. Wherefore it remaineth clear and manifest, that the persecution of Antichrist is not yet come. 8. The third part of this Demonstration was, that in The public & daily office and Sacrifice of the Church, shall cease in antichrist's time. the time of antichrist's persecution, the public and daily office, and sacrifice of the Church shall cease, which M. Downam denieth flatly, but yet would seem to moderate it, by adding, that at least it shall not be so at his first coming: & then setteth down certain degrees invented by himself of antichrist's appearing, which so far as they make any way against us, have and shallbe sufficiently confuted. But now we must entreat M. Downam not to go from the difficulty, but to answer directly to Bellarmine's argument, taken out of an express place of Scripture, joined with the exposition of the Fathers, whom he easily rejecteth in few words saying; Downam rejecteth the Fathers. the he needeth not run with Bellarmine to the Fathers, for the exposition of this place: but I am afraid we shall find him running to worse men, who will lead him into most absurd errors; for that is most true, which S. Hierome writeth in the end of Dan. 11. having learnedly confuted M. downan's chief Captain in the exposition of this whole place, which we have now in hand. Hoc ideo prolixiùs posui (saith he) ut & Prophyrij ostendam calumniam (qui haec omnia ignoravit, aut nescire se finxit) & Scripturae sanctae difficultatem, cuius intelligentiam absque Dei gratia & doctrina maiorum sibi imperitissimè vel maximè vendicant. I have put down this the more at large, both to show Prophyries' calumny (who either was ignorant The difficulty of the Scripture, & why many err in the interpretation thereof. of these things, or saygned that he knew them not) & also the difficulty of holy Scripture, the understanding of which the most unskilful above all others, challenge to themselves without God's grace, and their Ancestors learning. And may not M. Downam be ashamed to defend this very calumny, and to show himself, as ignorant, or malicious as wicked Prophyrie himself? and consequently to be without God's grace, which S. Hierome joineth with the learning of our elders, whom M. Downam professeth to set little by; and so by S. Hieromes judgement is a graceless, impudent, & most unlearned heretic. And will any man be so mad, as to adventure his salvation upon the conduct of such blind giudes? But yet let us discover his folly more fully, that if it be possible, he may by shame be brought to leave it, or at least others which are not so far engaged, may see it, and abhor it. Wherefore S. Hierome in the same 11. Chapter Dan. 11. upon those words: Et saciet juxta voluntatem suam Rex etc. showeth, that now not only all Christians, but even the Downam followeth Prophyry an Anpostata, against both Christians and jews. very jews themselves, who before had their particular interpretations, agreed, that from that place the Prophet was to be understood of Antichrist, Ab hoc loco (saith he) judai de Antichristo diciputant. And a little after: Quod quidem & not de Antichristo intelligimus. Prophyrius antem, & caeteri qui sequuntur eum, de Antiocho Epiphane dici arbitrantur. From this place the jews think, that Antichrist is spoken of; which truly we also understand of Antichrist: but Prophyrie and those which follow him (among whom M. Downam will needs make one) suppose it to be spoken of Antiochus Epiphanes. But coming to the 12. Chap. out of which Bellarmine alleged Dan. 12. his testimony, S. Hierome writeth thus: Hactenus Prophyrius utcumque setenuit, & tam nostrorum imperitis, quàm suorum malè eruditis inposuit. De hoc capitulo, quid dicturus est, in quo mortuorum describitur resurrectio, alijs suscitat is in vitam aternam, & alijs in opprobrium sempiternum? Nec potest dicere, quifuerint sub Antiocho fulgentes quasi splendour firm amenti, & alij quasi stella in perpetuas aeternitates. Sed quid non facit pertinacia? Quasi contritus coluber clevat caput, & moriturus in eos, quimorturi sunt, venena diffundit. Hitherto in some sort Prophyrie hath defended himself, and deceived aswell the unlearned among us, as the evil learned among them. What will he say of this Chapter, in which the resurrection of the dead is described, some being raised to life everlasting, others to everlasting reproach? Neither can he tell us, who under Antiochus they were that shined, as the brightness of the firmament, and others as stars for everlasting eternities. But what doth not pertinacy? She listeth up her head like a bruised snake, & dying spiteth out her venom Downans and Prophyries' pertinacy. upon them which are likewise to die. And will M. Downam join with Prophyrie in his pertinacy? Will he needs be one of these brused-dying-snakes, and still continue to spit out his heretical, & poison? If he be thus obstinate, yet I beseech my Readers, yea all my Countrymen to fly from him, lest he kill them with his venomous tongue. For if they will not approach too near, they may perhaps hear him hiss like a goose, but sting them he cannot. But let us hear what S. Hierome writeth upon the very words which Bellarmine citeth: Hos mill ducentos nonaginta dies Porphyrius in tempore Antiochi, & in desolatione Templidicit completos, quam & josephus & Machabeorum liber tribus tantùm annis fuisse commemorat. Ex quo perspic●●●● est tres istos, & semis annos de Antichristi dici temperibus, quitribus & semis annis, hoc est, mill ducento nonaginta diebus Sanctos persecuturus est. Postea corr●iturus in m●nte in●●y●o & sancto. A tempore igitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (quod nos interpretari sumus, juge sacrificium) quando Antichristus orbem obtinens, Dei cultum interdixerit usque ad intern●cionem eius, tres & semis anni, id est, mill ducento & nonaginta dies complebuntur. These thousand two hundredth and ninety days Porphyry saith were fulfilled in the time of Antiochus, and in the desolation of the Temple, which both josephus and the book of the Maccabees mention to have been only three years. By which it is manifest, that these threat years and a half are spoken of antichrist's times, who shall persecuie the Saints three years and a half, that is, a thousand two hundredth ninety days, and after shall perish in the famous and holy Mountain. From the time therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we have translated, the continual sacrifice, when Antichrist conquering the world, shall forbid the worship of God, until his destruction, three years & a half, that is, a thousand two hundredth and nynety days. Thus far S. Hierome: where we have not only his opinion, but also his proofs, even out of the conference with scripture, which M. S. Hierom confuteth Porphiry and Downam Downam appealeth unto: but perhaps he meaneth only if we give him leaven to choose the places, & make the conference himself. But we must know him better before we give him so much liberty, except it be reserving the like to ourselves, so that after we have heard what he can say, we may confer it with other surer principles than his expositions are, and only admit of that which we find agreeable to them. And upon this condition we will see how well he conferreth in this place. First then he conferreth this place with Chapter 7. where he saith, that the time from the interruption of God's service, to the first restitution thereof by judas Machabaeus, which was three years and ten days, namely from the 15. of the month Casleu in the 145. year of the Seleucidae 1. Machab. 1. 57 unto the 25. Dan. 7. of the month of Casleu in the year 148. 1. Machab. 4. 52. is called by Daniel a time, and times, and partell of a tyme. But now we Downans petitio principij return to the same difficulty: wherefore not to be too tedious, remitting my Reader for the rest to that, which hath been said about this 7. Chapter of Daniel in the 5. Chapter, I will only recite S. Hierome upon these very words in controversy. Tempus annum significat (saith he) tempora juxta Haebraici sermonis proprietatem, qui & ipsi dualem numerum habent, duos annos praefigurant; dimidium autem temporis sex menses, quibus Sancti potestati Antichristi permittendi sunt, ut condemnentur judaei, qui non credentes veritati susceperunt mendacium; de quo tempore & salvator in evangelio loquitur; Nisi abbr●●iati essent dies illi, nequaquam salva esset omnis caro. Non convenire haec tempora a Antiocho in extrema visione dicemus. A time signifieth a year, times according to the propriety of the hebrew speech, which have also the dual number, prefigure two years; and half a time, six months, in which the Saints are to be permitted to antichrist's power, that the jews may be condemned, who not believing the truth received a lie; of which time our Saviour also in the Gospel saith; Except those days should be shortened all flesh thould not be safe. That these times agree not to Antiochus, we will teach in the last vision. Thus far S. Hierome. Where we see that both these places are to be understood of Antichrist, and neither of Antiochus; which appeareth also by that in this Chapter, aswell as in the 12. there is express mention made of the last judgement, as S. Hierome noted in The interruption of the jews Sacrifice was only three years. the place which I alleged before. So that his computation of the times out of 1. Machab. are not to the purpose: and beside as S. Hierome also noreth, that time is only three years: for so it is rather to be accounted from the 25. day of the month Casleu, when 1. Machah. 1. it is expressed, that the Gentiles first sacrificed super aram, quae erat contra altar: upon the Are which was against the Altar; and so the Scripture itself accounteth in the place alleged by M. Downam 1. Machab. 4. secundum tempus, & secundum diem, in qua contaminaverunt illud gentes; according to the time, and according to the day, in which the Gentills defiled it; and by this reckoning M. Downam hath lost his ten days, which he made so great account of, that he was not afraid to corrupt the words of Scripture, Downam corrupteth the Scripture. by changing half a time into a parcel of a time, as though because half is not the whole, but a parcel; therefore every parcel had been half. But now by the Scripture and S. Hieromes account, he hath neither half nor parcel above three years, and yet they must have an entire half of M. Downam, or else he is like to smart for it one day. And is not this a strange conferring of Scripture think you, to allege a place of Scripture against himself, and then to change it, because otherwise it will not serve his turn? whereas indeed, if it had been, as he would have it, a parcel and not half, it had been least of all to the purpose, except by that parcel we should have understood an half: for otherwise it had been clear, that these two places were downan's conferring of Scripture. spoken of divers things. And this M. Downam did in some sort see: wherefore he telleth us, that unto the victory obtained by the Maccabees, whereby the forces of Antiochus were expelled out of jury, and thereby the restitution before begun, established, were 3. years and a half, as josephus testifieth. But this maketh nothing to the purpose, as neither his other accounts of 1260. days to the striking of Antiochus, and 1335. unto his death (for which two later he neither citeth Scripture, or other Author) for See the next Chapter. here is no conference of Scripture at all; and beside, if all this were so, which we can hardly believe, till it be better proved, it only showeth a wonderful correspondence betwixt Antiochus the figure, and Antichrist whom he figured, but no way proveth, that in the places of Dan. 7. and 12. there is any mention of Antiochus; which S. Hierome hath evidently disproved, and much less that they were only to be Antiochus not spoken of at all Dan. 7. & 12. understood of him; which is that, which it behoveth M. Downam to demonstrate: for otherwise Bellarmine's argument hath his full force, and much more now, that there is no mention of Antiochus. This then being so, I doubt not any discreet and indifferent Reader will grant, that not only the jews, but also the Christians were to have a continual sacrifice, and worship of God, which was not wholly to be interrupted until antichrist's time: and against all M. Downam's railing, I need to oppose no other argument, but only this place, which is sufficient to convince any but obstinate heretics. And he bringeth not any one argument, but only affirmeth many blasphemies without all proof; and therefore at this time, the discreet Reader must expect no more but a bare Downam & his fellow Ministers their manner of disputing. denial to a bare affirmation, for otherwise we should never make an end of jangling, if whensoever he will blaspheme, I should leave the principal question, and refute other particulars altogether from the present purpose, which seemeth to be that, which this Minister desireth now, and the whole crew of them are wont to practise in all disputations. Wherefore I will end this Chapter, requesting my reader to consider attentively if it be not evident out of this last proof, that Antichrist is not yet come, that the Pope is most contrary to him, and that Protestants are his forerunners, as Bellarmine inferred. THE EIGHT CHAPTER. containing the fifth Demonstration. THE fifth Demonstration (saith Bellarmine) is taken from the continuance of Antichrist. Antichrist shall not reign past three years & a half. But the Pope hath already reigned spiritually in the Church above 1500. years; and there cannot be any assigned, who hath been accounted Antichrist, who hath reigned precisely three years and a half. Wherefore the Pope is not Antichrist, nor Antichrist is yet come. Now, that antichrist's reign shallbe three years and a half, it is gathered out of Dan. cap. 7. & 12. and Apoc. 12. where we read, that antichrist's reign shall endure for a time, and times, and half a time: for by a time is understood one year, by times two years, and by half a time half a year. For so S. john explicateth, who Apoc. 11. and 13. saith, that Antichrist shall reign 42. Months, which rightly make 3. years & a half: & cap. 11. he saith, that Henoch and Helias shall preach 1260. days. which make the same time, for the Hebrews did use the years, and months of the Moon, though they did reduce them to those of the Sun by adding every sixth year one Lunation. And three years and a half of the Moon make just 42. months, or 1260. days. For a full & perfect year of the Moon consists of 12. months, every one of which hath 30. days, as S. August. teacheth l. 15. deciu. Dei. c. 14. Neither is it against this, that Dan. 12. Antichrist is said to reign 1290. days, that is 30. days more, than S. john said: for S. john speaketh of Henoch and Elias which shallbe slain by Antichrist one month before he perish. To this the adversaries answer in three sorts: first Chytraeus in cap. 11. & 13. Apoc. saith, that these times cannot be taken for three years and a half, because it is against experience, & S. Paul. 2. Thess. 2. saith, that Antichrist shall endure until Christ's coming. Secondly he saith, that a certain time is put for an uncertain, and therefore for 42. months, or 1260. days there are to be understood more than a 1000 years. The same saith Bullenger serm. 46. in Apoc. whose reason seemeth to be that, which Luther insinuateth in supput. temporum, because it is manifest Apoc. 20. that the Devil is to be loosed in the thousand year: wherefore the coming of Antichrist with the temporal sword was the thousand year after Christ; therefore now he hath reigned more than five hundredth years: wherefore we must take those 42. months for an uncertain tyme. Thirdly the Magdeburgenses answer cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col. 438. that Daniel & john take a day for a year, and therefore by a 1260. days, we must understand 1260. years: the reason may be, because also Dan. 9 the 70. weeks are understood of all, to be weeks of years, and not of days: & Ezech. 4. it is said, I have given thee day for a year: & Luc. 13. I must walk to day, & to morrow, & the next day, that is, live three years; which reason Chytraus giveth in cap. 11. Apoc. where he saith, that these manner of years and months are called Angelical, and not human. But against this, is the common opinion of the Ancients, who affirm by reason of the places cited, that Antichrist shall reign only three years and a half. S. Hippolytus Martyr in orat. de consummatione mundi Antichrist shall reign upon the earth three years and a half, afterward his kingdom and glory shall be taken away. S. Iren. lib. 5. in fine. He shall reign three years and six months, and then our Lord shall come from Heaven. And S. Hierome in cap. 7. Dan. A time signifieth a year, times according to the propriety of the Hebrew speech, who have also the dual number, presigure two years, and half a time, six months, in which the Saiutes are to be permitted to the power of Antichrist. S. Cyril catechesi 25. Antichrist shall reign only three years and a half, which we speak not out of Apocryphal books, but out of the Prophet Dan. And S. Aug. lib. 20. de Civitate Dei, cap. 23. That antichrist's kingdom against the Church shallbe most cruel; though to be sustained for a small space of time, he that readeth these things even half a sleep is not suffered to doubt; for that a time & times, and a half time, are one year & two, and one half, and consequently three years and a half, it is plain by the number of days, which is put afterward, and sometime it is declared also in the Scripture by the number of months. The like hath Theodoretus in cap. 7. Dan. Primasius, Beda, S. Anselme, Arethas, Richardus, Rupertus. Secondly it is proved, for that the Scriptures say, that the time of the Devil being loosed, and of Antichrist, shallbe very short, Apoc. 12. Woe be to the earth, and the sea, because the Devil goeth down to you, having great anger knowing that he hath a small tyme. And Apoc. 20. he bond him for a thousand years, and after this he must be loosed a small tyme. How I pray you, shall this be true if Antichrist shall reign 1260. years? For so he shall be longer loosed, then bound. Thirdly, because, as S. Aug. argueth lib. 20. de civitate Dei cap. 8. and S. Gregory lib. 33. moral. cap. 12. unless that cruel persecution were most short, many would perish, which shall not perish. Wherefore our Lord saith Matth. 24. unless those days had been abbreviated, all flesh should not be safe. But how shall it be most short, which shall endure above a thousand years? Fourthly, Christ preached only three years and a half, therefore it is also decent, that Antichrist be not permitted to preach longer. Fifthly, because the sum of 1260. years which the Adversaries appoint, cannot any way be accommodated to those words of Dan. & S. john, a time, and times, and half a time; for by a time without doubt must be understood some one number, as one day, one week, one month, one year, one Lustre, one jubilee, one age, one millenary or thousand; & if we take this last, than Antichrist shall reign 1500. years which the adversaries admit not: if we take one age, antichrist's time shallbe 350. years, which likewise they admit not: and the same is manifest of a jubilee etc. sixthly, because when Dan. 4. we often read, that 7. times shall pass in which Nabuchodonosor shallbe out of his kingdom, by those times all understand. 7. years, for if we would understand years of years, as the adversaries understand, when Antichrist is spoken of, we should say, that Nabuchodonosor lived out of his Kingdom 2555. years. Neither is it hard to solve their slender reasons; for when Chytraeus saith, that the three years and an half, of which Daniel and S. john speak, cannot be taken properly for our usual years, because experience witnesseth that Antichrist hath tyranized much longer already; he manifestly repeateth or beggeth the principle, or beginning, as the Logicians speak, for he taketh or assumeth that which is in controversy: for that the question is, whether Antichrist be come or Noah. And when he addeth that Antichrist by S. Paul's opinion shall reign till the second coming of Christ, and thereupon concludeth, that he must reign longer than three years and a half, he seethe not that he either repeateth the principle again or saith nothing; for that illation proveth nothing, unless it be assumed, that Antichrist is already come, which notwithstanding is in controversy. And to that, which both he and Henry Bullenger say, that a certain number is taken for an uncertain in this place: I answer, that then only a certain number is put for an uncertain, when some full and perfect number is put, as 10. 100 1000 and not when there are divers numbers assigned, where there are great and little mingled. Wherefore then is a certain number to be taken for an uncertain, when the Scripture saith Apoc. 12. that the Devil was bound for a 1000 years, as S. Augustine expoundeth it, lib. 20. de Civitate Dei cap. 8. and S. Gregory 33. moral. cap. 12. and not when he assigneth a time, & times, and half a time, or 1260. days, or 42. months: for to what end is that diversity of numbers, if an uncertain time be designed? To the argument of Illyricus, I say, that in the Scripture there are indeed found, and rightly called weeks of years, but not days for years, or months of years: for weeks of years we read Leuit. 25. Thou shalt number to thyself seven weekeis of years etc. and that rightly, it is manifest, because a week is denominated of the number of 7. in greek, in latin, & in hebrew; for the hebrews call a week scabuagh, of schevagh, which is seven, as also in Greek it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in Latin septimana, of the number of 7. Wherefore as 7. days are called a week of days; so, seven years a week of years but we no where read a month of years or a day for a year: neither were it rightly spoken. For a month is not denominated of any number, but of the course of the Moon, which is finished in 30. days, for which cause the hebrews call a month jareach, that is a Moon, or chiresch, that is a renewing, to wit of the Moon, and in greek a month is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because the Moon is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Likewise a Day, doth not signify number: but the time of light, Gen. 1. God called the light Day, and darkness Night. Neither is that of Ezech. 4. against this, I have given thee a day for a year: for the meaning is not, that by days literally are signified years, otherwise Ezechiel should have slept upon his left side 390. years, which is unpossible. For God commanded him to sleep upon his left side 390. days, and added, I have given thee a day for a year. If therefore those days be taken for years, Ezechiel should have slept upon his left side 390. years: but he lived not so long: wherefore days are taken there truly for days, but are said to be given for years: because those 390. days in which Ezechiel slept, were a sign of the sleeping of God, by which he tolerated the sins of the Israelites 390. years. To that which Chytraeus objecteth out of Luc. 13. I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: I answer that it is not signified in those words (as the erring Adversaries say) that Christ was to preach three years after; for our Lord spoke those words the last year of his life. For as S. Hierom writeth lib. de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, in joanne, and the thing itself showeth, S. Matth. S. Mark, and S. Luke wrote not the deeds and words of Christ of the former two years, but only those of the third. Wherefore our Lord by those three days either understood the three days, which he was to spend in the journey to Jerusalem, as Albert and Caietan expound it; or else by that manner of speech would signify that he should live and preach a little time after, as I ansenius rightly teacheth. Therefore let Illyricus and Chytraeus bethink themselves, where they found Angelical days and months, for they are not to be found in Scripture. M. Downams Answer confuted. 1. BEFORE M. Downam beginneth to answer any thing to this demonstration, he childishly beareth his Reader in hand, that Bellarmine teacheth us not to look for Antichrist, until he be gone, nor to expect his coming till the world have an end: because in this, & the next demonstration he proveth, downan's childish cavil. that Antichrist is not yet come (as the Heretics affirm) because if they said truth, he should likewise have been gone, and the world also have been ended long ere this, since he was not to reign, but three years and a half, and the world was not to endure long after. And the heretics, even M. Downam himself affirm, that Antichrist came a thousand years since. Wherefore this silly shift will not serve his turn; but except he can disprove Bellarmine's assertion of the short time of antichrist's reign, and of the speedy end of the world afterward, it willbe manifest to any indifferent Reader, that he and his fellows have most shamefully abused the world, in affirming that Antichrist came so many years agone. Wherefore let us see, what he can answer to Bellarmine's proofs. 2. But first you must give him leave once more to bewray Downam changeth Bellarmine's argument. his shameless folly, for he will needs resolve Bellarmine's argument, and so make him bring the main question for an argument. But these are his idle conceits, for the matter is plain enough, since Bellarmine argueth thus: Whosoever shallbe Antichrist, shall reign only three years and a half, but none hitherto hath done so: Ergo, none hitherto hath been Antichrist. Wherefore except M. Downam answereth to this argument in form, he may well dance in a round, but will say nothing to the purpose; which he himself seemeth to acknowledge, saying immediately after: But to come to the purpose, viz. from which he had spoken all this while. 2. And now we shall find him far more cool: for first he granteth the assumption or minor, so far as is necessary, to wit, that the Pope hath reigned more than three years, & a half: viz. a thousand years, which is sufficient for our purpose, and therefore I will not strive with him about the other Antichrist shall reign three years & a half. Dan. 7. &. 12. 500 years, because I would not be like him in speaking from the purpose. Wherefore let us see what he can say to the proposition, concerning which, he affirmeth, the whole controversy to be. And so he flatly denieth it, affirming that the places of Daniel, are to be understood of Antiochus, and not of Antichrist, and repeateth his chimerical distinctions invented by himself of the 4. degrees, in the deliverance of the jews from the Tyranny of Antiochus, for which ho hath neither Scripture nor other author, but josephus corrupted. only Ioseph●● corrupted by some favourite of Porphyry, & of his own exposition of Daniel, for S. Hierome found no difference betwixt joseph, and the Maccabees, but both affirmed, that the desolation of the Temple lasted only three years, and by their authority he manifestly convinceth, that Daniel cannot be understood of the time of Antiochus, but of Antichrist, because he putteth half a year more than the sacrifice ceased among the jews in the time of Antiochus. Wherefore it is manifest, that S. Hierome found but 3. years in joseph, and that the 6. months were added since: and if See the precedent Chapter. joseph had written otherwise, he were to be evidently convinced of falsehood out of the Maccabees, which M. Downam would gladly conceal, and therefore he maketh joseph to speak of another degree, and putteth his words only in Greek: but all these devices will not serve his turn, since he expressly affirmed, that the daily sacrifice ceased 3. years and six months. Ipse (Antiochus) & Templum spoliavit, & quotidianae religionis assi●●itatē per annos tressexque menses inhibuit: which is flatly against the Maccabees, and M. Downam himself also, who will have it to have been only 3. years and ten days, & so maketh Daniel to agree with him, by changing half a year into a parcel; and would no doubt willingly have done as much for joseph, but that he could not convey it cleanly, because he expressly reckoneth 6. months, as now Hierom. in cap. 12. Dan. we have him, but indeed only accounted three years, as S. Hierome citeth him, and so he agreeth passing well with the Maccabees; and it is evident, that Daniel spoke not of Antiochus, but antichrist's time, as hath been sufficiently proved, aswell by this number of three years, and a half, as by other circumstances, which agree not to Antiochus, in the former Chapter. And this is all he hath to say about the places of Daniel, only he repeateth an objection, which Bellarmine made to himself, that Daniel reckoneth 1290. days, and S. john but 1260. 30. less. To which he answered, that Anticrists last month is not accounted in his reign. S. john speaketh of the preaching of Henoch and Helias, and Daniel of the death of Antichrist, which shallbe 30. days after, in which he shall notraigne so absolutely as before, and therefore this last month is not commonly accounted in his reign, as neither the years before, in which he obtained to the height of his greatness. For after the death, resurrection, and assumption of Enoch and Helias, the third part of the City shall fall, and 7000. shallbe slain with an earthquake, and the rest shallbe terrified, and give glory to the God of Heaven, as S. john writeth Apoc. 11. by which antichrist's kingdom shallbe much diminished, though he shall live one month jonger, Dan. cap. 12. and persecute so much as he may, as the Angel told Daniel, being desirous to know what was to follow after the 3. years and a half. 3. The places of the Apoc. trouble M. Downam shrewdly, and therefore he giveth six solutions (such as they are) poor ones, God wots. First then he denieth that the times Apoc. 11. 12. 13. mentioned in the 11. 12. and 13. chapters are the same, and putteth Bellarmine to prove it, because he himself hath neither reason nor authority to impugn it withal, both which Bellarmine hath alleged for his exposition, in which there is no difficulty, where we are to begin the account. Neither will M. Downam's bare word be taken, affirming, that all these times are not to be taken literally, and that none of them defineth antichrist's reign. For Bellarmine expressly proveth the contrary. But, saith M. Downam, the 42. months in the 11. and 13. Chapters signify the time of the persecution under the Roman Emperors, either only or specially. For cap. 11. v. 2. it is said, that the Gentills shall tread upon the holy City 42. months. But Antichrist as the Antichrist shallbe the Prince of all the wicked in general. Papists hold, shallbe the Prince of the jews, and counterfeit Christians: and of all the wicked in general also, as M. Downam cannot choose but know, if he would deal sincerely, and not seek for shifts, and starting-holes. For in the last Chapter that was plainly, not only affirmed, but also proved, as afterward it shall again: as likewise in due place, that the great City, where the two witnesses shallbe slain, is Jerusalem & See cap. 13. not Rome; though if it were Rome, it were no proof, but that they might be slain by Antichrist there, in whose time they shall preach, as hath been largely convinced. By which it is likewise manifest that these places are to be understood of Antichrist. But nothing convinceth this more evidently The foolish dream of the fool Fox. than the foolish dream of the fool Fox, whom the devil which seemeth to have persuaded him, rightly so called, because he was so blockish, as to believe so absurd a devise, which notwithstanding M. Downam is content to make his chiefest ground, because he hath no better, to wit, that by 42. months should be understood so many sabbaths, or weeks of years. Was there ever a more absurd or ridiculous devise invented, or maintained? Is this the sincere exposition of Scripture, which they so greatly brag and boast of? what connexion hath 30. days with 7. years? Surely a month containeth 4. weeks. Wherefore if they will have these 42. months to be understood of years, they must not tell us of 42. weeks of years, but of so many months, which they cannot do; and besides Bellarmine well proveth, that there are not months of years, as there are weeks, and much less that months are taken for weeks, which is There are no months of years. a mere madness to imagine, and altogether as absurd as to think that Fox's head was of glass, as he is reported to have most fond imagined. And yet is M. Downan content thus to shift of the difficulty of all these places, thinking it sufficient to have found this goodly Gloss for the 42. months, and that the number of days, or years need no further explication, but is to be reduced to these 42. weeks of years though neither himself, nor any man else, can possibly invent how to make them agree. For first concerning the days, if we take a day for a year, and after this account, we can take it for no less, they make 4. times as many years as the 42. Downam & Fox their absurd exposition of Scripture. sabbaths come to at least, and then what shall we make of the three years and a half? Surely this is an endless labour and labyrinth; but to this pass must these good fellows needs come, that will go about to frame Scripture to their own brittle and beetle brains. But yet M. Downam will give one attempt more about the three years and a half, which he thinketh may be understood of the time, wherein the Church of Christ, which was at Jerusalem, after it was admonished by a voice out of the Sanctuary to departed, and accordingly removed to Pella, was sustained there. In which devise; First he must grant that the 1260. days, signify also 3. years and a half, for the same space in this Chapter is twice accounted, once by times, and again by days: by which it will seem more than probable, that the months are to be understood so also, and so the fool Fox hath lost his babble; and beside, many things in this 12. Chapter cannot be applied to those few Christians which were at Jerusalem, as the battle betwixt Michael and the Devil, the great persecution which was raised against the woman etc. But M. Downam objecteth, that in this 12. Chapter, there is no speech of Antichrist, but of the Devil, who first seeketh to overthrow the Church of Christ among the jews, and afterward cometh to the Gentiles, and therefore it is said, that he standeth upon the sea shore, from whence he raiseth the Beast with 7. heads etc. where it is marvel, that Apoc. 12. he did not mark, how the Serpent or Dragon had 7. heads and ten horns, aswell as this beast, and consequently, that they are both to be at the same time; and to be the chief causers of this great persecution: yet with this difference, that the devil is the cause of all other, aswell as this. Wherefore not unfitly Antichrist is here called his tail, in which chief the venom of this serpent lieth: so that whatsoever The devil and Antichrist described after the same manner. Antichrist shall do either by himself or his instruments, may be peculiarly applied to the Devil. For which cause the Devil in antichrist's time cannot be more lively set forth then by the same description, which representeth Antichrist himself, by which M. Downam's devise is quite overthrown and become ridiculous, as also his proof, for that the Devil is said to stand upon the sea shore, from whence he raiseth the beast with 7. heads etc. for this proveth nothing but that Antichrist, is a beast of the devils raising, and hath his power from him, which no man denieth: though I marvel how M. Downam forgot his Greeke in this place, in which we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (steti:) as also Andreas Arethas, Erasmus, Rupertus, and Codex Complutensis have it; and consequently were to be referred to S. john himself, who signifieth whither he was carried in spirit to see the beast (which followeth) arise; for which cause divers ancient writers begin the next chapter at those words. 4. In the second place M. Downam addeth, that by Bellarmine's interpretation of those times, it would follow, that after Antichrist is once revealed, all men that be acquainted with the Scriptures, may precisely define before hand the very day of Christ's coming unto judgement, which the Lord notwithstanding will not have known Mar 13. 32. as Bellarmine himself must needs grant, seeing he useth this, as the chief argument against those who by 1260. days Whether those that live at antichrist's death, may gather how long they have to the end of the world or no? understand so many years. To which I answer that no such thing can be gathered out of Bellarmine, who lately also Apolog. cap. 10. hath plainly declared, that in his opinion, there can no more be gathered out of the Prophet Daniel, then that the world shall endure at least 45. days after antichrist's death, but whether longer or no, that the Scripture declareth not: but indeed S. Hierome writeth plainly, that 45. days after antichrist's death, Christ shall come to judgement. Out of which we willingly grant, that those which live, at the time of antichrist's death may easily gather out of Scripture, how far the day of judgement is off. Neither is this against Mar. 13. 32. where our Saviour only saith, that at that time it was only known to God, which hindereth not, but that hereafter it may be gathered by daniel's prophesy, when it is within so few days. But M. Downam addeth further in his 6. Chapter, that our Saviour Matth. 24. 39 and Luc. 17. 26. hath foretold, that the end of the world shallbe sudden, and unlooked for even as it was in the days of Noah and Lot. This is the objection which I referred to this place, as belonging to it, and Daniel answereth it with a distinction, that at the death of Antichrist there shallbe both good and wicked men, as there were in the time of Noah and Let, and ever since. Now saith Daniel, Only the just & learned shall make this collection. impièagent impij, neque intelligent owns impij: porrò docti. intelligent. the wicked shall do wickedly, and none of them shall understand (these mysteries, though they be so plainly fortould) and of these speaketh our Saviour when he saith, that the day of judgement shall come unlooked for. But Daniel addeth further, porrò docti intelligent; the learned shall understand them, and may make a certain collection of the time of the day of judgement, when they once see Antichrist dead, that is, such pious interpreters as S. Hierome was. And this difference we see in the time of Noah and Lot, and now also: for though the Scripture speaketh plainly of Antichrist and his persecution, and how long it is to continue: yet wicked Porphyry, M. Downam, and the rest of that crew understand it not: but S. Hierome and other holy Saints and Catholics instructed by them understand it plainly. So true is, and ever was, and shallbe that saying of the Wiseman, In malevolam animam non introibit sapientia. Wisdom will not Sap. 1. enter into a wicked and malicious soul; such as all heretics have, and always had, though they brag never so much of Scripture, and their private spirit, which is one of the chiefest branches of their impiety. Neither doth this any whit infringe Bellarmine's argument against those which expound the 1260. days to be so many years: for they cannot have any ground at all, to affirm that those years are to downan's juggling. begin more at one time, then at another, and yet every one by assigning what time it pleaseth him, must needs grant, that from that time until Christ's coming there are just so many years, which is, to take upon them to know that, which Christ said was so hidden, that without an evident revelation, as that of Daniel is, after antichrist's death, no man, nor Angel can know it. So that Bellarmine useth that argument, only to disprove the time, which Illyricus and others appoint of antichrist's coming, and not absolutely to reprove that interpretation; as M. Downam would have his reader think. Wherefore in all this Chapter, in which he so largely refuteth that interpretation, he never urgeth that illation. But this is no juggling at all in M. downan's conceit. Thirdly, saith M. Downan, It is incredible, if not impossible, that so many and so great things, as they assign to Antichrist should be effected, and brought to pass in so short a time, as Hentenius a learned Papist doth confess, and as hath been showed heretofore. If M. Downan In praefat, translat. Areth. had set down these many and great things we might perhaps have showed him how many of them were not to be done in these 3. years and a half, in which notwithstanding Antichrist may do very many by himself, and his Ministers, having all the world at command; and thus is Hentenius to be expounded, who only thinketh it impossible for Antichrist to obtain so many Kingdoms and Provinces in so short a space: which maketh nothing at all against us, who rather think, that this short time is to begin after those victories be ended. M. Downans other proofs are to be examined in their due places. fourthly (saith M. Downan) When we proved that Antichrist is not any one man alone, but a whole State and succession of man, we proved this by consequence, that his reign was not to continue only three years and a half. He saith well: for when he can prove the one, he may prove the other; but he will never be able to prove either, as the Reader will easily see, by conferring See chap. 2. his proofs, and my answers together: which now it is no time nor place to do. Fiftly (saith M. Downam) Antichrist according to the conceit of the Papists is to reign before the preaching of the two witnesses, and as Enoch & Elias shalbegin to preach in the beginning of antichrist's Reign. Bell saith, is to continued one month after their death. Seeing then the two witnesses preach 1260. days, which as Bellarmine also saith make three years & a half precisely; how can the term of antichrist's reign, be three years & a half precisely? First M. Downan might have done well to have named those Papists who conceit antichrist's reign before the preaching of the two witnesses, for we would have been so bold, as to have told them, that they were in a wrong conceit, unless they meant that he should be of great power before; but yet not of so great, as he shallbe for the space of three years and a half, in which these two glorious witnesses shall preach, as neither in his last month after their death, by which he shall receive such a blow, that his kingdom shallbe so much diminished, that the last month is not accounted to belong to the height of his reign, as before we also explicated out of Apoc. 11. and so there remaineth just three years and a half for antichrist's reign, Supra nu. 2. and these two holy witnesses preaching. Lastly he remitteth himself to his proofs, that Antichrist was come in the Apostles time, and revealed in the year 670. for answer of which bare assertion (for here he goeth not about to prove any thing) I must likewise remit my Reader to the answers See Chap. 3. which I gave to those his proofs in their due places, and so leave him to judge how well M. Downam hath answered Bellarmine's allegations, and confuted his assertions. 5. After Bellarmine had proposed his own argument out of Scriptures, he setteth down three distinct answers of the Protestants to those places, which he refuteth: first by the authority of the Fathers, who with one accord expound Downam insolently rejecteth the Fathers. those places in that sense: to which M. Downam giveth no other answer, but that they could not understand those prophecies; which is plain dealing indeed, and sufficiently manifesteth Downans proud private spirit, which dareth tell so many holy Fathers, and pillars of God's Church, that he knoweth more, than they all, and that they said they knew not what, when they interpreted those prophecies in that sort: which I would think should be sufficient for all souls, to fly from such proud Luciferian spirits, as this fellow, and his Companions have. To Bellarmine's second proof M. Downam hath more to say: for first he reprehendeth Bellarmine, for saying, that the Scriptures affirm, the time of the devils losing & Antichrists reign, to be brevissimum, Bellarmin unjustly charged. very short, or most short, they only saying, that it is short, or small. But his Wisdom should have considered, that Belarmine putteth that brevissimum for the sense, and not for the words of the Scripture; which afterward he allegeth as they lie; so that if they import a very short, or most short time, Bellarm. is not to blame. But M. Downan denieth this also, showing at large, that many times a thousand years or more Apoc. 12. in Scripture are accounted but as a day, or a very short time, in respect of the Lord, who speaketh in the Scripture: which we willingly grant: but he should have showed us, that these places now in question are to be understood in respect of the Lord, and not rather in respect of the thousand years, in which the Devil was bound. And cap. 17. it is yet more plain, that Antichrist shall reign a small time in respect of The time of antichrist's reign very short. Apoc. 17. the 6. Kings, which went before him, which howsoever M. Downam understandeth them, cannot be said to have reigned much more than a thousand years a piece. Neither is it true, that Antichrist not only was, but also persecuted those, that refused his mark, within the thousand years of Satan's imprisonment: though S. john. Apoc. 20. saw the Martyrs in the time of Antichrist, Apoc. 20. together with those which were before; of which only he speaketh, when he saith that they lived and reigned with Christ in the thousand years: except some will say with S. Ambrose, that the Martyrs in the time of Antichrist are said to reign (before they were) in the former Martyrs, because they were members of the same body: or that the thousand years are diversly taken. And thus we see plainly, that the time of Antichristes reign, and the devils being lose, is said to be a very short tyme. 6. To the third argument he answereth briefly, that S. Augustine etc. did mistake the place Matth. 24. 21. and that Matth. 24. Downam rejecteth S. Augustine & S. Gregory. it is to be understood of the calamity of the Iew●s, as he hath manifestly proved (if you will believe him:) but if you will take a view of my answer to his proofs, perhaps you will think them manifestly fond and foolish. Secondly he saith, that we are to distinguish betwixt the time of antichrist's continuance, & the time of his heatest persecution; which we willingly admit, See chap. 4. though so, that we always think, that his whole persecution shallbe most hot: for we find no cold persecution of his at all. Wherefore if he will grant us, that the great and hot persecution of Antichrist, which is spoken of in the Scripture shallbe very short, least in a manner all perish, we desire no more; and thus much we must have whether he will or no, since the Scripture truly interpreted by the holy Fathers expressly affirmeth it. In answering the fourth congruence, he is somewhat large. First he saith, that Bellarmine presupposeth that Antichrist is but one man, which is true in some sort, because he had proved it before, and yet proveth it now again thus far, that it is very improbable, that more than one should be necessary for the space of 3. years and a half, longer than which Christ preached not; and therefore in likelihood Antichrist shall preach no longer neither. Secondly he taketh up Bellarmine very short, for making himself Gods counselor: which yet is far otherwise, for he only seeketh reasons of that, which is already known that God hath done. For I would have M. Downam know, that Bellarmine is too wise to have delivered any certainty only upon this congruence, and therefore would by no means make that inference, which he would have him, that Antichrist shall pervert no more than Christ converted, because The converting of one, argueth more power than the perverting of many. it is far more easy to pervert, then to convert, and so the converting of those few, or any one of them which Christ converted, showeth far more power, than all that perverting doth in Antichrist, which bewrayeth no power at all, but malice and hatred: and yet would not Bellarmine say neither, that Christ as man could convert no more, than he did, but that he used sufficient means to convert far more, and could have used more; but he is wont to proceed sweetly, though effectually with his elect, whereas Antichrist useth all cruelty and extremity, and findeth men more disposed to follow him, than Christ did, and therefore there is no comparison betwixt them two in this, but only it seemeth unfitting for us to think, that God's goodness will give Antichrist a longer time to use all those barbarous and tyrannical means, than was allotted to Christ, only to allure men by his divine persuasions, and admirable works. Thirdly he would make a difference betwixt Christ and Antichrist, in that Christ hath spoken by the mouth of his Prophets and Ministers. As though Antichrist hath not always had his Ministers also, all heretics; and now M. Downam, and his rabble must be content to let all the world but themselves think, that they are his Ministers. Fourthly he Antichrist may raise a universal persecution, ●● one time, would begin to prove, that Antichrist cannot do all those things which Catholics attribute to him, in so short a tyme. But this is another matter now, and he cannot deny but that Antichrist may raise a general persecution in all his Kingdoms in one time, from which day forward, let M. Downam begin to reckon the three years & a half of his reign, & if any thing cannot be well comprised with in this space, we will not stick to grant, that it was to be done before, as the subduing of so many Kingdoms etc. To the 5. and 6. proof he only saith; that they are not worth the mentioning. But it should seem he meant, they were too hot to be touched without burning his fingers, and therefore he thought it best to have only a snach & away; saying: that the time, and times, and half a time, as hath been showed, belong not to antichrists reign, and that he taketh times for years. How he hath showed that this belongeth not to antichrist's reign, we have already seen and refuted. But now Bellarmine urgeth, how the 1260. days being taken for years can agree with three years and a half: and here M. Downam was feign to skip, for otherwise he could not have escaped: and it is Downam omitteth what he cannot answer. enough in this place that he granteth us, that a time, and times, and half a time signify three years and a half: for by this it is manifest, that both the 42. months, as also ●he 1260. days, signify the same, and consequently that Antichrist is to reign no longer, since that it is evident, that they are understood of his time, as hath been plainly proved. 7. In the last place M. Downam goeth about to reply to the answers which Bellarmine gave to his fellows reasons; and first to keep Chytraeus out of the ditch, he dareth him his authority, saying, that he saith it as well as Chytraeus, at which I imagine the Reader will laugh; and then because he saw that the place of S. Paul proved nothing neither, unless it might be granted, that Antichrist was already come, he dareth him another of S. john, affirming that the Antichrist was come in his time: at which I suppose Chytraeus would chafe. Chap. 2. Downam cannot defend his fellows. For now we shall have Antichrist to endure as long as Christ; & beside S. john affirmeth not, that the Antichrist was come in his time, but that he had many members then, as hath been sufficiently proved in due place; so that Chytraeus remaineth in as ill case, as he was before M. Downam laid to his helping hand. But yet once again he will try what he can do for him and Henry Bullenger together, which he performeth with a very subtle distinction, saying: that they speak of the time, & Bellarm. of the number; so that there shallbe just 42. & 1260. but no man can tell of what. And is not this a wise exposition think you? Will not Chytraeus & Bullenger be ashamed of such a Proctor, who make the say they know not what themselves. But M. Downan will save their credit if they will be ruled by him by bringing their uncertainties to some certainty, as to the 4●. sabbaths of john Fox, & the 1260. years of the Magdeburgenses, the former of which I refuted before, and the latter is here exploded by Bellarmine: in defence of which M. Downam hath nothing to say, but to repeat their Argument out or Ezechiel, without seeming to understand Bellarmine's distinction, denying that days are literally taken there for years; which is necessary for their argument, though they may be a sign or figure of years, and consequently signify them mystically, as tho●e 390. days in which Ezechiel slept upon his left side, were a figure and sign of so many years, even as his sleeping was a sign of the toleration which God used towards the people of Israel: but yet none but a mad man will say, that Ezechiels' sleeping is to be understood literally of Gods tolerating, so that when he was bidden to sleep so many days, God was literally commanded to sleep so many years. Neither is M. Downam's addition out of some of the Ezech. 4. learned, namely junius, any thing to the purpose. For Apoc. 2. only the number of 10. is put indefinitely, as is usually in Scripture, so that 10. days is all one, as if he had said many days. And this is all, that M. Downan can say for his fellow Days are not taken for years Ministers. Now he will say some thing against them, telling them plainly that if they take days for years, it will follow, that the special time of Christ's coming may be foretold after the Revelation of Antichrist, which he thinketh Apoc. 2. must in no wise be granted: and we have showed how far the Catholics may foretell it without danger of any inconvenience. Wherefore we may now conclude this Chapter, in which it sufficiently appeareth, that Antichrist is not come, as the heretics affirm. THE NINTH CHAPTER. Containing the sixth Demonstration. THE sixth Demonstration (saith Bellarmine) is taken from the last sign, which shall follow after Antichrist, which shallbe the end of the world: for the coming of Antichrist shallbe a little before the end of the world. Wherefore if Antichrist had been come long since, the world should have been ended long since also. The Prophet David cap. 7. speaking twice of Antichrist, once telling his vision, and afterward expounding it, both times addeth, that after Antichrist, shall forth with follow the judgement. I considered (saith he) the bornes, and behold another little horn arose, and three of the first horns were pulled of before his face. I beheld until the Thrones were placed, and the Ancient of days sat etc. And after expounding the vision: The fourth beast (saith he) shallbe the fourth Kingdom, and the 10. horns shallbe 10. Kings, and another shall arise after them, and he shallbe more potent than the former, and shall humble 3. kings etc. and they shallbe delivered into his hand for a time, and times, and a half a time, and judgement shall sit etc. The like prophesy hath S. john Apoc. 20. After these things, he must be loosed a tittle time: and I saw seats, and they sat upon them, and judgement was given unto them etc. And again the Prophet Dan. after he had said cap. 12. that Antichrists Kingdom should endure 1290. days, addeth: Blessed i●●e which expelleth, and cometh to 1335. days, that is to 45. days after antichrist's death, for than will our Lord come to judgement, and will restore the Crowns of justice to the conquerors, as S. Hierome, and Theodoret expound it in their Commentaries upon this place. Besides, the same is gathered out of Matth. 24. This Gospel of the Kingdom shallbe preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the end be: that is, a little after shall the end of the world be, and after forthwith. After the tribulation of those days the sun shallbe darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and then shall the sign of the Son of man appear etc. The same appeareth out of 2. Thess. 2. Then shall that wicked one be revealed, whom our Lord jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth, & shall destroy with the brightness of his coming &c. where the Apostle teacheth, that almost immediately after Antichrist, Christ shall come, viz. there shallbe a very little time betwixt them: and the frauds and deceipts of Antichrist, which were begun to be destroyed by Helias and Henoch, shallbe wholly destroyed by the coming of Christ himself, and the fearful signs which shall go before. Finally we have the same 1. joan. 2. My children it is the last hour, and as you have heard, that Antichrist cometh, and now there are many become Antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last hour. Where S. john saith that this time from Christ to the end of the world, is the last hour, that is, the last time, or the last age, as S. Augustine expoundeth it: and he proveth it excellently out of this principle, because we know that Antichrist shall come in the end of the world. For S. john maketh this argument. We know that Antichrist shall come in the end of the world: but now we see many of his forerunners, or little antichrist's present; wherefore it is a certain sign, that this is the last hour or age. As one might argue of the hour last of the night: we know that the sun shall rise in the end of the night: but now we see many of his beams enlighten the air, wherefore we know that this is the last hour of the night. To conclude, the same is confirmed by the common consent of the Father's Iren. l. 5. in fine. Tertul. l. de resurrect. August. l. 2. ciu. cap. 19 & others; & by our adversaries confession: for our Adversaries acknowledge, that Antichrist shall reign to the end of the world, and therefore a little after his destruction, the ●nd of the world shallbe. From this sign then, together with the former, we have invincible demonstration, by which it is proved, that Antichrist is not yet come, nor is the Bishop of Rome. For if forth with after the death of Antichrist the world shallbe ended; and Antichrist shall not live after he hath appeared, and begun to reign, but 3. years and a half: then he shall not appear, nor begin to reign, but three years & a half before the worlds end. But the Pope hath already reigned with both sword, even in the opinion of our Adversaries, above 500 years, & yet the world endureth still. M. Downams Answer confuted. 1. MASTER Downam first cavilleth with Bellarmine because he will not prove that Antichrist is not yet come, but only, that he is not come long since. As though Bellarmine had taken upon him to fight with the wind, and not to impugn M. Downam, and his fellows, who affirm, that Antichrist came long since. Wherefore this shift will not serve his turn, but he must either yield himself, or answer the argument, which he will do very substantially with a distinction, that the coming of Antichrist, and his death, are two things; so that though it be true, that he is not utterly to be destroyed before the second coming of Christ, yet he came even in the Apostles times, as S. Paul insinuateth, and S. john plainly teacheth. Where we must put M. Downam in mind, that these The end of the world shall not be long after antichrist's coming. two Apostles only teach, that Antichrist came in their time only in his forerunners, but now we seek for him in person, or as M. Downam speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in which sort, he and his fellows make him to have reigned a 1000 years which Bellarmine impugneth, because presently after his destruction the world must end, and he shallbe destroyed within 3. years and a half after his being in that height, and consequently the world should have been ended 1000 years since, if the Protestants opinion about the time of antichrist's coming in that sort were true. In the Protestant's opinion the world should have been ended many hundred years since. 2. Fain would M. Downam weaken Bellarmine's proofs, by telling us, that some are not to be understood of Antichrist Dan. 7. Apoc. 20. Matth. 24. 14. but we have proved the contrary at large in divers places, to which the Readers may have recourse. Others, saith M. Downam, are against himself, Dan. 12. out of which he draweth these consequences. 1. that the reign of Antichrist is not just 3. years and a half, but 1290. days. But we have already given the reason, why the last month that Antichrist shall live, is not accounted in his reign. 2. that Antichrist shallbe destroyed before the end of the world. Whereas Paul telleth us, that Christ shall destroy him at his appearing, & not 45. days before. But M. Downam should have noted, that S. See chap. 4. 5. 7. Paul maketh two degrees of the destruction of Antichrist: first his particular death by Christ's special commandment, or apparition: & secondly the destruction of his Kingdom Dan. 12. by his coming, and the signs which shall go before. M. Downam's third inference is, that the day of judgement shallbe certainly known after Antichristes revealing: but of this we have said enough before, that there is no doubt, but that the day of judgement may be known when God 2. Thes. 2. revealeth it, though the wicked will not understand it so neither, as Daniel affirmeth: by which M. Downam's last inference 2. degrees of antichrist's destruction. is also answered, and the Papists will prove true, by following Christ and his Prophets, when M. Downam and his companions must needs be liars, leaving either of them, though they protest never so much, to cleave to the other. 3. After this he cometh to Matth. 24. 29. where he confesseth, that the signs of Christ's coming are to follow the tribulations Matth. 24. under Antichrist; which is as much as Bellarmine desireth at his hands; but yet he will needs infer out of this place also, that Antichrist shall not be one man, because v. 23. 24. our Saviour speaketh of many false Christ's, and false Prophets, which we know very well; and have daily experience, how true it is by seeing so many sectaries in our days: but we also know, that every false Christ or false Prophet is not Antichrist, though we will not deny, but that he shallbe a false Christ, and a false Prophet also; yea the falsest of them all. But what is this to the purpose, to prove that he shall not be one man? Next he cometh to 2. Thess. 2. where he repeateth his distinction of antichrist's coming and ending, but to as little purpose as before, though he explicateth many chimerical degrees more largely, which so far as they make against us, are elsewhere confuted. Lastly he cometh to the 1. joan. 2. where he impugneth the 1. john 2. argument that Bellarmine frameth out S. john, making him prove, that it is now the last hour, because we see many petite Antichrists. For, saith M. Downam, by the like reason we might prove, that the fullness of time was from the beginning, because there were always Prophets, which Bellarmine calleth the forerunners of Christ. But M. Downam should have considered, that it is not absolutely true, that it is the fullness of time, whensoever it may be said that Christ cometh, but only when he cometh in person, and therefore it is no marvel, though he cometh in his forerunners from the beginning of the world, Antichrist cannot be said to come at all but in the last hour. and yet the fullness of time was not come; but Antichrist cannot be said to come at all, but only in the last hour, and therefore S. john proveth very well, that it was the last hour, because Antichrist was already come in his members and forerunners. After he hath thus checked Bellarmine for framing of S. john's argument, M. Downam taketh upon him to put it in form himself. This then (in his opinion) is the Apostles reason. When the Antichrist cometh, it is the last hour. Now, saith he, Antichrists are come (meaning by Antichrists, the same with the Antichrist, which elsewhere he affirmeth was then entered into the world, or else there are 4. termini, 4. terms in the Apostles argument:) Therefore now is the last hour. But in this manner S. john's argument should not only have 4. but 5. terms. For Antichrist, and Antichrists Downam perverteth S. Io. text & argument. are not all one, nor cometh, and are come; to omit that the words of S. john be (are become.) Wherefore M. Downam showeth himself a veric poor Logician, if he can frame no better arguments than this. Neither can we believe him when he telleth us, that the Antichrist and Antichrists are all one in S. john: for beside, that the article is put only in one place as hath been noted before, why should S. john change both number and phrase, and so obscure his sentence, if there were no difference in the thing itself? And if M. Downam would be ashamed to speak thus absurdly himself, much greater cause hath he to blush for attributing so gross an absurdity to S. Io. or rather to the Holy Ghost who speaketh in him. And by this it is plain that in these few words of S. Io. there are contained two arguments, if we will reduce them to form, as before I have showed, and Bellarmine supposeth Chap. 2. in this place. 4. But at length, though M. Downam cavilleth with Bellarmine's proofs in this sort, omitting the authority of the Fathers altogether, yet he granteth his conclusion, that Antichrist shall reign or continue until the end of the world, & likewise acknowledgeth, that if the former argument concluded (which I willingly remit to the Readers censure) than this demonstration is likewise unanswerable, which is that, that Bellarmine pretended in this whole Chapter. Neither doth M. downan's distinction, which he repeateth here again of antichrist's coming and end, any whit avail him: for Bellarmine proved in the former argument, that Antichrist was not to continue in his kingdom past three years and a half, and in this, that the world was to end very shortly after him, by which it is evident, that it cannot be a 1000 years, since he began his reign, as M. Downam and his mates affirm. The other objection, which he maketh concerning the length of antichrist's reign, is a mere cavil: for Bellarmine in his whole discourse sufficiently explicateth in what sense he saith, that Antichrist shall not begin his reign but 3. years and a half before the end, viz. before the end begin, for he taketh not the end for the very last instant, but for that space in which God shall begin to confound Antichrist, and destroy his kingdom; which in all willbe 75. days, as Daniel foretelleth, which space helpeth M. Downam's The end of the world is not only the last instant. cause very little, who hath need of many times so many years, to make his position good, that Antichrist came 1000 years since, and yet the world endureth: and that this was Bellarmine's mind, he himself hath now sufficiently explicated in recognit. operum pag. 18. where he noteth, that he said that Antichrist shall not appear, nor begin to reign but 3. years and a half before the end of the world, because the space betwixt the death of Antichrist, & the end of the world, shallbe so little, that it may be accounted nothing: for otherwise he had not forgotten, that he had proved a little before, that there should be 45. days betwixt the death of Antichrist, and the end of the world, out of Dan. 12. And thus we will conclude these 6. demonstrations which make Bellarmine's third argument, and desire the Reader to consider attentively, whether Bellarmine's proofs, or M. Downam's solutions, be more substantial; and what is to be thought of such men as will open their mouths in such blasphemous manner, against all authority & reason, in a matter of this importance, upon which all other questions in controversy in great part depend. THE TENTH CHAPTER. Of antichrist's name. THERE followeth (saith Bellarmine) the fourth disputation of the proper name & characters of Antichrist. All acknowledge that those words of S. Io. Apoc. 13. do certainly belong to Antichrist: And he shall make all, little with great, rich and poor, free men and slaves, to have a character in their right hand, or upon their foreheads, and that none can buy or sell, unless he hath the character, or name of the beast, or the number of his name. Hear is wisdom, let him that hath understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number 666. There are many opinions of this number. The first is, that by this number, not the name, but the time of the coming and death of Antichrist is designed: so holdeth Bullenger, who praefat. Hom. in Apoc. thinketh, that the time of antichrist's coming is signified. In like manner the Magdeburgenses, who cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. think, that the time of antichrist's death is designed. Likewise others, who as witnesseth Clictonem in l. 4. Damasceni c. 28. think, that the death of Mahomet is degsined, whom they say was Antichrist: with whom agreeth Lyranus upon this place, though he thinketh not, that Mahomet was Antichrist; yet he imagineth that by this number is signified, that the death of Mahomet was to be in the year 666. from Christ's coming. This is a most absurd opinion. First because S. john saith, that he speaketh of the number of the Beasts name. Secondly because the beast, whose number this is, will command all Merchants to use it for a sign in contracts, as is manifest Apox. 13. Wherefore it is not the number of the death of the Beast, but belongeth to him alive. Thirdly, because it is also false, that Mahomet died the year of Christ 666. For some say he died in the year 637. as Matthew Palmer: some the year 630. as Cedrenus in compend. hist.. some the year 628. as joan. Vaseus in chronico Hispaniae. The second opinion is of David Chytraeus in cap. 13. Apoc. who saith the name of Antichrist is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or in the Hebrew Romiith, Romanus. Therefore the Pope, who is a latin Prince, since he ruseth in Latium, and is the Bishop of Rome, is Antichrist. The same teacheth Theodorus Bibliander tab. 10. and therefore he maketh the inscription of the 11. table of his chronology, which beginneth at the year 600. Latino's Papa. Their reasons are two: the first, because S. Irenaeus lib. 5. teacheth, that it is very like, that this shallbe the name of Antichrist. The other, because indeed the letters of his name make that number, as is manifest. Resc. 200. λ. 30. τ. 300. Vau. 6. α. 1. ε. 5. Mem. 40. τ. 300. ι. 10. jod. 10. ε. 5. τ. 300. jod. 10. ι. 10. α. 1. Tau. 400. ν. 50. ν. 50. ο. 70. ς. 200. 666. 666. 666. This opinion is altogether temerarious: for first Irenaeus saith indeed, that the name λατεῖνος may probably be applied to Antichrist; but he addeth, that it is much more probable, that antichrist's name shall not be λατεῖνος, but τειταν which also expresseth that number: and is a far more noble name, since it signifieth the Sun. Besides Irenaeus his conjecture which might have some probability then, now hath none: for he saith, that it is probable, that Antichrist shallbe called Latinuses, not because he shall in Latium, but because in his time the Latins had greatest dominions, and in a manner the whole world. For because Antichrist shallbe a most potent King, without doubt he shall possess the most potent kingdoms, which he shall find at his coming: but the most potent kingdom is that of the Latins, saith Irenaeus, for they now most truly reign. Surely this conjecture now is nothing worth: for the Latins reign no longer over all the world, but the Turks are those which most truly reign, and among us the Spaniards and French, not the Latins. Moreover the name of Latin, as it signifieth a Roman, is not written with (●) but with a simple jota, and then it maketh not that number. In which manner the devise of the name Romiith may likewise be confuted. For Romanus cannot end in Tau, since it is the masculine gender, for that it is the termination of the Feminine gender among the hebrews: but if we remove the letter Tau, there want 400. to make the number of Antichrist. Likewise the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if it be the name of Antichrist, it shallbe proper to him, as Arethas teacheth, and his most usual name, for it must be showed for a sign by all that buy and sell. But the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is common; for there was never any Pope, that by his proper name was called Latinus. Neither is this an usual name, for the Popes never call themselves Latins, but Bishops, or Popes The name Romanus was proper to one only Pope, who notwithstanding could not be Antichrist, since he lived but 4. months, and otherwise it is a common name. Finally, if only this name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Romanus, made the number 666. our Adversaries said something: but there are innumerable names, which make the same number. Hippolytus Martyr in orat. de consummatione mundi, noted another name which maketh the same number, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is nego, I deny. Arethas named seven, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, Illustris. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, Sol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, Victor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, pra●us dux. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, verè nocens. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, olim inuiden●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, agnus nocens. Primasius addeth another, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, contrarius. Rupertus, and before him Haymo invented two other, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is a Goths name, &, DIC LUX, a Latin, which maketh 666. if after the Latin manner we take D: for 500 l. for one, C. for 100 L. for 50. V for 5. and X. for 10. Of the later writers Lindanus l. 3. Dubitantij, noteth, that Martin Lauter maketh the number 666. if the Latin letters be taken for numbers after the manner of the Greek and Hebrew thus: A. 1. B. 2. C. 3. D. 4. E. 5. F. 6. G. 7. H. 8. I. 9 K. 10. L. 20. M. 30. N. 40. O. 50. P. 60. Q. 70. R. 80. S. 90. T. 100 V 200. X. 300. Y. 400. Z. 500 Gilbert Genebrard in the last book of his chronology noted also, that the name of Luther in hebrew, maketh that number Lulter. I add two more in favour of Luther & Chytraeus, to wit, Dbid Citriu, id est, David Chytraeus, and σαξόνειος, which later agreeth aswell to Luther, as the name Latinus to the Pope. Daleth. 4. σ. 200. Beth. 2. α. 1. jod. 10. ξ. 60. Daleth. 4. ο. 70. Caph. 20. ν. 50. jod. 10. ε. 5. Tau. 400. ι. 10. Resc. 200. ο. 70. jod. 10. σ. 200. Vau. 6. 666. 666. The third opinion is of many Catholics, who guess that Antichrist shallbe called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because this name properly agreeth unto him, and containeth exactly that number. So affirm Primasius, Anselmus, and Richardus. This opinion is well confuted by Rupertus, because the name which S. john insinuateth in this place, shall not be given to Antichrist by his Adversaries, but taken by himself, as glorying therein, insomuch that he shall make it be written in men's foreheads. And it is not probable, that he will take to himself any hateful or vile name, such as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and almost all the other above rehearsed. The 4. opinion is of Rupertus himself, who thinketh that the name of Antichrist is not signified by this number, but a triple prevarication of the Devil to be fulfilled in Antichrist: for the number of 6. because it cometh not to 7. in which is rest and happiness, is the number of a creature by prevarication falling from rest. And the Devil hath incurred a threefold prevarication, or rather hath tripled one. For first he prevaricated when he sinned in himself: after again when he made the first man sin, and then to 6. he added 60. Thirdly he shall prevaricate, when he shall seduce the whole world by Antichrist, and then to 60. he shall add 600. The fifth opinion is Bedes, who taketh the contrary course, and teacheth that the number of 6. is perfect, because God made heaven and earth in 6. days, and 60. more perfect, and 600. most perfect. Whereupon he gathereth that Antichrist is designed by the number 666. because he shall usurp to himself the most perfect tribute, which is only due to God. In figure whereof we read lib. 3. Reg. cap. 10. that the weight of gold which was brought every year to Solomon was 666000. talents. These two opinions seem not sufficiently to agree with that which S. john saith, that, that number is the number of the name, not of the dignity or prevarication: neither would these Fathers have their opinions otherwise accounted of, then as suspicions, and conjectures. Wherefore their opinion is truest who confess their ignorance, and say, that antichrist's name is yet unknown, which is the opinion of S. Irenaeus upon this place of the Apocalyps, and of others. And I will set down S. Irenaeus his words, because Chytraeus exhorteth his reader to peruse them. I exhort (saith he) the studious Reader to peruse the last pages of Irenaeus upon this place, which are the 333. and the 334. who disputeth of this number of the Beast modestly, and piously, and among other things showeth, that Antichrist shallbe a Latin or Roman by the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Wherefore Irenaeus saith thus: It is therefore more certain, and without danger to expect: he fulfilling of the Prophecy, then to suspector guess at any names, since there may be many names found which have the foresaid number. And notwithstanding there remaineth the same question; for if we find many names, which have this number, the question is which of them be shall bear that is to come. Neither do we say this, for any scarcity of names which have the number of his name, but for the fear of God, and zeal of truth: for the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the number we seek; but we affirm nothing of it. Likewise the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the number 666. and is very likely, because this name hath the truest Kingdom, for the Latins are they which reign now. But we will no beast of this. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having the first syllable written by the two greek vowels ●, & ●, is the name which deserveth most credit of all, that are sound in our language etc. And after. Since therefore this name Titan hath so many persuasions, and so great likelihood, that we may gather by many things, that peradventure he that is to come, shallbe called Titan; yet we will not hazard ourselves in it, nor affirm with asseveration, that he shall have this name, because if his name were to be publicly manifested at this time, doubtless it would have been declared by him, who saw the Revelation. So he. Wherefore let Chytraeus give ear to Irenaeus disputing modestly, piously, and learnedly, and let him not falsely impute that unto him, which he never said. For Irenaeus did not think, that Antichrist should be a Latin or a Roman, but he saith, and repeateth oftener than once, that the name of Antichrist cannot be known yet, and this he also proveth by two very good reasons. First, because there be many names, which make that number, neither can we guess which of them is that which is foretold. Secondly, because if God would have had it known at this time, certainly he would have revealed it by S. john himself. And he added that he did not speak thus for any want of names, but for the fear of God, and zeal of the truth. For which cause he rehearsed three names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which he affirmed that the second was more likely than the first, and the third than the second, but that none of them was certain. We may also add a third reason out of the same Irenaeus: for a little before disputing against them, which gathered false names of Antichrist, out of their own conceit, he saith, that they fall into many inconveniences, for they expose themselves to the danger of erring, and of deceiving others, and of causing both themselves and many others to be most easily seduced by Antichrist. For when he shall come, and have another name than they persuade themselves he shall have, he shall not be held by them to be Antichrist, and consequently shall not be avoided. All which inconveniences will doubtless happen to the Lutherans, and especially this last, for because they have persuaded themselves that the Pope is Antichrist, when that true Antichrist shall come, he will not easily be discerned by them, and therefore not avoided. But here we must note, that antichrist's name willbe most manifest when he is come, for likewise before Christ came, the jews knew not certainly how he should be called, although the Prophets had foretold many things of his name. Yea one of the Sibyls (as we find in the first book of their verses) had noted the number of Christ's name and said that it was 888. as S. john wrote of Antichrist, that the number of his name is 666. And yet until Christ's coming men knew not, that he was to be called jesus. But since Christ's coming all controversy is taken away, and all know that he is called jesus. The Sibyls verses are these Sed quae sit numeri totius summa docebo. Namque octo monadas, totidem decadas super ista atque hecatontadas octo, infidis significabit Humanis nomen, tu verò mente teneto. ι. 10. η. 8. σ. 200. ο. 70. υ. 400. ς. 200. 888. To this we may add, that it is common to all Prophecies to be doubtful and obscure, till they be fulfilled, as S. Irenaeus rightly teacheth and proveth lib. 4. c. 43. Hence we may take an insoluble argument to prove that the Pope is not Antichrist, and that Antichrist is not yet come. For if Antichrist were come, and were the B. of Rome, there would be no question of his name, foretold by S. john, as because our Christ is come, there is now no question even amongst the Turks, jews, and Pagans, how he is called. But there is very great Controversy about the name of Antichrist, as is manifest by so many opinions as we have rehearsed and refuted. Wherefore the Prophecy of S. john is not yet fulfilled, and consequently Antichrist is not yet come, neither is the Pope Antichrist. Add a confirmation out of the confession of Augustin●● Marloratus, who in his great explication upon the new Testament, gathered out of divers Lutheran and Calumist writers, saith thus of this place: There are almost as many expositions, as expositors of this place: by which it appeareth, that it is most obscure and dark. Thus he. But if this Prophecy be still most obscure and dark, it is not yet fulfilled; wherefore Antichrist is not yet come; for all Prophecies are made most clear when they are fulfilled. Why then dost thou Marloratus brag in thy Preface upon the Apoc. that, it is so manifest, thee the Pope is Antichrist, that if you held your peace, the stones would excla●me. M. Downams Answer confuted. 1. FOR answer. First M. Downam deemeth, that this name of Antichrist shallbe commonly known so soon as he is come, and he giveth his reason, because the name of Antichrist cannot be known, as the name of Antichrist, until Antichrist himself be known and acknowledged, which was not to be at his first coming, for than he could not be able to seduce many, few or none being so desperately mad as to follow him whom they know to be Antichrist. But M. Downam should have considered, that antichrist's name shall be known when he is come. Bellarmine speaketh not of any secret coming of Antichrist, but of his revelation and reign, which M. Downam and his crew affirm to have happened many hundred years since, and Bellarmine confuteth them by this argument, that if it were so. antichrist's name would be well known, as we see Christ's is, and yet many are so mad, as to refuse Christ, though they know his name: and in like manner no doubt, many will embrace Antichrist after that his name shallbe certainly known. 2. Secondly M. Downam telleth us, that in the similitude taken from Christ there is no likeness, because Christ was over particular man, but Antichrist is not, but a State which cannot have a proper name: which as you see is no answer at all, if Antichrist shallbe See. chap. 2. one particular man, as hath been proved in due place, to which I remit my Reader: and beside I see no reason why a State may not have a proper name also. Yet M. Downam giveth us another difference, for that Christ coming to save, his name jesus, the name of the Saviour was to be made known, that he might the rather be embraced: Antichrist coming to deceive, and to destroy M. Downam's juggling. was (according to his devilish policy) to conceal that name, whereby he should be known to be Antichrist; where you must mark how cunningly M. Downam concealeth the diligence which the Devil used to obscure the name of Christ, and likewise the power and wisdom of God to make Antichrist known, for otherwise his Reader would very easily have conceived how God is as able to manifest antichrist's name, that he may be avoided, as he was to make our saviours name known, that he might be embraced. And besides it is more than probable, that Antichrist will not be so humble, but that he will desire to have his name known: for this is the great and powerful wisdom of God to overthrow the wicked by their own courses. Wherefore it is not certain, that Antichrist shall either know, or make account of this Prophecy, nor reflect upon his name, whether it containeth this number or no. But though all this should be so, yet he will think to overcome this difficulty, aswell as the rest, especially when he is come to that height of pride to extol himself above all that is called God. And sure we are, that by one means or other his name shallbe manifest, for otherwise this revelation of S. john concerning it, would serve to small purpose. After this M. Downam maketh a little digression from his purpose to tell us, that the Sibyl did not only foretell, that our saviours name should contain the number 888. but also, by certain Acrostiches foretold that he should be jesus Christ, the son of God and Savieur But of Antichrist she speaketh nothing so plainly: howbeit she calleth Rome Babylon as Io. doth. And in the 8. book describing Antichrist as some think, she calleth him a Prince with many heads: which The Sibyls verses of Adrian are expounded. M. Downam will have to be understood, either by a Metonymy for the Pope's triple crown, or by a Synecdoche for the succession of Popes. Likewise the Sibyl addeth, that he shall have a name near to Ponti, that is Pontisex, the Pope, saith M. Downam. Now how Rone is Babylon we shall see afterward. And as for that thought of some, it is evident, that not Antichrist, but Adrian the Emperor is spoken of in those verses, in which See Florimond Reymond of Antichrist cap. 22. among other things, his little God Antin●●● is described. Neither is he called a Prince with many heads, as M. Downam supposeth, but is only said to have one white, or grey head, as Spartianus testifieth in his life, that Adrian had, and that either by these verses of the Sibyl, or by those of Virgil, ●n which he describeth Numa Pompilius, by his grey head also, Nosco crines, incanaque menta, Adrian prognosticated that he Aeneid, 6. should come to be Emperor. Bullenger and Castalio differ from M. Downam, and the truth also; for they will not have it to be a white head, but a white hat, or helmet, deriving it rather from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, contrary to the common use of such compounds. But even by Castalio his consent, he that in this 8. book is by the Sibyl called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the fifth book is also named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in which place he is expressly said to succeed trajan, as Adrian did. And in both places he is said to have a name near to the sea, which in greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in respect of the Adriatic sea, which was denominated of a City called Adria, near Venice, in which this Emperor was also borne, and from thence had his name Adrianus. That other conceit of M. Downam, who thinketh that this name near to Ponti, is Pontifex, is very far fetched; for what connexion is there betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek, and Pons in latin? especially since that Pontifex is no greek word, and the Sibyl wrote in that language, and consequently the name which she spoke of, must not be only among Latin's. Finally, if we should admit this fond conceit, yet all might be applied to this Emperor, who, as Platina writeth in vita Alexandri, repaired one bridge at Athens, and built another at Rome of his own name, and beside was consecrated Bishop of Ceres; but this refuge is needless, since we have the former most manifest explication. I have stood longer upon this, than was necessary, since that M. Downam confesseth, that it is from the purpose, to which now he promiseth to return. 3. And he goeth about to answer Bellarmine's other proof, which is, that Prophecies are obscure till they be fulfilled, and clear when they are fulfilled; and his answer is, that although they become more clear after then before; yet many times they remain dark and obscure to very many. And he exemplifieth in the Prophecies of Christ, which are clear to good Christians, but not to the jews; and confesseth, that many Prophecies concerning Antichrist are plainly understood of the true Professors, yet they seem dark and obscure to the followers of Antichrist. Where me thinks he granteth all that which he denied before, viz. that the name of Antichrist being once come, shall be aswell known, as that of Christ: and beside, he openly gainsayeth Marloratus, who affirmeth, that even among M. Downam's true Professors, there are as many expositions, as expositors of M. Downam contradicteth himself & Marloratus. this place. And besides Bellarmine showeth, that even the jews, Turks, and Pagans grant, that the name of our Christ is jesus, which manifestly containeth the number 888. But all Catholics, and others are far from thinking that the Pope is to be called Romanus, and Latinus, except something else be added; and besides these names contain not justly the number 666. as Bellarmine proveth. Having thus put off the Argument, M. Downam maketh another digression, taking hold of the former part of Bellarmine's proposition, that prophesies till they be fulfilled are (for the most part) dark and ambiguous: and hereupon he inferreth, that therefore the writings of the Fathers, who lived before Antichrist, were most uncertain guesses in their expositions of the Prophecies concerning him: which illation we deny, and rather infer the quite contrary, that since the Prophecies are The necessity of the Father's expositions. obscure, and ambiguous, we had the more need to take some light and certainty from the Father's writings, who received their expositions from the light of God's spirit, and the certainty of the Apostles Traditions. But M. Downam proveth his inferrence by Bellarmine's confession, even in this Chapter, and citeth his words in the margin. Sed necisti Patres volverunt sententias illas suas alio loco haberi, quàm suspicionum & coniecturarum. Neither would these Fathers have those their opinions otherwise accounted of, then as suspicions, and conjectures; which assertion of Bellarmine cometh far short of M. Downam's position, for he speaketh only of two Fathers Rupertus and Beda, M. Downam speaketh in general of all the Fathers; Bellarmine calleth only those two particular opinions of theirs, suspicions and conjectures: M. Downam would prove, that all the opinions of all the Father's concerning Downam proveth an universal by a particular. prophecies not fulfilled, are but guesses, which is to prove an universal by a particular; a fit argument for M. Downam's Divinity, if not for his Logic, which perhaps the badness of his Divinity maketh him either to forget or forsake. The like fault he committeth again in alleging S. Irenaeus, who only speaketh of this one prophecy of antichrist's name: and Andraeas maketh as little to his purpose, only affirming with Bellarmine, that experience will make manifest to them that are vigilant, both the exact computation of this number, and all other things which are written of Antichrist; which M. Downam seemed before to deny, and now is as far The authority of the Fathers. from proving, that the Father's expositions when they all agree, make not a Prophecy certainly to be understood; though when they are divided, their expositions be but probable, and therefore, because they were so in this place, we see that Bellarmine grounded not his argument upon any of them, but upon another certain rule, which they all agree in, and M. Downam himself cannot choose, but confess in great part. 4. Thus much for this digression. Now M. Downam cometh again to the purpose, & goeth about to answer Bellarmine's Assumption; which is, that antichrist's name is antichrist's name yet unknown. yet unknown, where M. Downam distinguisheth, confessing that in the Church of Rome, it is not known of the ignorant, nor acknowledged of the obstinate; but in the true Church of God Antichrist is known, and his name acknowledged. But Marloratus affirmeth the contrary, and M. Downam insinuateth as much saying, that to the opinions which Bellarmine allegeth many more Downam contradicteth himself and Marloratus. might be added: which he will hardly make good, except he have recourse to his new gospellers, who though they be united in malyee against the Pope, yet their proud heads cannot agree in the exposition of this, or almost any other place of Scripture. And besides the agreement of Protestants in this or in any thing else must needs be of little account, except they could bring better proofs, that they are the true Church of God: which affirmation whilst it be proved is petitio principij, and the jews, Turks, and Pagans will say as much for themselves, if any man willbe so foolish as to believe them, which he hath reason to do assoon as heretics, of which number to us, it seemeth evident, that Protestants are. 5. Next M. Downam maketh Bellarmine to prove, that antichrist's name is not yet known by the authority of Irenaeus, which he impugneth, because Irenaeus lived before the fulfilling of this Prophecy, which he affirmeth to be now fulfilled; which objection I think deserves no other name then the M. Downam's Petitio principij. former; for it is a plain petitio principij. And M. Downam might easily have discerned, that Bellarmine was in that place discussing and searching out the most probable opinion among Catholics, who all agree, that Antichrist is not yet come no more than he was in Irenaeus his time, and therefore his authority among them proveth very well, that his name is not yet known. As for M. Downam and his Mates, who have forsaken the Catholic Church and faith, he argueth against them from their own authority, and manifest experience, as we have seen. Wherefore all Irenaus his proofs are good and firm for the end that Bellarmine bringeth them, as likewise his inference is evident to all Catholics, that The danger of Protestant's the Protestants are in great danger to receive Antichrist when he cometh, since before he come they so verily persuade themselves that he is already come, which is a good warning for Protestants also to look about them, and to take heed, that they be not so confident, but upon better grounds, for the danger is great. But here I must desire my Reader to mark attentively M. Downam's devise, who will needs be so foolish as to seem to think, that M. Downam mistaketh Bellarmine. the proofs which Bellarmine bringeth to convince that Irenaeus was of that opinion, that antichrist's name should not be certainly known before his coming, were brought by him to prove absolutely against Protestants that antichrist's name is yet unkowne: whereas he beginneth not to propose his argument to this purpose, till he had fully examined both Irenaeus, and all the other opinions. 6. Well, you must give M. Downam leave to mistake sometimes, otherwise he should have very little to say to the purpose: Yet he will try what he can say to Bellarmine's true proof, which is, that antichrist's name is not yet known, because there is a great controversy about it. Against which he objecteth: that by the same reason Bellarmine may conclude, that few points of religion are yet known, because there be few, concerning which there is no controversy. But M. Downam must consider the difference, which is great. For first about antichrist's name, there is not only a question betwixt Catholics and Protestants, but likewise even Protestants M. Downam contradicteth himself. themselves do vary, and Catholics also are not all of one opinion, which M. Downam insinuateth in some sort, saying, that in other controversies the truth is known of those which are Orthodoxal, howsoever others will not acknowledge it. But of this matter he dareth not go so far, but only adventureth to say, that he doubteth not, but that the truth of it is known, although some cannot, and others will not as yet see it. So that in this, some cannot know the truth but in other controversies, all may that will. And besides M. Downam might have noted, that not only the Orthodoxal, but all others must know and acknowledge antichrist's name thus far, that they confess, that he whom the Orthodoxal take to be Antichrist hath that name which hath this number of 666. as all Pagans, Turks, and jews confess, that the name of jesus, which Christian should to be the name of Christ, is indeed the name of our Christ, and containeth the number 888. But here it is otherwise; for though M. Downam and his fellows give the Pope the name of Romanus and Latinus: yet neither the Popes themselves, nor any other give them that name without addition, especially that of Latin cannot be attributed to him, for he is head aswell of the Greek as the The name of Latin cannot be given to the Pope. Latin Church: & his particular Sea or Bishopric, to which this supreme jurisdiction is annexed, is only Rome. And beside there is much controversy whether these names contain the number 666. or no, as we shall see presently. Neither can M. Downam help himself with telling us that without doubt the Roman State is signified by the beast, whose name containeth this number 666. for this he knoweth is denied by us, and his proofs whereof he braggeth are all discussed, and confuted in their due places. 7. Wherefore now let us see, how he will confute Bellarmine's Answer to the reasons which Chytraeus, and Bibliander bring for their opinions. And here Bellarmine must be content to put up an injurious imputation that M. Downam layeth upon him, that it is his manner to make choice of the easiest Bellarmine slandered by Downam. objections, omitting the harder; which is so manifest and notorious a slander, that I dare remit the judgement to any indifferent, or moral Protestant. For no man, that hath read Bellarmine, can deny, but that he urgeth all arguments against himself to the uttermost, in so much that it is the common censure of Protestants, that he is a good Author to be read against himself, because his objections are so forcible: but their meaning is, that the Reader should stay in them, and not pass to his answers, because they are also most plain and evident. But to come to our particular, M. Downam should have showed us those hard objections of Chytraeus and Bibliander which Bellarmine omitted; but he hath no such matter, only he writeth thus: We produce three other arguments, as you have heard, speaking of himself in the plural number, and as it seemeth using the same figure in numbering his arguments; for I can only find one of his own adding, which is that the number of 666. is not the name of Antichrist himself, but of the former beast, which signifieth the Roman State. But how can Bellarmine be blamed for not answering this argument, which M. Downam hath framed so many years after his book was written? Downam contrary to his fellows. For Chytraeus and Bibliander could not use this argument since they were not of M. Downam's opinion in this point, but took that number to be understood of the name of Antichrist himself, as all other Authors, but M. Downam, do also, for aught I can perceive, since he allegeth none for See cap. 5. n. 5. etc. his opinion: and indeed the matter is plain, as you may see in those places, where it is discussed at large. The first reason than which Bellarmine answereth is the authority of Irenaeus, to which he saith that Irenaeus preferred another name before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and M. Downam granteth, that it is true indeed, that he seemeth to do so, and addeth, that they build not upon Irenaeus his authority, but upon those reasons whereupon his conjecture is grounded, which are two; the one because it is the name of that Kingdom which is figured under the former beast Apoc. 13: 7. whose authority Antichrist was to usurp: and he translateth Irenaeus thus: It is the name of that which most truly is called the Kingdom, for they are the Latins that now reign; and addeth his Apoc. 13. own exposition, making Irenaeus say, that it is the name of the former Beast, spoken of Apoc. 13. 1. which figureth verissimum Regnum, Downam corrupteth Irenaeus his words & meaning. that Kingdom which most truly is called a Kingdom, that is the Latin or Roman State. All which is a plain corruption, both of Irenaeus his words, and meaning. For there can be nothing more plain, then that Irenaeus attributeth this number to Antichrist himself, whom also he understandeth to be signified by that former beast as commonly all other Authors do; only he giveth a reason, why he thought it probable, that Antichrist should take that name, as Bellarmine truly explicateth, and withal showeth, that though that reason might seem to have some force in Irenaeus his time, now it hath none at all, because the Kingdom of the Latins is decayed since that tyme. And if Irenaeus had thought that this name was to be attributed to a Kingdom or State, surely he had no reason to prefer the name of Teitan before Lateinos, as he did. Neither are we to make any account of M. Downam's confirmation, upon supposition that Antichrist it come, for this is his ordinary fault, and is called petitio Antichrist shallbe a most potent King. principij: and his denial, that Antichrist shallbe a most potent King, is tooto shameless, and disproved upon divers occasions; and in this very place, according to the best exposition, he is said to have the power of the 4. monarchs: for the 10. Princes which shall divide the Roman Empire amongst them, shall belong to him, and he shallbe like to a Pard, and have feet like a Bear, and a mouth like a Lion, which are the three beasts, to which the other three monarchs are compared by Daniel, and lastly the Devil signified Dan. 7. by a Dragon, shall give him his force and great power. The other reason of S. Irenaeus, upon which M. Downam now saith that he granteth his opinion (though a little before he said it was easy to answer) is because the letters of the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make the number 666 to which Bellarmine objecteth that the name of Latin, as it signifieth a Roman, is not written with ●, but which a simple iota, and then it maketh not that number. M. Downam answereth that the ancient Latins used to write and pronounce ●, long, by ●, diphthong, and the Grecians usually express ●, long, by ●, and he observeth, The name of Latin containeth not the numbe● 666, that S. Irenaeus setting down these two names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as containing 666. taketh it for granted, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be so written; whereas of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith that it maketh that number, if it be written with ●, diphthong. For answer of all which, I reply: first, that M. Downam should have showed us, that the ancient Latins ever wrote their own name by ●, diphong, which I can hardly believe, since they took it from Latium, which can hardly be so written. Secondly the Grecians did not usually write ●, long, by ●: and we need go no further then to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for an example. Thirdly, the reason why S. Irenaeus expressed the diversity of writing in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & not in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is plain, because he writing in greek could not alter the greek Orthography without much note in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is a greek word: but for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he made no such difficulty, because he respected only the sound and pronunciation, as we commonly do in all Greek words, which we write or use as Latin. But this hindereth not, but that there is a difference betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Latinus, except M. Downam thinketh, that the changing, or taking away of a letter will not alter the signification, which were too absurd and gross. And no doubt, we must rather stand to the Latin then to the Greek Orthography of a Latin word. The like objection maketh Bellarmine The name Romansh containeth not the number 666. against Romanus, for it maketh not the number, except it endeth in Tau, and be a feminine, whereas Antichrist is to be a man by the consent of all Authors. To which M. Downam answereth, that collective names in Hebrew, are indifferently expressed in either genders: but he neither telleth us, what names be collective, nor showeth that Romanus is one of them, nor produceth any authority for that he saith: and therefore we are rather to stand to Bellarmine's judgement, who hath written an Hebrew grammar, then to M. Downam's, of whom we are not sure, that he can read Hebrew: and if by a collective name, he exclude a proper, he is far wide. His second answer is, that because the name here spoken of, is the name of the Roman State, it may be feminine, since that elsewhere that State is called the whore of Babylon, & a woman. But we deny, that the name is to be attributed to any other then to Antichrist himself: and with us agree in a manner all Authors, and indeed the matter is evident, and else where sufficiently See cap. 5. n. 5. etc. proved. Another objection of Bellarmine is, that the name signified by this number, is to be the proper and usual name of The name which containeth the number 666. shallbe the proper & usual name of Antichrist Antichrist, whereas Latinus is neither, and Romanus was only the proper name of one Pope who lived but 4. months. To which M. Downam giveth no other answer but this in these words: Neither ought it, seeing it is the name of the beast which signifieth a whole State, and in setting down Bellarmine's objection he omitteth the one half, that it must be usual, only making mention of the other, that it must be proper. And as you see, his answer is as slender, still running upon that erroneous conceit of his own, that this is not antichrist's name, but of the Roman State. Finally Bellarmine objecteth that there are innumerable names, which make the same number. To which M. Downam after a little cavilling at some of the names, which Bellarmine bringeth, answereth, that though it be so, yet none can be the name here spoken of, unless also it be the name of the beast, that is the Latin or Roman State, and unless it be such a name, as he, to whom all other notes of Antichrist do agree, causeth men to take upon them; which is to harp still upon the same string, and to sing the same song like a Cuckoo; for this name belongeth to no other beast, but Antichrist: and the other part is the main controversy, and therefore to assume it as a thing granted, is petitio principij, a figure wherewith M. Downam is well acquainted, and therefore chooseth to make it his conclusion also, as the Reader may see, if he please, to whose judgement I leave it to consider whether M. Downam hath answered Bellarmine's argument, or rather that it is altogether unanswerable and invincible, as Bellarmine deservedly affirmeth. THE eleventh CHAPTER. Of the Character of Antichrist. THERE are also (saith Bellarmine) two or three opinions of antichrist's Character. The first is, of the heretics of this time, who teach that the Character of Antichrist is some sign of obedience and conjunction with the B. of Rome yet they do not explicate after the same manner, what that sign is Hemicus Bullengerus scr. 61. in Apoc. will have it to be the unction of Chrism, with which all Christians that are obedient to the Pope are signed in their foreheads. Theodorus Bibliander in Chron. tab. 10. saith, that the Character of the Pope is the profession of the Roman faith: so that he is not accounted a true Christian, who professeth not, that he cleaveth to the Roman Church. David Chytraeus besides these two, addeth the Oath of Fidelity, which many are compelled to make to the Pope. Likewise the Priestly unction, which is received in the crown, and hand, and imprinteth, as the Papists call it (quoth he) an indelible Character. Finally to fall down before Images, and consecrated bread, and to be present at Masses of Requiem. Neither are these things unlike to those which Sebastianus Meyer, and others alleged by Augustinus Marloratu● in Apoc. 13. do teach. But it is an easy matter to confute these toys, both because they agree not with the words of the Text, and also because all these signs were in the Catholic Church before that Antichrist had appeared, in their opinion. First therefore we have out of the text, that the Character shallbe one, not many: for the Scripture always speaketh in the singular number, both of the Character, and of the name & number of Antichrist. Wherefore there shallbe one Character, likewise one proper name of Antichrist, and one number of his name. Wherefore when our Adversaries multiply so many Characters, they show, that they know not which that is, of which S. john speaketh. Secondly, that Character shallbe common to all men in antichrist's Kingdom, as is plain by those words: He shall make all; little & great, rich & poor, free and bound to take his Character. But the Oath of obedience and Priestly unction agree to few. Thirdly, the Scripture declareth, that the Character shallbe such, that it may indifferently be carried in the right hand, or forehead, for so it saith: He shall make all men receive his Character in their right hands, or foreheads. But none of those things, which our adversaries bring, is such: That the unction of Chrism cannot be received in the right hand. The profession of the Roman Faith, is neither in the hand nor forehead, but in the mouth by confession, in the heart by faith. The Oath of Fidelity is taken with the hand and mouth, but can in no wise be carried in the forehead. The Priestly unction is neither received properly in the right hand, nor in the forehead, but upon the head and fingers of both hands. Finally to be present at Masses for the dead, to kneel before Images, and the Eucharist, belong not to the forehead or hand, but to the whole body, and chiefly to the knees. Fourthly the same Scripture saith, That in the Kingdom of Antichrist no man shallbe permitted to buy and sell, unless he show the Character, or the name, or the number of the name. But how many do buy and sell in the dominious of the Pope, who are not yet chrismed, nor have taken the Oath of fidelity, nor are Priests? Do not many jews, even in the very City of Rome where the Pope hath his Sea, negotiate publicly, buy and sell, although they have none of those signs? Let us come to the other reason & prove that all these signs are elder than Antichrist. Antichrist by the opinion of our adversaries came not before the year 606. but Tertullian lived about the year 200. and yet maketh mention of Chrism lib. de resurrectione carnis. The flesh (saith he) is washed, that the soul may be cleansed: the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated. S. Cyprian lived about the year 250. and maketh mention of Chrism lib. 1. epist. 12. He must necessarily be an nointed (saith he) who is baptised, that having received Chrism (that is unction) he may be the aunoynted of God, and have in him the grace of Christ. S. Augustine lived about the year 420. and yet he saith tract. in joan. 118. What is it, that all know the sign of Christ, but the Cross of Christ? Which sign unless it be applied, either to the foreheads of the faithful, or to the water with which they are regenerated, or to the oil with which they are Chrismed, or to the Sacrifice with which they are nourished, none of these things is rightly performed. Likewise to cleave to the Roman Church was the sign and Character of a true Catholic man before the year of our Lord 606. S. Augustine writeth epist. 162. of Caecilianus, who lived about the year 300. He needed not to care for the multitude of enemies which conspired against him, since he saw himself united by communicatory letters to the Roman Church, in which the principality of the Apostolical chair always flourished, and to the other Countries from whence the Gospel came into Africa. S. Ambrose, who lived about the year of our Lord 390. in orat. de obitu fratris sui: He asked the Bishop (saith he) if he agreed in doctrine with the Catholic Bishops, that is with the Roman Church. Victor Vticensis, who lived about the year of our Lord 490. lib. 1. de persecut. Vandal. writeth, that an Arian Priest going about to persuade the King not to put a Catholic to death, used these words: If thou puttest him to death the Romans will account him a Martyr. In which place, by the name of Romans, the Catholics of Africa are designed, who doubtless are not called Romans by the Arians for any other cause, but for that they followed the Faith of the Roman Church, and not the misbelief of the Arians. We find the Oath of obedience made to the B. of Rome in the time of S. Gregory lib. 10. epist. 31. and therefore before the year 606. for S. Gregory lived not so long. Of Priestly unction we have the testimony of S. Gregory Nazianzen, who lived about the year 380. in Apologet. ad Patrem suum, when he was made B. of Safimi. There came upon me again (quoth he) the unction and spirit, and I have new cause of mourning and sadness. In which place, he maketh mention of a double unction, the one when he was made Priest, and the other then at his consecrating Bishop. Likewise orat. 1. the pace, speaking of S. Basil, who being made Bishop refused the exercise of that authority: Although he hath the spirit, and talents, and the care of a flock committed unto him, and is anointed with the oil of Priesthood and perfection, yet his Wisdom delayeth to take upon him the Prelacy. Now for the Sacrifice for the dead, it shallbe sufficient in this place to bring S. Augustine's testimony, who lib. de hares. cap. 53. saith. That it was the peculiar fancy of Aerius the arch-heretic, that we ought not to offer oblation for the dead. Of the Adoration of Images, only S. Hierome who lived about the year 400. shall suffice. He, in vita Paulae, saith thus: Prostrate before the Cross, she adored, as though she had seen our Lord upon it. Finally of the adoration of the Eucharist S. Ambrose may deservedly suffice, who lib. 3. de Spiritu Sancto cap. 12. explicating that place, Adore his footstool: Therefore (saith he) by the footstool is meant the earth, by the earth the flesh of Christ, which at this day also we adore in the mysteries, and which the Apostles adored in our Lord jesus, as we have said before: which S. Augustine saith, almost in the same words in explicat. Psal. 98. Since therefore all these things, which our Adversaries will have to be the Characters of Antichrist, were used by the Catholic Church many years before Antichrist was borne: it must needs follow, that either Antichrist learned them of that Church (and to say this, is to confound Antichrist with Christ) or that none of these things belong to the Characters of Antichrist. And this is that, which we prove. Thus much shall suffice for this rash and most absurd opinion of our Adversaries, which they have not proved by any witnesses, or reasons. The second opinion is of certain Catholics, who think, that antichrist's Character is the letters with which his name shallbe written. So think Primasius, Beda, and Rupertus, who seem to be deceived, because they read, But he who hath the Character of the name of the beast, or the number of his name. But S. john saith not so, but thus, But he who hath the Character, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name, and the Greek text agreeth with this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The third opinion is of S. Hippolytus Martyr orat. de consummatione mundi, & some others, that the Beasts Character shallbe not to use the sign of the Cross, but rather to execrate and abolish it. In which the calvinists are egregious forerunners of Antichrist. I rather think that Antichrist shall invent a positive Character also, as Christ hath the sign of the Cross known to all: but it is not known what this Character is, until Antichrist cometh, as we said of the Name. M. Downams Answer confuted. 1. Though Bellarmine frame no particular argument from this discourse of antichrist's Character, yet M. Downam will needs by resolving the discourse itself, and by conferring it with the former Chapter, make him argue from the Character, as he did from the number of the name. About which we will not strive with him, but rather supposing that this was Bellarmine's mind, we will examine the solution he giveth to this argument, so framed by himself. 2. And first he would deny that antichrist's mark shallbe known at his coming, in the very same manner that he denied before, that the number of his name should be known. Wherefore for this point, I remit the Reader to that which hath been said before. 3. As also for the other, that this Character is not yet known, because there is so much controversy about it▪ for he only teacheth briefly that which he explicated more at large, about the number of his name, which we examined and confuted before. Wherefore let us see, what he can say for the Protestant's or Heretics of this time, whose opinion Bellarmine impugneth: by which we shall also discover, how much his explication helpeth them, and what absurdity the opinion of Catholics containeth. Which two points M. Downam thought good to touch before he came to answer Bellarmine's two proofs. 4. And first to that out of the Scripture, M. Downam granteth, that the mark of Antichrist is but one, meaning (as he explicateth himself) in substance, although the same by divers The mark or Character of Antichrist but one. means, may be diversly expressed and testified, that is, subjection to the Pope as their head, and the acknowledgement of the Sea of Rome, and of the Pope's Supremacy etc. But what he meaneth by one in substance, is not easy to conceive, except it be this, that all the outward signs, Characters, and marks agree in this, that they signify the same subjection to the Pope etc. so that the marks shallbe distinct, and divers in themselves, and in their manner of signification, though the thing by them signified be one. But this is not sufficient to affirm, that the Character of Antichrist is but one, for in this sort the name, and the number of the name, and the Charcter are all one in substance, since they signify the same thing; and all signs which signify the same thing may be said to be one in substance, as writing, speech, gesture, and the like: and all the figures in the old Testament, which signified Christ are but one figure in substance, and all the Sacraments of the Church which signify grace, shallbe but one Sacrament, which is too great an absurdity for M. Downam to defend, & consequently he must needs grant, that his fellow gospellers assign more Characters than one, contrary to the Scripture, and therefore they are so far from truly interpreting the Scripture, that they wholly pervert it. To Bellarmine's second instance, out of the Scripture, M. Downam giveth no direct answer at all, but would same put it off, by telling us, that the Pope hath declared, that it is necessary to salvation, to be subject to the Pope. But this is only to show, that the body must be united with the head, in which all Religions whatsoever, yea all Societies must The mark of Antichrist shallbe common to all in his King doom. needs agree. But Bellarmine's instance impugneth two of the marks, which some Protestants affirm to be the Characters of Antichrist, by this evident proof, that the Character of Antichrist shallbe common to all men in antichrist's Kingdom as the Scripture plainly affirmeth: but the oath of Obedience, and the Priestly unction agree to few, therefore these cannot be the Character whereof the Scripture speaketh. To this M. Downam answereth not a word, neither indeed could he, for every part and parcel is most evident and plain, and therefore he was enforced to run to his old shift, and to bring us his wont figure of petitio principij, by which he desireth us to grant him his conclusion, that the Pope is Antichrist, without any further proof. But he must pardon us, because it importeth us much to hold with Christ, which we cannot see how we can possibly do, if we oppose ourselves against his substitute and Vicegerent, as though he were Antichrist, as M. Downam would have us. To the third instance, M. Downam answereth more formally, denying that the Scripture speaketh of the carrying of this mark, and the carrying of it indifferently either in the forehead or in the antichrist's Character may be carried either in the right hand or forehead. hand. But by M. Downam's leave, the Scripture mentioneth both the forehead and the right hand, & that with disjunction, that all must have the mark in the one or in the other: by which it is plain, that either of them will serve: so that it is indifferent to Antichrist in which of them his mark be carried, so that it be carried in the one of them: for that it must be carried, is evident by the Scripture even according to M. Downam's translation, which is this: That he may give them a mark on their right hand, or else on their foreheads. For surely if he give them a mark on either place, they must carry it perforce. Now as for his Mystical interpretation, that they shall receive this mark on their forehead by profession, or in the right This Character is not profession or practice. hand by practise and operation: first it is hard to understand, how profession is made with the forehead, except there be some mark upon the forehead, and it will be no very easy matter for antichrist's Ministers to examine every man that would 〈◊〉 or 〈…〉 practise and operation; and finally those vactions, which are assigned can hardly be drawn to either of these two heads, if profession be taken properly for declaration, by speech, and practise for our own actions and operations, since they do rather import a suffering and passive receiving, than any active operation, in which notwithstanding they draw nearer to this mark which shallbe given by Antichrist, and received by all others; and therefore neither profession, not practice agreeth well to this M. Downam contradicteth himself. mark. Finally M. Downam seemeth to contradict himself: for on the one side he will have profession and practice to answer to the forehead and hand, and consequently to be the mark, and yet a little after he saith, that the subjection itself is the mark, which is not only contrary to the former, but also foolish: since that this subjection is the thing signified by the mark, and not the mark itself. For what wise man would ever say, that subjection is a sign or mark, but rather that other things are signs and marks of it, as appeareth plainly to any, that will consider the subjection of servants to their Masters, subjects to their Prince, and of Christians to Christ and God etc. To the fourth instance M. Downam's answer is, that Antichrist shall prohibit all Christians, that have not his mark to buy or sell etc. but he will permit the jews etc. But we find no such exception in the Scripture, which generally affirmeth, that he shall not permit any, little or great, rich or poor, free or bound, under which divisions, no doubt, not only the whole nation of the jews, but even every particular jew is comprehended. And beside, we find no such rigour in the Pope towards M. Downam's Christians: for though that Bull of Martinus Quintus had been general for all The Bull of Martinus Quintus against the Hussites. times and places, as it was not, yet doth it not exact that every man should profess by word or work his subjection to the Pope, before he be admitted to buy or fell any thing at all, especially such things as are necessary for daily sustenance, but only excludeth all Hussites &c. from all human conversation (when voility or decessity, or some other lawful circumstance doth not otherwise require) which are openly, manifestly, and notoriously such: which is far less rigour, than Antichrist shall use, and yet much more than we see used in many Countries now, even by Martinus Quintus his authority, where Catholics and Heretics are permitted to live peaceably together. Yea even in Italy & Spain, & Rome itself, where they are most careful to avoid this contagion, there is no such rigour used as M. Downam See part. 2. cap. 8. §. 7. speaketh of; the reason of which we shall afterward declare more at large. But though all this be true, yet we must not omit to observe, that Bellarmine in this instance only impugneth three of the marks, which M. Downam's brethren assigned, viz. Chrism, the Oath of Fidelity, and priesthood. All which three, it is evident, that not only all jews, but likewise very many Christians, yea Catholics also have not, and yet are permitted to buy and sell: neither are they once questioned withal about any of them. All which M. Downam could not choose but see, though because he could find no solution for Bellarmine's instance thus limited, he thought best to run to generalities, where he might rove a● random, and make his Reader believe, that he had something to say, though he saw himself that he could say nothing directly to the purpose. M. Downam having this dispatched the first argument cometh to the second; where first he affirmeth, that though those things had been used in the Catholic Church before the revelation of Antichrist, yet that hindereth not, but that now they may appertain to the mark of the beast, because he doubteth not to affirm that there were many corruptions crept into the Church before the revealing of Antichrist, which he was to retain with increase. So that as you see, the mark of Antichrist was in the world before himself, yea in the Catholic Church, which consequently must The Church of God cannot have the mark of Antichrist. needs belong to Antichrist, and be a great friend of his, as indeed she is to the Pope, and ever was, and willbe as to her chief Pastor upon earth. But how she should bear and universally embrace any mark or corruption of Antichrist, seemeth as unpossible, as that Christ and Antichrist shall have both one mark, or one Church, and therefore M. Downam must either persuade us, that even from the Apostles times the Church of Christ bare antichrist's mark, and consequently that he was then come, or else he must grant, that his brethren have not rightly assigned the marks of Antichrist, but rather have uttered an horrible M. Downam's blasphemy. blasphemy, charging Christ's Church, and consequently Christ himself (who teacheth his Church) with the marks and doctrine of Antichrist. But M. Downam giveth us two differences, betwixt these marks before antichrist's coming and after. First until the year 607. there was not (saith he) in the Catholic Church an universal subjection to the Pope as the head, and consequently till then, these things could not be used as signs thereof, as since they have. But M. Downam may when it pleaseth him, take the pains to peruse what Bellarmine The Church was always subject to the Pope. bringeth in the 19 & last Chapter of his second book concerning this point, & I doubt not, but he will acknowledge an universal subjection to the Pope even from the Apostles; or if he be obstinate, and will nor yield to an evident truth, yet I am sure, he will never be able to answer Bellarmine's proofs; & if his pride be such that he presumeth that he can; let him begin, when he will, and see what he shall gain by it. The second difference which M. Downam allegeth is, that before the year 607. these things were not imposed and enjoined upon all by the laws of the Pope as since they are; so that the cause of using them now is not the example of the ancient Church, but the authority of the Pope's law. But this is a very poor difference, and argueth a wonderful corruption in the ancient Church, since that she was so forward to take antichrist's marks, that she needed no command: and beside, if M. Downam maketh the ancient Church to be very corrupt. Downam will take the pains to peruse the ancient councils, and Decrees of Popes, which Bellarmine bringeth in these particular controversies, he shall find, that there was the same necessity for all men to perform these things then, that there is now, many of them being commanded by God's law, and others not exacted of all, and some not of any, as the Reader may easily distinguish by considering the particulars. 6. Wherefore now let us consider how M. Downam answereth VII. Bellarmine's particular objections. And first concerning Chrism used in the Church before the year 607. Chrism he answereth, that those three Fathers speak of the anointing with oil used in the Sacrament of Baptism; and addeth, that this also without warrant of the Scripture is retained among the Papists. Where you see he maketh these three Fathers Papists in that point at the least: and though it be true, that they acknowledge that Ceremony of Baptism; yet in these places, they speak most plainly of Chrism, and the Sacrament of Confirmation. For T●rtullian, and S. Cyprian compare it with baptism, attributing to it the effects of grace, aswell as to Baptism: and S. Augustine placeth it betwixt baptism and the Eucharist, and calleth it Chrisming, which is the proper name of this Sacrament. Wherefore M. Downam must of force confess, that these Fathers were Papists in this point also, and that this mark was long before the year 607. Now whether this unction were used in the primitive Church, or no, is a new question belonging to another place, and it is enough for us now, that it was long before Antichrist came, according to the Protestants account: and that they do not much use even the imposition of hands, which they acknowledge was used in the primitive Church: of which M. Downam can give no better reason, then for that it was abused by us. By which in their opinion they might also leave off Baptism, Eucharist, and all other rites and exercises of How chrism maketh us Christians. de Consecrat. dist. 5. c. jejune. Ibid. c. De bis verò. Christian Religion, as indeed they have done in great part; only they love to hear themselves talk in a Pulpit, though they say never a true, nor wise word. I omit his other impertinent objections out of the Canon law, where first that holy Pope and Martyr Melchiades saith, that a man shall never be a Christian (meaning a strong and valiant, or perfect Christian) except he first receive this Sacrament: for so he useth the name (Christianus) as the Latins use (Virro) and the Aurelian Council saith, that this Sacrament is more to be reverenced, than Baptism, if we respect the person of him who ministereth it, because he must of necessity be a Bishop, How Chrism is more to be reverenced then Baptism. and besides this Sacrament supposeth, and in some sort includeth baptism, and in that respect is said to be more venerable, than baptism by itself. And this is all that M. Downam can say for himself, or against us; for that which he addeth concerning the ordaining of the Sacrament, as though it were ordained by the Church, and not by Christ, is a fond chimera of his own. For we affirm that it was instituted by Christ, as all other Sacraments were: and besides it is now from the purpose, since our whole question is, whether this Sacrament were used before the year 607. which Bellarmine hath evidently convinced that it was. To the second objection M. Downam answereth with a distinction; that to cleave to the Roman Church in ancient time, was the note of a good Christian, because then that Church was Apostolical; but now it is the mark of an Antichristian, because now that Church is Apostatical. Where you find him still in the same fault of petitro principij. And besides you see, he granteth as much as Bellarmine would have him, that in old time the cleaving to the Roman Church was so far from being the mark of Antichrist, that it was the (chiefest) note to know a good Catholic Christian, from a false and wicked heretic: and consequently it is to be accounted so still. For the heretics in those times could say as M. Downam doth, that the Roman Church was Apostatical, but they were not able to prove it any more, than M. Downam is: and all good Catholics were then, and are now certain, that it can never be so, since Christ hath promised the contrary to S. Peter and his successors. And besides it is very strange, that Christ & Antichrist cannot have both one mark Christ and Antichrist should both have one mark. And that the arguments, which the old Fathers used against heretics, should come to be used by Antichrist against Catholics. But to these absurdities must they needs fall, who call light darkness, and darkness light, as M. Downam and all heretics do. M. Downam goeth forward with his distinctions and differences, affirming, that in ancient times, at other Churches did cleave to the Church of Rome, so did the Church of Rome cleave to them. Now it acknowledgeth no Church besides itself. All which is false; for now also other Churches cleave to the Church of Rome, as to their head; and the Church of Rome cleaveth to them as to her members; and it acknowledgeth many other particular Churches besides itself still, though all subject and subordinate to it as they were ever. How the Church of Rome is united & standeth with other Churches. And that which he addeth is a mere cavil; for the Church of Rome, if we understand that particular diocese, is still accounted but a part of the Catholic Church: and in this sense, a man may still be a good Christian, although he be not of the Church of Rome. And in ancient times, the Church of Rome alone (that is the Church, of which the Bishop of Rome is the chief Pastor) was accounted the Catholic Church. And consequently that he that was not a member of that Church was not taken for a Catholic or true Christian, as appeareth sufficiently by the places, which Bellarmine citeth, to which I will only add one more out of S. Hierome in his Epistle to Pope Damasus. I am united in Communion (saith he) to thy Blessedness, that is, to the Chair of Peter. I know that the Church was built upon that rock; whosoever eateth the Lamb out of this house, is profane: if any man be not in the Ark of Noah, he will perish in the deluge. I know not Vitalis, I refuse Those which belong not to the Church of Rome belong not to Christ but to Antichrist. Meletius, I esteem not Paulinus, whosoever gathereth not what thee scattereth, that is, whosoever belongeth not to Christ, belongeth to Antichrist. Now let M. Downam compare the writing of any Catholic at this time, and see if they attribute more to the Pope or Church of Rome at this time, then S. Hierome did at that; and with all consider, if in S. Hieromes judgement, it be not a plain mark of an Antichristian to be against the Roman Church, and of a good Christian to be united to it. 8. To the third objection M. Downam answereth, that the Oath which Bellarmine allegeth, is not an Oath of obedience, and allegiance to the Pope, but of faith and Religion towards God, conformable to the faith, and Religion then professed by the Bishop and The oath of obedience made to the B. of Rome before the year 606. Church of Rome. But by M. Downam's leave, the words of the Bishop are these: Sub meiordinis casu spondeo, atque promitto tibi, & part Sancto Petro Apostolorum principi, atque eius Vicario Beatissimo Gregorio, vel successoribus ipsius, me numquam etc. ad schismata reversurun, sed semper me in unitate Sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae, & communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum. Under peril of losing my place, I proffer & promise to thee, and by thee to S. Peter Prince of the Apostles, and to most blessed Gregory his Vicar, or to the successors of him, that I will never return to schism, but will always in all points remain in the unity of the holy Catholic Church, and in the communion of the B. of Rome. By which we see, that the promise to remayme in the communion of the Pope, was as absolute, as that other to remain in the unity of the Catholic Church: which I suppose M. Downam will admit to be perpetual without limitation of any tyme. And this promise he presently confirmeth with an Oath by Almighty God, by the 4. gospels which he held in his hands, and by the health of Nations, and of the rulers of his Common wealth. Now it is a frivolous cavil to say, that this Oath was taken upon the occasion of his lapse; for this Bellarmine denieth not, but only affirmeth that it was taken before the coming of Antichrist, according to the Protestant's account. Neither is it to the purpose, that now such Oaths are more general, and common; for this Bellarmine denieth not: and who seethe not that the exaction of Oaths may proceed upon divers occasions? And if the Oath be lawful, the often exacting of it is not culpable, but rather If the Oath be lawful, the often exacting of it is not culpable. commendable: arguing greater vigilancy in them, which govern. And the like may be said of some other clauses more expressly set down in some other forms of oaths, according to the necessity of times, and the qualities of them, who are to swear. M. Downam should show us that there is any oath exacted of any now, that is not fit to be performed by them, which think it necessary to live in the communion of the Pope, as this Bishop did, as appeareth by his Oath; wherein he promiseth as much in general, as any other can express in particular: for he protesteth, that he will never be drawn from this communion by any persuasions or any other means, and consequently that he will always remain in the obedience of the Pope; for he renounceth not any heresy, as M. Downam supposeth, but only schism, which he performed by returning ad unitatem Sedis Apostolicae, to the unity of the Apostolic Sea, which I heartily wish, that M. Downam and his fellow Protestants may also do; for otherwise it would not be sufficient to renounce their heresies, though this were a good step to that. To the fourth, after a fit of railing, M. Downam answereth Priestly unction used before the year 606. Desacra unctione c. Cum venisset. at length, that both the places of S. Gregory Nazianzen are to be understood figuratively of consecration to the Ministry: & this he endeavoureth to prove by the testimony of Innoc. 3. by which it appeareth that this ceremony of anointing was not used in the Greek Church, whereof Nazianzen was; but rejected as jewish, until he imposed the same upon them about the year 1200. But M. Downam goeth beyond Innocentius, for he only affirmeth that they, to whom he wrote, that is at the most, the Grecians of his time, were not wont to use this ceremony of anointing: but that the Greek Church had not used it before, Innocentius affirmeth not, and much less, that they had rejected it as jewish. Wherefore these are M. Downam's additions, which we may boldly reject, since he hath no proof for them, and consequently his figurative interpretation falleth to the ground, and we are to take the words of S. Gregory Nazianzen, as they sound, especially since others as ancient as he both of the Greek and Latin Church make express mention of this Ceremony, as M. Downam may see in Bellarmine lib. 1. de Sacramento Ordinis cap. 12. where he also handleth this objection out of Innocentius 3. and urgeth it further than M. Downam Bellarmin urgeth Downam's objection further than he doth himself. doth: whom I must entreat not to be angry though I pass over his railing in silence, since he saith nothing to the purpose which is not already answered; for now all our question is, how ancient this Ceremony is, and for the lawfulness thereof I remit him to the place of Bellarmine already alleged, where he solveth that objection taken from the jews, and whatsoever else M. Downam can invent. 10. To the fifth objection M. Downam's answer is, that S. Augustine is to be understood of Sacrifice of prayer, and not of any propitiatory Sacrifice; but by M. Downam's leave he cannot carry it so; for we will appeal to S. Chrysostome, S. Sacrifice for the dead used before the year 606. Cyril, and S. Augustine himself. For first S. Chrysostome lib. 6. de Sacerdotio writeth thus. The Priest is an Ambassador for the whole world, and an intercessor with God, that he willbe propitious to the sins of all men, not only of the living, but also of the dead. Cyrillus Hieros. cateches. 5. mystag. We believe (saith he) that it is the greatest help of those souls for which the obsecration of that holy and dreadful Sacrifice which is laid upon the Altar is offered. And S. Augustine himself quaest. 57 in Leuit. affirmeth, that in this Sacrifice, vera fit remissio peccatorum, sins are truly forgiven: and tract. 84. in joan. answering directly M. Downam's distinction, he writeth thus: Therefore at the Table in self we do not so make Commemoration of the Martyrs, as of others, who rest in peace so that we also pray for them: but rather that they may pray for us. By all which, it is plain, that in the time of these Saints, Masses were offered for the dead, in the very same manner, that they are offered now, and consequently this is no mark of Antichrist, except M. Downam willbe so bold, as to mark these holy Fathers with it, by which amongst wise men, he shall only get to himself the opinion of an impudent heretic, one of the forerunners of the true Antichrist indeed. 11. To the sixth (for we will omit his citation of Bishop jewel, as sufficiently answered by D. Harding) M. Downam answereth first, that the adoration, which holy S. Paula Adoration of Images used before the year 606. used, was not a common practice, but peculiar to her. But we must entreat him to let her have S. Hieromes company at least, who commendeth this her devotion. Secondly he saith, that it was not usual unto her, but only at that time, and that place. But how will he prove this? Was it not as much to kiss the stone of the Sepulchre, and to lick the place where Christ's body lay, as to kneel down before the Cross? Thirdly he saith, that the did not worship the Cross as Papists do, but falling before that Cross, worshipped Christ. Well then, will M. Downam be content to do as much? We will only desire thus much of him, that he will apply that outward reverence to the Cross, because it representeth Christ, whom he inwardly submitteth himself unto, and adoreth. And so much it is plain, that S. Paula did in this and her other actions of kissing and licking the Sepulchre: and in this sort How Latria is given to the Cross by Catholics. only do we attribute the worship of Latria to the Cross, so that the outward reverence be exhibited to the Cross, as a thing belonging to Christ, to whom the inward submission is wholly and entirely given. To the authority of S. Amborse for the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, he answereth, that Christ may be adored in his Sacraments; but the Sacrament is not to be adored. To which I Adoration of the Eucharist used before the year 606. answer, that we adore the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament, which the Protestants will not allow of, but S. Ambrose doth, & the Sacrament itself, that is, even the form of bread and wine may be adored in that manner, that we have explicated of the Cross, that is, as a thing belonging to Christ; but always the inward submission and adoration is to be referred to the person of Christ, which must needs be in the Sacrament, since his body and humanity is there, as S. Ambrose affirmeth. Now that which M. Downam addeth out of S. Ambrose in the same place, is nothing to the purpose. For we know very well, that our B. Lady is not to be adored with that adoration, which is due to the Holy Ghost and Christ, which is all that S. Ambrose there affirmeth, as appeareth evidently even by those words which M. Downam allegeth. Finally his evasion to the authority of S. Augustine is very frivolous, for he never goeth about to answer the words, but supposeth that S. Augustine would not affirm the real presence which yet his words must needs import, since he saith that we eat Christ's flesh, and that no man eateth, but he first adoreth: which is the very same, that M. Downam will needs have to be the mark of Antichrist: so that if we will believe him, all the Christians in S. Augustine's time had the mark of Antichrist: for which his pleading no doubt if M. Downam live to see antichrist's reign, he shall have a good fee; and howsoever, he cannot go unrewarded, since the Dragon to whom Antichrist belongeth taketh a record of all such worthy enterpryzes, that tend so highly to the advancement of his Kingdom. God grant that M. Downam may take a better course in time. 12. Thus we might conclude this Chapter, but that we will not omit to examine how M. Downam impugneth the Catholics opinion in general, for that they seem to num. 3. agree in this, that the Character is a visible mark of antichrist's name which notwithstanding he might have seen denied by Bellarmine, proving out of the Scripture that the mark of Antichrist and his name, or the number of his name are not all one. But indeed that which M. Downam chiefly impugneth is, that it shallbe visible, and yet in this num. 2. also he is deceived. For S. Hippolytus Martyr thought, that i● should be a privative sign, that is, the not using the sign of the Cross, which is the mark of Christ: for which M. Downam was so angry with him, and with Bellarmine both that he calleth him a counterfeit Author, and chargeth the other with falsifying his testimony. But for S. Hippolytus, Eusebius l. 6. cap. 14. and S. Hierome in Scriptoribus will answer, who recount many of his learned works, and S. Hierome nameth this of Antichrist. & S. Ambrose the Martyr thought him a fit man to propose to learned Origen to imitate▪ Now how Bellarmine hath falsified his testimony, M. Downam doth not tell us, nor we can imagine, except it be, for that illation of his, that in S. Hippolytus his judgement, Protestants are notable forerunners of Antichrist, which notwithstanding is most manifest, since they neither use themselves, nor will suffer others by their good will, to use the sign of the Cross upon their foreheads, or to carry the picture of it in their hands, or to have it before their eyes, as the Christians used in S. Hippolytus days (who lived not 200. years after Christ's Passion) and Catholics use to this day. But let us see, how M. Downam impugneth those Catholic antichrist's mark shallbe visible. Authors, that think it shallbe a visible mark: his first argument is, because it is a gross thing to imagine, that Princes and Magistrates, and men of all sorts would ever suffer themselves to be branded, as it were with antichrist's visible mark. To which I answer, that it were gross indeed to imagine so, if these Princes etc. were not forced unto it by danger of incurring otherwise some greater inconvenience, because it is not probable, that all shallbe so far gone that they will glory in antichrist's mark, though no doubt many will, and others will seem to do so, though in their hearts they mislike it. Neither are we to think, that Antichrist shall want devices how to do this without pain or deformity. But I would feign know, where M. Downam found this imagination of branding, for I cannot see why all Catholics may not be understood to speak only of such a visible mark, as the sign of the Cross, which is visible enough, and yet we see no man branded with it. His second Argument is▪ that if this were Antichrist, practise, every man would be able to discern him. But what meaneth M. Downam by discerning. No doubt men shall discern him to be an enemy of Christ, and the question in those days willbe, which of them is the true Christ, for he will affirm himself not only to be the true Christ, but also will extol himself above all, that is called God. Thirdly M. Downam objecteth the ordinary gloss, Downam contradicteth himself. Antoninus, and Lira, and referreth himself to some places of Scripture: by all which he only overthroweth his own assertion, that all Catholics agree that antichrist's mark shallbe such a visible sign, as he impugneth, since now he himself hath found some who think otherwise: and beside, this is a new confirmation, that this Character is yet unknown since that Authors are so divided in their opinions concerning it. Finally, so far, as these Authors agree See part. 2. cap. 8. §. 4. with the heretics or differ from Bellarmine, they are sufficiently confuted by him, with the same arguments with which he impugned the heretics themselves. And as for the Scriptures we shall more commodiously discuss them in another place, where M. Downam urgeth them somewhat more in particular, for now he allegeth them only in general, and so we answer in general, that though other places cannot without absurdity be understood of visible marks, yet that proveth not, but that this place is so to be understood, since no doubt, some marks may be visible, and all circumstances argue a visible mark in this place, though we cannot in particular certainly tell, what this mark shallbe, which is a plain token, that Antichrist is not yet come as M. Downam maketh Bellarmine to reason in this place, and he himself demonstrateth a little before, applying it to Antichrist name, as we have seen. THE TWELFTH CHAPTER. Of antichrist's Generation. AS for the fifth (saith Bellarmine) of the Generation of Antichrist there are some things evidently erroneous affirmed by some; some things probable, and some manifest and certain. First then, there were in times past many errors of Antichrist. The first, that Antichrist shallbe borne of a Virgin by the work of the Devil, as Christ was borne of a Virgin by the work of the holy Ghost. This error is reported by the Author of the Treatise of Antichrist which goeth under S. Augustine's name in the end of his 9 Tom, which seemeth probable to be made by Rabanus: certainly it is not S. Augustine's. This is a manifest error for it is only the work of God (who can supply all efficient causes) to produce a man without the seed of man, because he only is of infinite power and containeth virtually all the perfection of creature's. The Devil who is a creature can indeed do marvelous works by speedy application of active things to passive, but he cannot supply the activity of causes. Wherefore S. Augustine ep. 3. ad Volusian. saith, that to be borne of a Virgin was such a miracle in Christ, that there could not be a greater expected from God. Yet it were no error to say, that Antichrist shall be borne of the Devil and a woman, in that sort that some are said to be borne of the Devils, which we call Incubi: for though the Devil cannot by himself without the seed of man produce a man, yet he can in a body assumed in the form of a woman, receive the seed of man, and after in the form of a man cast that seed into a woman's womb & so beget a child. This S. Augustine testifieth lib. 15. de civitate Dei cap. 23. and addeth, that this hath been proved by so great experience, that it may seem madness to go about to deny it still. The second error was of the blessed Martyr Hippolytus who in orat. de consummatione mundi teacheth, that Antichrist shallbe the Devil himself, who shall assume false flesh of a false Virgin: for as the word of God, who is truth itself, took true flesh of a true Virgin; so S. Hippolytus thought it probable, that the Devil who is the Father of lies would feign himself to have taken man's flesh of a Virgin. This opinion is refuted, both because 2. Thessaly. 2. Antichrist is called a man, as also because the rest of the Fathers with common consent do write, that Antichrist shallbe truly a man. The third error is, that Antichrist shallbe a true man indeed, but withal a Devil by the incarnation of the Devil, as Christ by his incarnation is God and man. This error is reported and confuted by S. Hierome in cap. 7. Dan. Beda in c. 13. Apoc. and S. Damaseen l. 4. c. 28. Origen thought this opinion possible: for Tom. 2. in joan. he affirmed, that some Angels were truly incarnate, whom S. Hierome confuteth in praefat. in Malach. & in cap. 1. Aggaei. And doubtless it is erroneous, for no created, and consequently finite person can sustain two perfect natures as the Word of God who is infinite can. Neither is there any controversy of this now among Divines: for though some say that it doth altogether imply a contradiction, others teach it doth not: vet all agree in this, that it cannot be done by the force of only a creature, as the Devil is. The fourth error is, that Nero shall rise again, and that he shallbe Antichrist, or else that he liveth still, and is secretly preserved in his youthly vigour, and shall appear in his tyme. Sulpitius lib. 2. sacrae hist. insinuateth this error; yet lib. 2. dial. de virt. S. Martini, he writeth plainly, that Nero shall not be Antichrist himself, but that he shall come with Antichrist, and at length be slain by Antichrist. But because all these things are said without any reason, S. Aug. lib. 20. de ciu. Dei. cap. 19 deservedly calleth this opinion a marvelous presumption. Besides these errors, there are two probable opinions of the holy Fathers, of the generation of Antichrist. The first is, that Antichrist shallbe borne of an Harlot, and not of any lawful matrimony. So teach S. Damascen lib. 4. c. 28. and some others. But since it cannot be proved by Scripture, it is probable, but not certain. The second opinion is, that Antichrist shallbe borne of the Tribe of Dan: so affirm S. Irenaeus l. 5. S. Hippolytus Martyr orat. de mundi consummate. S. Ambrose l. de benedict. Patriarch. c. 7. S. Aug. quaest. 22. in joshua. S. Prosper de promission. & praedict. Dei part. 4. Theodoret. quaest. 109. in Gen. S. Greg. l. 31. moral. c. 18. Beda, Rupertus, Arethas, Richardus & Ansel. in Apoc. c. 7. They prove it out of Genesis 49. Fiat Dan coluber in via, cerastes in semita etc. and ex Hier. 8. Ex Dan audivimus fremitum equorum eius etc. Finally because Apoc. 7. where 12000. are signed by the Angel out of every Tribe of the children of Israel, the Tribe of Dan is omitted, which seemeth to be done in hatred to Antichrist. This opinion is very probable, for the authority of so many Fathers, and yet not altogether certain, both because many of these Fathers do not say, that they know it, but insinuate it to be probable; as also for that none of those Scriptures do convince. For first Gen. 49. jacob seemeth to speak literally of Samson when he saith: Let Dan be made a Snake in the way, an horned Serpent in the path: and let him bite the heels of the horse, that the rider may fall backward. For Samson was of the Tribe of Dan, and he was truly like a snake in the way to the Philistians, for he met them in every place and vexed them. So S. Hierome expoundeth it in quaest. Hebr. and surely jacob seemeth to wish well to his Son, when he saith these words, and therefore not to foretell evil, but good. And if it be allegorically applied to Antichrist, it can be but a probable argument, such as is drawn out of mystical senses. And without doubt Hieremie cap. 8. speaketh not of Antichrist, nor of the Tribe of Dan, but of Nabuchodonosor who was to come to overthrow Jerusalem through the Country which was called Dan, as S. Hierome rightly expoundeth it upon that place. Now why Dan is omitted Apoc. 7. is unknown, especially since Ephraim also is omitted, whose Tribe is one of the greatest. Besides these two probable assertions, there are other two most certain: the one, that Antichrist shall chief come for the jews, and shallbe received by them as the Messiah. The other that he shallbe borne of the Nation of the jews, and be circumcised and observe the Sabbath at least for a tyme. This is proved, first out of the Gospel joan. 5. where our Lord saith to the jews: I came in the name of my Father, and you have not received me: if another come in his own name, him you will receive. Which place that it ought to be understood of Antichrist we have proved before cap. 2. Likewise out of the Apostle 2. Thessaly. 2. Because they have not received the charity of Truth, that they may be saved: therefore God shall send them the operation of Error, that they may believe a lie etc. Caluin and other Heretics in their Commentaries upon these words expound this place of us, who because we have not received their Gospel, are suffered to be seduced by the Antichrist of Rome. But first they bring forth no witnesses, but we have all the Interpreters of our side who expound it of the jews. See S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, Theodoretus, Theophilactus, Oecumenius. Besides these, S. Hierome quaest. 11. ad Algasiam, saith thus: Antichrist shall do all these things, not with power, but by the permission of God; for the jews, that because they would not receive the charity of Truth, that is the spirit of God by Christ, that receiving our Saviour they may be saved; God shall send them, not the worker, but the work or operation, that is, the fountain of Error, that they may believe a lie etc. And also without the Commentaries of so many Fathers, the thing itself speaketh, that the Apostle speaketh of the jews: for he saith that Antichrist is to be sent to those who would not receive Christ. Now, who ought more, and would not receive Christ then the jews? Where it is also to be noted, that the Apostle said not, because they will not receive the Truth, but, because they have not received. Wherefore he speaketh of them who would not believe when Christ and the Apostles preached. Now it is manifest, that in the Apostles time, the gentils received the Gospel with exceeding great desire, and the jews would not receive it. Moreover, besides S. Hierome & the others already alleged, all the other Fathers teach the same, as S. Irenaeus lib. 5 S. Hippolytus Mart. orat. de consummatione mundi, Theodoret in epit. divin. decret cap. de Antichristo. Sulpit. ex B. Martino l. 2. dial. S. Cyril catech. 15. S. Hilar. can. 25. in Matth. S. Ambros. l. 10. in Luc. in cap. 21. S. Chrysost. S. August. S. Cyril. Alex. in cap. 5. joan. S. Gregor. lib. 31. moral. cap. 10. S. Damascen lib. 4. c. 28. And reason also persuadeth the same. For without doubt Antichrist shall first join himself to those who are ready to receive him. But the jews are of this sort who expect their Messiah a temporal King, as Antichrist shallbe. But the Christians expect indeed Antichrist, but with fear and terror, not with joy and desire. Wherefore as Christ came first to the jews to whom he was promised, and of whom he was expected, and afterward drew the gentils also unto him. So also Antichrist shall come first to the jews, of whom he is expected, and after by little and little, shall subject all Nations unto him. Now that Antichrist shallbe a jew and circumcised, it is certain, and deduced out of that which hath been said: for the jews would never receive one that were no jew, or that were uncircumcised for their Messiah. Yea because the jews expect their Messiah of the family of David and the Tribe of juda, without doubt Antichrist although he be truly of the Tribe of Dan, will feign himself to be of the family of David. Secondly all the Ancients teach most clearly, that Antichrist shallbe a jew, as those 12. alleged a little before, who say that he shallbe of the Tribe of Dan; and besides S. Ambrose, who in 2. Thess. 2. affirmeth that he shallbe circumcised, and S. Hierome, who in cap. 11. Dan. saith that he shallbe borne of the people of the jews, and S. Martin apud Sulpit. l. 2. dial. that Antichrist shall command that all be circumcised, according to the law of Moses, and S. Ciryl, who Cateches, 15. affirmeth, that he shallbe very careful of the Temple of Jerusalem, that he may show himself to be of the progeny of David. Finally S. Gregory who lib. 11. ep. 3. saith that Antichrist shallbe a reverencer of the Saboth and other jewish Ceremonies. Hence we have a most evident demonstration, that the Pope is not Antichrist. For from the year 606. in which our Adversaries say that Antichrist came, it is manifest, that no Pope was a jew, neither by Nation nor by Religion, nor in any sort. It is also manifest, that the Pope was never yet received by the jews for the Mesias, but contrary wise is accounted their enemy, and chief perfecutor. Wherefore they in their daily prayers ask of God, that he will give the Pope then living a good mind towards the jews, and that in his days he will send the Messiah, viz. that he may deliver them out of the Pope's power: and they call a Bishop, as chief the Pope is, in the Syrian language Zanbon, which signifieth a Tail, and is opposite to an head: for because we call the Bishop the Head of the people, they contrary wise call him the Tail in reproach; so far are they off from being ready to receive the Pope for their Messiah. Finally Rab. Levi Gerson cap. 7. and 11. Dan. expoundeth all those things which are spoken of Antichrist, of the Pope, whom also he calleth another Pharaoh, and opposeth him to the Messiah which is to come. See orationes Mahasor, sol. 26. M. Downams Answer confuted. 1. TO this Argument, first M. Downam objecteth in general, that in all this dispuration Bellarmine presupposeth, See cap. ●. that Antichrist is but one singular person; which though it were trne, yet he did presuppose nothing but what he had proved before, which I remit to the Readers judgement. Downam's absurdity. But now indeed this argument presupposeth no such thing, but is of much moreforce, if we speak of many than if we speak only of one, for it is most evident, that neither all the Popes since 607. were jews not that the jews have received them as their Messiah: both which things shallbe verified in Antichrist, be he one man or many, as Bellarmine most certainly proveth. Secondly M. Downam noteth briefly three points out of the errors which Bellarmine rejecteth. First his cunning in that he imitateth crafty tradesmen, who being desirous to utter their bad wares at a good price, first show those that are worse, that the naughtiness of the worse may comnend and set forth those that be not so bad. But where M. Downam learned this cunning, or of what tradesmen I know not, except he meaneth those of his own profession: but sure I am that no tradesman can deal more plainly and sincerely, than Bellarmine doth, telling us what wares are so bad, that by no means they are to be dealt withal. Again what wares are likely to be very good, Bellarmine's sincere dealing. but yet some doubt may be made of them, which he declareth and urgeth to the uttermost. Finally what they are also, that are out of all question, being generally warranted by all the most skilful and honest Merchants. This is Bellarmine's proceeding in this, and all other difficulties, as the Reader may easily perceive by perusing his works, and in particular this place. Now, how this can be disliked by any good and substantial chapman, I cannot imagine; only some crafty and deceitful Merchant may be hindered thereby to utter his broken trash, and therefore out of envy cavil at him, as M. Downam doth. His second note is, that S. Hippolytus is the Father of one of these errors: upon whose counterfeit authority (saith M. Downam) the Papists in other points concerning this controversy do so muchrely. But it M. Downam had as much wit, as he hath malice, he might have noted out of this place in what manner we esteem the authority of any Father, though never so ancient or grave, viz. if he holdeth any thing against all the rest, and against a plain place of Scripture, in the interpretation of which all the rest agree, we altogether reject the authority of that Father. If he affirmeth any thing without evident proof, How Catholics esteem of the Fathers. in which the rest are silent, and yet he hath probability for that he saith, we admit of his authority as probable: and this so much the more or less, as we find more or fewer of his opinion, or that they affirm it with more certainty and resolution, or bring better proofs for that they say. But yet so long as we find any controversy among the Fathers, or that they vary in their expositions of any place of Scripture, we hold it not altogether certain that the greater part affirm, except the matter be decided by the successors of S. Peter, and the other Pastors of the Church to whom it doth belong to decide and define such controversies. But when all the Fathers agree it were more than rashness, yea plain madness to go against the whole stream of all antiquity either in opinions belonging to faith, or in the exposition of the Scripture. And by this M. Downam may see, that though we esteem the authority of S. Hippolytus much, yet it alone is no certain ground of our Faith, though we are far from rejecting him altogether, or calling him counterfeit, as M. Downam doth, without any other reason then that he displeaseth him, as commonly all other Fathers do. M. Downam's third observation is, that these opinions (which Bellarmine calleth errors) show into what absurdities men do fall, when as they will needs be comparing Christ with Antichrist, as the Papists in many things do. But he should have added, that these absurdities fall out, when these comparisons are made without any sound or sufficient ground, which the Papists do not in any thing at all, as appeareth plainly by this whole Treatise, and may in part be gathered by this, that Bellarmine rejecteth those conceits that were only grounded upon these similitudes, because they were only builded upon them, and are repugnant to other former grounds. 2. Thus M. Downam passeth over the errors, and cometh to the two probable opinions, about which he liketh Bellarmine's judgement well enough, in that he thinketh M. Downam's juggling. neither of them certain, but maketh no mention of the other part in which he affirmeth that the latter is very probable for the authority of the Fathers. M. Downam liketh also so well of Bellarmine's interpretation of the two first places of Scripture, that he would challenge them to be his own, or at least to belong to his fellows. For in the first he plainly saith, that Bellarmine answereth with them; and in Gen. 49. jerem. 8. the second he relateth it so cunningly, that if the Reader be not very wary, he will easily think, that Bellarmine were against S. Hierome, and that M. Downam had found it out. In the third place, M. Downam goeth against Bellarmine, affirming that the tribe of Ephraim is not left out, but understood by the Tribe of joseph, in which I like his judgement very well, for indeed (as Ribera and others upon this The tribe of Ephraim, not omitted. Apoc. 7. place, prove very well) the Tribe of Ephraim is in other places called the Tribe of joseph, as Psal. 77. Ezech. 27. Amos 5. and the reason is, because though Ephraim were the younger brother, yet he was preferred before Manasses the elder Gen. 48. But what hath M. Downam gained by this? Is not this rather a confirmation of the Father's opinion, that Antichrist M. Downam impugneth himself. shallbe borne of the Tribe of Dan, since that only was omitted in this place? Yea but (saith M. Downam) simeon is not mentioned in the blessing of Moses Deut. 33. no more than Dan in the Apocalyps. But he himself confesseth, that simeon is comprehended under juda, but that Dan is altogether omitted, Deut. 33. which as you see is a great difference. And besides though simeon were altogether omitted also, the reason were to be found out and not put off with another difficulty. Wherefore Why Moses omitted simeon in his blessing. there be two reasons why he was not mentioned by Moses. First because that Tribe was not to have any particular possession distinct from the rest in the land of Promise but only some small portion among those of juda, for which cause, as it seemeth M. Downam saith, that simeon is comprehended under juda in this place, to which we may add that other observation of S. Hierome in quaest. Hebr. that in process of time, the Tribe of simeon was constrained to go into the desert because they had not possession sufficient for them, after they were multiplied, which he proveth out of 1. Paral. 4. But though this reason be probable, ●et the two Apollinarij give another more certain, for this reason would also have excluded the Tribe of Levi which had no particular possession in the Land of Promise, but was Why the Tribe of Levi is often omitted. divided among all the Tribes: for which cause when mention is made of the Tribes in respect of their temporal possessions, the Tribe of Levi is omitted. But here we see, that Moses maketh most honourable mention of Levi. Wherefore the two Apollinarij with whom also agreeth Caietan, and Lippomanus rather think, that Moses made no mention of Caiet. in Genes. simeon, by reason of the curse which jacob laid upon him, together with Levi upon his deathbed, from which the Tribe of Levi was freed, by the zeal which the showed in God's cause against Idolatry at Moses his commandment, by which they wiped away the curse which jacob had laid upon them for their fury and unjust revenge, and consecrated their hands to God, and deserved to have a benediction given them as we see that Moses gave them, absolving them from their Father jacobs' malediction, but passing over simeon Exod. 32. in silence, & Deo judicandum relinquens, and leaving him to God's judgement, as the elder Apollinarius writeth, with whom agreeth the assertion of the jews, that there was not a poor Scribe nor Schoolmaster among all the Tribes, but he was of the Tribe of simeon, many of them (as it seemeth) being constrained by necessity to seek their living by that means, as others were enforced to fly the country, and so jacobs' Prophecy was fulfilled in both these Tribes, that they were divided and dispersed through jacob and Israel, but with this difference, that Levi lived with great authority and plenty, and simeon in great disgrace and poverty: which perhaps was also insinuated by the holy Patriarch by those distinct words of dividing and dispersing in jacob and Israel. So that now we have the reason why simeon was omitted Deut. 33. but still we seek for this other, why Dan is omitted Apoc. 7. And M. Downam giveth us a general reason why some one was to be left out, viz. because Levi was Why the Tribe of Dan is omitted Apoc. 7. put in, and consequently if all the rest had been recited, there should have been 13. Whereas he supposeth that the Holy Ghost would neither number more nor less than 12. But first this were strange, that the Holy Ghost should stand so precisely upon any number. And if a Papist should do so, M. Downam would exclaim against him for superstition. Secondly Moses Deut. 33. indeed numbereth only 1●. Tribes, for he includeth Ephraim and Manesses under the name of joseph, as he himself expresseth in the end of his benediction, and M. Downam well observeth that the like is to be seen Deut. 27. and Ezech. 48. Thirdly our difficulty is not now why any Tribe is omitted; but why rather the Tribe of Dan then any other. And to this M. Downam answereth, that the reason is, because that was the first Tribe which fell from God unto Idolatry: and that for the same cause (as some think) the Genealogy of that Tribe is omitted in the first book of Chronicles. But this is not a good reason, for though it were true, that the Tribe of Dan fell first from God to Idolatry, yet this is no particular cause, why that The Tribe of Dan fell not first to Idolatry Exod. 32. Num. 25. Ios. 22. Tribe should be omitted only in these two places and in no other, and besides it is not true, that this Tribe fell first to Idolatry: for all the Tribes are said to have fallen together, when they worshipped the calf, and after again Beelphegor, which seemeth to be particularly objected to the Tribe of Reuben, and God, and the half Tribe of Manasses, by Phinees and the 10. Princes of the other 10. Tribes. And in the time of the judges almost in every Chapter, there is mention made of the people's falling to Idolatry without any particular mention of Dan, and even that particular Idolatry judic. 17. 18. which M. Downam seemeth to aim at, was not begun by the Tribe of Dan, but by Michas of the mountain of Ephraim from whom those of Dan took perforce his idols and Priest: which indeed was a great sin in them, but not the first, nor yet the greatest, and therefore not a sufficient reason why the Tribe of Dan should be omitted only in these two places, as M. Downam will needs affirm against the Fathers, but indeed proveth nothing at all against them. For suppose his reason were good, yet that is no hindrance, why the reason of the Fathers should not be good also: for why might not this Tribe be omitted for both these reasons, and the latter which these Fathers bring be a punishment of the former, which M. Downam allegeth? For since S. john speaketh of those which shallbe saved of the jews in the time of Antichrist, and only omitteth the Tribe of Dan, of which he reckoneth none to be saved, is it not more then probable that the cause of this is, because the Tribe of Dan shall wholly give themselves to Antichrist Antichrist shall be of the Tribe of Dan. as to the head of their Tribe? And likewise since the chief reason why the genealogies of the Tribes are rehearsed, is because Christ was to be borne of one of them, may it not be very well thought that in hatred of Antichrist, which was to be of the Tribe of Dan, the Genealogy of that Tribe was omitted? though indeed this latter proveth no more of the Tribe of Dan, then of diverse other Tribes, whose genealogies were also omitted in that place; and therefore no marvel, though the Fathers made no inference out of this, as M. Downam and some of his friends not very wisely do. 3. M. Downam having thus agreed with Bellarmine in not admitting the Father's opinion in this point, though he differeth in this, that Bellarmine thinketh it very probable for their authority, which he doth not; he would by this precedent prove, that they may lawfully reject the Downam impugneth the Father's authority. Father's authority in all other points concerning Antichrist, when it seemeth to them the Fathers allege not the Scriptures in their true sense. But first M. Downom must remember, that an universal is not to be inferred from a particular. Secondly Bellarmine rejecteth not the authority of these Fathers, but admitteth their opinion as probable, which is as much as they themselves for the most part affirmed, and so indeed Bellarmine followed them so far as they would have him. Thirdly Bellarmine had the authority of some Fathers for his exposition of the two first places, and therefore he might well follow their opinion, especially since most of the other did rather follow the mystical, than the literal sense. In the third place where he brought no authority for himself, M. Downam did rightly correct him, showing his instance to be very probable, though still there remaineth some question why Ephraim was not named as well as Manasses, but comprehended under the name of joseph. Fourthly therefore M. Downam hath no reason to reject all the Fathers, when they agree without contradiction or doubt, nor to make himself wiser than he is, to take upon him to understand the Scripture better than they all; yea though their arguments out of the Scripture should be only from the mystical sense, yet he may well assure himself, that they would never be so resolute, except they had some other good ground of divine or Apostolical tradition, known by them to have been taught by the Apostles, and from their time, from age to age conserved in the Church: for which reason I also incline to think that it is in a manner certain, that Antichrist shallbe of the Tribe of Dan, since so many Fathers affirm it without contradiction of any. 4. But let us pass over this argument as Bellarmine doth, making it only probable and not certain, and come to those others, that are most evident and certain. Against which M. Downam first objecteth, that Antichrist shall not be one singular man: which I have already showed to be both false and impertine●. Secondly he saith, that these opinions may be num. 1. disproved by Scripture, because Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, that is, shall reign in the Church of Christ. But of this we shall See Cap. 13. have occasion to treat afterward. Besides saith he, Bellarmine confesseth, that Antichrist shallbe the head of the Apostasy, that is, backsliding Christians, Ergo, not of the jews. But M. Downam might easily have considered, that Antichrist may be the head of both, as Bellarmine affirmeth. After this he noteth that Antichrist shallbe head of the Roman State, and have his Seat in Rome, which how true it is we shall see afterward. Now I would See cap. 13. feign know why a jew may not have both these conditions. Lastly M. Downam would know, when the jews shallbe called to Christ? To which I answer that some shallbe called in antichrist's reign, but the most after his fall, which shallbe not long before the end of the world, as we have already seen in part. 5. Thus hath this wise man shot his bolt, and now he holdeth up his buckler to bear off Bellarmine's Artillery: and first to the testimony of S. john 5. 43. he saith, that he hath proved before, that our Saviour speaketh not absolutely but conditionally, Io. 5. not definitely, but indefinitely, and only of the jews present which Cap. 2. are dead long since: but all these shifts are confuted long since at large, and therefore it were needless to repeat them, or confute them here again. 6. The second testimony 2. Thess. 2. troubleth him somewhat more, and therefore his tongue runneth at random, 2. Thess. 2. explicating the place at large after his own fancy and railing against Catholics, but objecteth nothing worth the answering: the most that he hath to the purpose is, that the Apostles words may be applied to all others that follow Antichrist aswell as to the jews. In which we will not stand with him; but now our question is, whether the jews be included in these words or no, and Bellarmine saith they are, and that chief: and this he proveth out of the Scripture itself. First because none ought more, and would less receive Christ then the jews. 7. To which M. Downam answereth not a word, but that the Rhemists confess, that others may be said not to receive the love of the Truth also. But what is this to the purpose? Do the Rhemists, or can any other deny that none refused more to receive the love of the Truth than the jews? And yet this is all the answer, that M. Downam giveth, but falleth into a rage, and railing again like a man more than half beside himself; yet after a while, he cometh to himself again, and returneth to Bellarmine's second proof out of the Scripture, where he noteth, that the Apostle speak in the preter tense, of the refusers to receive the Truth, and in the future tense of the coming & receiving of Antichrist: out of which he inferreth, that he is to be understood of the jews, who were they that chief had refused to receive Christ in the Apostles tyme. To which M. Downam answereth, that this preter tense is not to be referred to the time of the Apostles writing, but to the time of their punishment. By which as you see, he maketh the preter and future tense all one, or at least joineth them together, expounding the later part of the Apostles words in English thus: That all may be condemned, that shall not have believed the Truth, but shall have delighted in iniquity, and willing us to confer this place with Mar. 16. 16. which he likewise expoundeth in the same manner: He that shall have believed, and shall have been baptised, shallbe saved; but he that shall not have believed, shallbe condemned, though in both places, he is enforced to confess that the greek is the preter tense, and he dareth not translate it otherwise, howsoever he expounds it. So that unless we will stand to M. Downam● exposition rather then to the words of the Scripture, we are to understand all this of the preter tense only, as the condemnation, and the receiving of Antichrist in the future tense only, which is a plain sign, that all this is not to be understood of the same time, as is also evident by the thing itself, for men refuse to believe, and to be baptised in this life when they are preached unto, but they are condemned in the other life, when all Sermons are at an end for them. And this out saviours words signify most exactly, if M. Downam's commentary be taken away. And yet the matter is more clear in the words, which Bellarmine urgeth, in which there is no Participle in the Greek, as in the places which M. Downam compareth, but the Verb itself; which cannot well be understood, but of things truly passed, as neither the Verb in the future tense, but of things truly to come; and since the Apostle limitteth not that preter tense to any other time, as our Saviour doth: it must be understood to signify that, which was passed before the time of his writing. But M. Downam objecteth further, that if Bellarmine will needs urge the preter tense, as though the Apostle meant that Antichrist should be received only of those, who before that time had rejected the truth, he must withal hold, that Antichrist shallbe received in the end of the world of those who died above 1500. years since. But this is both a false, and frivolous objection: false, because it addeth the word Downam falsifieth Bellarmine's words. (only) which Bellarmine hath nor, for he never went about to prove, that only the jews should receive Antichrist, but that they should receive him: frivolous, because the Apostle & Bellarmine also speak of the Nation of the jews, and not of any particular men, as is manifest to any that is not wilfully blinded with malice, of which number it grieveth me that M. Downam will needs be one. 8. To the authority of the Fathers, M. Downam briefly answereth, that there is no probability in their assertion or exposition no more then in the former, that Antichrist should be of the Tribe of Dan, or in their expositions of the places of Scripture, which they brought to that effect, which (saith he) no man now, unless he willbe too ridiculous can understand of Antichrist. Where I desire the Reader to consider the little account that M. Downam maketh of all the Fathers, when they make against Downam rejecteth the Fathers. him: and as for his similitude, I have already showed how unlike it is, aswell because the Fathers speak not resolutely themselves in that point, as they do in this, and also because all the Fathers do not agree in that assertion or exposition. And yet M. Downam is very insolent in condemning all for ridiculous, which follow the Father's exposition of those places of Scripture: for first there is no doubt, but that the two former may be mystically so understood, and the last can have no other probable sense, as hath sufficiently appeared. Neither is that objection of his worth the answering, by which he would prove, that the Fathers might aswell prove, that Antichrist shall be of the Tribe of Benjamin, because of him it is said in the same place, that he shall reign as a wolf, for M. Downam might have added the other clause, which is to be taken in good num. 2. part, and therefore cannot be applied to Antichrist, but to some other who shall change his condition, and of a ravening wolf become a glorious Preacher, and Apostle of Christ, as S. Paul did, of whom some of the Fathers mystically expound those words. Wherefore M. Downam must be content, though much against his will, that both these assertions and expositions have that probability and certainty, which the Fathers affirm that they have, as Bellarmine hath sufficiently declared. 9 Lastly to Bellarmine's reason M. Downam answereth, that Antichrist shall join himself, not to any whatsoever, but to those in the Church, that are ready to receive him. For proof whereof he allegeth S. Cyprian epist. 1. lib. 1. where he affirmeth that the Devil troubleth the servants of God, and Antichrist impugneth Christians, and seeketh not those whom he hath already subdued, or desireth to overthrow those whom he hath already made his own etc. Which in truth is a strange proof (if you mark it well) for M. Downam ridiculously impugneth himself. Bellarmine speaketh not a word of troubling, impugning, or overthrowing, but only of joining with the jews as with friends; and M. Downam to prove, that Antichrist shall not join with them, so allegeth S. Cyprian, who affirmeth that he shall impugn christian's. Would any man take M. Downam for a Doctor or Reader of Divinity, that should hear him dispute thus grossly, bringing quid, pro quo, and impugning himself instead of his adversary? But let us pity his folly, and affirm with S. Cyprian and Bellarmine, that Antichrist shall impugn Christians, and to that effect, first join himself to the jews. To Bellarmine's minor, that the jews are ready to receive Antichrist, M. Downam hath nothing to answer directly, but only repeateth certain assertions of his own, that Antichrist shall not be one particular man etc. which have, and shall be confuted in their due places. But now M. Downam should have impugned Bellarmine's proof, which is, that the jews expect a temporal King, as Antichrist shall be, and not only affirm upon his bare word, that Antichrist shall not b● such a one, as the expected Messiah of the jews, and that there is no necessity, that there should such a one come to the jews as they expect: both which assertions are overthrown by Bellarmine's reasons and other proofs. And to the second part, that Christians expect Antichrist with fear and terror, M. Downam only answereth, that unsound and backsliding Christians, are ready to receive Antichrist. By which, if he meaneth, The difference betwixt Christians and jews in expecting Antichrist. that they are in great danger to be drawn to him by little and little, it is very true, and that which Bellarmine affirmeth: but if he would say, that they expect Antichrist with joy and desire, as the jews do, he is far wide: for the jews will receive him the sooner because he is against Christ, which very few Christians though never so unsound will yield to at the first, but rather be terrified with the very mention thereof, as M. Downam may experience amongst Protestants, whom we account unsound Christians, and the world will testify of all Catholics, whom he taketh to be such. Now for his supposition, that Antichrist is come, and that the Pope is Antichrist, we know this to be the question and main controversy, and therefore cannot but acknowledge M. Downam's ordinary fault, which is petitio principij. 10. M. Downam having thus worthily answered Bellarmine's first certain position, he cometh to the second, which is, that Antichrist shall be a jew: which Bellarmine proveth out of his former assertion, that the jews shall receive Antichrist, which they would never do, except he Antichrist shall be a jew. were a jew. To which M. Downam answereth, that he hath overthrown that former assertion: which how true it is, I remit to the Readers judgement. Secondly he objecteth, that the Herodians received Herod for their Messiah, but he doth well not The Herodians. to stand upon this; for the solution is evident, for these Herodians were a few flattering Courtiers, & now we speak of the whole Nation of the jews, and chief of those great rabbins who profess so great knowledge in Scripture, which teacheth most evidently, that the Messiah is to be of the jewish nation, and the Tribe of juda, though for this second, they cannot now much strive, because their Genealogies are so confounded: and so it will be no hard matter for Antichrist to be taken for one of the Tribe of juda, though indeed he be of the Tribe of Dan. To the authority of the Fathers, he answereth according Downam rejecteth the Fathers. to his custom, that they are not to be believed in this point which hath no ground in the word of God, and still he insisteth upon Bellarmine's rejecting the twelve Fathers which affirmed, that Antichrist should be of the Tribe of Dan for the same reasons. But he abuseth both Bellarmine and the Fathers, as the Reader may easily see. Bellarmine, for he rejecteth not the Father's authority, but embraceth it as very probable, which was as much as the most of them affirmed. The Fathers, because he rejecteth them all in a thing, wherein they agree as certain, which they would never do without some certain ground either of Apostolical tradition, or Scripture, and reason, which Bellarmine hath sufficiently explicated in his former assertion. Finally M. Downam briefly passeth over the opposition which Bellarmine showeth that the jews have against the Pope, because he was ashamed to see what jews the Protestants are in this behalf: but yet he is content to take hold of their application, of the Prophecies of Daniel against the Pope, because they are no parties, and therefore their authority The jews opposite to the Pope. may be some inducement, to think indeed that the Pope is Antichrist: where I could wish the Reader to mark attentively, the great connexion betwixt jews and Protestants in this point of impugning the Pope, though upon different grounds. For if you examine a jew, why he is so eager against the Pope, he will tell you, that it is, because he hateth Christ himself, and for his sake all Christians, but chief the Pope, who is the chief of them. Again if you How the jews and the Protestant's agree and differ in impugning the Pope. pose M. Downam with the same question, why he cannot abide the Pope? He will tell you another tale, that it is, because he loveth Christ and all true Christians, to whom he thinketh the Pope and his adherents to be most opposite. And is it not strange, that these men should join in the expositions of Scripture? Yea that M. Downam should take the jew to be no party against the Pope, but an indifferent man, and therefore thinketh his exposition fit to be some inducement to make men believe his doctrine? Is it not too plain, that M. Downam is in the high way to deny Christ, howsoever he protesteth the contrary, since he hateth the Pope, whom the jews only detest out of their malice to Christ himself? True it is, that the consequence is not so necessary from the hatred of the Pope to the hatred of Christ, as contrariwise, but yet he that is come so far, as to hate Christ's most principal servant in the highest degree, and with unplacable hatred, may easily be carried a step further, except God give him grace to turn back in time, which I most heartily wish for M. Downam himself, and all others, that are in that most miserable and dangerous estate. THE thirteenth CHAPTER. Of antichrist's Seat. TOUCHING the sixth (saith Bellarmine) our Adversaries boldly affirm, that the chief Seat of Antichrist is Rome, or the Apostolic Chair founded there: for they say, that Antichrist shall invade the Sea of Peter, and raise it up to a certain sovereign height, from the which it shall rule and tyranniclly govern the whole Church. And that Rome is the Kingly City of Antichrist, they prove out of Apoc. 17. where S. john speaking of the Seat of Antichrist saith, that it is the great City which is situated upon seven hills, and which hath the Kingdom over the Kings of the earth. And that at Romè, not in the palace of Nero, but in the very Church of Christ, Antichrist shall have his Seat, they prove out of S. Paul, who 2. Thess. 2. saith: that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God: for since he saith absolutely in the Temple of God, he meaneth the true Temple of the true God, and there is none such, but the Church of God. For the Temples of the Gentiles are true Temples, but of the Devils, not of God. And the Temple of the jews was indeed of God, but it ceased to be a Temple, when the jewish sacrifice and Priesthood ceased: for these three are so joined, that one cannot be without the other. Besides the Temple of the jews, within a while after, was to be desolated, and never to be bult again, as Dan. cap. 9 saith: and the desolation shall persevere till the consummation, and the end. Wherefore the Apostle cannot speak of it. And this argument is confirmed out of the Fathers. S. Hierome quaest. 11. ad Algasiam: He shall sit (saith he) in the Temple of God, either at Jerusalem as some think, or in the Church, as we think more truly: and Oecumenius, He saith not (saith he) the Temple of jerusalem, but the Churches of Christ. Theodorus Bibliander addeth the testmony of S. Greg. who l. 4. ep. 38. ad joan. Constantinopolitanun saith: The king of pride is nigh, and (which is impious to be spoken) an army of Priests is prepared for him. Out of which words a double argument is drawn, one thus: john of Constantinople is said to forerun Antichrist, because he will be called the universal Bishop; therefore he shall be Antichrist, who in very deed shall make himself the Universal Bishop, and shall sit in the Church, as the head of all. The other thus: The army of Antichrist shall be Priests, therefore Antichrist shall be the head of Priests. By which arguments the heretics think, that they evidently show, that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist, since he ruleth at Rome, sitteh in the Temple of God, and is called the universal Bishop, and is the Prince of Priests. Notwithstanding the true opinion is, that Jerusalem and not Rome, shall be the seat of Antichrist, and the Temple of Solomon, and Throne of David, not the Temple of S. Peter, or the Sea Apostolic, which we can prove in two sorts: First with an argument ad hominem. Secondly out of the Scripture and Fathers. First then I make this argument: Antichrist shall sit in the Church of Christ, and shall be accounted the Prince & head of his Church, and shall have Magistracy and offices in it, as Philippus Melanctonin apologia art. 6. confess. Augustanae, Calvinus lib. 4. justit. cap. 2. §. 12. & cap. 7. §. 25. Illyricus cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col. 435. and all other Sectaries of this time do teach: but the Pope of Rome is Antichrist, as they themselves also teach in the same places. Therefore the Pope of Rome sitteth in the true Church of Christ, and is the Prince and head of his Church. But the Church of Christ can only be one, as Christ is one, as Caluin also teacheth lib. 4. Instit. cap. 1. §. 2. Therefore the Lutheram and Caluinists, and as many as are out of the Church which is under the Pope, are out of the true Church. Caluin saw this argument, and answered, that not so much the Church, as the ruins of the Church of Christ are seen under the Pope. For thus he speaketh, lib. 4. Instit. cap. 2. §. 11. As there remained in old time certain peculiar prerogatives of the Church under the jews; so neither at these days do we take from the Papists the steps of the Church, which the Lord would have remaining among them of the dissipation. And after: God hath wrought with his providence, that there should be also other remnants extant, lest the Church should wholly perish. And as buildings are often so thrown down, that the foundations and ruins remain, so he hath not suffered his Church to be either subverted from the foundation, or quite thrown down by Antichrist, or else he would have the building half saved from destruction. And again §. 12. Wherefore hence it is manifest, that we deny not, that the Churches remain even under his Tyranny. But this solution affordeth us two arguments. The first; if only the ruins of Christ's Church remain: then the Church of Christ is fallen. Wherefore the truth hath lied, which said Matth. 16. and the Gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The other, the Church is fallen, and the Papists hold the ruins of it, and the foundation, yea the building itself half thrown down: Then the Lutheram and Caluinists have no Church, for they have not the whole and entire Church of Christ, for that is fallen, and the ruins yet remain; neither have they it half thrown down, for that is among the Papists under Antichrist. What have they then? Perhaps a new building, but in that it is new, it is not Christ's. And who that is not altogether blind seethe not, that it is more safe to remain in the true Church of Christ, although half thrown down, then in none? Now I come to the Scriptures, by which it is proved, that Jerusalem, and not Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist. The first is in Cap. 11. Apos. where S. john saith: That Enoch and Helias shall fight with Antichrist in jerusalem, and be slain thereby him, and their bodies (saith he) shall lie in the streets of the great City, which is spiritually called Sodom, and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified: upon which place Arethas; Their bodies (saith he) shall be cast unburied in the streets of Jerusalem, for he shall reign in that City, as King of the jews. In like manner do all other Interpreters expound it, and surely it can by no means be denied, that this is spoken of jerusalem: for what City is there where our Lord was crucified, but jerusalem? Wherefore Chytraeus who would have this City to be Rome, letteth pass those words (where also their Lord was crucified) as though they were not to the purpose. Neither is it any hindrance, that S. Hierome in ep. 17. ad Marcellam, endeavoureth to show that Jerusalem cannot be called Sodom, since that every where in Scripture it is called the holy City; for in that Epistle, he persuadeth Marcelia to forsake Rome, and come into Palestins, and therefore he heapeth up all that he can in the praise of Jerusalem, and in the reprehension of Rome, and endeavoureth by all means to excuse Jerusalem Neither doth he it in his own name, but in the name of Paul's and Eusto. hium, whom he thought aught to be pardoved, if they explicated any thing some what otherwise then it was. For that earthly Jerusalem may be called Sodom, for last and offences of the jews, is manifest out of Isaias, who in his first Chapter, when he had prefixed the title: The vision of Isaias, which he saw upon juda and Jerusalem, addeth forthwith: Hear the word of our Lord you Princes of Sodom, hearken with your ears the law of my God you people of Gomorrha. Neither is that a good argument; Jerusalem is called holy, therefore it cannot be called Sodom, for as S. Hierome saith in the same Epistle, that Rome is called Babylon, and the purple harlot by S. john, by reason of the Pagan Emperors, and yet that it is holy, by reason of the Church of Christ, & the sepulchres of S. Peter and S. Paul: so also jerusalem is an holy City, by reason of the Prophets and Apostles which preached there of the Cross, and Sepulchre of Christ, and the like, and yet it is Sodom and Egypt, by reason of the offences and blindness of the unbelieving jews. The second place is Apoc. 17. where S. john saith, that the 10. Kings who shall divide the Roman Empire among themselves, & in whose reign Antichrist shall come, will hate the purple Harlot, that is Rome, & will make her desolate, & will burn her with fire: How then shall it be the seat of Antichrist, if it must be overthrown, and burnt at that very time? Besides, as we proved before, Antichrist shall be a jew, & the Messiah, and King of the jews. Wherefore without doubt, he shall place his seat in jerusalem, & will go about to restore the Temple of Solomon, for the jews dream of nothing else, but of Jerusalem, & of the Temple: Neither doth it seem, that they will ever accept any for their Messiah who shall not sit in Jerusalem, & restore the Temple in some sort. Wherefore Lactantius l. 7. c. 15. saith: that in the time of Antichrist the chiefest Kingdom shall be in Asia, & that the West shall serve, & the East rule, and c. 17. he determineth the part of Asia, in which this Kingdom shall be, & saith: that it is Syria, that is judaea, which is part of Syria, and which is always called Syria by the Latins. Likewise S. Hierom & Theodoret in c. 11. Dan. gather out of Dan. that Antichrist shall fix his tents in the country of jerusalem, & at length be slain in the Mount Olivet, and S. Irenaeus l. 5. said plainly, that Antichrist shall reign in earthly jerusalem. The third place, is in those words of S. Paul, 2. Thess. 2. So that he shall sit in the Temple of God. For although there be many expositions given by the Fathers, and some understand the minds of the faithful, in which Antichrist is said to sit, when he hath seduced them, as S. Anselme expoundeth it; & some by the Temple understand Antichrist himself with all his people, for Antichrist will desire to have himself and his seem the spiritual Temple of God, that is, the true Church, as S. Augustine expoundeth it l. 20. Civit. Dei c. 19 where he deduceth this exposition out of the manner of S. Paul's speaking, who said not in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Templo, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Templum as if he should say that Antichrist shall sit in Templun Dei, that is as though he and his were the Temple of God, although this annotation of S. August. is not necessary, for though in Latin we cannot well say sedere in Templun, for in Templo, yet in greek it is not evil said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yea it is commonly so said. Some also understand the Churches of Christians, which Antichrist shall command to serve him, as S. Chrysostome interpreteth it: yet the more common, more probable, and the more literal exposition is of them, who teach that the temple of Solomon is understood by the Temple of God, in which after some sort repaired, Antichrist ●●all fit. For first, in the Scripture of the new Testament, the Churches of Christians are never understood by the Temple of God, but always the Temple of Jerusalem: and that which is more, the ancient Father's Latin and Greek, for some ages, never called the Churches of Christians, Temples, which in greek are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as in this place of S. Paul, but they called them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Oratoria, Ecclesias, Domas orationis, Basilicas, Martyria. Certainly, neither S. justine, nor S. Irenaeus, nor Tertullian, nor S. Cyprian do use the name of Temple, when they treat of the Churches of Christians: and S. Jerome ep. ad Riparium saith, that julian the Apostata commanded that the * Basilicae. Churches of the Saints should either be destroyed, or turned into Temples. And the reasons why the Apostles call not the Churches of Christians Temples, are two: the one, because than they had not any Temples, but only in private houses they appointed certain places for prayer, Sermons, and saying of Mass. The other reason is, because the memory of the jewish Temple was fresh, lest the Apostles might seem to bring in some thing like to them, and that they might distinguish the Church from the Synagogue, they abstained from the name of Temple. As also for the same reason the Apostles in the Scripture, never call Christian Priests Sacerdotes, but only Episcopos, and Presbyteros. But after that Jerusalem was overthrown, and the Temple burned, and the memory of the old Temple and Priesthood abolished, the holy Doctors began to use commonly the name of Temple and Priesthood. Since therefore the Apostle writing, that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, said something which he would have understood of them, to whom he wrote, and they then did not understand by the name of Temple, any other but the Temple of Jerusalem, it seemeth certain that the Apostle spoke of it, which is also confirmed by the common exposition of the Fathers, S. Irenaeus lib. 5. When Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of Jerusalem, than our Lord will come etc. S. Hippolytus Mart. orat. de mundi consummate. He shall build the Temple at Jerusalem. And S. Martin apud Sulpitium, lib. 2. dial. teacheth the same. S. Cyril. Hierosol. cateches. 15. What manner of Temple meaneth the Apostle? In the Temple of the jews which is remaining: for God forbidden that it should be done in this, in which we are. And S. Hilary can. 25. in Matt. Antichrist being received of the jews, shall stay in the place of Sanctification. Where he plainly speaketh of the Temple of the jews, for he calleth the place of Sanctification, that which Christ Matth. 24. calleth the holy Place, when he saith: When you see abomination standing in the holy place. S. Ambrose in c. 21. Luc. saith, that Antichrist according to the history, shall sit in the Temple, into which the Romans cast the head of a swine, in the time of the Emperor Titus, and according to the mystical sense, that he shall sit in the inward Temple of the jews, that is, in their perfidious minds. Sedulius upon this place of the Apostle explicateth, that in the Temple of God, He will endeavour to repair the temple of Jerusalem etc. S. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 28. In the Temple (saith he) not ours, but the old jewish. S. Chrysostome, Theodoret, and Theophilact, who say, that Antichrist shall sit in the Churches of Christians, affirm also, that he shall sit in the Temple of Solomon, for S. Chrysostome writeth thus upon this place: He shall command himself to be worshipped for God, and to be placed in the Temple, not only of Jerusalem, but also in the Churches. The same say Theophilact and Theodoret. S. Augustine also lib. 20. Civit. Dei cap. 19 & S. Hierome quaest. 11. ad Algasiam, do not deny that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of Solomon. Only Oecumenius denieth, that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of the jews: but he is the last of all, and by no means to be preferred before all the Fathers; perhaps also his text is corrupted, & there wanteth but one particle (only) for it is not credible that he would departed from S. Chrysostome Theodoret, and Theophilact, whom in all other things he always followeth. Now let us answer to the arguments of our Adversaries, which we proposed before. To the first I answer in three manners. First it may be said with S. Augustine in Psal. 26. Arethas, Haymo, Bede, and Rupert. in cap. 17. Apoc. that by the Harlot, which sitteth upon seven hills, and hath her Kingdom over the Kings of the earth, Rome is not understood, but the whole City of the Devil, which in the Scripture is often called Babylen, and is opposed to the City of God, that is, to the Church, which is called Jerusalem, and that by the seven hills is understood the universality of the proud, and chief of the Kings of the earth. Secondly it may be said, and in my judgement better, that by the harlot is understood Rome, as Tertull. l. cont. Indaeos & lib. 3. cont. Martian. and S. Hierome ep. 17. ad Marcellam, & quast. 11. ad Algasiam, but ethnic Rome reigning, worshipping Idols, and persecuting Christians, and not Rome Christian, for so those Authors expound. And surely marvelous is the impudence of Heretics who to prove that the Roman Church is the purple Harlot, use the testimony of Tertullian and S. Hierome; for since at that time Heathen Rome was contrary to Christian Rome, which of them I pray you, do those Fathers call the purple Harlot? If heathen Rome, why then do the Heretics abuse their testimonies? If Christian Rome, it followeth that the Roman Church had degenerated then, and Antichrist did reign then, which they themselves do not grant. Furthermore if Christian Rome was Babylon then, why doth Tertullian de prescript. say: Happy Church to which the Apostles powered out their whole doctrine with their blood? And why doth S. Hierome lib. 2. cont. iovinianum in the end speaking to Rome, say: Shall I speak to thee, who hast wiped away the blasphemy written in thy forehead, with the confession of Christ? Finally the same is manifest out of S. john himself, who saith, that he speaketh of that Rome, who held the Empire over the Kings of the earth, and which was drunk with the blood of Saints, and with the blood of the Martyrs of jesus, which certainly have not place, but in that Rome, which in the reign of Nero and Domitian slew the Martyrs. Thirdly I say, although that Woman were Christian Rome, as the heretics would have it, yet their argument hath no force at all: for as we showed before, Antichrist shall hate Rome, and fight with it, and consume and burn it, out of which it manifestly followeth, that Rome shall not be the seat of Antichrist. To the second we have already said, that S. Paul in that place speaketh of the Temple of Solomon, and to the reason which we made, I answer, that the jewish Sacrifice and Priesthood ceasing, the Temple also ceased to be the jewish Temple, but it ceased not forth with to be the temple of God, for the same Temple might be the Temple of Christians, and indeed it was so, so long as it remained: for the Apostles preached in it, and prayed, after the Ascension of Christ, and the coming of the Holy Ghost, as is manifest by those words Luc. ultimo: They were always in the Temple praising and blessing our Lord. Likewise Act. 3. Peter and john went up into the Temple at the ninth hour of prayer: and Act. 5. the Angel saith to the Apostles: Speak in the Temple to the people all the words of this life. To that of Daniel I answer, that either Daniel would say, that the Temple is not to be built again, but in the end of the world, which is true, for Antichrist shall not come but in the end of the world, or that the desolation shall remain for ever, because though it were built again, yet the Temple should never be but profaned after the overthrow made by Titus: for when it shall be erected by Antichrist, them chief shall the abomination of desolation remain in it, that is Antichrist himself, or his Image: or finally, that the Temple should never be perfectly built again, but yet that the building should be begun, & that Antichrist should sit in the Temple begun in some sort. To the places of the Fathers we have already answered, that they affirm, or at least deny not, that Antichrist shall sit, in the Temple of Solomon, and whereas many of them add, that Antichrist shall also sit in the Churches of Christians, it is true, and not contrary to us, for the Fathers mean not that Antichrist shall sit in the Church as a Bishop, as Heretics dream, but that he shall sit as God. For Antichrist shall command that all the Temples of the whole world be converted to his worship, and he will make himself to be adored in them. He will command (saith S. Chrysostome in this place) himself to be worshipped, and reverenced for God, and to be placed in the Temple, not only of Jerusalem, but also in the Churches: and the rest speak in the same manner. To the arguments taken out of the words of S. Gregory I answer, that out of his words the contrary of that is deduced which the heretics infer, for they argue thus: The Bishop of Constantinople did forerun Antichrist, because he made himself the Universal Bishop, therefore Antichrist shall be some Universal Bishop, who shall usurp all to himself. But the contrary is inferred, for the forerunner is not to be the same with him whom he forerunneth, but far less, though like him in some thing, as appeareth in S. john Baptist, and Christ. If therefore the forerunner of Antichrist be he, who maketh himself the universal Bishop, the true Antichrist himself shall not make himself that, but some other thing greater, viz. he shall extol himself above all that is called God: or if the true Antichrist shall only make himself the Universal Bishop, that john of Constantinople, who did this, was not the forerunner of Antichrist, but the true Antichrist himself, which notwithstanding neither S. Gregory, nor our Adversaries say. Wherefore the sense of S. Gregory's words is, that because Antichrist shall be most proud, and the head of all the proud, so that he will not suffer any equals, therefore whosoever usurpeth to himself any thing otherwise then he ought, and will exceed and surpass others, is his forerunner: and such were the Bishops of Constantinople, who being in the beginning but Archbishops, first usurped to themselves to be patriarchs, and after the title of Universal. In like manner when S. Gregory saith, an army of Priests is prepared for him, he meaneth not, that Priests, as Priests, belong to the army of Antichrist, for so he should have put himself in that army, but that Priests as they are proud, prepare an army for Antichrist: for he speaketh of the same john, and of Priests like him, who were extolled above the rest unjustly. But hence it followeth not, that Antichrist shall be the Prince of Priests, but that he shall be the Prince of the Proud. Out of this sixth head we have a notable argument, that the Pope is not Antichrist, since his Seat is not jerusalem, nor in the Temple of Solomon; yea it is credible since the year 600. no Bishop of Rome was ever at Jerusalem. M. Downams Answer confuted. 1. MASTER Downam denieth that Antichrist shall fit at Hieresalem, and to Bellarmine's first proof out of Apoc. 11. he answereth: first, that it may be doubted, that S. Antichrist his Seat shall be in jerusalem. john speaketh not of Antichrist, because he seemeth to speak of the former beast Apoc. 13. which M. Downam supposeth not to be Antichrist. But this is a very good confirmation, that S. john speaketh of Antichrist in this place also, since it is certain, that he speaketh of him in the 13. chapter, and expresseth Apoc. 11. Apoc. 13. See c. 5. §. 5. etc. him by the former beast, and in a manner all Interpreters agree, that Antichrist is spoken of in both places, and of this latter we have said some thing before. Secondly, M. Downam confirmeth this his doubt, that Antichrist is not spoken of Apoc. 11. because the Papists teach, that Antichrist shall be the King of the jews, and counterfeit Christians, therefore by their own Doctrine, this persecution of the Church by the Gentiles, should not be the persecution under Antichrist. But the answer is easy, as Ribera, and others upon this place learnedly declare, for S. john Why those that follow Antichrist are called Gentiles. speaketh of the Church under the metaphor of the Temple, and consequently calleth her enemy's Gentiles, because those that impugned the Temple were such: and besides M. Downam cannot choose but know that the Papists think, that all those which follow Antichrist, though they were before jews, and Christians, yet than they shall be Gentiles, and Idolaters, since they shall acknowledge no other God, but Antichrist himself. Besides this doubt, whether S. john speaketh in this place of Antichrist, or no, M. Downam saith, that he hath proved two other points more certainly: First, that Henoch and Elias be not here spoken of, and that See c. ●. the holy Ghost doth not mean Jerusalem. But these proofs of his are all confuted in their due places, to which I remit the Reader, for now I will only examine that which he bringeth in this place, where he is content to suppose, that S. john speaketh both of Antichrist and of jerusalem, and yet saith, M. Downam's juggling. that it followeth not, that wheresoever the witnesses of Christ are put to death by him, or by his authority, that there should be his principal seat: and then he putteth Bellarmine's argument in form for him, making the proposition thus, Where the two witnesses are put to death, there is the seat of Antichrist: to which he also answereth with this distinction, that being generally understood, it is false, if particularly, than Bellarmine's argument is not a Syllogism, but a Paralogism, where you see how he tosseth and turneth Bellarmine's argument, to avoid the force of it, and yet it will not be: for first he would make us believe, that Bellarmine spoke of witnesses without determination of number, then having added the number, yet he saith, that it may be understood generally, which I cannot conceive how he meaneth, except it be that Bellarmine should speak of any two witnesses whatsoever, which notwithstanding is very ridiculous, since it is manifest that he speaketh of those two only, which S. john speaketh of. But, saith M. Downam, if it be understood particularly of two determinate and particular witnesses, than Bellarmine's argument is a Paralogism. And why so I pray you Sir? What deceit is there here? Yea, were it not great deceit to speak universally, since the Scripture speaketh determinately, and particularly of only two, which Bellarmine hath also evidently convinced to be Helias and Enoch? and consequently M. Downam cannot deny, but that it is a perfect Syllogism and an evident See part. ●. c. 2. §. 17. demonstration, except he can find some fault in the Assumption, for which he remitteth us to his former proofs, by which he telleth us, that he hath made good, that the City which is here spoken of, is Civitas Romana, the City and Empire of Rome; which no doubt will prove a great City indeed, & comprehendeth jerusalem, & many great Cities beside, and consquently Antichrist may very well sit in Jerusalem, M. Downam foolishly contradicteth himself. and yet be said in this sense to sit in Civitate Romana, in the City and Empire of Rome, as we see that M. Downam avoucheth, that our Lord was crucified in this great City, and yet all men know that he was crucified at Jerusalem, by which the Reader may take a scantling of M. Downam's proofs till we examine them in particular: for it is manifest, that they will only prove, that antichrist's seat shall be some where within the Roman Empire, which never any man doubted of yet: but this is no proof at all, that it shall not be in Jerusalem, since that also is within M. Downam's great City, and so I cannot see, but that Bellarmine and M. Downam will agree well enough in this point, since he granteth that it is as true, that Antichrist shall sit at Jerusalem, as that our Saviour was crucified at Jerusalem, which all men know to be most true. 2. To the second place Apoc. 17. M. Downam remitteth himself to his answer in another place, whither I will See part. 2. cap. 2. §. 18. also refer the Reader for the confutation. Likewise to Bellarmine's proof from his former argument, in which he proved that Antichrist shall be a jew etc. he only saith, that he hath disproved this position in his former Chapter: Wherefore I must also desire the Reader to take a view of his disproofes, and my confutation in the precedent argument. Thirdly M. Downam objecteth to himself the authority of 4. Fathers, and presently M. Downam rejecteth the Fathers. rejecteth them, because their assertions cannot be proved out of Scriptures, and will needs father this his impudence upon Bellarmine himself: but I would willingly know who shall be judge, whether the Fathers, or M. Downam understand the Scriptures aright? Bellarmine sometimes when the Fathers are different among themselves, may very well cleave to those that seem to him to bring better proofs, for that they say: and likewise when they affirm a thing as probable, he needeth not avouch it for certain. Bu M. Downam hath none of them of his side, and flatly deny●th that which they affirm, without any doubt at all. And his cavils against the authorities in particular, are impertinent and ridiculous, for Lactantius plainly speaketh of the chiefest kingdom in antichrist's time, which neither he, nor any other doubteth, but that it shall belong to Antichrist himself, and consequently M. Downam is exceeding ridiculous, if not worse, to tell us, that Lanctantius speaketh not of Antichrist, M. Downam's folly. since it is manifest that he speaketh of his Kingdom. Now as for S. Hierome and Theodoret, they affirm both the one and the other, viz. that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple at jerusalem, and in the Churches of Christ as Bellarmine proveth, and showeth that there is no opposition at all betwixt those two assertions, whatsoever M. Downam saith to the contrary, but bringeth no proofs at all for that he saith: so that he should seem to think his credit very good, and that he shall be believed upon his bare word, in which he is mightily deceived. Lastly, in this place I must desire the Reader to note M. Downam's subtlety: for to discredit the Fathers M. Downam's juggling. which Bellarmine allegeth, he telleth us that they are four, and yet to make some show of an answer to them, he confoundeth the sitting of Antichrist as in his Kingdom, and his sitting in the Temple of God, whereof Bellarmin speaketh in his next proof, and for which he allegeth not only four Fathers, but almost fourteen, for if you add Lactantius and S. Hierome whom he bringeth here, they are in all thirteen. 3. In the third place 2. Thess. 2. M. Downam first endeavoureth to apply the three former expositions to the Pope, 2. Thess. 2. whom he affirmeth only to sit as it were a God in the minds of men, prescribing laws to bind the Conscience, and that with guilt of mortal sin, as we speak. But in this, he is at least deceived, for we Both spiritual & temporal Superiors may prescribe laws to bind the conscience under mortal sin. affirm that not only the Pope, but all other both spiritual and temporal Superiors may prescribe laws to bind the conscience, and that with guilt of mortal sin, and this we may gather evidently out of the Scripture: and many of M. Downam's brethren are ashamed to deny it, and by all probability he would be at least afraid to affirm the contrary, if he were well examined by the temporal Magistrate. Secondly, saith M. Downam, the Pope and Church of Rome vaunt that they alone are the Catholic Church, and that all others professing the name of Christ, which are not subject to the Pope, or acknowledge not themselves members of the Church of Rome, are heretics or schismatics. This is very true indeed, for we think that there is but one faith, and one Church, and whatsoever One faith and one Church. Christians are out of it, must needs be schismatics at least, if not heretics, and I would have thought that M. Downam would not have been so absurd, as to deny this common principle agreed of by all, which if he had granted, he would not much have marveled, that we hold ourselves to be of the true Church, and consequently that all, that are not united to us, are out of the Church, for we do no more than all other Churches and Congregations do. And finally M. Downam must of force put some limits to his Church also, which if he make so capable, that it may comprehend us also, we shall in some sort be beholding unto him, though we cannot requite him with the like. But when we know all the conditions that are required to be of his Church, it will be an easy matter to infer, that whosoever wanteth those conditions must of force be out of it, and so this exposition will agree aswell to M. Downam's Church, and any other, as to the Roman. How the third exposition may be applied to the Pope, M. Downam explicateth not, but only affirmeth that this is the most true exposition, and agreeth properly to the Pope of Rome. Of the truth we shall see in due place, but how properly it agreeth to the Pope, is not so easy to conceive. For first all the Churches of those which M. Downam taketh to be the only true, or at least the best Christians, acknowledge not the Pope at all, and Catholics acknowledge him only to be Christ's Vicegerent upon earth, which is far from that which Antichrist shall do, when he shall so sit in the Temple of God, that he shall show himself, as if he were God himself. Concerning the fourth opinion which pleaseth not M. Downam, first he denieth it to be the more common opinion, as Bellarmine affirmed it was, and yet whereas Bellarmin bringeth an cleaven Authors for his opinion, M. Downam bringeth but five for his, four of which affirm also as much as Bellarmine doth, and are by him alleged to that purpose, which M. Downam could not choose but see, and therefore thought good to add, that the being more common doth not prove it to be the more true, for truth goeth not by voices, neither is it See Part. 2. cap. 4. §. 15. to be weighed by the multitude of suffrages, but by weight of reason. By which you may imagine what a great deal of reason, and wit M. Downam thinketh himself to have, and how little he attributeth to the Fathers. But all this is but in his own proud and foolish conceit, for all but himself will be easily persuaded, that there was more wit and true wisdom in the meanest of these ancient Fathers, than there is in this insolent Minister, though he had many of his fellow Ministers joined with him. Secondly he denieth this exposition to be more probable because the Temple shall never be re-edified, which were his wont figure of petitio principij, but that he addeth (as hath been showed.) Wherefore I will not censure him any further, till the Reader hath seen how learnedly he showeth it, and whether the Fathers, or he have more reason and probability in this point. Thirdly he addeth that it were not material, though this exposition were more literal, unless the literal were usual. And to show that it is not usual, he observeth, that in all the Epistles, by the Temple of God is meant the Church, where first the Reader must mark that the word Temple is not used in any Epistle, but only in this place of the 2. to the Thessalonians, and in the 2. to the Corinthians, and only in 3. Chapters of them both, in the which the faithful, and their bodies are called the Temple of God, because the Holy Ghost is present, and Temple what it signifieth in the new Testament. remaineth with them. But how can this be applied to Antichrist sitting in the Temple of God, and showing himself as if he were God? Can Antichrist dwell in the souls and bodies of men, as in his Temple? Or if he could, were this hidden and spiritual sitting any ostentation, or showing of himself as God? And yet in this place S. Paul affirmeth that Antichrist shall do so, for which no doubt he must sit visibly in a visible Temple, by which most properly is signified the Temple of Jerusalem, yea when S. Paul wrote, and for many years after, only that was so called, as Bellarmine proveth, and is to be seen in all the four Evangelists, and the Acts of the Apostles. Wherefore since this place may, yea indeed must literally be understood of a material Temple, aswell as many other places of the new Testament, it is ridiculous folly in M. Downam to tell us, that in some few places, the word Temple is to be taken spiritually also, and contrariwise the word Church materially, for of this we never made question. Yea but, saith M. Downam, to sit in the Temple of God, as God, is to rule, and reign in the Church of God, as if he were a God upon earth. By which exposition he maketh all Prelates & Magistrates, which rule and reign in the Church of God, to sit in the Temple of God as God, in the manner that S. Paul saith, that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, which is a fit interpretation for a Puritanical Minister, who seeketh to pervert the whole order & Hierarchy of God's Church, & by with drawing the Christian people from the obedience of their lawful Pastors, prepare them to receive Antichrist himself when he cometh, and in the mean time his forerunners the Heretics, of which because Downam seemeth to have been a Puritan when he wrote this. M. Downam is one himself, no marvel though he pleadeth so hard for himself, his fellows, and Master: but if he had meant to deal sincerely he should have proved his exposition out of the Fathers, or answered the authority of those which Bellarm. allegeth for himself, neither of which he once attempteth, but yet remitteth us to another place, See part. ●: §. 13. 14. 15. where God willing we will examine all that he objecteth. 4. M. Downam having in this sort answered to Bellarmine's proofs out of the Scripture, returneth to his argument ad hominem, where first he taketh great exception at Bellarmine for not putting the word (true) in the premises, and yet expressing it in the conclusion, which is a mere cavil, for Bellarmine would not add any word in the premises, which he found not in Melancthon, Caluin, and Illyricus, whose opinion he alleged. In the conclusion which was his own, he might very well express that which was necessarily to be understood, as Bellarmin explicateth out of Caluin himself, for M. Downam's devise, that the Church of Christ The Church comprehendeth not all that profess the name of Christ. may be taken for the company of Christians, that is of those, that profess the name of Christ, is too ridiculous, since by this means he includeth all heretics whatsoever, who are indeed the Synagogue of the Devil, & so confoundeth the Church of God, and the Synagogue of the Devil; & whereas S. Paul saith, that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, he meaneth according to M. Downam's interpretation the temple of the Devil. All which is so obsurd, that the authors with whom Bellarmine disputeth, would have been ashamed of so ridiculous an assertion, and therefore they sought other cuasions, as we shall see forthwith; but now let us go on with the other illation, that the Protestants are out of the true Church: for how the Temple of Jerusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of God, we shall see afterward in the discussion of Bellarmine's answers to the arguments of the Protestants. 5. Wherefore M. Downam to save himself, and his brethren from being out of the true Church of Christ, is driven to this exigent, to deny that there is any one visible Catholic Church, but only one invisible Catholic Church, and many particular visible Churches, which is a most extravagant and absurd paradox, contrary both to Scriptures, Fathers, and councils, as Bellarmine sufficiently proveth lib. 4. de There is one visible Catholic Church. Ecclesia militant. cap. 10. But now I will only oppose to this insolent madness, the authority of the Creed generally received of all, where the Church is called One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: and who seethe not, that all which belong truly to Christ, must agree in one faith, and not to be divided by schisms and heresies, which in M. Downam's conceit can only happen in particular Churches, or at least in them only be acknowledged and rooted out? So that if any particular Church will wholly fall to either, or rather if the chief head and pastor of any such Church shall become either schismatical or heretical, there is not means left for his reduction, since that he is not bound to be at unity with other particular Churches, nor to subject himself to any visible Catholic Church, or to any visible head thereof: which is as much in effect, as to say, that Christ hath left no means upon earth to decide controversies concerning Faith, or to take away schisms & divisions, but that every particular Church, or Pastor, yea indeed every particular man may freely follow his own fancies without contradiction, or controlment of any, so long as he can pretend any text of Scripture (though never so much wrested and falsely understood) for that, which he is resolved to hold. And is it meruarle, that heresies and schisms be so rife in our days since these absurd paradoxes are so currant? But what should heretics and schismatics do, but defend schisms and divisions: and impugn unity and concord, which if they would admit, they must of force return to the Catholic Church, where it is only to be found? Since therefore the visible Church of Christ is one, and by the adversaries confession it is the Roman, it followeth manifestly that they themselves are out of Christ's Church, since that they The Protestant's are out of the Church of Christ. are out of the Roman. For the other cavil which M. Downam maketh, that the Roman Church is a particular Church, is not worth the answering, for every child can tell him that the Roman Church is taken for all those which agree in faith, and are united with the Bishop of Rome, who is not only Bishop of that particular City, but also the head and Pastor of the whole Church, which of him, her Head, is called the Roman Church, which continueth the true Church of Christ, as Bellarmine proveth, and Melancthon, Caluin, and Illyricus dare not deny, howsoever M. Downam is so impudent in his railing, consorting himself with a vain Poet, whose meaning notwithstanding was far better than M. Petrarcha Downam's is. 6. M. Downam having thus shuffled up the matter hitherto, at length cometh to explicate himself more plainly, and agreeth with Caluin, that the Church of Rome under the Pope may be called the Church of God, in respect both of some notes and signs of a visible Church, as the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism, and the profession of the Name of Christ, as also of some relics and remainder, as it were the glean of the invisible Church, for he doubteth not, but that, in the corruptest times of Popery, the Lord hath reserved some who have not received the mark of the beast. And for explication he compareth the Church of Rome to the state of Israel under jeroboam and Achab, because they then retained the Sacrament of Circumcision, and professed jehova to be their God, although they worshipped him Idolatrously. And even under Achab, the Lord had reserved 7000. who never bowed their knee to Baal. In which comparison M. Downam insisteth wholly Downam his petitio principij. upon his wont figure of Petitio principij, and consequently, all that he saith is but mere railing. If he would have said any thing to the purpose, he should have showed two points in that example: the first that the visible Church among the jews was altogether ceased, by that Idolatry of Israel. The second, that Israel departed not from the Religion which was generally holden before, but that the ancient Religion was by little and little changed to Idolatry, and that those which came after, separated themselves from the former, and yet were the true Church. With these two points M. Downam might have made some comparison, betwixt the people of Israel, and the Church of Rome. But since The Protestants like to Israel & the Catholics to juda. neither of these are so, but the quite contrary, it will fall to M. Downam and his fellows share to be like the people of Israel, since they have left the visible Church, of which they once were, as the other did, and consequently the Church of Rome is like to the people of juda, and the rest which joined with them, since it continueth in the ancient faith generally holden throughout Christendom, before there were any Protestants in the World. Neither do we grant, that the Protestants have any part of Christ's Church, no more than the Israelites had, since they have not any jot of true faith, howsoever they make profession of some articles: for the reason why they hold them, is not the authority of God proposed by the Scriptures, or the Church, but only their own fancies, because so it seemed necessary for their reputation and credit, or some other human and private respect, how much soever they pretend to be only moved by Scripture, for of this they admit no more The Protestants have no probable rule of faith, nor any true faith at al. than they please, and for the interpretation, they have no other rule, than their own private spirit, or fancy, which is far of from being any probable rule of truth, & much less so certain as is necessary for the certainty of divine and supernatural faith to be built upon. And this is the true reason why the Church of God is but one, because there is but one rule of faith: from which whosoever falleth, cannot have any true faith at all, nor belong to the true Church of God. The other comparison which M. Downam useth is much les to the purpose, for it is not the Church, but the Bishop of Sardis (as he himself saith, that it is agreed by In his Sermon at Lambeth pag. 2. Apoc. ● 1. Interpreters both new and old) who had a name, that he lived, but indeed was dead, neither was this death for want of faith, but of charity and good works, as is manifest, and though it were otherwise, yet M. Downam could prove nothing by this comparison, except we would believe his bare word, that the Church of Rome were in this case, which is our chief question, and M. Downam's wont figure, to take it as granted. Wherefore since he can argue no better, let us see how he can answer. 7. To Bellarmine's first reply upon Caluins' devise, that the Roman Church is not the true Church, but that there VIII. remain in it only the ruins and relics of a true Church, M. Downam granteth, that all visible Churches may fail, and fall away, but not the invisible Church of Christ. which he calleth the Catholic Church, nor any one sound Christian, that is of this invisible Church. In which answer he granteth Bellarmine as much as he went about to prove, that the gates of hell in his opinion have prevailed against Christ's visible Church, so that in a whole thousand years Christ had not so much as one constant professor of his truth, and though I might easily prove, that Christ spoke of his visible Church, and that it The visible Church is to endure to the end of the world. was to endure until the world's end, yet now I will not trouble my Reader with so needles a digression, since the matter is so plain and evident in itself, that me thinks any man which maketh account of Christ his passion and glory, or of his desire to save souls, and to provide for their conversion and faith, should stop his ears not to hear so great a blasphemy uttered, as M. Downam is not ashamed to affirm: yet if any man have any doubt, or desire to be more fully satisfied in this point, let him read Bellarmine himself lib. 3. de Ecclesia militant. cap. 12. & 13. To Bellarmine's second reply M. Downam answereth, that it proveth nothing, except he suppose that the Church of Rome is the only true Church: But he should have answered it in form, & admitted only that which Caluin avoucheth, that the Papists hold the ruins of the Church, and the foundations, yea the buildings themselves half thrown down, for out of this only Bellarmine argueth and showeth, that the Protestants can neither have the whole & entire church, since in their opinion it is fallen, nor the part which remaineth of it, since they grant The Protestants cannot have the Church of Christ, but only some new building of their own. it to be among the Papists, to which dilemma M. Downan answereth not a word, but only braggeth, that the Church of Rome may fall, & yet the Catholic Church of God may stand, yea shall stand etc. But he forgetteth himself, & marketh not what his Master Caluin hath granted, that not only the Church of Rome, but even the very Church of Christ is fallen, and that the Papists have as much as is left of it, & consequently the Protestant's can only have some new heretical building of their own, though M. Downam be never so loath to acknowledge it. Neither will the example of the Church of juda under josias serve his turn: for that was only a reformation of manners, and a destruction of Idolatry without any departing from the ancient Church of God, in which remained the true succession of Priests, and Gods true religion, after a visible manner, no otherwise then if it should please his Majesty to put down heresy, and advance Catholic Religion in his Kingdom, which were only to embrace the true Church of Christ, and not to erect any new building as the Protestants have done, as Bellarmine convinceth. 8. M. Downam having thus impugned Bellarmine's arguments, cometh to refute his solutions to their objections, and whereas Bellarmine gave three solutions to the first, See part. 2. cap. 2. M. Downam passeth two of them over in silence, telling us that he hath taken them away in another place, which how true it is the Reader shall be judge when we come to that encounter. Now let us see how he refuteth the second solution which Bellarmine giveth, that the harlot of which S. john speaketh, is Rome Ethnic reigning, worshipping Idols, and persecuting Christians, and not Rome Christian, the Apoc. 17. contrary of which M. Downam never goeth about to prove with any new argument, as he should have done, it being his turn now to argue, but only contenteth himself to answer Bellarmine's proof, which he doth also by halves, for Bellarmine proveth his exposition evidently by the authority of Tertullian & S. Hierome, and showeth the impudence of heretics, that are not ashmed to allege those authors altogether against their meaning, to prove that S. john speaketh of Rome Christian. To all which M. Downam giveth him not a word, but is very well content to be thus beaten, so that it may not be spoken of: but to the other proof, he thinketh himself able to say something, & therefore answereth two ways, 1. that though Popish Rome had not dominion over the Kings of the earth, and were not drunk with the blood of the Saints and martyrs of jesus, yet we might understand the Apostle thus, that, that City, which then had dominion over the Kings of the earth, and then persecuted the Saints, is called Babylon, because it was to be the seat, or sea of Antichrist. So that as you see M. Downam will have Rome to be called Babylon, because it was to be the seat or sea of Antichrist, which he supposeth as manifest, though Bellarmine in this third solution, and before also in one of his arguments (both which M. Downam passeth over in silence) showeth manifestly, that Antichrist shall hate this Babylon, and not make it the seat of his kingdom. So that this first solution is nothing but M. Downam's wont figure of Petitio principij, not only without any proof, as commonly he useth it, but against evident proof, which also he is forced to do now and then. His second solution is, that these notes agree also to Popish Rome, both in respect of dominion, usurped more insolently over the Kings of the earth by the Pope, then by any Emperor, and in regard of most cruel persecution of the Saints of Christ. To which impudent assertion of his, I see not what The Pope hath only a spiritual power over Princes. other answer can be given, but to refer the matter to the Readers judgement, who will easily perceive, that the Pope hath now only a spiritual power over Kings, aswell as over other Christians for the good of their souls, without exacting or usurping any temporal dominion over their persons or estates, as the old Roman Emperors did, to whom they were Tributary, if not altogether subject: and whatsoever the Pope doth in temporal affairs, it proceedeth from his spiritual authority, to which no doubt temporal things do so far belong, as they may hinder or help the good of souls, and no further, as is largely explicated by Cardinal Bellarmine, and other Catholic Divines. And as for M. Downam's Saints which the Pope doth persecute, I am content to refer the decision of this question, whether Christian Rome may be called Babylon or no, till he hath showed us an authentical canonisation of these his Saints, and in the mean time it shall be also as certain, that Ethnic Rome is meant by Babylon, as that those blessed Martyrs which died in those days, were truly the Martyrs of Christ and glorious Saints. 9 Thus much M. Downam thought sufficient to reply to Bellarmine's answers of their first argument, and coming to the second, where they contend, that Antichrist shall sit in the Church of Christ, because S. Paul saith: that he shall sit in the temple of God, he is content to let pass Bellarmine's solution to the first proof, that the Apostle understood the Church of Christ by the Temple of God which was, because when the Apostle wrote, there was no other Temple of God, but the Church of Christ, since that the Temple of the jews was ceased to be a Temple, when the jewish Sacrifice and Priesthood ceased. To which Bellarmine answered that though it had ceased to be the jewish Temple, yet it ceased not forth with to be the Temple of God, but belonged to the Christians so long as it remained, as he proveth Downam omitteth Bellarmin his answer. out of the Scriptures. To which as I said, M. Downam hath not one word, for which cause I might also have passed it over in silence, but that I promised a little before to show in this place, how the Temple of jerusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of God, which as you see is no hard matter to do, since that he speaketh of it, as it was in his time, when it was most truly the Temple of God, and beside since Antichrist shall build it again for the jews, and pretend not to withdraw them from the true God, but to profess himself to come from him, at least before he discovereth himself further, the temple erected by him may be called the Temple of God, though when he shall sit in it, and show himself as God, he will profess himself to be the true God, and so either avouch that he is the God of the jews, in whose Temple he shall sit, or else extol himself above him, for so much the words of S. Paul do import, as we shall see afterward. Concerning the place of Daniel, M Downam hath found his tongue again and giveth words enough, but indeed nothing but words. Well, he replieth to all Bellarmine's answers and to the first he urgeth our Translation, usque ad consummationem & finem perseverabit desolatio, and S. Hierome who saith, Dan. 9 usque ad finem mundi, and others whom he nameth not (because as it seemeth they were not worth the naming) usque The temple of Jerusalem shall be built again in the end of the world. ad consummationem, eamque praecisam, and then he allegeth three places of Scripture, out of which he inferreth that the word (until) signifieth rather a perpetuity, than cessation before the time, which seemeth thereby to be limited. But first we must charge M. Downam with a manifest falsification of Bellarmine's words, for he allegeth them in a different letter thus: Danyel would say, that the Temple should not be re-edified until a little before the end of the world: whereas Bellarmine's words are these, Adillud ex daniel respondeo, vel Daniclem voluisse dicere, non esse reedificandum Templum, Downam corrupteth Bellarmine's words. nisi in fine mundi. To that of Daniel I answer, that either Daniel would say, that the Temple is not to built again but in the end of the world: and is not this a great shame for a Doctor of Divinity, to be taken in so gross an absurdity, that either he must confess that he cannot construe two words of latin, or else that he is a wilful falsifier? Well now that we have Bellarmine's true words, let M. Downam urge our text, and S. Hierome, and see if he can pick any more out of them, then that the Temple is not to be built again before the end of the world, which Bellarmine affirmeth also, and only addeth, that it may be Daniel meant, that it was to be built in the end of the world, but not before. But against this M. Downam urgeth the authority of others, who add the word pracisam, by which we might conjecture that they were some Precisians, but whatsoever they be, if by the precise consummation, they mean the indivisible instant, which the Philosophers call ultimum quod non, they show themselves to be more precise than wise, for the Scripture is not to be interpreted so precisely, or metaphysically, but after the manner of common and ordinary speech, as when we say, such a man made not his will till his death, we mean that he made it then etc. And as for the three authorities of Scripture, it were no hard matter to find 300. for M. Downam's three, where it is otherwise taken, but now one or two shall suffice, as Gen. 49. when jacob foretold that the Sceptre should not be taken from juda, until the coming of Gen. 46. 2. Reg. 1. The word Until signifieth neither continuance nor cessation, but is indifferent to both. the Messiah, the sense is plain, that it was to be taken from them then, yea a little before also, if M. Downam will needs urge that point. Likewise 2. Reg. 1. where David and those which were with him, are said to have mourned for Saul and jonathas etc. usque ad vesperam, until the evening. I hope M. Downam will give us leave to think that they left mourning then, wherefore it is a fond illation of M. Downam to infer a perpetuity out of that word (until) for it importeth no such matter, but only signifieth what is done till then: but whether it continued at that time, or after that time, or no, must be gathered by other conjectures or proofs: As to exemplify in one of M. Downam's authorities, there was never any so foolish yet, as to bring that place of Matth. 1. to prove our Blessed Ladies perpetual Virginity, but S. Hieroms and other Fathers have been enforced to answer it, and to show that the word (until) showeth only what hath been done, or not done until then, but leaveth the rest of the time altogether uncertain, whether things continued in the same state still, or no. To Bellarmine's second answer, M. Downam having corrupted his words, as the Reader may see (if he please) replieth first, that the Primitive Church believed that the Temple should never be built again, & held this assertion of the Papists as a jewish fable. But he bringeth not any one authority to prove Downam belieth the Primitive Church against the testimony of the Fathers. this withal, and therefore we must needs tell him that we do not believe him, for if we did, we should do the Father's great injury, which Bellarmine allegeth, to reject their authority without any ground, and to think that M. Downam knew the belief of the Primitive Church better than all they who lived so long before him. For the other part of his answer we will not contend, but that our Saviour might mean the Army of the Romans by the Abomination of Desolation, but that he meant only that, M. Downam neither hath proved The temple of jerusalem shall always be profane though it be built again. nor ever will be able to prove, and therefore Bellarmine's solution is very good, that Daniel when he affirmeth, that the desolation shall persevere to the consummation and end, might very well mean, that though the Temple were built again in the end of the world, yet it should always be profaned after the overthrow made by Titus, because the chiefest profanation and abomination of desolation shall be in antichrist's time. At Bellarmine's third solution M. Downam is much offended, and telleth us, that in this place Daniel speaketh not a word of Antichrist, nor yet of Antiochus his Type. And for Antiochus we believe him, neither did Bellarmine ever dream of any such matter: of Antichrist the matter is not clear, though now it skilleth not, whether he did or no, for Bellarmine is only to show that Antichrist sitting in the Temple of Jerusalem, is not against this place of Daniel, and not to prove out of this place that he shall sit there. Wherefore let M. Downam begin his reply anew, and so he doth, arguing that it is not probable that Antichrist being so great a Monarch will suffer the temple which he chooseth for his chief seat to be unbuilt, or that he will sit in a temple without a roof or unfinished. To which it is easy to answer, that this is not probable indeed, if he may have time enough, and there fall no other hindrance. But now M. Downam may remember, that his reign is to endure in that greatness, but only three years & a half, which is very little for the finishing of so sumptuous a building, & yet we think he may have the roof up also at least in some part, in which he shall sit, till he may get the rest finished, as he will hope he shall, but yet he shall be hindered either The temple of jerusalem shall not be finished by Antichrist. Socrat. l. 3. cap. 20. Theodoret. l. 3. c. 20. Sozom. l. 5. cap. vlt. Luc. 21. by the shortness of time, or by some accidents, not unlike to those that fell out in julians' time, though it be very likely, that God will permit much more in antichrist's days without working miracles, especially since it is certain, that the Temple was not to be built again until the end of the world, as Daniel foretold. Which M. Downam will needs have confirmed by that place of Luc. 21. where our Saviour foretelleth, that Jerusalem should be trodden under the foot of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Which words if they might have that sense, were a good explication of that which Daniel called the consummation and end, for it is certain that the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled, before the end of the world be fully accomplished. 10. To Bellarmine's answer to the Fathers, M. Downam replieth not a word, and yet it contained matter of no small importance, but that which overthroweth the whole Protestants devise. For Bellarmine affirmeth & proveth, that those Antichrist shall sit in material Churches and not in the Church of Christ as a Bishop. Fathers which they allege, are no way against us, but manifestly against them, since they speak of material Churches, in which Antichrist will command himself to be placed and worshipped for God, and not that he shall sit in the Church of Christ as a Bishop, which is only the fond conceit of M. Downam, and his like, without any authority either of Scriptures, or Fathers, or show of reason. Neither must the reader think, that M. Downam omitted this reply because he maketh little account of the Fathers when they seem to be on his side, for of this we shall see the contrary in that he laboureth so earnestly to make S. Gregory seem to say something in his favour. For to Bellarmine's answer concerning his authority he replieth, that the pride and ambition of john of Constantinople, though very great and Antichristian, was not to be compared with the incredible insolency and pride of the Antichrist of Rome, because john of Constantinople challenged not that height of authority & The Pope hath not so much sovereignty as john of Constantinople challenged. See part. ●. cap. 1. sovereignty which Popes since have usurped, not only over Bishops and Ecclesiastical persons, but also over the Kings and monarchs of the Earth. Where (to omit that Bibliander made his illation against the Pope precisely, because he maketh himself the universal Bishop, and sitteth in the Church as head of all, and consequently all other charges are from the purpose) you see the Pope charged first, with taking more sovereignty upon him, than john of Constantinople did, which is a loud lie by M. Downam's leave: for john of Constantinople would have been the Universal Bishop in that sense, that there should be no other properly Bishops besides himself, but all others should be his Vicars and Vicegerents, which was more than ever the Pope challenged or pretended. The second charge seemeth to be, that john of Constantinople sought only a superiority over all Bishops, but the Pope hath usurped the same over all Kings and monarchs also: But this is so ridiculous that M. Downam may well be ashamed thereof, for what doubt can there be, but only in a flattering parasites conceit, that he who hath superiority over all Bishops, must needs also have it over all Christian Kings and monarchs, since that these are also subject in spiritual causes to their particular Bishops and Pastors. But M. Downam knew well enough, where he wrote this, in which respect he doubted not that it would be pleasing, and then it made no matter Downam seemeth to have been a Puritan when he wrote this. See part. 2. cap. 5. for the truth, though it went against his own conscience, for he seemeth by his writing to be of the Puritanical sect, and consequently to think himself a better man by his Ministry, than ever a King in the world; howsoever he is content rather to dissemble and flatter, then to put his bennefice in icopardy. Now for his brags, that he hath showed else where, that in some things the Pope matcheth himself with Christ, in somethings he advanceth himself above him, and above all that is called God. I must desire the Reader to have patience till we come to that place, and in the mean time to look wishly upon M. Downam's forehead, whether it be made of brass or no, for surely it is exceeding hard. But now I would ask M. Downam in good earnest, why he left out the chiefest part of Bellarmine's answer, for this other was but to show that the objection proved as much against the Protestants as for them, which is not to solve an argument, but to make another. Wherefore Bellarmine answereth directly, that the sense of S. Gregory's words is, that because Antichrist shall be most proud, and the head of all the proud, so that he will not suffer any equals, therefore whosoever usurpeth to himself any thing otherwise then he ought, Whosoever usurpeth more dignity than is due to him is Antichrist his forerunner. and will exceed and surpass others, is his forerunner: and such were the Bishops of Constantinople, who being in the beginning but Archbishops, first usurped to be patriarchs, and after the title of Universal. How chance M. Downam replieth not against this? nor doth so much as go about to show, that the Pope usurpeth any more than he aught according to his place and dignity? which is to be Christ's Vicegerent in spiritual causes, as the Emperors and temporal Princes are in temporal. To the other part of Bellarmine's answer, M. Downam replieth thus: Shameless, and yet ridiculous. Doth it not follow, that if he be the Prince of priests, as they are proud, that he is the Prince of proud Priests, such as the whole Hierarchy of Rome consisteth of? Where first I desire the Reader to consider whether M. Downam be not exceeding shameless, to leave out that clause of Bellarmine's Downam corrupteth Bellarmine's words. answer which is most to the purpose, which is his proof, that S. Gregory meaneth not that Priests as Priests, belong to the army of Antichrist, in these words, for so he should have put himself in that army. Secondly, I must crave the like judgement of his ridiculous sophistry, for Bellarmine answereth to bibliander's argument, who proveth that Antichrist shall be the head of Priests, because S. Gregory Antichrist the head of all the proud. affirmeth that his army shall be Priests. That S. Gregory meaneth not Priests, as they are Priests, but as they are proud, and consequently it followeth not, that Antichrist shall be the head of Priests (is they be not proud) but of the proud (whether they be Priests or others) M. Downam replieth that he shall be the prince of proud Priests. Can there be any thing more ridiculous than this, to infer the same which his Adversary granteth? Yea but he addeth, such as the whole hierarchy of Rome consisteth of. This is the question, and this M. Downam after his wont manner would have granted, Downam his petitio principij. which if it may not be, he hath no more to say, but will put up his pipes and make an end, as he doth here, but yet with a crack, for otherwise he were no Minister. THE FOURTENTH CHAPTER. Of antichrist's Doctrine. OF antichrist's Doctrine (saith Bellarmine) there is very great controversy betwixt us and the heretics. It is manifest out of the Scriptures, even by the testimony of our Adversaries, that there shall be four heads of antichrist's Doctrine. For first, he shall deny that jesus is Christ, and for that cause shall impugn all the ordinances of our Saviour, as Baptism, Confirmation etc. and shall teach that Circumcision is not yet ceased, nor the Sabaoth, and the other ceremonies of the Law. 1. joan. 2. Who is a liar, but he that denieth jesus to be Christ? And this is Antichrist, who denteth th● Father and the Soane? Afterward when he hath persuaded that our Saviour is not the true Christ, than he will affirm, that he himself is the true Christ, promised in the Law, and the Prophets. joan. 5. If any come in his own name▪ him you will receive, viz. for the Messiah. Thirdly he will affirm that he is God, and will be worshipped for God. 2. Thess. 2. so that he sit in the Temple of God, showing himself as though he were God. last he will not only say that he is God, but also that he is the only God, and he will impugn all other Gods, that is, aswell the true God, as also the false Gods, and all Idols, 2. Thess. 2. Who extelleth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped as God. And Dan. 11. And he will not repute the God of his Fathers, nor care for any of the Gods, because he will rise against all. That all these things are in some sort true, and belong to Antichrist, our Adversaries agree with us: But the question is of the sense of these four heads, for the Catholics understand them plainly, and as the words of Scripture sound, that Antichrist will deny the true Christ, make himself Christ, proclaim himself God, & detest all other Gods and Idols. Out of which are taken four arguments that the Pope is not Antichrist: for it is manifest that the Pope denieth not jesus to be Christ, nor bringeth in Circumcision, or the Sabaoth, instead of Baptism, and our Lord's day. And likewise it is manifest that the Pope doth not make himself Christ nor God; and chief it is manifest, that he maketh not himself the only God, since that he openly worshippeth Christ, and the Trinity, and in our adversaries conceit he worshippeth all Idols, that is, Images and Saints departed. But our Adversaries interpret all these things far otherwise, for first they say, that Antichrist will not deny in word and openly, that jesus is Christ, nor Baptism and other Sacraments, but that he will deny him in work, because under the colour of christianisme and the Church, he will corrupt the doctrine of Sacraments, of justification etc. Calvinus lib. 4. cap. 7. §. 25. We gather (saith he) that the Tyranny of Antichrist is such, that it abolisheth not the name of Christ, or of the Church, but rather abuseth it under the colour & pretext of Christ, and lieth lurking under the title of the Church, as under a vizard. Magdeburgenses Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. col. 435. So that (say they) the Kingdom of Antichrist consisteth in doctrine which professeth Christ, but yet he denieth his Merit and Office. And after: john (say they) showeth that Antichrist shall deny, that Christ is come in flesh; that is, that Christ hath entirely redeemed and saved us in his flesh, but that our good works do also help us something to salvation. Secondly they say that Antichrist shall not make himself Christ or God in word, but in work, because he shall occupy the place of Christ, and God in the Church, making himself the head of all the faithful, which belongeth only to Christ. So the Magdeburgenses loc. cit. He shall show himself (say they) for God, as that he is Christ's vicar, and the head of the Church, and can fasten & lose the articles of Faith. Finally, they say that Antichrist shall not reject Idols, yea that he shall adore them openly, which they prove out of Daniel, who cap. 11. after that he had said, that Antichrist should rise against all the Gods, addeth: But he shall reverence the God Maozim in his place, and he shall worship the God whom their Fathers knew not, with gold and silver, and precious stones etc. And by Maozim the heretics understand the ornaments of the Churches, the Masses, Images, Relics, and other like. So Illyricus in lib. cont. Primate. and all the rest. And that which the Apostle saith 2. Thess. 2. that Antichrist shall extol himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped: they expound the Pope, who maketh himself the Vicar of Christ, and yet usurpeth greater authority than Christ had. Illyricus in catalogue. testium pag. 3. proveth this (for I have not hitherto seen how they prove the rest) because Christ Matth. 24. declared, that it is nothing else to show himself to be God, yea to extol himself above God and his worship, then to come in the name of Christ: out of which it followeth, that the Pope who challengeth himself to be Christ's Vicar, is most truly Antichrist. Likewise Christ subjecteth himself to the Scripture saying, that he did and suffered those things, which he did and suffered, that the Scripture might be fulfiled: but the Pope saith, that he can dispense against an Apostle or Evangelist, and make those things which seem right to be wicked etc. This is the sum of the chiefest part of our adversaries doctrine of Antichrist, which is wholly grounded upon only Scripture, falsely explicated by new glosses. In sign whereof they allege not so much as one Interpreter or Doctor for themselves. Wherefore let us begin with the first, that Antichrist shall openly, and of set purpose deny jesus to be Christ, and therefore reject all his Sacraments, as the inventions of a seducer; it is proved first out of that which we have said cap. 12. For if Antichrist shall be by nation and religion ● jew, and received by the jews for their Messiah (as we have showed) certainly he shall not preach our Christ, but shall openly impugn him, for otherwise the jews should receive our Christ by Antichrist, which is most absurd. Besides, since there cannot be two Christ's, how can Antichrist obtrude himself for Christ to the jews, unless he first teach, that our Christ which went before, was not the true Christ? Secondly, that it is proved out of that 1. john 2. Who is a liar, but he that denieth jesus to be Christ? And this is Antichrist; for all heretics are called Antichrists, who in some sort deny jesus to be Christ: Therefore Antichrist himself shall simply, and in all sorts deny jesus to be Christ. And it is confirmed, because the Devil is said to work the mystery of iniquity by heretics, because they hiddenly deny Christ: But the coming of Antichrist is called a revelation, because he shall openly deny Christ. Besides, out of the Fathers, S. Hilaryl. 6. de Trinit. saith that the devil by the Arians endeavoured to persuade men, that Christ was not the natural, but the adoptive Son of God, but that by Antichrist he will endeavour to persuade, that he is not so much as the adoptive, that he may utterly extinguish the name of the true Christ. S. Hippolyt. mart. orat. de consume. mundi, saith, that antichrist's Character shall be that men shall be compelled to say: I deny Baptism, I deny the sign of the Cross, and the like. S. August. lib. 20. Civit. Dei cap. 8. inquireth, whether in the time of antichrist's persecution it be credible that any shall be baptised? and a● length he answereth: Truly (quoth he) both the parents shall be so courageous for the baptizing of their children, and likewise those who shall then first believe in Christ, that they will overcome the strong man, even unbound. Where S. Augustine presupposed that Antichrist will not permit them to be baptised: and yet that some godly parents will rather suffer any thing, then that their children should not be baptised. S Hierome in cap. 11. Dan. Antichrist (saith he) is to rise of a mean nation that is of the people of the jews▪ and he shall be so vile and contemptible, that Kingly honour shall not be given unto him, and by subtleties and deceit he shall come to be a Prince, and this he shall do, because he shall frame himself to be captain of the League, that is, of the Law and Testament of God. Where S. Hierome teacheth that Antichrist shall obtain the Kingdom among the jews, because he shall show himself zealous for the jewish Law. Sedulius in 2. Thess. 2. saith, that Antichrist shall restore all the jewish Ceremonies, that he may dissolve the Gospel of Christ. S. Gregory l. 11. ep. 3. Because Christ (saith he) shall compel the people to judaize, that he may recall the right of the outward Law, and subdue to himself the perfidiousness of the jews, he will have the Sabaoth observed. Finally in the time of Antichrist by reason of the vehemency of his persecution, the public offices and the divine Sacrifices shall cease, as we have showed c. 7. By which it is evident, that Antichrist will not deprave the Doctrine of Christ under the name of Christianisme, as the heretics will, but that he will most openly impugn the name and Sacraments of Christ, and bring in the jewish ceremonies: which since the Pope doth not, it is evident that he is not Antichrist. Now that Antichrist will plainly, and by name call himself Christ, and not his Minister or Vicar, that is manifest, first out of those words of our Lord, john 5. If another come in his own name, him you will receive. Where our Lord seemeth of purpose to have added, in his own name, foreseeing that the Lutherans & Caluinists would say, that Antichrist shall not come in his own name, but in the name of our Christ, as his Vicar. Besides, the Fathers in many places teach this: S. Iren. lib. 5. He will endeavour (saith he) to show himself Christ. S. Ambrose in cap. 21. Luc. He will argue out of the Scriptures (saith he) that he is Christ. Theodoret in 2. Thess. 2. He will name himself Christ. S. Cyril cateches. 15. He will induce (saith he) a certain man falsely calling himself Christ: and by this appellation deceiving the jews, who expect him to come. Briefly, all the Fathers as we have showed before, do say, that Antichrist shall be received of the jews for the Messiah: Wherefore he shall openly and by name make self the Messiah, that is Christ. Wherefore the Pope, who doth not this (as is known) is not Antichrist. For in that he calleth himself the Vicar of Christ, he affirmeth himself not to be Christ, but his servant. And that Antichrist shall openly name himself God, and will be worshipped for God, not only usurping some authority of God, but the very name of God, it is proved first by those words of the Apostle 2. Thess. 2. So that he sitteth in the Temple, showing as though he were God. Where S. Paul doth not only say, that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple, for we also sit in Temples, and yet are not Antichrists, but also he explicateth the manner in which he shall sit, viz. that he shall fit as God, to whom alone properly a Temple is erected. And this is more plain in the Greek text, for it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tamquam Deus, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, ostendens quod sit Deus, showing that he is God. And so did all the ancient Fathers understand this place. S. Irenaeus lib. 5. Being an Apostatae and Thief, he will be adored as God. S. Chrysostome in hunc locum: He will command himself to be adored for God, and placed in the Temple. And Homil. 40. in loan. expounding this place: He will profess himself the God of all. And after: He will glory that he is the greatest of Gods. S. Ambrose in 2. Thess. 2. He will affirm himself to be God himself, not the Son of God. In like sort do all expound it. By which we understand, that the Pope who acknowledgeth himself to be the Servant of God, and not God, is not Antichrist. Finally, that Antichrist will not suffer any God, neither true nor false, nor any Idols, it is proved first by those words of S. Paul, 2. Thess. 2. Who is extolled above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; where it is to be noted, that in greek, for that is worshipped, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Magdeburgenses will have to signify worship, that is, the act of worshipping, not that which is worshipped, that from thence they may prove, that the Apostle meaneth not that Antichrist will not adore Idols, but that he will deprave the worship of the true God, maiming the Sacraments, or adding unto them divers Ceremonies. But certainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth most properly not the act, but the object, that is, that which is worshipped, as the Altar, Temple, Idol etc. For the worship is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Wherefore the same S. Paul. Act. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Praeteriens & considerans Simulachra vestra, inneni Aram etc. passing by and considering your Idols, I found an Altar etc. Where S. Paul most manifestly by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, understandeth the things themselves which are worshipped, as the Temples, Altars, Idols etc. And Sapient. 15. we read: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Melior est homo idolis quae ipse secit: nam ipse vixit aliquando, illa autem numquam. Man is better than the Idols which he hath made: for he lived sometime, but they never: which place I know not whether any dare so pervert, that he will deny by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the idols or figures themselves, which are made with men's hands, to be signified, and which seem to have life, and yet live not. Wherefore all the Grecians, and Erasmus also himself (to whom all the heretics attribute much) aswell in his translation, as in his annotations, doth teach, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be translated Numen, Sovereignty, or divine power and Majesty. Secondly the words of Daniel cap. 11. are most manifest: Neither will he care for any of the Gods, but will rise against all. Upon which place S. Hierome writing, saith: that they cannot be understood of Antiochus, as Porphiry would have them, because it is manifest that Antiochus adored the Gods of the Greeks', but they are to be understood of Antichrist, who will worship no God. Lastly, this is the consent of the ancient Fathers. S. Irenaeus lib. 5. He shall lay aside Idols, to persuade that he is God, but he shall extol himself the only Idol. S. Hippolyt. Serm. the consummate. Antichrist will not admit Idolatry. S. Cyril catech. 15. Antichrist will hate Idols. S. Chrysost. upon this place: He is extolled above all that is called God, or Majesty, for he will not lead to Idolatry. The same teach upon this place Theophilact, Oecumenius. Theodoretus, who also note very well, that the Devil doth and will wonderfully play with the children of perdition, for in old time he persuaded, that there were many false Gods, and that divers Idols were to be worshipped, and by that means gained many: But in the time of Antichrist, because he shall see, that by the Doctrine of Christ, Idols are cast in a manner out of the world, and the multitude of false Gods, he will also accuse Idols, and the multitudes of them, and by that means will deceive more yet. By which it appeareth, that the Pope who in the opinion of the Catholics acknowledgeth God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and in the opinion of Heretics adoreth many Idols, can by no means be said to be Antichrist. But say they, Daniel cap. 11. affirmeth that the God Maozim shall be worshipped by Antichrist with gold and silver, and preti●●● stones; it is answered first by the God Marzint, which is interpreted of strengths, that is most strong, Antichrist himself may be understood, for the word venerabitur, will worship, is not in the hebrew jista●a●ch, adorabit, will adore, but jecabbed, glorificabit, will glorify, as Psal. 90. God saith, Eripiam cum & glorificabo cum, I will deliver him, and glorify him, in hebrew ●●abbedeh●: and certainly God doth not glorify men, by subjecting himself unto them, but by exalting them. So therefore shall Antichrist glorify himself, when he shall cause himself to be adored of all, for which cause the 70. translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in this sort doth Theodoret expound it: He calleth himself the strong and mighty God, for this doth Maozim signify, for he did put (in this place) for himself. For he will erect Temples to himself, and will adorn them with gold, silver, and precious stones. Thus Theodoret. Secondly, it may be said, which I like better, that Antichrist shall be a Sorcerer, and after the manner of other Witches, shall secretly adore the Devil himself, by whose help he shall do wonders, and that he is called the God Maozim: yea I do not think that Maozim is the name of a God, but of a ce●aine most fortified and secret place, in which shall be the chiefest treasures of Antichrist, and in which, as we said, he shall adore the Devil, for it followeth in Daniel: And he shall cause Maozim to be sortified with a stung God, whom he hath known. And truly Maoz signifieth both strength, and a castle. In this sort doth Lyranus expound it, and that we must necessarily say, that Antichrist is himself the God Maozim, or if it be any other, that he is not to be adored by Antichrist, but in a most hidden place, and secretly from the knowledge of all, the very words of Daniel compel us, which otherwise should be contrary to themselves: For if he shall care for none of the Gods, how shall he openly worship Idols? Now the two arguments of Illyricus are of no importance, for in the first, he committeth three faults. First in that he affirmeth, that Christ explicateth the words of S. Paul; whereas rather S. Paul ought to explicate the words of Christ. Secondly, in that he saith, that Matth. 24. To come in the name of Christ, doth signify the same, as to be the Vicar of Christ: For the explication of Christ himself, is repugnant to this explication of Illyricus, for when our Lord had said: Many will come in my name, forth with he addeth explicating, saying: I am Christ. Wherefore to come in the name of Christ in that place, is to usurp to themselves the name of Christ, which in old time Simon Magus did, as witnesseth S. Iren. lib. 1. cap. 20. and in our time David Georgius: and at length Antichrist himself shall do. But the Pope even in that he nameth himself the Vicar of Christ, doth make himself not to be Christ. Illyricus his third fault is, that he maketh Christ an unfit interpreter of S. Paul, for he doth not rightly expound that place of S. Paul (He extolleth himself above all Gods) by this (many will come in my name, that is, will make themselves my Vicars) for the Vicar of God is not above all Gods, but under all Gods, as the Vicar of a King, is under all Kings, for it cannot be imagined or devised how he, that professeth himself to be the Vicegerent of any King, should boast, that he is above all Kings, by which the blindness and impudence of our Adversaries is apparent, who sometime utter such things as are against common sense. And to that argument of Illyricus, by which he proved, that the Pope did usurp greater authority than Christ hath; I answer, that the proposition and assumption of that argument, are two lies, and beside, that the consequence is nothing worth. For first it is false, that Christ subjecteth himself to the Scriptures, since that it is manifest, that he is the Author of the Scriptures, and therefore above the Scriptures: and when we read that Christ did those things which he did, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled▪ that ut, or this, signifieth not the cause, but the event, as S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine teach in cap. 12. joan. for Christ did not die because Isay wrote so, but Isay wrote it, because it was to be. Secondly it is also false, that the Pope ever said in word or in dead, that he can dispense against an Evangelist or Apostle, for though he can dispense in the positive precepts of the Apostles, yet this is not against an Apostle, but according to an Apostle, who doubtless knew, that the Apostolic power, by which he ordained something in the Church for a time, was to be in his successors, by which they might moderate or change the same things, as should be expedient for the Church. But in the evangelical, that is the divine percepts, no Catholic ever said, that the Pope could any way dispense. Finally the consequence is nought, for in the Mayor, or Proposition, Illyricus speaketh of the subjection of Christ under the Scriptures, not concerning the precepts, but concerning the Prophecies, for Illyricus was not ignorant that Christ had taken away the Sabboath, and abrogated the Ceremonial Law: & in the Minor or Assumption, he speaketh of precepts; and so his argument hath four terms, and can conclude nothing. This shall suffice for the doctrine of Antichrist in this place. M. Downams Answer confuted. 1. MASTER Downam beginneth his answer, telling us, that there are more Doctrines of Antichrist then four: which Bellarmine denieth not, and therefore this is not to the purpose. Secondly he saith, that those two doctrines of devils. 1. Tim. 4. of forbidding marriage, and commanding abstinence from meats belong also to Antichrist: which Bellarmine will not stick to grant, or at least to let pass, as being nothing against him, or the Pope, as may easily be showed upon any good occasion. But now we have other four Doctrines in hand, of which M. Downam affirmeth two things. First, that they are not all the doctrines of Antichrist. Secondly, that those which be his Doctrines, do not unfitly agree to the Pope. Wherefore let us see how he can make either of these his assertions good, or answer Bellarmine's proofs to the contrary. 2. First, then concerning antichrist's denial of Christ, M. Downam denieth that it shall be openly, directly, and expressly, and telleth us, that he hath provided else where that Antichrist was only to deny Christ covertly, indirectely, and by Antichrist shall openly deny jesus to be Christ. consequent, and that he hath likewise showed, that the Pope doth so. Concerning which assertions of his, I must crave thus much favour at the Readers hands, that he will not believe M. Downam upon his word, until after the discussion of those proofs, he find him to be an honest man, for now this place requireth that we examine how he answereth Bellarmine's arguments. To the first of which, M. Downam hath nothing See part. 2. cap. 4. §. 6. 7. 8. See cap. 12. at all to say, if Antichrist shall be by Nation and Religion a jew. Which point hath been already discussed, and therefore now the reader is to give judgement, whether he shall be so or no, and consequently, whether it be not also manifest by this argument, that Antichrist shall deny Christ plainly and openly. 3. For answer to the second argument, M. Downam denieth, that S. john in that place speaketh either of the body of Antichrist 1. joan. 2. in general, or of the head of that body in particular, but of Cerinthus and others, which denied the Divinity of Christ, as appeareth plainly by that which followeth in the text: This is that Antichrist that denieth the Father & the Son. But M. Downam might have remembered how Bellarmine in his second argument observed, that in some places the article was put in, and in some left out, to signify when Antichrist himself was spoken of, and when his forerunners or members. Wherefore since the article is put here, it is evident, that the chief Antichrist himself is spoken of. Neither is it to the purpose, that Cerinthus and other denied the Divinity of Christ, for S. john denieth not, but that others may deny it aswell as Antichrist, but only affirmeth, that he shall deny jesus to be Christ, and likewise the Divinity both of Christ and his Father, which others did indirectly and by consequence, as M. Downam confesseth, which seemeth not sufficient for that which S. john saith: for he speaketh absolutely, and affirmeth, that Antichrist shall deny aswell the Divinity of the Father, as of Christ. And by this M. Downam may see how he was at least deceived, §. 1. when he affirmed, that Bellarmine understood this place of denying of Christ, covertly, indirectly, and by consequence. Perhaps when Bellarmine added, that all heretics are called Antichrists, Downam mistaketh Bellarmin who in some sort deny jesus to be Christ, M. Downam understood that they were called so in this place. But this is a great mistaking, since in this place Antichrist is with an article: by which Bellarmine gathereth, that Antichrist himself is spoken of, as before, where the Apostle saith, that many were become Antichrists, there is no article, and therefore the Apostle speaketh of heretics. Likewise M. Downam is much out of the way when he inferreth, that because Antichrist shall come in all deceavablenesse of iniquity, as S. Paul affirmeth 2. Thess. 2. therefore he shall not deny Christ openly, for that seduction or deceavablenesse is understood of his How Antichrist shall seduce. subtle and cunning persuasions, and not for any moderation in his errors and blasphemies, which the greater they shall be, the more craft he will use to bring men to them, and not only craft, but also all power and lying signs, and wonders, as the Apostle testifieth in the same place: and finally See cap. 7. most grievous persecution, as we have seen before. Wherefore no doubt, besides the authority of S. john, Bellarmine's inference is very good, from the heretics to Antichrist himself, for he shall exceed them in opposition to Christ Antichrist shall exceed all heretics. by many degrees: so that since they have denied Christ covertly, yea some of them openly also, Antichrist shall go as far and further, than any of them, in this denial. And though those other comparisons which M. Downam maketh of the parts and points of Christian Doctrine, and likewise in respect of the parties which shall join with him, and finally in the greatness of ambition, be also true, if they be rightly understood: for no doubt Antichrist shall surpass all heretics in these also, yet this is no proof, that he shall not exceed them likewise in the greatness of his errors & blasphemies, which is that, that Bellarmine now only affirmeth, without the denial of the rest, & hath proved both out of the plain words of S. john, and likewise a minori ad maius, and thirdly confirmeth it, because the Devil is said to work the mystery of iniquity by heretics, but the coming of Antichrist is called a revelation. To which M. Downam replieth, that the mystery of iniquity 2. Thess. 2. 7. is Antichristianisme, or that Antichristian Apostasy from Christ, mentioned verse. 3. But first M. See cap. 2. Downam might remember, that Bellarmine in his answer to his third objection against his second principal argument, showeth, that the departure or Apostasy mentioned vers. 3, hath divers interpretations, and therefore he should not have taken this as the only. Well we will not stand with him in this, since the exposition is probable, as Bellarmine declareth in that place: but we can by no means grant, that the mystery of iniquity, and this Apostasy is all one, since that (as we have showed before) S. Paul himself doth evidently See cap. 2. §. 6. The mystery of iniquity, & the revelation of Antichrist & the Apostasy be not alone. distinguish them, affirming, that the Apostasy was not come in his time, but that the mystery of iniquity did them work. And in like manner also he distinguisheth the revelation of Antichrist, for of that he likewise saith, that it was to be afterward, wherefore I cannot see how M. Downam can affirm, that the mystery of iniquity doth most truly belong to Antichrist himself, unless he would also grant, that Antichrist himself was come in S. Paul's time, which I think he will be loath to do, because if will evidently follow, that either the Pope is not Antichrist himself, or else that S. Peter and S. Paul, or whosoever else he will make Bishop of Rome in S. Paul's time, was Antichrist. Wherefore since Antichrist himself was not come at that time, it is also evident, that S. Paul signified his coming by his revealing, because the iniquity which was covered with a mystery before his coming, shall be plainly revealed and avouched by him, which is all that Bellarmine needeth for the force of his argument, for now we talk not of the time, or manner of this revelation, having done that sufficiently in other places. But M. Downam must needs say something, though it be nothing at all to the purpose. 4. M. Downam will needs divide Bellarmine's position into two parts, of the former of which we have treated hitherto: the latter is, that Antichrist shall impugn all the ordinances of Christ, & teach that Circumcision, the Sabbaoth, and the other ceremonies of the law are not ceased. This is Bellarmine's assertion, and not as M. Downam setteth it down, changing a word or two which may seem to import nothing: but yet M. Downam had a meaning in it, as we shall see afterward. Now the latter dependeth so upon the former part, that Bellarmine bringeth no particular proofs for it, as indeed he need not, since it was but an explication of the former; & yet M. Downam will needs have him prove Downam his trifling the latter by the former, and by the first argument with which he proved the former, which is nothing but mere trifling, and to give himself an occasion to make an idle repetition of part of that, which he had said before. Wherefore omitting this, let us see, how he answereth the Fathers. To which first in general he giveth this censure, that in this question they deserve no further credit, than they conspire with the Prophecies of Scripture, and agree with the event. Both which latter you must give M. Downam liberty to interpret and declare as he thinketh good. And beside I would feign know, what questions those be, in which M. Downam will give the Father's credit, without this, or the like limitations? Well the censure presupposed, M. Downam is content for this time to vouchsafe every Father his particular answer, and first to S. Hilary he saith, that he calleth those heretics, who deny Christ to Antichrist shall deny Christ to be so much as the adopted Son of God. be the natural Son of God, Antichrist. And is not this a trim answer trow you? Because those heretics are called Antichrists, that is the forerunners of Antichrist, therefore S. Hilary saith not, that Antichrist himself shall deny Christ to be the adoptive Son of God, as though he could not say both the one and the other. But this is M. Downam's acumen, to find a difficulty where there is none, and not to see nor understand the plain words which lie before his eyes. S. Hilary. For thus writeth S. Hilary: Loquitur haec interim, loquitur planè per adventus sui Prophetas & prae●io● ipse ille qui postea erit in Antichristo locuturus, salutarem fidei confessionem his tentamentis novis inquietans, ut primum conscientiae nostrae, quaita credimus, intelligentiam filii naturalis evellat: deinde ipsum illud quod adoptiws erit, reliquum nomen excludat. Nam cum quibus creatura est Christus, necesse est, ut cum his Antichristus ipse sit Christus, quia & filii proprietatem creatura non habeat, & Deise ille filium mentiatur, & per hoc àquibus hic Dei filius iam negatur, ab his tunc Christus ille credatur. He speaketh these things in the mean time: he doubtless himself speaketh them by the prophets and forerunners of his coming, who will hereafter speak in Antichrist, disquieting the wholesome confession of Faith with these new temptations, that first he may pull out of our conscience the understanding of the natural Son, with which we believe so, and after exclude the very name of Adoptius, which shall remain. For those who think Christ to be a creature, must needs also take Antichrist to be Christ, because a creature hath not the propriety of a son, and he doth falsely affirm himself to be the Son of God: and therefore they who deny this Son of God now, will believe him to be Christ then. Where we see, that S. Hilary doth not only affirm, that Antichrist will deny, that Christ is so much as the Adopted Son of God, but also that he shall affirm himself to be Christ, and the Son of God, and be acknowledged to be so by his followers. To S. Hippolytus he saith plainly, that his authority is S. Hippolytus. counterfeit, which is the least part of M. Downam's impudence, to reject whom he pleaseth without either reason, or any other authority than his own: yet he is content to answer the place objected by Bellarmine, by telling him, that he hath rejected it himself before, which wanteth not impudence, but yet hath some subtlety mixed withal: For Bellarmine indeed did think it more probable, that the mark of Antichrist, which is but one, shall be positive, then privative: which is not altogether so much, as to reject the opinion of S. Hippolytus, who thinketh that it shall be privative, but only to think another more probable: But the cozening trick consisteth not in this. Now there is no question of the mark of Antichrist, but only of his Doctrine, and to this end is S. Hippolytus alleged now, that he shall enforce men to renounce their Baptism, & the sign of the Cross. This Bellarmine never rejected, but is fully of S. Hippolytus his mind, thus far only they differ, whether Antichrist shall have any other mark beside this, or no, for that he shall teach this doctrine they both agree, by which M. Downam's vizard is pulled of. To the authority of S. Augustine M. Downam answereth, that he speaketh 〈◊〉 of Antichrist, but of the Devil, but he should have added, that he speaketh of the devil in S. Augustine. antichrist's time, as he doth most plainly, by which it is evident, that Antichrist who shall be his chief instrument for all wickedness, shall join with him in this also, which Bellarmine doth not affirm, that S. Augustine expressly saith, but only that he presupposeth it, which is most manifest. S. Hierome he taketh up more roundly telling him, that he is neither Prophet, nor true expositor of this Prophecy of Daniel; S. Hierome for both which he giveth us his own honest word, and remitteth us also to Polan on Daniel 11. But M. Downam must pardon us, if we take S. Hierome to be the honester man of the two, and as for M. Polan, we have now no spare time to loof in perusing him, it being sufficient for Bellarmine, and us also, that S. Hierome is clear for us. Sedulius must also be Sedulius. Antichrist shall restore all the jewish ceremonies. content to be told, that his speech is incredible, because many of the jewish ceremonies cannot be observed, but in the Temple, which shall never be re-edified. But the best is, that Sedulius hath all those of his side, against M. Downam's reason, which think, that the Temple shall be re-edified, with whom he may be very well content to take this repulse at M. Downam's hands, yet he hath thus much favour showed him, that if he will change (all) into (many) his opinion shall be admitted, because in M. Downam's judgement, so it may be verified of the Pope, and of some other heretics. But Sedulius is not a whit moved with this fair offer, but still affirmeth that Antichrist shall restore all the jews Ceremonies, as one that will be taken for their Messiah, and he may confirm his assertion, by that which M. Downam bringeth of some heretics who are his forerunners, and therefore participate with him in some part of his wickedness: but the Pope is his chiefest opposite, and therefore never admitted any the least ceremony of the jews, though he useth some, which are like to them, as that which is figured, aught to be to the figure and sign thereof. S. Gregory Antichrist shall cause the Sabbaoth to be observed. Lastly to S. Gregory, M. Downam affirmeth that he teacheth, that Antichrist shall not only admit the Sabbaoth, but also the Lords Day: which is indeed very probable, for it will be hard for him to make so universal a change upon the sudden, and therefore that he may please all, he will be content to wink at something. But what is this against that which Bellarmine affirmed? Doth not S. Gregory affirm, that Antichrist will have the Sabbaoth observed? And this is all that Bellarmine allegeth him for, who never affirmed, that Antichrist should abolish all the ordinances of Christ, as M. Downam allegeth his words, but only that he should impugn them, which may very well stand with his commanding our Lord's day to be observed, at least for a while, and at his first coming, for other respects, but not for any love he shall bear to Christ, or any liking he will have of his ordinances, which is also manifestly S. Gregoryes mind, for he giveth this reason, why Antichrist shall keep Dominicum diem, quia morise, & resurgere simula●: because he feigneth himself to die and rise again. But for the Sabbaoth he giveth another far different, viz. because he shall ●ompell the people to judaize etc. 5. To Bellarmine's last confirmation, from the vehemency of antichrist's persecution, which shall cause the public Offices and the divine Sacrifices to cease, M. Downam answereth with a distinction, that if he meaneth the true public worship of God, it hath ceased already in the Papacy, by the vehemency of the Pope's persecution, who yet is no open enemy of Christ, where by the true worship of God, you may easily conceive, that he meaneth that of Protestants: though he cannot show us, that ever it was before Luther's time, or name us one, who felt this vehement persecution for that cause, well he may tell us of some of their brethren (for all heretics will be brethren, because they agree at least in one point, that is The Pope suppresseth heretics as Antichrist shall oppress Catholics. in impugning God's Church) whom the Pope hath suppressed, for it is his office to suppress them, as Antichrist shall endeavour to suppress him, and all that adhere unto him for Christ's cause, whom he shall chief oppose himself unto. Neither is the other part of M. Downam's distinction necessary, for all false worshippers shall join themselves to Antichrist, and help him in the persecution of the others, and if M. Downam remembreth, in the place which Bellarmin alleged, he showed, that Antichrist shall make the daily sacrifice of the Church to cease, which cannot be understood See cap. 7. of the Protestants, but of the Catholic Roman Church: but since both Bellarmine and M. Downam remit themselves to that which they have said before, I will do so likewise, only I will require the Reader to note by the way, that M. Downam Downam mistaketh Bellarmin is at least mistaken in this place, if not worse, for he maketh this of the ceasing of the public offices, and the divine Sacrifices to be a new argument to prove, that Antichrist shall openly deny Christ, and abolish all his ordinances, whereas Bellarmine never meant any such matter, but only having proved by the Fathers, that Antichrist shall deny Christ, impugn Baptism, seek to dissolve the Gospel of Christ, teach that the Sabbaoth and other ceremonies of the jews are not ceased, because he would avoid prolixity, be remitteth himself to his former proofs, that he shall likewise cause the public offices and the divine sacrifices to cease: so that M. Downam might aswell have made a new argument of every one of the Father's Authorities, as of this. But I will not charge him with malice in this place, except it may be attributed rather to malice then to simplicity, that he was so blind, of which I am content he shall have his choice. But surely the one of them he cannot avoid, as appeareth by that which I have said, and also by Bellarmine's conclusion which followeth immediately, Ex quibus evidens est etc. By which it is evident etc. For that (quibus) cannot be referred to the last clause only, but to the whole induction out of the Fathers, as is manifest, and this is always Bellarmine's use, to make the authority of the Father's one argument. 6. And thus we may come to the second doctrine, for that which M. Downam saith concerning Bellarmine's assumption, Downam speaketh from the purpose. is neither to the purpose, but only so far, as it includeth the denial of the proposition; nor belongeth to this place, but to another, to which he remitteth himself, and so the Reader must have patience till we come thither. See part. 2. §. 6. 7. 8. 7. Now then concerning the second doctrine, M. Downam denieth, that Antichrist will openly, and in so many words expressly affirm, that he is the Christ or Messiah of the world, for Antichrist will openly affirm himself to be Christ. which he remitteth himself to his former proofs, touching only two. 1. That his Religion is a mystery of iniquity, which as a little before we showed, it is to be understood of the heretics, and cannot be applied to Antichrist himself. 2. Because he could not seduce so many Christians, if he should plainly profess himself Christ. But we see the contrary of this in the Turks, The Turks inferior to Antichrist who notwithstanding are nothing comparable to Antichrist, either in craft, wonders, or violence, besides the ill disposition, which he shall find in most Christians at that time. Having thus eased his stomach a little M. Downam cometh to answer Bellarmine's proof out of the Scripture, referring joan. 5. himself to his former answer, to this place in Bellarmine's second argument, where he said, that Christ spoke conditionally, if another shall come, and indefinitely of See cap. 2. any false Prophet. But there also I showed the contrary of both, as also, that Antichrist is to come in his own name, and to profess so much, which other false prophets use not to do. For as our Saviour did not only come indeed, but also professed himself to come in the name of his Father: so likewise Antichrist shall not only come indeed, but also profess himself to come in his own name. And if our Saviour were to be understood of all false prophets indefinitely, Our saviours words not true in M. Downam his opinion his speech were not true (which me thinks M. Downan should be afraid to affirm) for it is evident by experience, that many false prophets have come since that time, few or none of which the jews, or the greatest part of them have received, whereas by his interpretation, they should have received them all, and above all the Pope, whom M. Downam will needs have to be Antichrist himself, whom notwithstanding they are so far from receiving, that they hate him above all other men, and account him their greatest enemy, as we have seen, and experience teacheth. To the Fathers in this place, he vouchsafeth no answer at all, but rejecteth them absolutely, because they were no prophets, and spoke without book. This is the impudence of this fellow, that all they must of force speak without-book, that interpret Scripture against his fond fancy: But we make no doubt, but that God hath given the interpretation of Scripture to his Church, and the Doctors thereof, which by all reason we are to acknowledge these holy Fathers to be, since they came not without calling and commission, as M. Downam and his fellow Ministers, and all other heretics do. Neither can he help himself by flying to Bellarmine for aid, for no man reverenceth the Father's more than he, and it is false that he ever gave any such rule, that we are not to Bellarmin reverenceth the Fathers. give credit to any such conjectures of the Fathers, as have no ground in the word of God: For who shall be judge of this? How far he admitted the opinion of those twelve Fathers who affirmed that Antichrist as to be of the Tribe of Dan. we show in that place, and it was, that he took it to be very probable, See cap. 12. though not altogether certain, because the most of them took it not to be so; and beside they were divided in the exposition of those places of Scripture, some of them following the literal sense, and some the mystical. But here is no such division, all agreeing both in the exposition of Scripture, and also in the assertion itself. 8. And thus we are to pass to the third doctrine: For that which M. Downam saith concerning the assumption, is nothing but a little taste of his gift in railing against the Pope, in which he is so expert, that he cannot hold his babbling, though it be nothing at all to the purpose, as in this place he himself confesseth that it is not, for he goeth only about to show, that the Pope indirectly, and by consequent maketh himself Christ. Which if it were true, would only prove him to be an heretic, or a false prophet, but not Antichrist himself, of whom only we speak in this place. But how false all this impudent calumniation of our chief Pastor is, shall appear in due place, to which See part. 2. cap. ●. also M. Downam remitteth himself for his proofs. 9 Concerning the third doctrine, M. Downam denieth, that it is necessary, that Antichrist should in word, plainly and openly profess himself to be God, & to the place of S. Paul he saith, that the meaning is, that Antichrist shall rule & reign in the Church 2. Thess. 2. of God, as if he were a God upon earth, showing himself, not so much by words a● by deeds, that he is a God, and to maintain this his exposition, Antichrist shall openly name himself God. he is content to help himself with the translation of the Rhemish, and of the Latin vulgar edition, who read tamquam fit Deus as though he were God: and likewise with the exposition of S. Chrysostome, Theophilact, and Oecumenius, whose words he putteth down, first in Greek, and after in English thus: He saith showing himself, he said not saying, bu● endeavouring to show for he shall work great works, and shall show forth wonderful signs. Finally, he bringeth the authority of Beza, who observeth that the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, showing, is answerable to the Hebrew Mozeh, faciensse apparere, praese ferens, or as we say (saith M. Downam) taking upon him as if he were God. All which maketh nothing at all against Bellarmine, but addeth this more, that he shall not only say that he is God, by which he would not be able to seduce many, but shall likewise give great shows thereof, insomuch that if it were possible, the very elect should be seduced by him. But M. Downam's device is by telling us, that he shall endeavour to show himself to be God by works and wonders, to make us believe, that he shall not be so shameless as to say plainly that he is God, which is a very strange conceit, if you mark it well, for he confesseth, that by his actions he shall come to be acknowledged, saluted, and called God, that he shall cause, or at least, suffer himself to be worshipped as God, and finally, that he shall challenge unto himself those titles, attributes, and works which are proper, and peculiar unto the Lord, and yet having done all this M. Downam will by no means grant, that he shall name himself M. Downans strange paradox. God. Is not this a strange paradox? & yet M. Downam will the fend it, though it be never so absurd, only for this cause, that he can make a flourish amongst fools, as though the Pope did all this, but that the Pope calleth himself God, he can by no device make it carry any colour. This is the cause why Bellarmine is constrained to stand so much upon the name, so that he may leave his adversaries no starting-hole at all. And this he manifestly proveth out of the text itself; for S. Paul expresseth, that Antichrist shall sit in the Why and how Antichrist shall sit in the Temple. Temple, not as others do, but as God, for if he would not be accounted and adored as God, he might as well sit in another place as in the Temple, but because that is his end, he chooseth to sit in the temple, as in a place proper to his dignity, for as the Throne is proper to a King, so is a Temple proper to God, and this is plain in the greek, which hath showing himself that he is God. Against this M. Downam taketh many exceptions. 1. That the Temple signifieth not the material See cap. 13 Temple at Jerusalem, of which we have treated before. 2. That by fitting, is not meant the corporal gesture of sitting in Apoc. 17. that material Temple. But how chance he did not answer Bellarmine's proofs to the contrary? for he showed that all the Fathers without controversy understood it so, & the words themselves are plain. 3. That the Temple is not to be erected to antichrist's honour, since it is called the Temple of God. This Bellarmine affirmed not, for the Temple shall be erected in the beginning, when Antichrist shall only discover himself to be the Messiah, which when he hath obtained, than he shall affirm, that he is their God himself, and consequently that it belongeth to him to sit in that Temple, and to be adored as God, wherefore the Temple may very well be called the Temple of God, because it shall be erected to him, & yet afterward Antichrist may sit in it as God. And besides S. Paul calleth it the Temple of God, because it was so in Why the Temple that Antichrist shall sit in is called the Temple of God. his time. 4. That the greek text hath not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by which he hurteth Bellarmine sorely, for it is manifest, that this maketh his assertion & proofs much more plain, since that the same thing is affirmed here, and he speaketh only of the last words, which by the latin might seem to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but is indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Bellarmine affirmeth. Wherefore none of those four devices will serve the turn, and Bellarmine's argument is invincible, that Antichrist shall plainly profess himself to be God. 10. The authorities of the Fathers are so plain, that M. Downam could not devise what to say to them, for they Downam omitteth Bellarmine's argument. expound a place of Scripture, and therefore he could not reject them under pretence of want of Scripture, wherefore ●e thought it his best never to make mention of them, hoping perhaps that his reader would never miss them. And thus he cometh to the Assumption, which is, that the Pope acknowledgeth himself to be the servant of God, and not God. To which he answereth, that Bellarmine might as well conclude, that the Pope never calleth himself, Regem Regum terrae▪ ac Dominum Dominorum, the King of the Kings of the earth, and Lord of Lords, because he acknowledgeth himself servum servorum Dei, the Servant of God's servants. As though Bellarmine went about to conclude any thing now, and did not only set down his Assumption in plain words, which contain two things. 1. That the Pope acknowledgeth himself to be the servant of God. 2. Nor God: either of which M. Downam should have proved to be otherwise, if he would have said any See part. 2. cap. 5. Downam speaketh from the purpose. thing to the purpose, for whether the Pope may be called Rex Regum etc. or no, we shall see in another place, where M. Downam will spit out all his venom at once. Now it is sufficient, that the Pope doth not plainly profess himself God, as Antichrist shall do, & consequently he is not Antichrist, which is all we go about to prove now. In that other place we will also show, how falsely and slanderously M. Downam affirmeth, that the Pope taketh any authority upon him, that belongeth to God, or that in practice, deed, or behaviour, he useth himself, as if he were a God. Now also his beast of the Apocalyps cometh so out of place, that I will not stand to prove, that by him not Antichrist, See cap. 15. §. 10. but his false Prophet is described, which I have heretofore showed in part, and will hereafter declare more at large. 11. M. Downam stormeth more at the fourth doctrine then at the rest, calling it an absurd conceit of the Papists, and affirming that it is not only repugnant unto the truth, but also contradictory to their own Doctrine, in proof whereof he asketh many Antichrist will suffer no other God beside himself. questions: If it be credible either that a mortal man shall affirm himself alone to be the true God, and none but he? or if he shall so affirm of himself, that Christians and jews, and all the world almost will acknowledge and worship him, as the only true God? To which I answer, that it is not only credible, but also certain. And the difficulty which M. Downam putteth, is none at all, for there can be no doubt made, but that a mortal man may A mortal man, may be truly God. be true God, for so our Saviour was while he lived upon earth, and now we see the whole Christian world persuaded of this truth, though our saviours conversation upon earth was so contrary to flesh & blood, that it was a scandal to the jews, and folly in eyes of the Gentiles: whereas Antichrist will follow the humours of both, seeming glorious in the eyes of world, and wonderful in lying and deceitful signs, and miracles, and with all give such liberty to his followers, that they will make no difficulty in believing any thing he saith. 2. He objecteth, that the Antichristian seat is figured by the whore of Babylon, Apoc. 17. which together with Apoc. 17. her followers are given to Idolatry. But M. Downam knoweth that Bellarmine denieth, that Rome figured by that whore, is the seat of Antichrist, and likewise, that those Idolatries are to be in antichrist's time, but are long since post, when Rome was Ethnic, both which he proved before, and M. See, cap. 12. Downan either would not or could not answer to either then and now he only affirmeth the contrary, which is no sufficient proof. 3. The Papists themselves expound Deut. 11. 38. where Antiochus Epiphanes i● described as an Idolater, as properly spoken of Antichrist: where the Printer surely committed an error, though it be not noted amongst the faults escaped, for in Deut. 11. there is nothing that can be applied to Antiochus, and only 32. verses: wherefore no doubt, M. Downam meaneth Dan. 11. Dan. 11. 38. where he speaketh of the God Maozim: but this place Bellarmine handleth at large a little after, wherefore I will entreat M. Downam, and the Reader also to ●●ay for a further answer, till we come to examine M. Downam's reply to Bellarmine's answer concerning that place. 4. He asketh this question, Do not themselves teach that Antichrist shall profess himself to be the Messiah of the jews, and consequently that he is sent, and anointed of God? To which I answer that we teach indeed, that he shall profess himself to be the Messiah of the jews, but the consequent we teach not, for he shall come in his own name, and not sent or anointed by God, and this he will profess also, if not in the beginning, yet at least after a while, and by this M. Downam's next question is also answered, for since he shall profess himself not sent by God, he may say that there is no God besides himself. 5. Or if he being but a mortal man, shall say that there is no God besides himself, may we not well think (saith M. Downam) that they will either hiss at him as a fool or stone him to death as a blasphemer: for answer of which I will spur M. Downam another question. Are you so simple Sir as to think, that Antichrist will only say, that there is no God besides himself, or that he will discover himself so far, till he see himself so applauded, that he may say what he listeth without any fear at all, of either being hissed or stoned? and for that objection of mortality it is already answered; that it may stand with the Godhead, and besides Antichrist will make a fair show of either raising another, or himself from death to life, which will take away this objection them at hest, if any stand upon it at that time, so much as M. Downam doth at this. 6. Nay, do not themselves teach, that he shall be in religion ● jew, an observer of the Sabbaoth In Dan. ●● and other jewish Ceremonies? And do they not allege Hierome to prove, that Antichrist shall feign himself to be the chief of the Covenant, and a chief mantainer of the Law and Testament of God? To all which I answer, that we do so, for he shall not profess himself to be any other God, than the God of the jews, and consequently shall approve their law. 7. Lastly he poseth us thus: Are not his two horns like the lamb expounded by some approved Authers among them, of the two Testaments which he shall seem to profess? In Apoc. 13. To which I answer, that M. Downam might have done well, to have named these approved authors, for commonly Catholic authors think not, that this beast with two horn like a lamb, is to be understood of Antichrist, but of his precursor or false prophet, whom S. Irenaeus calleth Armigerum, by whose two horns are signified his power in persuading, and in working prodigious and strange things. If any expound them of the two testaments, they can have no other true sense, but that he shall profess great knowledge in both, to establish the old, and impugn the new, that so he may prevail with them the better which are l●ath to forsake Christ, for the authority of the Scriptures. 12. Now that M. Downam hath disgorged his own proofs, he is content to answer those of Bellarmin. And first concerning 2. Thess. 2. he leaveth his brethren the Magdeburgians 2. Thess 2. Downam cannot defend the Magdeburgenses. in the plain field, never so much as opening his lips in their defence, wherein he seemeth to acknowledge, that Bellarmine confuted them thoroughly: wherefore admitting, that the place is well explicated, he denieth the consequence. For (saith he) Antichrist may advance himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped and yet suffer ●ea require them to be worshipped. In proof whereof he bringeth three instances. 1. jupiter was supposted amongst the Heathens to advance himself above all other Gods, and yet suffered them to be worshipped as Gods. 2. The second beast, Apoc. 1●. doth the like with the Image of the former beast. Apoc 1●. 3. The Pope also advanceth himself above Angels Kings▪ and Princes, who are called Gods, above the Saints, the Host, the Cross and whatsoever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Church of Rome. But M. Downam is much mistaken in the matter: for Antichrist shall not only extol himself above all other Gods; but oppose himself against them all, for so S. Paul Antichrist shall not extol himself above all other Gods, but also oppose himself against them all. saith: Qui adversatur & extollitur, who is opposed and extolled. Now how this advancing and opposing himself can stand with suffering, yea requiring them to be worshipped as God, will be very hard for M. Downam, or any other to explicate. jupiter was supposed by the Gentiles to be the Father and King of the other Gods, but likewise he was supposed to love them, as his children and servants, and not to oppose himself unto them. The other two instances are both false and foolish, for that second beast is not Antichrist, as M. Downam supposeth, nor yet advanceth himself above the former, jupiter. by which indeed Antichrist is signified, and not the renowned Empire. The Pope advanceth not himself above the Angels, Saints, the Host, the Cross etc. as M. Downam Downam belieth the Pope. belieth him: He is indeed the Pastor and the Bishop of KIngs aswell as of others, and in that respect preferred before them by Christ himself. But what hindrance is this that he may not command Princes to be honoured and obeyed by their subjects, as he doth? Or what have any of these comparisons to do with the odoration of God, as God, which he that is opposite and extolled above all them, that take that name upon them, should suffer or require it to be given to others? And besides it is plain, that this opposition and advancement of Antichrist above all other Gods, shallbe for no other cause, but because they are called Gods, for if the cause were particular, the quarrel would not be so general. As if it should be true of any King, that he opposeth and advanceth himself above all that are called Kings, it were evident, that his quarrel against them were no other, then for that they were Kings, and were to called, and it were manifestly Why Antichrist advanceth and opposeth himself above all other Gods. against his will, that any other King should reign, or be acknowledged for a King but himself, and he would be far enough from suffering, yea requiring, that any of them should be worshipped, and further also from acknowledging, or worshipping any of them himself for King. Secondly M. Downam confirmeth this his answer by the example of Antiochus Epiphanes, who advanceth himself against every God, yea against the God of Gods, Dan. 11. 56. and yet he was never Antioch ' an idolater. so mad, as to profess himself the only God. But to this the answer is easy, that this place cannot be understood of Antiochus, but only of Antichrist, as S. Hierome showeth for this very reason, that Antiochus did not advance himself against every God, for he was a great Idolater himself. Thirdly M. Downam supposeth, that he hath proved Antichristianisme not to be open Atheism, but a mystery of iniquity etc. But we proved before, that it cannot be the mystery of iniquity, & yet it shall not Antichristianisme is not Atheism. properly be Atheism, since those which follow Antichrist shall take him for their God, and he himself, though openly he will worship no God, because he will profess himself to be God himself, yet secretly it is not unprobable, that he will adore the Devil as his God. Fourthly M. Downam argueth out of the text itself, which he saith, doth not ascribe to Antichrist so great an extolling of himself, as the jesuite imagineth: first, because, he is called a man of sin, and Son of perdition, and therefore we are to conceive of such an advancement of himself, as is incident to a mortal and wretched man. But to this of the mortality, I have answered sufficiently before, and the words of the text rather give us occasion to increase, than any way to diminish antichrist's sin, since that he is called Antonomasticè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ille home peccati and filius ille perditionis: that man of sin, and that son of perdition. Antichrist shall commit the greatest sins, when he cannot all. Which giveth us just occasion to think, that there shall be no sin nor perdition possible for any man to run into, from which Antichrist shall be free, or rather because some sins be contrary one to the other, that he shall fall into the depth of them all by embracing the greatest, when he cannot all. Secondly, by all that is called God in this place, M. Downam will have us to understand all to whom the name of God is communicated, as to Angels in Heaven, to Kings and Princes on earth, and of this advancing above Kings he would have this place understood, because afterward it is said, that the Roman Empire hindered antichrist's advancing or revealing himself, and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he would have us to understand any thing that is worshipped as God, or wherein God is worshipped: Such in the Church of Rome (saith he) are the Host, the Cross, the Saints, and their Images and relics. Above all which (he thinketh) that a man may advance himself (as the Pope doth) and yet may acknowledge some other God besides himself But to How the Pope may be called God. answer briefly, though it be true, that Kings etc. and consequently the Pope also may be called God in some sort, yet M. Downam will never be able to prove, that God himself is also called God; and likewise the false Gods: wherefore S. Paul must needs comprehend these also under all that ●● called God. And M. Downam's proof is very weak, that, because the Roman Empire is said to hinder Antichrist revealing, therefore he shall only advance himself above it, for though it be true, that he cannot advance himself till he be revealed, yet afterward he may and shall, not only above the Roman Empire (for that he did at his revealing) but above all that is called God, as S. Paul affirmeth. His interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we admit, but deny, that those things which he recounteth, are adored in the Church of Rome as God, or that the Pope advanceth himself above them, neither of which he willbe ever able to prove, as shall appear, when Downam belieth the Pope & church of Rome. he goeth about it. Lastly M. Downam affirmeth, that the greatest height of pride, that is incident to any creature whatsoever, is not to seek to be above God, for that cannot be imagined, but to be as God. And indeed (saith he) the height of Antichrist his pride and advancing of himself, is noted in the words following, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, insomuch, that be shall fit in the Temple of God, as God. In which words, M. Downam affirmeth the quite contrary to that, which S. Paul saith, for his words are plain, that Antichrist shall oppose and extol himself above all that is called God. And this may very easily be imagined if we speak of one, that either believeth not, that there is any true God, or else i● he believeth it, and consequently in his heart cannot extol himself above him, yet he may desire to usurp the honour due to How Antichrist may extol himself above God. him, to himself, and to this end profess himself to be the only true God; and to this intent sit in the Temple, as he, to whom it ought to be erected, and so show that he is God, which is indeed the height of antichrist's pride, since he cannot desire any more, then to be a counted and adored as if he were the only true God, which cannot be, unless he be extolled above the true God, and the false also. Dan. 11. 13. To the second testimony out of Dan. 11. M. Downam answereth two things: First, that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist, in proof whereof he allegeth Bellarmine himself, who in this very book cap. 21. affirmeth, that in part of this very verse, Daniel speaketh ad litteram, literally of Antiochus, who was a figure of Antichrist. To which I answer, that he doth so indeed, and yet these words which he allegeth here cannot be understood of Antiochus, as S. Hierome affirmeth, and proveth against wicked Porphyry, with whom M. Downam will needs partake. And if M. Downam will know the reason of both, it is this: Daniel in the same words prophesieth both of Antiochus, and of Antichrist, but with this distinction, that where the words will bear it, they are literally first to be understood of Antiochus, and secondly of Antichrist, who in many things is rather figured, then expressly prophesied of, but when we meet with words, that can by no means be literally applied to Antiochus, then of forc● we must understand then literally also of Antichrist: of this sort there be many in this chapter of Daniel, and the next, amongst which, in the Father's judgement, these are to be numbered, as also they most evidently prove, and none but Porphyry, and such Infidels, or heretics can deny. Those other When the Scripture is literally to be understood of the figure and when of the thing figured. words which Bellarmine speaketh of cap. 21. may be applied to Antiochus, and consequently are literally to be understood of him. And this is no peculiar thing to this place of Scripture, but ordinary in all prophecies of Christ, which for the most part are still mingled with some other figure of him, to which many sentences are to be applied ad litteram, but not all: and the sign when they are, & when they are not to be applied to the figure, is, when they contain something, which can, or cannot be verified but of Christ: & to give M. Downam one example, he may at his leisure peruse the 71. Psalm, in which Solomon, and our Saviour are spoken of, and all that can be applied to Solomon, is literally Psalm. 71. to be understood of him, but somethings cannot, as that his Kingdom or name shall remain cum sole & ante luna●, or that he should rule à flumine, usque ad termines orbi● terrarum, that all Kings shall adore him, and all Nations shall serve him: that all the Tribes of the earth should be blessed in him, and the like, of which see S. Augustine lib. 17. de Civit. Dei cap. 8. sub med. The second part of M. Downam's answer consisteth in proving, that Antiochus was an Idolater. But of this no man doubteth, and because this is so certain, therefore it is also out of question among all truly wise and learned men, that the words alleged by Bellarmine, cannot be understood of Antiochus, but only of Antichrist. 14. Wherefore M. Downam cometh to the objection which Bellarmine made out of the next verse against himself, and instead of replying upon Bellarmine's answer, M. Downam will needs answer also. Wherefore let us see this answer of an answer. I answer first (saith M. Downam) that although either of his interpretations of the God Maozim were true (as neither is) yet the one hindereth not, and the other proveth, that he which ●● here described, is an Idolater: for let the word Maozim signify what it may, yet the words following plainly convince the party here described of Idolatry, The God which his Fathers knew not, he shall worship with gold. But let M. Downam apply either of Beauties' solutions to this place, & he shall see that it proveth nothing at all. For if by this God which his Fathers knew not, be meant Antichrist himself, than he shall only honour, & not properly adore Antichrist shall honour or worship but one God. himself as God. If the Devil be understood (which is the second solution) than he shall only adore him secretly & not publicly; by which the second part of M. Downam's objection is also taken away, for though the word Maozim did signity a false God, yet in those which follow, the idolatry is not increased, but further explicated, for then by the God Maozim, and by the God which his Fathers knew not, is meant only the same false God: and the manner how he is to be worshipped, is showed, viz. with gold etc. By which also M. Downam may see, how falsely he chargeth Bellarmine with omitting this second clause, for Bellarmine before allegeth §. 13. the whose place with both clauses, and now he allegeth not the words of Daniel verbatim, but only taketh the sense, which M. Downam's brethren objected against us, who were not so shameless or foolish, as M. Downam is, to affirm, that Daniel speaketh of two Gods, which Antichrist shall adore, for they knew well enough, that it is an ordinary thing in Scripture, to repeat the same thing in divers words, especially with a little addition in the later, and in this place they also knew, that all interpreters agreed, that only one God was spoken of, and that the Scripture could not be understood otherwise without too apparent a contradiction. And finally, M. Downam may aswell infer a third God out of that which followeth, as two out of this place. But M. Downam goeth forward and telleth us, that Mahuzzim signifieth the true God, which is most absurd, Maozim signifieth not the true God. since it is certain that Antiochus, of whom he understandeth the place, never adored the true God, and Kemnitius and his other brethren the Lutherans, are far from this sense, since they object this place against the Mass, which they take to be this God Mahuzzim, as Bellarmine showeth here, and l. 1. de Sacrif. Missae cap. 1. and his confirmation from the name jehovah, or from other places, where God is called, Our Strength, is most absurd, for who doubteth, but that a false God, or Antichrist will take a name as glorious as he can, since he will extol himself above all that is called God, & yet in none of those places this hebrew word is used, to signify the true God. And his cavil against Bellarmine's first answer is so ridiculous, that I am ashamed to trouble the Reader with repeating it, for first he maketh it seem a great absurdity, that Antichrist should worship himself, whereas he knew that there was no absurdity in it, if to worship were taken for to glorify, as Bellarmine showed it might be, against which M. Downam hath nothing to object, but only that both the vulgar latin, and Bellarmine himself, read venerabitur, Maozim may signify Antichrist. and colet. But who knoweth not, that these words may signify glorifying also, especially since the original doth favour that sense. And this being all that he can object against Bellarmine's first interpretation, yet is not he ashamed to call it sottish and absurd, by which I will leave the Reader to judge, if M. Downam doth not show himself to be an absurd Sot. 15. To Bellarmine's second answer, M. Downam likewise answereth, that it seemeth he hath forgotten the question which he took upon him to defend, because he admitteth, that Antichrist shall worship the devil in secret. But M. Downam is deceived, for Bellarmine remembreth very well, that he is to show, that Antichrist shall extol himself above all Gods, and care for none of them, but rise against them all, as both S. Paul and Daniel affirm, and withal, that he shall worship Antichrist shall adore the Devil secretly. a strange God, as Daniel prophesieth, All which Bellarmin showeth to be most true, because S. Paul and Daniel in the former place, are to be understood of that which Antichrist shall do in public, and Daniel in the later place speaketh of that, which he shall do in secret, and so there is no repugnance nor contradiction in these two prophecies. Secondly M. Downam objecteth, that if Maozim were taken for a strong Tower, it should rudder be Maoz, which is a● weak Maozim signifieth a strong Tower. an objection as this Tower shall be strong. For who knoweth not, that the Hebrews use ordinarity one number for another: especially to signify that superlative or highest degree? and beside, why may not one Tower have many strengths or fortresses in it? And as see M. Downam's friend Tremelius, who readeth De●● su●●●● 〈◊〉, we oppose to him two, far more ancient and indifferent, & consequently of greater authority than he, who translate it praesidia & confugia, I mean Theodation, and Symachus. After this impugnation of the word Maozim, M. Downam goeth on to object more of the text, for he saith that those words, He ●●all fortify Maozim with a strange God, whom he hath known, are thus in the original text, word for word. And he shall do to the munitions of Mahuzzim with a strange God. Which we are content to let pass, though we might very well oppose S. Hieromes skill in hebrew to M. Downam's, but we can in no sort admit his gloss upon his new translation, that is, he shall commit the munitions of Mahuzzim, that is Jerusalem, & the Cities of jewry to a strange God. For this were to reject all other translators besides M. Downan, and not to stick to M. Downam's original text neither: for what similitude hath (to do to) with (to commit?) or how can M. Downam make (to a strange God) and (with a strange God) all one? Is not S. Hieromes translation much more agreeable, who instead of (doing to munitious S. hieron's Translation defended. ) interpreteth (causing to be fortified) and keepeth (with a strange God) as it is in the original? giving to understand, that this place of Antichrist shallbe fortified both by nature and art. Lastly M. Downam will needs turn the cat in the pan, and make Antichrist a public idolater, and a secret Atheist, which he saith agreeth more to Machiauillian policy, and fitteth better the disposition of Antichrist. But M. Downam must know, that Antichrist shall far exceed Machianell in wicked policy. Wherefore at the first he shall dissemble this point, that he would be accounted the only God, till he hath gotten sufficient strength and reputation; and then he will satisfy his pride aswell, as use his policy, & this indeed is antichrist's Antichrist his disposition. disposition, as appeareth by the Scripture, and in this place it is also evident, that he shall play the idolater only in secret, since that he shall choose to himself only one fortified place for that purpose, whereas that of his extolling himself above all Gods, and not caring for them, hath no such restriction or limitation. 16. Thus M. Downam desisteth from impugning or answering of Beauties, and falleth to his own explication of the text, in which I will only touch so much as maketh to the present purpose, omitting his railing against the Pope, and such other impertinone stuff. First then, M. Downam affirmeth, that the abrogation of all the Religious of the Syrians, is called v. 36. the magnifying himself above, or against every God, and the same, he saith, is repeated v. 37. in those words, unto the Gods of his Fathers he shall not attend, and in those, neither will he regard any of the Gods; And finally in those also; because he will magnify himself against all. Where first we see, how bold M. Downam is with the Scripture against Downam's boldness with the Scriptures. the interpretation of the Fathers, to limit that universal assertion so often repeated in different words, only to the Gods of the Syrians which notwithstanding the Scripture expresseth by themselves. Now, what may not any man make good that will be so impudent, as to wrest the Scripture in this sort? And beside, M. Downam cannot show us, that Antiochus impugned any one God of Syria; for though it were true that the Syrians only worshipped Apollo and Diana, Antiochus' impugned not the Gods of Syria. yet he cannot show us, that Antiochus neglected the worship of these. The most that he can object, is the assault he gave to the City of Persepolis, or Elymais, in hope to have obtained the treasure left there by Alexander the great, which Appianus in Ciriaco, and Clemens Alexandrinus in protreptico seem to think, to have been dedicated to Venus, though the more probable opinion is, that it was the temple of Diana, but this is no proof at all, that he impugned Diana for religion, or in Syria, for he might have pretended to have brought that treasure from Persia, where that temple was, into his own country; for certain it is that he sought after the treasure, not esteeming to whom it did belong: wherefore we read of no such matter that he did in Syria itself, though he had Daphne so near him; yea to omit the testimony of Polybius, which M. Downam mentioned §. 13. the Scripture speaketh of him still as of one that worshipped many Idols, but destroyed none, for there is in divers places mention of his Idols 1. Mach. 1. 45. & 50. besides that abominable Idol which was placed in the temple upon the Altar v. 57 which seemeth to be the Idol of jupiter Olympius mentioned 2. Mach. Antiochus worshipped many Gods. 6. v. 2. where also the Scripture speaketh of jupiter Hospitalis placed in Garizim, and v. 7. there is express mention made of the feasts of Bacchus, which he caused the jews to celebrated, and 2. Machab. 4. of Sacrifices to Hercules. Finally there were other Idols placed upon the hill Modin, as is plain, out of 1. Mach. 1. v. 23. which place M. Downam's great friend Porphyry would needs have had to be understood by Maozim, for which S. Hierome worthily laughed him to scorn, as no doubt he would have done M. Downam for his new and most absurd interpretation. In which notwithstanding he proceedeth so far that he is not afraid altogether to corrupt and alter the text to that end, for thus he translateth the 38. v. And as touching the God Mahuzzim, that is the God Almighty, and there he pauseth, in his place he will honour even a God, whom his Fathers knew not will he honour with gold and with silver, with precious stones, and with jewels, and (ver. 39) he shall commit the munitions of Mahuzzim, that is of the Almighty, unto a strange God; where you see altogether a new text quite contrary to that Downam corrupteth the text. of S. Hierome, for this is the pertinacy of heretics, that when they can by no means interpret the text according to their fancy, they will rather alter the text itself, then leave their own opinion or interpretations. But any wise man will easily see, that S. Hierome was both more learned, and more indifferent, then M. Downam: and beside, who knoweth not, that the hebrew text may be altered by divers pointings, which M. Downam will no doubt use to his own advantage? And yet after all this, he cannot frame his new text to his new interpretation, except he suppose that Antiochus was the first in Syria which ever worshipped jupiter Olympius; which will be very hard for him to do. Neither is i● to the purpose to tell us, that the Syrians worshipped Apollo and Diana, for this is no proof that they worshipped not jupiter, and others also: as we may plainly see by that which hath been said that they did Bacchus and Hercules etc. And Strabo, whom he citeth, doth not only tell us of the temple and wood of Apollo, and Diana in Daphne, but also in the same 16. book, he maketh mention of the temple of Minerva, and of the wood of Aesculapius, and affirmeth, that Hercules was greatly adored by them of Tyrus, and all this long after Antiochus his tyme. And for his confirmation out of Dan. 7. 25. & 8. 11. the former place is to be understood of Antichrist, and the later showeth only how Antiochus was to spoil the temple of jerusalem, in which we grant, that he was a plain figure of Antichrist, but deny that he is spoken of in this other place. 17. The application which M. Downam maketh of this prophecy interpreted by himself, is ridiculous and without proof, and therefore not to be answered in this See part. 2. c. 5. etc. place, but to be remitted to the second part of this Treatise where we shall examine not only these, but also all other calumniations, which he layeth upon the Pope. Now it is sufficient, that it is plain out of that which hath been said, that except M. Downam corrupteth the text, either of Bellarmine's solutions taketh away all objections out of this place of Daniel. 18. Wherefore now let us see, what M. Downam answereth to the Fathers, to which he saith, that Bellarmine faith or want of better proofs; where I would willingly know, what better proofs any man can bring after the Scripture than the Fathers, especially in such a matter as this whereof there can no other reason be yielded, but only Gods will in permitting, and man's wickedness in attempting, except we will add the devils m●lice also, whom every man knoweth to be ready enough to tempt to any evil whatsoever: well what answereth M. Downam to these Fathers? that they either speak of the Idols and Idolatry of the Gentiles only, or else, if they speak of all Idols in general, they deserve such an Antichrist, as in this behalf is better than the Pope. But who seethe not, that the Father's assertion is general, and withal M. Downam's distinction foolish. For who can worship Idols, but that he Downam rejecteth the Fathers with a scoff. shall commit Idolatry, and conform himself to the Gentiles in that? wherefore the Fathers are contrary to M. Downam's in both points. 1. that Antichrist shallbe an Idolater. 2. that the images of Saints are Idols, and therefore no marvel, though M. Downam is constrained to reject their authority with a scosse, telling them that they deserved a better Antichrist then the Pope: by which he confesseth that they would not have taken the Pope to be Antichrist, as he most impudently doth. And as for M. Downam's opposing the Scriptures to the Fathers, it is his only refuge, accounting nothing for Scripture, but his own fancies and interpretations, which how fond and foolish they are, hath already sufficiently appeared. 19 Lastly M. Downam cometh to Bellarmine's answer to Illyricus his two arguments, and first he is very angry with Bellarmine for saying, that their doctrine is only built upon the Scriptures falsely expounded by new glosses, in token The Protestants doctrine built upon new glosses of the Scripture. whereof they allege not one interpreter or Doctor for them; which (he saith) is a malicious slander, witness this place which Bellarmine mentioneth 2. Thess. 2. where they prove by the consent of many of the Fathers, that by the temple is meant the Church of God, and that in the Church of God Antichrist was to be revealed after the Roman Empire, which hindered, was taken out of the way etc. which you see is but a very poor answer, though it were all true, but now it is also altogether false: for Bellarmine showed before, that those Fathers, which interpret the Temple of God, to be the Churches of Christ, do in no sort deny, that Antichrist shall also sit in the Temple of Jerusalem, yea the greater part do expressly affirm it: and beside by the Churches of God, they understand not the Christian, and Catholic See cap. 13. people, but the material Churches erected in the honour of Christ, which Bellarmine proved so plainly, that M. Downam thought it his best course to pass it over in silence without giving him any answer at all, or taking any notice of any such proof. And the second point, so far as it is different from the former, is affirmed also by us, for we only differ from the Protestants, in that they affirm, that Antichrist is to be revealed in the Church of God. And we also affirm, that he is not to be revealed till after the Roman Empire be taken out of the way by the 10. Kings, which shall rule together at antichrist's coming. Wherefore, secondly M. Downam acknowledgeth, that their assertions concerning Antichrist, are grounded on the prophecies of Scriptures, expounded by the event: and that, the opinion of the Fathers agree with them, where they are consonant to the Scripture, and the event: and that, the assertions of the Papists are wholly grounded either upon the uncertain (and many times misalleged) conjectures of the Fathers, who were no Prophets, and therefore being not able to foresee the event, did not many times understand the Prophecies etc. And is Downam acknowledgeth the Fathers to be against him. not this all one in effect with that which Bellarmine affirmeth? Doth not M. Downam give us the Father's conjectures, and expositions, and take to himself the Scripture expounded by the event, which the Fathers were not able to foresee? and consequently these expositions, by the event, must needs be since the Father's days, and therefore rightly called by Bellarmine new Glosses, and how false they are, appeareth sufficiently by their contrariety to the expositions of the Fathers, and by the confutation of Bellarmine: for this device of M. Downam to make his exposition good by the event, is no more in effect but to say, that he will first suppose as certain out of his own head, and without all Scripture, that the Pope is Antichrist, and then afterward he will make the Scripture say so by one device or other, and to all arguments against this interpretation he will answer, that the event is clear, and consequently the objection nothing worth. And this indeed is the Protestants proceeding in all controversies, by which they make their own idle & foolish fancy the rule of Faith, and of Scripture, and Fathers, The Protestant's proceeding in all controversies. and all other proofs. After this M. Downam cometh more nigh to his reply for Illyricus, but first he disgraceth him foully, calling him one of the unsoundest writers of his side: which how his brethren the Lutherans, who make so great account of Illyricus, will put up, I neither know, nor greatly care. But I must needs tell M. Downam, that he doth Bellarmine great injury, Illyricus one of the unsoundest Protestant writers in Downam's judgement. to charge him, that he doth use to cull out some straggling sentences out of some one of the unsoundest writers; for all men know, that Bellarmine flieth none of their arguments, but many times affordeth them some of his own, when they want. And M. Downam should have showed us, what author that Bellarmine had seen, hath any better arguments than those of Illyricus for this point: for his telling us, that he hath proved it Bellarmin unjustly charged. himself better in another place, only argueth, that M. Downam hath a good conceit of himself, and that he hath gotten some new devise since Bellarmine wrote, aswell in this, as in other things, but this is nothing against Bellarmine, how good soever his proofs be, which the Reader shall judge, See part. 2. c. 5. after they be examined, and perhaps find them not so good, as M. Downam imagineth. Now let us examine his second charge against Bellarmine, in defence of Illyricus, which is, that he depraveth his first reason, which is not (saith he) because the Downam cannot defend Illyricus. Pope maketh himself to be the Vicar of Christ, but this, because he vaunting himself to be the Vicar of Christ, doth notwithstanding usurp greater authority than the Son of God claimed unto himself, of which that which Bellarmine allegeth as a second reason, is by Illyricus added as a proof. But why then doth Illyricus allege our Saviour XXII. XXIII. XXIV. to expound S. Paul, Which Bellarmine showeth to be a threefould absurdity, and M. Downam answereth not a word; nor yet to Bellarmine's censure of the blindness and impudence Gal. 4. 4. Christ is said to be under the law. Luc. 2. 51. to be subject to his parents, because he observed & obeyed both, not being bound to either. of our adversaries, who some times utter such things as are against common sense, by which M. Downam seemeth to acknowledge, that he hath his share in both. But no doubt we shall find a sound reply upon Bellarmine's answer to Illyricus his second argument, which M. Downam acknowledgeth to be his, and replieth by calling it an impudent and shameless denial, that Christ subjecteth himself to the law and word of God, or, that the Pope taketh upon him to dispense with the Scriptures, or, that any Catholik● writer hath said. that he may dispense with Divine precepts: both which notwithstanding, M. Downam saith, that he hath else where proved by many instances, and most evident allegations, where by (both) he seemeth only to mean the two later, and so we must take the first upon his poor credit, which might perhaps have had some sway, if he had answered Bellarmine's evident proof to the contrary, or impugned his solution taken out of S. Chrysostome, and S. Augustine. But See part. 2. c. 5. §. 10. 11. 12. since he is altogether silent in both, the Reader hath good cause to suspect, that he is so impudent and shameless, that he will affirm that, which he can neither prove nor defend. And consequently at least suspend his judgement of those many instances and most evident allegations, for the other two points, which he boasteth of till we come to that place, where they are to be examined. And now for conclusion of this whole argument and discourse I will entreat the Reader to consider his substantial reply against Bellarmine's answer concerning Illyricus his consequence; for thus M. Downam writeth: for that which he (Bellarmine) addeth of Christ his subjecting himself to the prophesies, and not to the precepts, as though Illyricus had spoken of the one in his proposition, and of the other in the assumption, it is partly false, and partly ridiculous, and indeed not worth the answering. Thus M. Downam, as it seemeth, in a great chafe at Bellarmine's unlearned answer. But good Sir, vouchsafe out of your high wisdom to show us in what this answer is either false or ridiculous; for is it probable, that Illyricus would be so mad, as to affirm, that Christ was subject to the precepts of the law of Moses, contained in the Scripture, and abrogated by Christ as Bellarmine showeth? and consequently when Illyricus in his Mayor, or proposition affirmeth, that Christ subjecteth himself to the Scriptures, must it not needs be understood only of the Prophecies? of which notwithstanding it is also false, as Bellarmine proveth, & when in his minor, or assumption he saith, that the Pope affirmeth, that he can dispense against an Apostle or Evangelist, & make those things, which are right to be wicked, is it not also evident, that he speaketh only of precepts? Wherefore to me it seemeth also evident that M. Downam is ridiculous at least, if not a false fellow to answer in this sort, and that he most impudently called that not worth the answerering, which in his own conscience M Downam Impudence. he knew to be unanswerable. But yet I am content that the Reader shall judge how far he deserveth this censure, & that he may mitigate it, if it seem too sharp & rigorous. THE fifteenth CHAPTER. Of antichrist's Miracles. OF the Miracles of Antichrist (saith Bellarmine) there are three things in the Scriptures: first that he shall do many Miracles. Secondly what manner of Miracles they shall be. Thirdly, there are three examples set down. That Antichrist shall work miracles, the Apostle teacheth 2. Thess. 2. Whose coming is according to the operation of Satan in signs and wonders, and our Lord in the Gospel Matth. 24. They shall give signs and great wonders so that the very elect shall be led into error if it be possible. They shall give (saith he) not, he shall give, because not only Antichrist, but also his ministers shall work signs. In so much that S. Gregory saith lib. 32. moral. cap. 12. that the very tortures of the holy Martyrs shall then work wonders and signs. Finally Apoc. 13. And he did many signs in the sight of men: What manner of signs they shall be, S. Paul explicateth 2. Thess. 2. saying in one word, that they shall be lying: In all power and lying signs and wonders. Now they shallbe lying signs in respect of all causes, the final, efficient, matter, and form; for the end of those miracles shallbe to show, that Antichrist is God, and the Messiah, which will be a most pernicious lie. S. Chrysostome upon this place teacheth, that those miracles are called lying, because they shall induce to a lie. And S. Ambrose also upon this place teacheth, that the end of antichrist's miracles shallbe to prove himself God, as our Christ demonstrated his Divinity with true miracles. Secondly, they are called lying signs, from the efficient: for the principal efficient cause shallbe the Father of lies, that is the Devil; for so the Apostle saith: whose coming is according to the operation of Satan. And all the Fathers affirm, that Antichrist shall be a notable Sorcerer; yea that the Devil from his conception, or at least from his Infancy, shall dwell in Antichrist & work signs by him. S. Cyril cateches. 15. having said, that Antichrist shallbe a Sorcerer, and furnished with Witchcrafts, enchantments, and evil Arts, showeth, that his miracles are called lying, because they shall proceed from the Father of lies. Many of them shallbe also lying in respect of the matter, because they shallbe fantastical and vain illusions, as S. Cyril in the place alleged, and Theodoret upon this place do teach: for he shall seem to raise the dead, and heal the sick, but they shall be the illusions of the Devil, not true resurrections or recoveries; for which cause Apoc. 13. Antichrist is said to do miracles in the sight of Men, that is, apparent and deluding the sight of Men, not and true; as Arethas noted upon that place. Finally, some of them shallbe lying, in respect of the form, although true in respect of the matter, for sometime he shall work true things, but which shall not exceed the strength of all nature, and therefore they shall not be true miracles formally; for they are only called true miracles which can be done by God alone, that is, which have not natural causes, neither hidden nor manifest; and therefore are not only wonderful in the sight of Men, but also in the sight of Devils and Angels. But all Antichrists miracles shall have natural causes, but unknown to Men. There are three examples of antichrist's miracles put Apoc. 13. one, that he shall make fire come down from Heaven. The second, that he shall make the Image of the Beast to speak. The third that he shall feign himself to die, and rise again. For which miracle chief almost all the world shall have him in admiration. Of which miracles the two former shallbe true in respect of the matter, not in respect of the form, but the third in no manner. But it may be objected against this, that all these Miracles cannot be attributed to Antichrist; for S. john in that place bringeth in two beasts, one which hath 7. heads, and one of whose heads seemed to die and to rise again. The other less, who made fire to come down from Heaven, and the Image to speak. If therefore Antichrist shallbe the former Beast, the two miracles of the fire and Image are not attributed to him. If he shallbe the latter beast, the miracle of the Resurrection cannot be attributed to him. I answer that the former beast signifieth either the Roman Empire, or the multitude of the wicked, as we said before; and one, that is the chiefest of his heads, which seemed to die and rise again is Antichrist; for Antichrist shallbe the supreme and last head of the wicked, and he is the last King who shall hold the Roman Empire; yet without name of Roman Emperor. And that this feigned miracle of the Resurrection is doubtless to be attributed to Antichrist, Primasius, Beda, Haymo, Richardus, Rupertus and Anselmus upon this place do teach; and S. Gregory lib. 11. ep. 3. which is to be noted against Lyranus, who expoundeth this of a certain Son of Cosdroas, whom he feigneth to have been wounded in a battle and not killed, for no approved history reporteth any such thing of the Son of Cosdroas, neither can that agree to the Son of Cosdroas which followeth in the Apocalyps: and the whole earth wondered after the Beast, saying, who is like the beast? Now the latter Beast in the Apocalyps according to Rupertus signifieth the same Antichrist; for the same Antichrist is expressed by two beasts, by one in respect of his Kingly Power, and tyranny, by which he shall compel men violently; by the other, by reason of his art magic, with which he shall seduce men crastily. But according to Richardus, Anselmus, and others, the latter beast signifieth the preachers of Antichrist, who shall endeavour to show by miracles, that Antichrist is the true Messiah, wherefore all these miracles shall either be Antichrists, or his Ministers. Hence it followeth that the Pope is not Antichrist, for never any Pope feigned himself to die and rise again, nor he himself, or any of his preachers made fire come down from Heaven, or the Image to speak. But the Magdeburgenses object cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col. 436. that there have been many lying miracles wrought by them which hold with the Pope: as say they, visions of souls babbling of Purgatory, and craving Masses to be said for them, and recovery from sicknesses which have happened to the worshippers of statuas, and vowers to saints. I answer first: These are not the miracles, which S. john writeth that Antichrist shall do, but to die and rise again, to send fire from Heaven, and give the Image power to speak; wherefore let them show, that these have been done by the Pope or his followers. Secondly those 3. kinds of miracles were used in the Church before that time, in which our adversaries say, that Antichrist appeared, for S. Gregory writeth lib. 4. dial. cap. 40. that the soul of Paschasius a Deacon, who lived in the time of Pope Symachus about the year of our Lord 500 appeared to S. German Bishop of Capua, and desired him to pray for him, that he might be delivered from the torments of purgatory. Certainly this miracle happened an hundred years before Antichrist appeared, by the opinion of all the heretics of this tyme. For none of them doth put the coming of Antichrist, but after the year 600. and S. Gregory's death. The same S. Gregory telleth of other apparitions of souls ask Masses, in the same book cap. 55. Of the miracles of healing diseases for the veneration of Images, there is an example extant in Eusebius lib. 7. hist. cap. 14. where he reporteth that there was a brazen Statue erected to our Saviour, by that woman which our Saviour healed from the issue of blood, and that there was wont to grow an herb under that Statue, which being grown to the hems or skirts of the Image, and touching it, healed all kinds of diseases; by which miracle it is evident that God would approve the worship of holy Images. Of the recoveries granted to them who had vowed any thing to the Saints, there are innumerable Testimonies in the ancient Writers; but that which Theodoretus reciteth, lib. 8. ad Graces, qui est de Martyribus, is notable, that in his time the Temples of Martyrs were full of little Tablets, or Portraicts of hands, feet, eyes, heads, and other parts of men, by which were signified the divers gifts of healing, which men that had vowed, had received of the holy Martyrs. M. Downams Answer confuted. 1. MASTER Downam will not contend with Bellarmine, but that Antichrist and his Adherents shall work many signs, and wonders, and that they shall be lying signs and wonders, both in respect of the end which is to seduce, and confirm lies: and in respect of the substance, which is counterfeit: In which latter clause M. Downam is a little confused, or at least not so clear as Bellarmine, who distinguisheth the substance, into matter & form, Antichrist shall work many signs. and showeth how antichrist's signs shallbe lying in both. But it is very likely, that M. Downam past this over so slightly, because he agreed with Bellarmine fully in that point: wherefore he cometh to the efficient, and author of these miracles, in respect of which Bellarmine also affirmeth, that they are lying signs & wonders, because this efficient cause shallbe the Father of lies, according to whose power Antichrist was to come, who as some of the Fathers affirm was to be a Magician or notable Sorcerer. And here M. Downam is somewhat doubtful, saying that it seemeth to be somewhat far fetched, unless we will take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be masculine, as none doth. But what meaneth M. Downam by this phrase of far fetched? Is it not an ordinary matter, that the effect should be denominated How antichrist's signs are said to be lying signs. of the efficient cause? Why was Manna called the Bread of Angels, but because it was given by the Ministry of Angels? Wherefore we shall not need M. Downam's masculine; for Bellarmine goeth not about to prove that the word lying, signifieth, that they shallbe such, by reason of the efficient cause. But that since they are to be wrought by the Devil, as the Apostle affirmeth; and M. Downam acknowledgeth, and likewise all the Fathers agree, and not some only (as M. Downam allegeth Bellarmine's words corruptly) that Antichrist shallbe a Sorcerer; it is also manifest, that they shallbe wrought by the Father of lies, and consequently of him, as well as for other respects, be called lying. But we shall not need to stand any longer upon this, since M. Downam is content to yield, because he doth not doubt, but that he can apply this note also to the Pope & Church See part. ●, c. 6. of Rome; which how well he can do, it is not now time to examine, but in another place. 2. The 2. Arguments which M. Downam frameth out of these two positions, that Antichrist shall work signs, and that they shall be lying, were too ridiculous for Bellarmine to have made; who only noteth those two points for explication of the whole matter; and that the third point, from which he draweth his argument may be the better understood; for who seethe not that those things, which are common Miracles in general belong both to good and bad. both to good and bad, as miracles in general are, can be no note only to know the bad by? For that which M. Downam addeth, that miracles in these latter times belong only to Antichrist, is spoken without all ground, either of Scripture or reason, and only affirmed by Protestants, because they can neither work true miracles, being the devils Ministers, nor false, because their Master is not let lose Why Heretics can work no miracles at all. yet, as he shallbe in antichrist's time, which is the reason, why no Heretics can work any miracles at all; but only the true Church true miracles, so long as the Devil is bound, because God is always powerful; and antichrist's false miracles in that short space, that the Devil shallbe loosed and permitted to use this manner of seducing, aswell as all the rest. Now to prove or disprove, that any is Antichrist because his signs are true or false, is a harder matter then M. Downam taketh it to be, as we shall see when we examine his See part. 2. c. 7. objections, against the miracles which have been wrought in the Catholic Church, and the Devil will carry his matters so craftily in antichrist's time, that it will not be easy to descry that his miracles are any way false, as that of Caluin, and some other Ministers was, who were taken tardy by the punishment and confession of those whom they used in their knavery, as M. Downam may see of Caluin, if he please to turn to Bellarmine lib. 4. de Ecclesia Militante cap. 14. where also he shall find that miracles are not always the signs of Antichrist. 3. Concerning the 3. miracles from which Bellarmine draweth his argument, M. Downam answereth that the two first do fitly agree to the Pope, as he hath showed elsewhere, which See part. 2. c. 7. we leave to examine till we come to that place. The 3. saith M. Downam belongeth not to Antichrist, and he taketh it to be a very fond assertion, that Antichrist shall feign himself to die, and by the help of the Devil shall rise again: for, saith M. Downam, if his death be but counterfeit, he shall not need the devils help to raise him; but I have showed before, that if the death had not been counterfeit, it had passed the devils cunning to have raised him again; and I hoped well that M. Downam had not been so resolute, as he is, that the devils help is not necessary to do counterfeit miracles; by which he seemeth still to Downam seemeth to think that the Devil can do true miracles. insinuate, that the Devil may truly raise a man from death to life, but yet he saith it not plainly, and therefore I will not charge him with it, but only tell him once more that the devils help shallbe necessary in the contriving of this counterfeit miracle, that it may be carried so cunningly that no man may be able to perceive, but that he was truly dead, & truly raised again; so that he will make the wound appear more dangerous, then indeed it shall be. Likewise he will procure, that there shall be all signs of death, so that See c. 5. n. 5. none shall doubt, but that he is truly dead. Thirdly he will show his cunning in the cure of this wound, which shall seem desperate and exceeding all natural art, and yet he will heal it so suddenly and so perfectly, and so secretly, that it will seem altogether unpossible to be any other, than a true resurrection from death. And by this time M. Downam I hope will acknowledge what a fond man he was, to think this a fond assertion, and if he be so fond of himself, that h● cannot be brought to see his own folly, yet I nothing doubt, but the Readers will be more indifferent; wherefore let us now see, what M. Downam can say against the place of Scripture which is thus expounded by the Fathers; Apoc. 13. he answereth first that those words are not to be understood of Antichrist, because the former beast described in that Chapter, is not Antichrist, but the Roman Empire, especially under the persecuting Emperors, as, saith he, hath been showed, every part of that description fitting the same; but how well and how fitly, he hath showed this, we shall see afterward, till when, we rather believe the consent of the ancient interpreters, than M. Downam's new devise. Secondly he affirmeth that the later beast signifieth Antichrist, and this he affirmeth to be in a manner confessed of all, for proof whereof he allegeth Bellarmine himself in the beginning of his tenth Chapter of this book, where he affirmeth that the 3. last verses of this 13. Chapter of the Apoc. are confessed by all wholly to appertain to Antichrist: where you must mark two cunning shifts of M. Downam, first in translating (omnin●, wholly) whereas Downam translateth not well. Bellarmine could by no means use it in that sense, since it is manifest even by M. Downam's consent, that in those words, both the Beasts are spoken of; for it is plainly said, that the latter beast shall cause all men to have the Character, or the name, or the number of the name of the former beast; which notwithstanding M. Downam seemeth willing enough to dissemble in this place: for which cause he allegeth only the beginning of the words thus. And he shall make all both small and great etc. which no doubt belong to the latter beast indeed; and this is his second devise. But M. Downam taketh Bellarmine's words in a contrary sense. Downam knoweth well enough, that Bellarmine alleged not those words to show, who should cause men to take the Character etc. but to prove, that Antichrist was to have a particular name signified by that number, and a particular Character spoken of in that place; both which evidently belong to the former beast, and therefore it is also most manifest, that Bellarmine affirmeth the quite contrary of that M. Downam would have him say, viz. that not the latter, but the former beast is confessed by all to be Antichrist, which is most true indeed, as he showeth in this chapter. Neither is the proof which M. Downam bringeth out of this chapter any better, for Bellarmine expressly explicateh himself, that he calleth the two latter miracles, the miracles of Antichrist, because they shallbe done by his Ministers, & those which they do, are to be attributed to him, as is evident in there. v. Et potestatour prioris b●sti● omnem faciebat in conspectu 〈◊〉: and he (the latter beast) did the power of the former beast in his fight: and consequently whatsoever he doth by the former's power, is to be attributed unto him. And thus we see, what poor proofs M. Downam hath to prove, that the latter beast is Antichrist; since that he can produce no better authorities, but only two places of Bellarmine misunderstood at the least, if not corrupted. Now then set us see, how he impugneth the opinion of Rupertus in particular, who affirmeth that Antichrist is sighted by both these beasts, as Bellarmine afterward explicateth, This cannot be, saith M. Downam, unless we may say that the sornier and latter are one and the same, which cannot be, since that v. 11. the latter is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, another beast. But to this Rupertus might easily answer, that two distiuct beasts may signify one thing, as is manifest; though indeed their descriptions are so divers, that it is hard to apply all the particulars of both to one man, and therefore we rather think with the common opinion, that by the latter is understood either one, or many false Prophets of Antichrist, whom S. Irenaeus deservedly calleth armigerum, because he, or they shall not only use persivasions, but also force, as is manifest by the text, The 2. beast Apoc. 13. signifieth. Antichrist his false Prophet. which needeth not to seem hard to any that considereth how both these offices are exercised by the Protestant false Bishops in our Country against Catholics: and this common exposition is much consumed out of the 16. 19 & 20. Chapters, where this second beast is called a false Prophet, and joined with the former beast, & the Devil also in doing mischief, and suffering eternal torments for the same. 4. In Bellarmine's answer to his own objection M. Downan taketh great hold of that he grateth, that the former beast may signify the Roman Empire, though he speaketh doubtfully, & joineth another exposition with it, which indeed is the more probable of the two, out of which he maketh many illations, but proveth none, and therefore it is sufficient in this place to deny them all, and remit the Reader for both our reasons, to the several places where they are handled at large: only thus much we may note now, that since, as we have already proved, the 7. head which is Antichrist, is not to come till the 6. which is the Roman VII. VIII Empire, be wholly taken away, it is most manifest that the Apoc. 13. Pope can by no probability be the seventh head, since that the Emperor as yet remaineth. And withal I would The Pope cannot be signified by the 7. he●d of the beast. Apoc. 13. & 17. desire the Reader to put all M. Downam's arguments in form, that he may better discover his folly, and make himself sport: for how doth it follow, Antichrist shallbe head of the Roman Empire, ergo, not of the jews? Antichrist shall be head of the Roman Empire, ergo, his chief Seat, or Sea shallbe not jerusalem, but Rome, and he shall not be one particular Man? only one of his illations is good against Bellarmine, viz. that if the beast signifieth the Roman Empire, the name of the beast may very well be said to be Roman or Latin. But this agreeth not with the number of 666, as Bellarmine proved, & besides it is certain also, that the name of Antichrist himself is signified by that number, and consequently that he is signified by the former beast, and not the Roman Empire. Neither can M. Downam in any case admit that the seventh head of The 7. heads of the beast Apoc 13. are not the same with those of Apoc. 17. this former beast Apoc. 13. is Antichrist, since that he affirmeth that Antichrist is signified by the latter beast, wherefore both Bellarmine and he must of necessity grant, that this beast Apoc. 13. is different from the other, cap. 17. and indeed it is very evident that Antichrist and the 7. Kings, which shall acknowledge him, are spoken of in the 13. Chapter, and in the 17. other 7. far different from these, as we shall presently see. 5. The objections which M. Downam maketh against Bellarmine's second interpretation, prove aswell against Downam impugneth himself. the first, which is his own; for what world wondereth after the Roman Empire, but such as are in some sort subject or belong to it? Who are all those Inhabitants of the earth, that do worship it? What are all the Tongues, Kindred's, Nations which are made subject unto it? For if this be absolutely understood of all the wicked and reprobate, it is false, that they all do thus wonder, or worship, or are subject to the Roman Empire; and if it be only understood of some, viz. of those, which belong to the Roman Empire, than the difficulty is as great, how the Roman Empire is said to wonder etc. after itself: as how the multitude of the wicked may do the same; and beside, M. Downam hath one difficulty more to explicate, than those which follow this second interpretation have: for he must show us, how all this wondering, and worshipping, and subjection came upon the restoration of the Empire in the West, which he will needs have to be the healing of the head, which was wounded as it were to death: for experience hath showed us the quite contrary, viz. that the Roman Empire hath ever since gone more and more to decay, and had a far greater part of the world subject unto it before, then since. Wherefore all this still convinceth, that this beast Apoc. 13. is neither the Roman Empire, nor Apoc. 13. the multitude of the wicked, but Antichrist himself, of whom all those sayings are to be verified, and the 7. heads are the 7. Kings, which shall yield themselves to Antichrist, and join with him in persecuting the Church. Neither doth the beast mentioned cap. 17. signify Apoc. 17. the Roman State or Empire, or the multitude of the wicked, but the Devil himself; and the 7. heads which he hath signify either the Kings which reigned in the 7. ages of the World, as it is commonly held by Catholics, or else the 7. divers governments of the Roman State, as M. Downam will needs have it, because otherwise his whole devise of proving the Pope Antichrist out of this place is quite overthrown. But we will show in due place that this his exposition is nothing so probable as the other. And though it were true in this point, yet it cannot stand in the rest, in which he would ground his inference against the Pope. 6. Wherefore M. Downam's discourse of the 3. wounds, which the Roman Empire received at the death of julius Cesar, by civil wars, and of Nero, by uncerteynty of succession, and in Augustulus by his overthrow, and of their several healings, is altogether impertinent and ridiculous, for now we seek only for one and the last, which maketh most to his purpose, Downam impugneth himself. is indeed flatly against him, since that in his opinion the Pope healed this wound, whom he would have to be signified by the 2. beast; whereas the Scripture witnesseth that it was healed by the first Beast; and that before the second appeared. Likewise if we will believe M. Downam, the healing of this wound, and the erecting of the Image is all one, since that both are nothing else, but the erecting of the West Empire, under Charles the Great, and the like he must say of making the former beast to be worshipped; for M. Downam hath no other devise left for all these several actions, but only the bare erecting of the Roman Empire by the Pope. And yet he will have this also to be so mean a thing, that in substance it shallbe nothing at all, and that indeed not this new Emperor but the Pope himself shallbe the head of the Roman Empire all this while, and the Emperor shall only stand for a cipher to make up the number of 8. whereas notwithstanding the Scripture plainly saith, that there are 8. without him, not heads as M. Downam seemeth to imagine, but Kings, the beast making one himself, as the Scripture expressly testifieth, cap 7. v. 12. which can by no means be understood of the Roman Empire, except M. Downam will make the Empire itself an Emperor, which is too absurd; for of what should it be Emperor? Wherefore it is manifest, that by the Beast is understood the Devil, who indeed is distinct from the other 7. as is manifest, and therefore By the beast Apoc. 17. the Devil is understood. may well be accounted the 8. and yet belongeth to all the 7. because he concurred with them all in their wickedness, and in the persecution of the good; and it is also manifest, that he was in the world before Christ's coming, much more than he hath been since, and shallbe more again hereafter in antichrist's time, than ever he was before: ●fter which he shall go into eternal destruction, as S. john affirmeth. 7. And by this we may see, that Bellarmine's exposition containeth no absurdity at all, nor can be impugned by any found ground, so far as concerneth the substance Apoc. ●3. thereof, for all that can be objected against it, is, that it seems 〈◊〉 to explicate, how Antichrist should be signified 〈…〉 himself, and also by one of his heads, 〈…〉 very probable, that it is not Antichri●● 〈…〉 this deadly wound, but one of the 7. Kings signified by those 7. heads, who shall concur with Antichrist in his wickedness; for that in this 13. Chapter S. john speaketh of particular Kings, and not of several States, is manifest by that which hath been said, and shall hereafter be again confirmed. And thus we may conclude this Chapter, for M. Downam replieth not a word to Bellarmine's answer to the objection of the Magdeburgians. THE sixteenth CHAPTER. Of the Kingdom, and Wars of Antichrist. OF the Kingdom and Wars of Antichrist, we read (saith Bellarmine) 4. things in the Scriptures. First, that Antichrist rising from a most base place shall obtain the Kingdom of the jews by deceit and craft. Secondly, he shall fight with 3. Kings, ris. of Egypt, Lybia, and Ethiopia: and that he shall overcome them, and postesse their Kingdoms. Thirdly, that he shall subdue other 7. Kings, and by that means become the Monarch of the whole world. Fourthly, that he shall persecute the Christians with an innumerable army through the whole world, and that this is the battle of of Gog and Magog; of all which, since nothing agreeth to the Pope, it followeth manifestly, that he can by no means be called Antichrist. Of the first thus speaketh Dan. cap. 11. There shall stand in his place a contemptible one, and Kingly honour shall not be given to him, and he shall come secretly, and shall obtain a Kingdom in deceit. Upon which place S. Hierome writeth, that although these words be in some sort understood of Antiochus Epiphanes, yet they are far more perfectly to be fulfilled in Antichrist, as those things which are said of Solomon, are indeed understood Psal. 71. of Solomon, but are more perfectly fulfilled of Christ: wherefore S, Hierome in the same place after he had expounded this place of Antiochus, following P●rphery writeth thus: But our men better and more rightly interpret, that Antichrist shall do these things in the end of the world; who is to rise of a mean nation that is of the people of the jews, and shallbe so base and object, that the Kingly honour shall not be given him, and he shall obtain the Princedom by wiles and deceits etc. Where Saint Hierome signifieth, that this is the common exposition of Christians, for which cause also Daniel cap. 7. compareth Antichrist with a little horn, viz. by reason of his base and obscure beginning. And certainly this first doth in no sort agree to the Pope, for we should say that the Pope was until the year 600. most obscure and of no name, and that then suddenly and by deceits he usurped some high place. But this is manifestly false. For as S. Augustine epist. 162. saith: In the Roman Church always flourished the Princedom of the Apostolic Chair▪ and S. Prosper lib. 2. de vocat. gentium cap. 6. Rome by the Princedom of priesthood is made more ample by the fortress of Religion then by the throne of power; and the Council of Chalcedon epist. ad Leonem, affirmeth, that at Rome do shine the Apostolic beams, which from thence extend themselves to all, and communicate their treasures with others. Finally even that Heathen writer Amianus Marcellus l. 27. writing of the schism of Damasus, and Vrsicinus saith, that he doth not marvel, if men strive so earnestly for the Bishopric of Rome, since that the riches and amplitude of it are so great. Of the second, the same Dan. cap. 7. speaketh thus: I considered the horns, and behold another little horn arose in the midst of them, and three of the first horns were pulled up be●ore his face; and after explicating: Moreover (saith he) the ten horns, are ten Kings, and another shall rise after them, and he shallbe more mighty than the former, and shall humiliate 3. Kings, And cap. 11. explicating who these three Kings be, He shall send his hand (quoth he) into lands, and the land of Egypt shall not escape: and he shall have dominion of the treasures of gold and silver, and in all the precious things of Egypt, and he shall pass also through Lybia, and Ethiopia. Upon which places and especially upon cap. 7. S. Hierome writing, saith: Let us say that which all Ecclesiastical Writers have delivered. In the consummation of the world, when the Kingdom of the Romans is to be destroyed there shallbe ten Kings, who shall divide the Roman world amongst them, and there shall arise an eleventh little King (Antichrist) who shall overcome three of the ten Kings, that is of the Egyptians, and of Africa, and Ethiopia, who being slain, the other 7. Kings, shall also submit themselves to the Conqueror. The same do teach of the three Kings to be slain by Antichrist, S. Irenaeus lib. 5. Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 16. and Theodoretus in cap. 7. & 11. Daniel. And this most of all refuteth the madness of heretics, who make the Pope Antichrist; for let them say, if they can, when the Pope slew the Kings of Egypt, of Lybia, and Ethiopia, and usurped their Kingdom? Theodorus Bibliander in his Chronicle saith, that the Pope, as a little horn shaked the first horn of the ten, when Gregory the second excommunicated Leo the Greek Emperor the Image breaker, and prohibited the tributes of Italy to be rendered unto him, and by little, and little obtained his Princedom, that is, the Exarchate of Ravenna. He saith, that he shaked off the second horn, when Pope Zacharie deposed Childerichus King of the French, and commanded Pepin to be created in his steed. Of the third he speaketh not plainly, but he seemeth to insinuate that the third horn was then strooken of when Gregory the 7. excommunicated and deposed Henry the 4. Emperor. There is also extant a certain Epistle of Fredericus the second Emperor of that name, written against the Pope, in which he affirmeth, that the three horns pulled up by Antichrist, are the Kingdom of Italy, Germany, and Sicily, which the Pope had chief made to serve him. But these are most vain cavils, for first Daniel speaketh not of the Kingdom of France, or Germany, but of the Kingdom of Egypt, Lybia, and Ethiopia. Besides, the Pope hath slain none of those Kings, but Antichrist shall kill those 3. Kings, as S. Hierome saith. Likewise Antichrist shall usurp those Kingdoms to himself, and not give them to others, but the Pope kept not the Kingdom of France to himself, but gave it to Pepin, and having deposed one Emperor, commanded another to be created, and usurped not the Empire to himself. And in like manner when he deprived the Emperor Leo of the Princedom of R●●ēna, he challenged not that Princedom to himself, but permitted the Kings of the lombards to have it, which notwithstanding afterward Pepin (having overcome the Lombard's) gave to the Pope. Finally, if to depose Princes, be to shake off horns, there will not be only three, but many more pulled off by Antichrist. For it is manifest, that besides Leo the 3. the Greek, and Childericke the French King, there have been deposed by Popes, Henry the 4. by Gregory the 7. Otho the 4. by Innocentius the 3. Fredrick the 2. by Innocentius the 4. all which lost their Empire in very deed. Of the third we have most plain testimonies of the ancient Fathers. Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 16. and S. Irenaeus lib. 5. say, that after Antichrist hath slain 3. of the 10. Kings the rest forth with shall be subdued by him, and then he shallbe Prince of all. S. Hierome in cap. 11. Dan. upon that place, And he shall do those things, which his Fathers have not done. None of the jews (saith he) besides Antichrist ever reigned in the whole world. S. Chrysostome in 2. Thess. 2. affirmeth, that Antichrist shallbe a Monarch, and succeed the Romans in the Monarchy, as the Romans succeeded the Grecians, the Grecians the Persians, and the Persians the Assyrians. Finally, S. Cyril Cateches. 15. saith, that Antichrist shall obtain the Monarchy, which was the Romans before, and this opinion of the Fathers is evidently inferred out of Apoc. 17. where we read: And the ten horns which thou hast seen, are ten Kings. These have one Counsel, and will give their force and power to the beast. Now it is certain that this no way agreeth to the Bishop of Rome, for the Pope never was King of the whole world. Of the 4. S. john speaketh Apoc. 20. And when the thousand years shall be consummated, Satan shallbe loosed out of his prison, and shall go forth, and seduce the Nations, which are upon the four corners of the earth, Gog, and Magog, and shall gather them into battle, the number of whom, is as the sand of the sea. And they ascended upon the breadth of the earth, and compossed the Camp of the Saints, and the beloved City. And there came down fire from God out of Heaven, and devoured them, and the Devil which seduced them was cast into the pool of fire and brimstone, where both the beast and the false Prophet shallbe tormented day and night, for ever and ever. In these words is described the last persecution, and the end of it. Of which S. Augustine speaketh thus, lib. 20. de civitate Dei, cap. 11. This shallbe the last persecution, the last judgement being at hand, which the Holy Church shall suffer in the whole world, viz. the whole City of Christ, of the whole City of the Devil, how great soever both of them are upon earth. The like are in Ezechiel 38. 39 which are briefly to be expounded by reason of many errors, which have been of this matter. M. Downams Answer confuted. 1. MASTER Downam answereth first jointly to all these 4. points, that none of them are found in the Scriptures, which you must understand according to his interpretation, who affirmeth, that the Prophecies of Daniel cap. 11. and Dan. 7. ●●. 7. were to have their complement before the coming of the Messiah; which notwithstanding he acknowledgeth to be against both jews, and all ancient Christians, who all agree against M. Downam, that by the two legs of the Image cap. 2. and the fourth beast with 10. horns cap. 7. the Roman Monarchy, Dan. 2. 7. and not the Kingdom of the Selcucidae & Lagidae is signified; which difference as M. Downam well noteth, is the occasion, why both the jews, & Christians constantly affirm, that all which is said of the two legs, and the fourth beast could not be fulfilled before the coming of Christ, but only thus far, that this fourth Kingdom of the Romans was to be in the world before his coming. Neither doth it follow hence, that whatsoever is spoken of the little horn cap. 7. 8. Dan. 7. 8. 11. Dan. 8. 11. is by them expounded, at least literally of Antichrist: for first they all agree, that all the 8. Chapter is plainly to be understood of Antiochus, and in no sort of Antichrist but only by application, and accommodation. Likewise in the 11. Dan. 11. they admit so much to be understood of Antiochus, as can be applied to him, but all cannot, and therefore part must of force be referred to Antichrist even literally; and that which may be verified of Antiochus, must likewise be understood of Antichrist, in whom it is more perfectly to be fulfilled. But in the 7. chap. there is no mention at all of Dan. 7. Antiochus, but only of Antichrist, neither is it the same little horn, which is spoken of in that Chapter, and in the 8. as is most manifest: for the little horn in the 7. Chapter belongeth to the 4. beast, and that in the 8. to the third, that is to the Monarchy of the Grecians, and the successors of King Alexander, as is most manifest v. 8. &. 9 where the 4. heads, which that Monarchy is said to have cap. 7. The little horn Dan. 7. is not the same with the little horn Dan. 8. because it was to be divided among four Kings, after Alexander's death, are called 4. horns, out of one of which this little horn is said to proceed, as indeed Antiochus did. But the little horn which is spoken of in the 7. chap. arose in the midst of the 10. horns, which the 4. beast is said to have. Now in the 11. Chap. there is not any mention of any horns at all, but of the Kings of Egypt, and Syria, and chief of Antiochus, and by occasion of him of Antichrist, as hath been said. 2. But M. Downam telleth us, that the learned of our times, have made the contrary clear: but he omitteth their proofs, and only allegeth out of S. Hierome, that Porphyry that learned, Praefat. in Dan. though malicius enemy of Christianity, perceived daniel's Prophecies in the 7. 8. 11. and 12. Chapters, so fully and perfectly to agree to Antiochus Epiphanes, that he affirmed that they were written not before hand by Daniel, but after the fulfilling of them by some one that lived in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. But M. Downam findeth not in S. Hierome those 4. Chapters specified, which he setteth down, but only a general assertion, that Daniel seemed rather to Hierome and three other ancient writers wrote expressly against Downam's exposition. have written a story than a prophecy: yea S. Hierome plainly convinceth both Porphiry and all his followers, which are M. Downam's learned men, and himself, that neither the 7. nor the 11. and 12. Chapters can be wholly understood of Antiochus, and in this agreed with him all writers, aswell Christians as jews, and in particular Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris wrote largely against Porphyry answering his mad objections, among which no doubt this was one which M. Downam and his learned men take upon them so stiffly to defend, and for that cause will seem to some to partake with Porphyry in his malicious cavils. 3. Thus far M. Downam hath been constrained to fly to Porphyry, that wicked Gentile, against both jews and Christians. Now he hath gotten himself a jew to join Dan. 7. 11. with him against the Pope, for so he saith, that not only Protestants, but also the jews, and namely R. Levi Gerson expoundeth the 7. and 11. chap. of Dan. as spoken of the Pope of Rome, whom he calleth another Pharaoh: which pleaseth this man very well, who thinketh that he hath gotten a great advantage against the Pope, because not only Heretics, but also jews themselves impugn him. And yet fearing lest this Rabbin be not able to make his party good, he still sticketh rather to Porphyry, affirming, that only Antiochus is literally spoken of Antiochus a type of Antichrist only in some principal points. in those places, and that consequently, there can no sound argument concerning Antichrist be taken from them, because Antiochus was a type of Antichrist, not in all and every particular, but in some principal matters. In which M. Downam saith true, and I think there was never yet any so mad, as to avouch the contrary, and the like no doubt is to be said of the Types of Christ, which M. Downam allegeth, only the controversy may be, what those principal matters are, in which Antiochus was the Type of Antichrist. But even in these also he seemeth to affirm, that there can be no sound argument taken from the Type, for he universally alloweth of that rule of Divinity, set down by the Schoolmen, that, Theologia Symbolica non est argumentativa, which notwithstanding, he must understand praecisè, & per se, as the Schoolmen do, in which sense it only signifieth, that it is no good argument in all points to argue from the Type, to that which it signifieth; which is all, that his other argument of Allegories proveth also. And consequently it will still be a good argument from the allegorical, mystical, or spiritual How we may argue from the mystical sense. sense to infer such things as the type is a figure of. As for example, now that we know by the Scripture, that the Paschall Lamb was a figure of Christ, not only in other respects, but also in that the bones of it were not to be broken, we may very well bring that place of Exodus 12. necoes illius confringetis, to prove, that Christ had not his thighs broken, as the two thieves had. And the reason of this is, for that the mystical and spiritual sense, is aswell intended by the holy Ghost, as the literal or historical, yea for the most part in the old Testament much more, as is evident by the place alleged; wherefore the only cause, why we cannot use it in our proofs, is, because it is hidden and uncertain, so that when it is known certainly, it convinceth as much as the literal doth: for which cause the Apostles, to whom Except the literal sense be certain we cannot argue firmly from it. it was revealed, used it so often. But we can prove nothing firmly either by the mystical, or literal sense, except we be sure, that we have the right of each, which we can never see by our own wits and industry without the assistance of that spirit, with which all Scriptures were written. Neither can any man in particular without great presumption, & evident danger of error, promise this assistance to himself, but no doubt the Church of Christ is never without it, & therefore we may boldly build upon any exposition, which she holdeth for certain, as she doth all those, in which all the Fathers, Doctors, and Pastors given unto her, by her spouse, do fully agree, as we see they do in expounding this place of Antichrist: and therefore we are to be out of doubt, that it is a true exposition, whether it be literal or spiritual, of which there may be some question; Neither doth M. Downam seem much to strive, but that in some things concerning Antichrist, the proof out of this place is good enough. But he would have us give him leave to choose them out, which we can do with no security, except he first show us an authentical warrant, for so high & special a privilege: which because he can never be able to do, we must of force neglect his babbling, and listen to the consent of the Fathers, to whom it doth belong to show The consent of the Fathers maketh either literal or mystical sense certain. us, in what points Antiochus, & Antichrist are to agree, and in what to differ, as Bellarmine doth in this place; though (as I noted before) there be many things in the 11. chapter. which cannot be understood of Antiochus, and therefore are literally to be referred to Antichrist, and much more all that, which is spoken of the little horn in the seventh chapter, in which there is no mention of Antiochus at all. 4. After this general answer, M. Downam cometh II. to examine the particular Instances, and to the first he answereth in two sorts: First, that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist, which he saith, shall appear out of Daniel himself, for Daniel speaketh of Dan. 11. him, that immediately in the Kingdom of Syria succeeded Seleucus Philopater, for so he saith, in his place, who was describe vers. 20. shall Antichrist shall arise from base estate. stand up a vile person, meaning thereby Antiochus etc. Thus M. Downam, proving very well that Antiochus is spoken of, which no man denied, and Bellarmine expressly allegeth S. Hieromes exposition in that sense; but withal addeth, that all Christians understood it also of Antichrist, and that more rightly in S. Hieromes judgement. This M. Downam should have impugned: which he in no sort doth, by telling us, that Antiochus is spoken of, because both Antiochus and Antichrist may be spoken of, if not literally, at least spiritually, which is sufficient, so that it be certain, that those words are to be applied to him, as S. Hierome & the other Christians thought that they were. 5. After this, M. Downam entereth into a large discourse, telling us first, that excepting one prophetical comfort of the Resurrection, cap. 12. daniel's whole prophesy is of those things which happened within less than 700. years, that is to say, from the taking daniel's prophesy containeth many things concerning the end of the world. of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeans, unto the final destruction thereof by the Romans. Where first we are glad, that we have gotten M. Downam's consent of that prophesy of the Resurrection; for surely it is very probable, that it is not alone, but joined with many other concerning the consummation of the world, to which the coming of Antichrist doth belong. And this both the text itself, and S. Hierome, and all other Ecclesiastical Writers persuade us, and therefore we must needs think so, until M. Downam convinceth evidently the contrary, which I am afraid, he will very hardly do. But let us see, what he can say for himself. Secondly therefore he faith, that daniel's Prophecies concern, either such terrestrial Kingdoms, unto whose Tyranny the jews were subject before the coming of the Messiah, or else the spiritual Kingdom of Christ, before Downam contradicteth himself. which, all the former Kingdoms were to have an end. But this seemeth somewhat contrary to that he said before, when he confessed that daniel's prophesy reacheth to the final destruction of jerusalem by the Romans, and consequently there must needs in his opinion, be mention in Dan. of the terrestrial Kingdom of the Romans, which without doubt, was not ended, before the coming of Christ; well, we will not urge him too far with this, but rather consider The King domes where of Daniel speaketh were not to be ended before Christ. how he proveth, that all the terrestrial Kingdoms of which Daniel speaketh were to have an end before the spiritual Kingdom of Christ, for it seemeth somewhat contrary to Daniel himself, who affirmeth, that the Kingdom of Christ should be raised by God in the days of those Kingdoms, whereof he spoke. In diebus autem Regnorum illorum suscitabit Deus Cali Regnum, quoth in aeternum etc. But yet M. Downam bringeth for the contrary Dan. 2. 4. 35. and 7. 11. and ver. Dan. 2. 26. 37. The first of which places is a little misprinted, for that 4. should be 34. in which, and the following verse it is said, that the stone, which was cut out of the Mountain without hands (that is our Saviour borne of our Blessed Lady by the holy Ghost without the seed of man) should strike the Statue upon the iron feet, and break them, and by that means the whole should be dissolved, and come to nothing. But I cannot see how this proveth M. Downam's intent, but rather the quite contrary; for if our Saviour shall destroy these Kingdoms, surely they were not to be ended before his coming, and at least the feet, and the ten toes must remain, and be strooken by this stone; as indeed they shall at his second coming, when he shall overcome the ten Kings, among whom the Roman Empire shallbe divided; who shall fight against him as S. john recordeth Apoc. 17. both before the coming of Antichrist and after also, so many, and so long as they shall continue. When our Saviour is to destroy the Kingdoms, signified by the Statue of Nabuchodonosor. Neither may it seem hard, that Nabuchodonosor in his dream related by Daniel, did see the stone first strike the Statue, & after become so great, that it filled the whole world; for this is to be attributed to the obscurity of Prophecies, and therefore Daniel in his explication standeth not upon that circumstance, but rather insinuateth the contrary, explicating first the stability and perpetuity of Christ's Kingdom in this world; and then how he should destroy all the Kingdoms of this world, and finally reign for ever in the next. The second place cap. 7. 11. is most plainly against M. Downam, for in the two precedent verses is described Da●. 7. the coming of God to judgement, before which no doubt, all these Kingdoms and Kings, together with Antichrist himself shall have an end, and the same is as plainly repeated v. 26. in which is declared both the coming of God to judgement, and the final overthrow, and destruction of the wicked, and v. 27. the amplitude and perpetuity of the Kingdom of Christ and his Saints, which is chief to be understood of the next world, and only When Christ began spiritually to overthrow those Kingdoms. spiritually in this; after which manner Christ began to overthrow all the Kingdoms of the world from the beginning, by rooting out Idolatry, and planting his Church through the whole world. Those other places, which M. Downam quoteth concerning the coming of Christ into this world, and the destruction of jerusalem make nothing against us, though some of them are not very fitly applied by him as the Reader will easily discern of those, which he bringeth out of the new Testament. But I will let them pass, and only note that which maketh a little Matth. 2. & 3. Mar. 1. & 10. to our purpose, that M. Downam misinterpreteth Dan. 7. 13. of the ascension of our Saviour, whereas it is evident by the text, that it is to be understood of his coming to judgement, of which it is said v. 10. judicium sedit, & libri aperti Dan. 7. sunt, that God the Father did fit in judgement and the books were opened, that is, it was the time of judgement, when Daniel did see our Saviour come to him. After this M. Downam only reciteth his exposition of the 4. beast cap. 7. and the legs and feet of the Statue cap. 2. which he will needs have to be the Kingdom of the Seleucidae, and Lagidae, but Dan. 2. & 7. how foolishly, we shall see after, when he cometh to his proofs, for now he only affirmeth it upon his bare word, which with us hath no credit at all, and I think will not have much with any man else, at least, if he be any thing indifferent, and will vouchsafe to read this discourse. 6. Well M. Downam goeth forward with his exposition (such as it is) especially of the 11. Chapter of Dan. in which he saith many things called in question by none, Dan. 11. and others denied by all; of the first sort I need say nothing, and the other are so apparently false and foolish, that it willbe enough to touch them briefly; as first, when he saith, The 4. Kingdoms, into which that of Alexander was divided belong to the 3. beast described Dan. 7. & not to the 4. that in the 8. and 11. chap. the 3. latter, and especially the last Kingdom spoken of cap. 2. and 7. is prophesied of; who seethe not the absurdity of this assertion? for what can be more plain, then that the four Kingdoms, into which Alexander's Kingdom was divided after his death, belong to the same Monarchy signified by the 3. beast cap. 7. which for this cause, is said to have 4. heads in that place, and in the 8. chap. the same are signified by the 4. horns, and they all were Greeks as M. Downam confesseth nu. 10. and is evident out of the same 8. Chapter; and of the Seleucide the same appeareth 1. Machab. 11. and besides all these 4. Kingdoms were ended before the coming of our Saviour, who notwithstanding is said to overthrow the 4. beast; and consequently all the rest in him, since that he had succeeded in their places. Porphiry did see this difficulty, which M. Downam dissembleth, and therefore interpreted judas Machabaeus to be that stone which Dan. speaketh of cap. 2. but most ridiculously, as is manifest out of the text; and therefore M. Downam durst not go so far with him, though in this plate he affirmeth, that in Antiochus his time the people of God were freed from the tyranny of the Seleucidae by Indas' Machabaeus; which is all the overthrow he can show us, that the The Kingdoms of the Lagidae and Seleucidae cannot be signified by the 4. beast Dan. 7. stone gave to the Statue, or 4. beast. Finally how can two of these Kingdoms, into which Alexander's Kingdom was divided, be taken for the Kingdom signified by the 4. beast, which cap. 7. is affirmed to be greater than all Kingdoms, and to devour the whole earth? whereas all those 4. kingdoms together are said cap. 8. to be inferior to that of Alexander, non in fortitudine eius, as it is also manifest by experience, that they were, and much more to all Kingdoms, or to that which was to be greater than they all, and to devour the whole earth. Neither is it true, that these 4. Kingdoms were by mutual conflicts reduced to two, under Seleucus Nicanor, and Prolomy Laegides; for (to omit the controversy about the 4. Kingdom, whether it were of Asia minor, or of Thracia, and Pontus) it is certain that there were 14. Kings of Macedonia, which held that Kingdom about an hundred years, and 1. Machab. 1. they are all four said to have reigned after Alexander, and their Children after them many years. But no part of M. Downam's exposition is more absurd, than his applications of the 10. Kings of the Seloucidae and Lagidae to the 10. horns of the beast mentioned cap. 7. for (to omit that this was porphyry's devise, by which he made himself ridiculous to all other expositors) M. Downam's particular application canteyneth so many absurdities, as I am persuaded his friends will blush, and all others will pity the poor man; for first, whereas he putteth Seleucus Nicanor to be the 2. horn, taking one King of Egypt, and the next of Syria, because Ptolemy Philadelphus who was the Downam's exposition contrary to all others, even his own fellows. second King of Egypt was a great favourer of the jews, he is constrained to interpret the 5. verse of the 11. Chapter of this Seleucus Nicaner, against all expositors, even his own Tremellius and junius, who by those words, & de Principibus cius etc. or as they read it: alter ex Principibus cius, understand Ptolomaus Philadelphus, whom M. Downam will by no means acknowledge to be any of these 10. horns; and consequently the second horn is not to be found in this 11. Chapter, as neither the 2. and another King, which is none of these horns, is mentioned in their place, by which M. Downam's Downam contradicteth himself. assertion, that the 10. horns which successively tyrannised over jury are mentioned in order in this 11. Chapter, is wholly overthrown. Likewise he omitteth Seleucus Ceraunus elder brother to Antiochus Maguus, though he also be mentioned in this Chapter. Finally of all these 10. which he nameth horns, because they tyrannised over the people of the jews, he cannot prove, that above two of them persecuted, or in a manner molested the jews: indeed they were so busied with their own affairs, that they were rather glad to procure the jews to be their friends, then to exasperate them. Ptolemy Lagides the first King of Egypt did invade jerusalem, as other histories report, but Daniel omitted it, which is a sign, that his intent in numbering these Kings, was not to declare the persecution, with which they were to afflict the jews, as M. Downam imagineth. Besides him, it is only certain, that Antiochus Epiphanes, the last horn in M. Downam's account did the like, for that which he affirmeth of Ptolemy Philopater out of the 12. verse, is a mere fable, since it is manifest out of Polybius lib. 5. and other histories, that the thousands, which there he is foretold to overthrow, were of the army of Antiochus Magnus, for he slew and took prisoners above 10. thousand. And as for Antiochus Magnus himself, true it is, that he came to jerusalem, not against the jews, but against Antiochus magnus & Seleucus Philopater his elder son, were the jews benefactors. Scopas one of Ptolemy's Captains, against whom the jews themselves assisted Antiochus, with which he was so well pleased, that he certified his Captains of the jews good usage towards him, & how he had decreed to reward them; for which cause he is by josephus accounted one of their benefactors. And the like we may say of Seleucus Philopater his elder son in whose commendation the Scripture itself speaketh 2. Mach. 3. & 4 testifying, that in his time the City of jerusalem was in all peace, and the Temple honoured with many gifts, aswell by him, as it had been before by his predecessors, and that he in particular allowed all things necessary to the Sacrifices; and that which M. Downam objecteth against him, that he sent to exhaust and empty the treasury and Temple of jerusalem, the Scripture relateth the matter at large in the same place, and showeth, how that action of his proceeded from the false information and instigation of Simon, who was appointed to keep & defend the Temple, and of Apollonius Governor of Calosyria and Phaenices, whom Simon had moved to that effect, and told, that the treasure was common, and not appertaining to the Sacrifices. But that this proceeded not from the King, is manifest by that action of O●ias the High Priest, who to defend himself from the vexations of Simon and Apollonius, took it to be his bestcourse, to go himself to the King, and to put himself Only Antiochus Epiphanes is in the Scripture accounted a persecutor of the jews. under his Kingly protection, which seemeth to have stood him in good steed, since the Scripture maketh no mention of any further trouble in that King's days. but presently addeth these words, Sed post Seleu●i vitae excess●m cùm suscepisset regnum Antiochus etc. By which plainly appeareth the difference betwixt those two Kings, and how those wicked courses which Seleucus hindered, were set forward by Antiochus. And indeed, this is the only King, whom the Scripture accounteth a persecutor of the jews, and therefore Dan. 8. there is no mention of any of the rest, but only of the 4. among which Alexander's Monarchy was divided, and forthwith after them of this Antiochus, and in the 11. Chapter, as we have seen, though many of the others be specified, yet there is no mention, that any of them persecuted the jews, but only of the wars, which they had among themselves. There remaineth yet the greatest absurdity containing a flat corruption and contradiction of the Scripture, in that M. Downam maketh the little horn, which arose after the 10. to be one of the 10. and the 10. But because I have had occasion to handle this point heretofore, I will not weary the Reader with a needle's repetition. 8. After this M. Downam cometh again to prove, that the first place which Bellarmine citeth, is to be understood Downam speaketh foolishly and from the purpose. of Antiochus, which no man denieth, and therefore all that labour is lost, unless he would infer out of that, that it is not to be understood of Antichrist, but that also were foolish as we have seen. And it is little better to infer, that if Antichrist be spoken of in this place, he was to be the immediate successor of Seleucus Philopater: for who seethe not, that this is a personal propriety of Antiochus, which could not be fulfilled in any, but himself; so that M. Downam might aswell infer, that Antichrist cannot be spoken of in this place, except he had been Antiochus himself: which indeed is his wont figure of petitio principij. Wherefore we say, that Antiochus, who was Seleucus his brother, and succeeded him in his kingdom, was in the manner of getting it ●et down in the Scripture a figure of antichrist's coming to his, and this is that which S. Hierome, & all Christian writers affirm against Porphiry, and his like. But now M. Downan denieth, that Antiochus did arise from most base How Antiochus Epiphanes arose from base estate. estate, because he was Son to Antiochus the great & Brother to Seleucus Philopater. As though a King's Son, and Brother, may not be obscure and abject in a kingdom, out of which he hath lived, and in which he had no right or title, nor yet power to succeed; for it were too much simplicity in M. Downam to imagine, that Hierome and Bellarmine spoke of baseness of birth, since that it is evident, they only speak of him in th●t sort in respect of the obtaining of the kingdom secretly, Dan. 11. and by deceit, and not by force, whereas otherwise he was by all thought unworthy to be King. And as for M. Downam's exposition of the word vile, or despised in Dan. no doubt sometime it may signify wicked; and now I will not contend whether Seleucus Philopater. v. ●0. be called Vilissimus in the vulgar translation, because of ●● base poling of the people, though Why Seleucus Philopater is called Vilissimus. M. Downam's friends transl●●e i● otherwise, by which it appeareth, that the Hebrew word is not all one in both places, and besides many of Seleucus philopater's predecessors were as wicked as he, and therefore it is 〈◊〉 probable, that he was called Vilissimus, rather because he lived obscurely without doing any memorable act, for which cause he is also said to reign but a few days, though he were King twelve years. But to omit all this, M. Downam cannot deny, but that one may be called abject, vile, base, contemptible, despised, or what it pleaseth him, by reason of his obscure life, and unfitness, want of means, and unworthiness of the dignity which he pretendeth: and when the word is to be taken in this sense, we must gather out of the text, and the circumstances, which concur in the History, and Person, out of which no man can deny but that S. Heromos sense is most clear; and if we speak of Antiochus before he was King, it is more than M. Downam can prove, that he was known to be so exceeding wicked, that he deserved to be called vile in that respect, and after he was King for all his wickedness he came to be called Noble, and is so named in all Histories, yea in the Scripture itself. 9 Now whereas M. Downam saith, that though Antiochus be atype of Antichrist, yet from hence we must infer not the self same particular, which is proper to the person of Antiochus, but the like. It is very true in this, though sometime this rule doth not hold, as is manifest in the example of Exodus, where the Paschal Lamb is a figure of our Saviour in that particular of not having the bones broken, but in this, it is true, and so neither S. Hierome and Bellarmine, or any of the rest do infer that Antichrist shall use the same deceit that Antiochus did, but the like, nor that he shall obtain the same Kingdom, as M. Downam very ridiculously would bear his Reader in hand: ●or who knoweth not, that Antiochus was not only King of the jews, but of Syria and Asia which S. Hierome inferreth Antichrist is not proved to be the King of the jews because Antiochus was so. not of Antichrist, only he nameth the Kingdom of the jews, because it is manifest out of other places, as hath been showed, that Antichrist shall make himself their King and Messiah. But it was far from S. Hierome and Bellarmine to prove it out of this place. And to this I might also ●d, that by the Kingdom of the jews, they mean not the country of jewry, but rather the dominion over that Nation, and their persons, wheresoever they be. For it is uncertain, whether there shallbe any jews in that Country at antichrist's coming or no, and it seemeth more probable, that they shall recover it in his time, and by his means. Wherefore S. Hierome and Bellarmine only endeavour to prove out of this place, that Antichrist shall have an obscure beginning, and come to be King by deceit, which M. Downam might have perceived by Beauties minor, or Assumption, in which he never goeth about to prove, that the Pope is not Antichrist, because he is not King of the jews, which had been his best and readiest way, if he had inferred out of this place, that Antichrist shallbe so: and whereas M Downam saith, that to argue from an allegory, i● but asleight argument in Divinity, I have already showed, that when the allegorical sense is certain, and known by the general consent of Fathers, as it is in this place, the argument is not sleight, but most Downam insolently rejecteth S. Hierone. firm and strong, and M. Downam is most ridiculous in affirming, that S. Hierome ●● overseen, and that it is a wonder, he being one of the most learned Fathers, and the matter so easy: for who seethe not the insolent vanity of this heretical Doctor, who persuadeth himself, that his bare word is able to discredit S. Hieroms exposition, whose learning and exactness in the Scripture, the whole world admireth, and it is hard to find any place in the exposition, whereof he is so earnest as in this, impugning ex professo, the exposition of Porphiry whom M. Downam ●aketh upon hi● to defend, and that not only against S. Hierome, but against all other Christian, and Ecclesiastical Downam abuseth S. Hierome. expositors, either before or after S. Hieromes time. Finally M. Downam is too impudent and absurd, to make a show, as if S. Hieroms meant to prove out of the 23. v. that Antichrist shallbe of a small Nation, since he himself acknowledgeth, that S. Hierome expoundeth those words otherwise, but this is the fruit of Heresy, first to make men impugn the truth, and the Doctors of God's Church, who defend it, and then to seek by such silly shifts to make their party seem good, and to deceive their Readers, by which indeed to any indifferent and discreet Reader, they discover their own shame, as M. Downam doth in this place, as well by this, as also by his simple repetition of his exposition of the fourth beast, and his 10. horns, which notwithstanding he will now go about to prove, by impugning the exposition of all other but Infidels and Heretics, concerning that place. 10. But first, he will have a saying to the Pope, & infer that according to their exposition who think that the 4. beast, Cap. 7. signifieth the Roman Empire, it is very likely, that the Pope is Antichrist, seeing hitherto he is the last that hath ruled in Rome, and shall according to the Papists own conceit continue to the end, The Pope succeed not in the Roman Empire. but it is no marvel, though M. Downam insisteth not much upon this proof, for first it is manifest, that not the Pope, but the Emperor is he that succeedeth in the Roman Empire, and it is likewise false, that the Papists hold, that either the Pope, or the Emperor shall continue to the end in Rome: since they plainly affirm, that the Empire shallbe first divided among 10. Kings, whereof none of them shallbe Emperor, and after surprised by Antichrist himself, who shall subdue The Seleucidae are not signified by the fourth beast. Dan. 7. those 10. King's: and it is likewise more probable in their conceit, that Rome itself shallbe utterly overthrown by the same 10. Kings and Antichrist, as we have seen before, and yet besides these two false assertions, M. Downam to make his argument good, supposeth two other (ifs) as false as these. First, that the ten horns should be the successive rulers of the Roman state: and 2. that the 10. or last horn should be Antichrist; which are not only false, but also foolish suppositions, and the latter expressly against the Scripture which maketh Antichrist not the 10. but the 11. horn, as hath been proved. Now let us see how he can prove, that by the 4. beast is signified, not the Roman, but the Seleucidae, and first he inferreth it, out of that false ground, which we have already overthrown, that the kingdom signified by the fourth beast, was to have an end before the coming of the Messiah, but he beingeth no proofs for this, but only quoteth cap. 7. 11. 26. 27. which we have already showed to make against him. Secondly, he supposeth, that cap. 7. v. 25. 26. 27. is to be understood of Antiochus his wars against the jews, which is his common fault of petitio principij, and against the consent of all good expositors, and the text itself. Thirdly, he objecteth that of the Romans: After they Apoc. 17. had obtained the dominion of jewry, there were more than ten that ruled over the Holy Land. But what is this to the purpose, since that these ten horns signify 10. Kings, which shall reign together, as appeareth plainly by Apoc. 17. which M. Downam objecteth to himself, and only answereth, that these of Dan. 7. are not the same, but other 10. which tyrannised over the Kingdom of the jews successively, as they are particularly Dan. 11. cap. 5. nu. 2. described cap. 11. but how false this is, hath already appeared, as likewise that which he addeth, that he whom the Papists take to be Antichrist, in Daniel is one of the 10. horns, it being manifest that both Daniel, & S. Io. describe 10. besides him. Fourthly, he saith, that all that Dan. saith of the 10. horn (so he calleth the 11.) do fuly and wholly agree to Antiochus Epiphanes, but not to the 10. Prince of the Romans. But we shall see a little after, how well M. Downam can apply the pulling up of 3. horns to Antiochus, which that little horn cap. 7. is said to do, and I believe we shall find him as far to seek, as he that would go about to show the same of the 10. Prince of the Romans, which no wise man will do, and M. Downam knoweth well enough that Bellarmine never imagined any such matter. Fifthly, M. Downam argueth from his conference of that, which is written of the little horn, chapter 7. with those things which are more plainly recorded of Antiochus, chap. 8. 23. etc. and chap. 11. 21. etc. But what marvel is there, if the 7. and 11. Chapters agree, since they are both to be understood of Antichrist, as hath been proved, and likewise Antiochus was a figure of Antichrist, and therefore no meruade, though that which is laid of him cap. 8. be very like to those 〈◊〉 which are related of Antichrist in thee: their places, and yet M. Downam much mistaketh in making the Goat. buck cap. 8. to comprehend the 2. last beasts cap. 7. for of this he neither bringeth proof nor probability, only he showeth very well, that the 4. heads of the third beast cap. 7. signify the same, that the 4. horns of the goat cap. 8. and consequently that the Seleucidae and Lagidae, which were The Seleucidae & Lagidae belong to the third beast. two of these horns, belong to the third beast, and in no sort to the fourth. All the rest which he addeth is an idle repetition of his former fooleries already confuted. 6. He affirmeth without all proof, that the people 〈◊〉, and oppress●● by these horns▪ are the people of the jews, whereas Antichrist in the Papist conceit, shallbe the counterfeit 〈◊〉 of the jews: for he can only prove that Antiochus persecuted the jews, which is no argument to prove; that Antichrist shall persecute them also; since it is manifest, that the jews in those times, were not a figure of the jews in antichrist's time, out of the Christians, whom I suppose M. Downam will not deny to be now Gods elected people. 7. He argueth from the agreement of the times, set down in D●n. to that which happened in Antiochus. But of this we have treated sufficiently before, showing, that he hath no ground for that he saith, and besides it Cap. 8. is most true that the time mentioned cap. 8. agreeth most fitly to Antiochus, the other not, though if they did, it were only an argument, that in this Antiochus was a most exact figure of Antichrist. And this is all he can say for his new exposition of the Seleucida, or against that of S. Hierome, and all other good Authors. 11. Now at length M. Downam cometh to Bellarmine's assumption, or Minor, where first he telleth us, that the The Popes whom the Protestant's account Antichrist arise not from base estate. Pope ariseth from base estate, whether we consider the mean estate of the first Bishop of Rome, or the base birth and obscure parentage of divers Popes; and addeth, that Bellarmine's allegations are but a vain flourish nothing appertaining to this purpose. But what impudence is this? Do not those authorities plainly show, that the Popes of Rome were highly esteemed of, both among Christians, & Gentiles, long before the times that the Protestant's assign for antichrist's coming? and consequently, that those Popes which they most foolishly, and impiously assign, did not arise from base estate. But (saith he) the estate of the first Bishops of Rome was mean: Well suppose it were so, what were this against those Popes which you make Antichrist, whose estate was not mean as Bellarmine proveth; as indeed the state of the first cannot be said to be by any, that maketh account of spiritual prehemmence and authority, and preferreth it before any temporal dignity whatsoever? But in these worldly Ministers eyes, our Saviour himself would seem mean, if he were upon earth again in the manner that he was. And his other objection is as foolish, of the base birth, and obscure parentage of divers Popes. As though this were the b●f●nes, that we speak of now, or the Protestants impugued any particular Pope, and not the whole succession of them for these 1000 years? But if he would have said any thing to the purpose, he should have showed, as Bellarmine rightly saith, that the Pope until the year 600. was most obscure, & of no name, and that then suddenly, and by deceits he usurped some high place. This M. Downan never toucheth, but passeth it over, as though he had been blind, as no doubt he was with malice, which made him break out into such a fit of railing without all modesty or measure, which See part. 2. cap. 5. therefore I omit in this place, & reserve all such stuff to the 2. Part, especially since M. Downam acknowledgeth that now it is not to the purpose; only the Reader must not let pass his Downam chargeth Bellarmin unjustly. charge against Bellarmine, for cunningly passing over in silence the other part of fraud and deceit, which he may see by the words, which now I alleged out of Bellarmine to be most false True it is, that he bringeth no distinct proofs for this, but only by showing the Pope's greatness before the year 600. evidently convinceth, that he came not to it then by any Fraud or deceit, but succeeded into the lawful Inheritance of his Predecessors: for as I said before, now the Downam omitteth Bellarmin his argument. question is not of the election of any particular Pope, but whether the Popes in general did at that time obtain by fraud any great dignity, being base before. And thus M. Downam concludeth his discourse concerning this first argument, omitting, as the Reader may consider, the greatest part of it, which is taken from the littleness of the home cap. 7. by which he will have Antiochus to be signified; and yet contendeth, that he was not little, but rather always great: which two assertions, how they hang together, I leave to the Readers judgement. 12. To Bellarmine's second argument, he hath nothing else to answer, but to tell us, that the 4. beast is the Kingdom of the Seleucidae & Lagidae; and that the 10. horn (he meaneth the 11.) was Antiochus Epiphanes. All which hath been sufficiently Antichrist shall overthrow 3. Kings. confuted already: wherefore we are now only to note how he contradicteth himself in explicating how Antiochus Epiphanes was little, before his coming to the Crown: for now besides his vile and base conditions, he can tell us, that he was called little, because of his vnl●kenes to be King. First, because he was the 3. and youngest son of Antiochus Magnus, his elder brother Seleucus also having a son called Demetrius. Secondly, because he was to be a perpetual hostage a● Rome; wherefore he must needs grant, that Antiochus may be called despectus, cap. 11. v. 21. aswell for these reasons and the like, as for his base conditions, which a little before he denied so obstinately. Now the 3. horns, which the Scripture saith were to be pulled up before the little horn, M. Downam will by no means have to be Dan. 7. Kings of other Kingdoms than Syria, and much less of divers, as of Egypt, Lyhia, and Ethiopia, but the 3. immediate predecessors of Antiochus, and this he proveth, because they were expressly called the 3. former horns, viz. of the ten. But he knoweth well Dan. 11. enough, that these 3. kings are named cap. 11. as we shall see forthwith. And besides the absurd it yes, which this exposition containeth as we have already showed, why doth he not show us what these 3. immediate predecessors were, whom Antiochus made away? According to the succession of the Kings of Syria, which he himself alloweth they should be Seleucus Ceraunus his Uncle, Antiochus Magnus his Father, and Seleucus Philopater his brother, and though Antiochus Epiphanes were so wicked, that in that respect it might be though that he would be ready enough to contrive any mischief, yet to affirm all this without either History or other witness is a strange liberty, if not of lying, yet at least of saygning. The death of his brother Seleucus Philopater is affirmed by M. Downam to have been contrived by Heliodorus, whom he affirmeth to have been suborned by Antiochus Epiphanes, and quoteth v. 20. as though all this were Scriptures but there is no such matter, and Appianus in Cyri●co, who affirmeth that Heliodorus slew him treacherously, likewise affirmeth, that he would have made himself King, and that they who put him back, admitted Antiochus; by which it appeareth, that Heliodorus was not so much devoted to Antiochus, as M. Downam imagineth. And it is easy to answer to that proof, that the 3. horns, are called the 3. former: for it is plain, that Daniel calleth them so, because they appeared unto him before the little horn, and were likewise to be in the world before it, yea if we would stand strictly upon that word, and admit M. Downam's interpretation, that those 10. horns were to reign successively; we should rather say that the 3. former, or first were the 3. first predecessors Why the 3. Kings which Antichrist shall slay, are called the 3. first or former. of Antiochus then the 3. last, which were rather to be called the 3. latter. But since the truth is, that all the 10. were to be together, there can no order of first or last be appointed us among them, and therefore we must of force say that they were called 3. of the first, because the 10. appeared before the little one; for indeed they are not called the 3. former horns, as M. Downam avoucheth, but 3. of the former; betwixt which there is a great difference, even as much as betwixt God's truth and M. Downam's lie. And all this is made Downam corrupteth the Scripture. more plain in the exposition of this vision v. 24. where this little horn is expounded to be another King, which shall arise after the 10. and be more mighty than the former, and shall humiliate 3. Kings; where we see, that this little horn is said to be after the 10. and the 10. before it; but the 3. are set down without any particular order, because they were to be of the 10. among which there is no order described. Now, that which he addeth of Antiochus being Downam belieth Pope Gregory the 7. and the Cardinals. a Type etc. is a mere fabling, and already confuted; besides that Antiochus can be no type in this place, where he is not spoken of at all, as hath been showed. Likewise that loud lie, which he telleth of Gregory the 7. affirming, that it is well known, that he made away 6. of his predecessors by poison, argueth so shameless an impudence, as nothing more. Like unto which, is that c●lumniation of the Cardinals, among whom he affirmeth, that it is an ordinary practice to minister ●● Italian ●●gg● to their Popes: In proof whereof he allegeth Vrbanus 7. Innocent. ●. that there have been 9 Popes in the time of Queen Elizabeth's reign: and that Vrbanus 7. Gregory 14. and Innocentius the 9 were so suddenly plucked up, that he supposeth their names have been heard of to few in England. And is not this a great wonder, that 9 old men should die in more than 40. years? Or that a young Woman living in all pleasure should outline them all? These are M. Downam's miracles, and as for the 3. Popes, whom he nameth, they were all most virtuous and holy men, but extreme old; and therefore no marvel though their being so close in the conclave caused the one, if not two of them to die so soon; Gregory lay sick or the stone above 3. weeks, and Gregory 14. the other two had been Popes so little a time, and given so little offence to any, that there could be no suspicion of any poison but this is the Ministers charity. 13. To the place, which Bellarmine allegeth out of Dan. 11. 19 this purpose, M. Downam answereth. 1. that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist, to which I need not reply any more. 2. that though Antiochus were a type in this, yet the same 〈◊〉 were not to be applied to Antichrist. But M. Downam mistaketh them 〈◊〉 much; for this is one of the places, which cannot be applied to Antiochus; and therefore is literally to be understood of Antichrist. 3. M. Downam boldly affirmeth, that this place, is only to be expounded of Antiochus his spoiling of Egypt, having in his company the Lybians, and the Aethyopians. And to this purpose he proposeth his new reading according to the Hebrew: the Lubine and Cu●him, that is the Lybians and Ethiopiam, shallbe in his passages or voyages, and lest we should with Bellarmine object the authority of S. Hierome, and the other Fathers against him, he preventeth us by writing ●h●s: Now if Hierome or any of the Fathers have let fall any such thing (as Bellarmine faith) we are to esteem it at an extremeur of theirs, which we are to pass by, rather than with the Cacanorae, the Papists, to gather it up, as fit food for their souls; Downam opprobriously rejecteth the Fathers. and then he hath this note in the margin, Cacanorae avis quaedam est apud Indor, quae alterius avis assecla est, ●ui●s vescatur excrementis. S●●lig. de subtle. What should a man say to this filthy Companion, that dareth open his foul mouth to such opprobrious words against the Fathers? Are not those fools in a 〈◊〉 taking, that follow such a fo●le? But his blasphemous 〈◊〉 against God and his Sai●●●●, in which he imitat●● in his Master Antichrist, must 〈…〉 from cleaving to the Fathers, given unto the Church by Christ for her Pastors, Guides, and Doctors, and therefore we nothing doubt, but that S. Hieromes interpretation, and exposition S. Hierso translation defended. of this place, approved and embraced by all Ecclesiastical Writers, both before and after him, is to be preferred before M. Downam's new devise, and the Hebrew text, which hath ad gressus eius, if we believe Tremelius and junius, i● as capable of S. Hieromes translation, ●● of M. Dowmans'; and the words immediately going before plainly show, that S. Hieromes interpretation is the right, which are, Et me●ti● manum suam in terras, and after nameth only these three, two of which M. Downam would cut off by his new translation, and consequently must also change that terras, into terram; and yet even then also the coherence would show, that the Prophet spoke rather of invasion, then assisting, of enemies than friends. But besides this, we must put M. Downam to a little more trouble, urging him to tell us, in what History he ●uer read, that Antiochus invaded the land of Egypt any oftener Antiochus Epiphanes invaded not Egypt oftener than twice. than twice; or both which Daniel speaketh from the 22. to the ●●. v. declaring how he was put back the second time by the Romans; after which he never returned into Egypt, and consequently this invasion of that Country, which Daniel speaketh o● in this place, cannot in any sort be understood of Antiochus, but must be wholly referred to Antichrist. Finally, it M. Downam will stand to his own rule of conferring one place of Scripture with another, what can be more p●aine●●●n this, that Daniel speaketh now of the same 3. Kings; which cap. 7. he said, should be plucked up, and humiliated by the little borne? Wherefore, whether M. Downam's excrements, for so he calleth far better men's expositions then his own, be worth the taking up or no, I leave to the Readers judgement, but in my conceit they savour very strongly of heresy and folly. 14. To Bellarmine's Minor, M. Downam is dumb, as likewise to his consutation of the objections, which some other make against it. And to his third argument he only answereth, that Lactantius, S. Irenaus, and S. Hierome are ●● Antichrist shall subdue the 7. Kings which remain after the ●. and so he shall be Monarch of the whole world. Scriptures, a● though Bellarmine had affirmed, that they were, because in the beginning he saith that these 4. things are read of Antichrist in the Scriptures. But M. Downam might easily have conceived, that Bellarmine could not prove better that this doctrine is contained in the Scripture, then by alleging the authority of the Fathers, who gather it out of the Scripture: and yet to satisfy M. Downam in all points, he allegeth also a place of Scripture, whereall the 10. Kings Apoc. 17. are said to give their power to the Beast, that is the Devil, which the 7. cannot do without yielding themselves to Antichrist after that the other three be slain. To which M. Downam hath nothing to reply, but only asketh, whether S. john speaketh of Antichrist his either ki●●ing 3. ●● Apoc. 17. subduing 7? To which I answer, that S. john plainly foretelleth, that all the 10. shall give their power to the beast, and consequently that the 7. which remain after the death of the other 3. will concur with Antichrist, which they cannot do, without yielding themselves unto him, since it is certain, that he shallbe the Mo●●●ch of the whole world, and because the Scripture is not so express, Bellarmine only saith, that it may be inferred out of that place, as it may likewise out of the 12. and 13. Apoc. as in part hath been touched. And is it not evident enough of itself, that the little horn, which presumed to encounter, if not all the 10. yet Apoc. 12. & 13. at least three of them, while he was so little, will not stay there, when he is grown great, but cause the other 7. to subject themselves unto him? The other questions and assertions which M. Downam hath, are already confuted, and therefore not to be repeated now again. Wherefore let us see, what he saith to the testimonies of S. Chrysostome and S. Cyril. I answer (saith he) that for substance these Fathers held the truth, for what Monarch hath there been in the West these 5. or 6. hundredth years besides the Pope & c? where I beseech the Reader to Why M. Downam admitteth any of the Fathers. mark attentively M. Downam's reason, why he alloweth the testimony of the Fathers, which is no other, but because they are against the Pope in some sort, according to his conceit, for otherwise we may see by that which he answeteth to the 3. former, and that which he saith of them all in general a little before, how little he setteth by their authority. Now for the Monarchy of the West, it is evident The Pope no temporal Monarch. that it remaineth in the Emperors, and that which he attributeth to the Pope, every child will see, how different it is, from the Monarchy of the Romans; and how small a thing it is, if you take away his spiritual authority, which no doubt is the greatest upon earth. But what is that to the temporal power, of which these Fathers speak? Now how the Pope is Lord of the whole earth, and how he disposeth of the new found world, we shall examine at large in the second part, and how the government of Rome belongeth not to Antichrist, in whose time it shallbe destroyed, as neither the 2. beast Apoc. 13. nor the 7. head Apoc. 17. to the Pope hath been already sufficiently declared. 15. To the 4. argument, M. Downam answereth nothing, Antichrist shall persecute the Christians through the whole world with an innumerable army. which Bellarmine himself hath not confuted at large in his discourse of Gog and Magog, which M. Downam wholly omitteth, under pretext of not troubling his Reader, but indeed, because he would not discover his own shame, for otherwise at least he might have answered to so much of it, as made against himself. The like deceit he useth in passing over Bellarmine's answers, to the Protestants objections, or arguments, whereby they endeavour to prove the Pope Antichrist; because he saw that they contained in effect an answer to his former book. But I may not omit either, that so the Reader may judge, how well M. Downam hath cleared them in his former book, of which he seemeth himself to make some doubt, by telling us, that the controversy betwixt us, is not whether every argument, that hath been produced by every one doth necessarily conclude the Pope to be Antichrist, and that, that discourse is rather personal, then real, and therefore he letteth it pass. THE SEAVENTENTH CHAPTER. Of Gog, and Magog. WHEREFORE the first opinion, or rather error (saith Bellarmine) is of the jews, who teach that Gog is Antichrist, & Magog innumerable Scythian Nations which lurk within the Caspian Mountains, and that Antichrist shall come with Magog, that is with an Army of Scythians at the same time, that the Messiah shall first appear in Jerusalem, and that there shallbe a battle fought in Palestine, and such an overthrow in the Army of Gog, that for 7. years the jews shall not cut any wood from trees to make fire withal, but shall burn the spears, bucklers, and other weapons which shallbe found with the dead bodies, and that afterward there shall be a golden world etc. S. Hierome relateth this opinion in cap. 38. Ezech. and Petrus Galatinus lib. 5. cap. 12. cont. judaeos, and Rabbi David Kimhi in his Commentary upon the Psalms in many places; but the jews err in two things. First, that they think the battle of Gog & Magog, shallbe in the first coming of Christ, confounding the first with the second. Whereas notwithstanding the Scriptures plainly teach, that Christ in his first coming, was to come in humility, and as a meek sheep to be sacrificed, as it is manifest Isa. 53. and in other places. Secondly, in that they think, that Antichrist shall come against them, and fight with their Messiah, whereas indeed Antichrist shall be their Messiah, and shall fight with the jews against our Saviour the true Christ. The second opinion is of Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 24. 25. & 26. who thinketh, that the battle of Gog and Magog, shall be a thousand years after the death of Antichrist, for he teacheth that after 6000. years, from the beginning of the world, Antichrist shall come and reign three years & a half, and that then Antichrist shallbe slain, Christ shall appear, the Resurrection shall be, and the Saints shall reign here with Christ upon earth for a thousand years in great peace and tranquillity, the Infidels not being wholly rooted out, but serving peaceably. Which ended, the Devil shallbe loosed again, and a most fierce war of all Nations be raised against the same Saints, which they served for a thousand years; and this is the battle of Gog and Magog, of which Ezechiel, and S. john do speak. But that a little after all the wicked shallbe slain by God, and that then the second Resurrection shall be, and the world be wholly renewed. This opinion was also of many of the ancient Fathers, as Papias, S. justine, S. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Apollinaris and some others, as S. Hierome relateth in cap. 36. Ezech. and Eusebius lib. 3. hist. cap. vlt. But it is long since exploded as a manifest error: for our Lord Matth. 24 and ●5. plainly teacheth, that after the persecution of Antichrist, the last judgement shall follow forthwith, and that all the good shall go into everlasting life, and all the evil into everlasting fire, and therefore that afterward, there shall not be another thousand years, nor ever after any more battles. The third opinion is of Eusebius, who lib 9 demonst evang. cap. 3. thinketh, that Gog is the Roman Emperor, and Magog his Empire. But he buildeth upon a false Foundation, for he deduceth this opinion ou● of Numb. 24. where according to the translation of the 70. we read, the kingdom of Gog shallbe extolled, and his Kingdom shallbe increased: God hath brought him out of Egypt etc. where the Scripture seemeth to say, tha● when Christ shall return out o● Egypt in his infancy, the Kingdom of Gog shallbe extolled. But it is manifest, that in the infancy of Christ, no Kingdom was extolled, but that of the Romans. But without doubt the edition of the 70. is corrupted in this place, for in Hebrew it is not Gog, but Agag. ve●arom meagag malcho: & tolletur propter Agag, vel prae Agag Rex etus. And his King shallbe taken away for Agag, or in respect of Agag, and the sense is according to S. Hierome in cap. 38. Ezech. and Saul the first King of Israel, shall be taken away for Agag, that is, because he shall sin not killing Agag, or according to others, Saul shallbe extolled before Agag, that is, he shall prevail and overcome Agag. Both are true. And it is certain, that, that place of Numer. is understood of the Kingdom of the jews, and not of Christ, or the Romans, for it beginneth: How fair are thy Tabernacles o jacob, thy Tents o Israel etc. The fourth opinion is of others, who by Gog and Magog understand the battles of the Devil, and his Angels, long since past in Heaven with the good Angels, which S. Hierome confuteth as destroying the letter in cap. 38. Ezechiel. The 5. opinion of Theodorus Bibliander, whom Chytraeus followeth in his Commentary upon Apoc. 20. wherefore Bibliander Tab. 14. suae Chronologia, where he treateth exactly of Gog and Magog, and at length teacheth, that the Prophecy of Ezechiel and S. john pertaineth not to the same time, but that the Prophecy of Ezechiel was fulfilled in the time of the Maccabees, and that Gog and Magog were Alexander the Great, and his successors the Kings of Egypt and Syria, who fought many battles with the jews, and were at length overcome by the Maccabees, and that the Prophecy of S. john was fulfilled in the time of Gregory the 7. and of some ensuing Popes, and that the Popes were Gog and Magog, and the other Princes and armies of Christians, who fought a long time against the Saracens, for the recovery of the holy Land, and our Lord's Sepulchre. The first part of this opinion is also of Theodoretus in cap. 38. Ezech. but it cannot be defended: First because without doubt, the Prophecy of Ezechiel, and S. john is one, and the same, and therefore both are to be fulfilled after the coming of Christ: for first S. john saith, that the army of Gog shall come from the four corners of the earth, and the same saith Ezechiel, namely expressing that in the army of Gog there shallbe Persians' from the East, Aethiopians from the South, Tubal that is spaniards from the West, and ●ogorma, that is Phrygians from the coasts of the North. Secondly S. john saith that this army shallbe destroyed by fire sent from Heaven: and the same affirmeth Ezechiel in the end of the 38. Chapter, I will rain (saith he) fire and brimstone upon him, and his Army. Finally S. john after this battle presently addeth the renewing of jerusalem, that is the glorification of the Church, and likewise Ezechiel from chap. 40. to the end of his book treateth of nothing else, but of the wonderful renewing of jerusalem. Besides, Secondly it is proved, that the Prophecy of Ezechiel was not fulfilled in the time of the Maccabees, for Ezech. 38. it is said to Gog, Thou shalt come in the last years, but Alexander the Great with his, came in the middle years. Likewise Ezechiel expressly saith, that in the army of Gog, there shallbe Aethiopians, Lybians, Spaniards, Cappadocians &c. which notwithstanding never fought against jerusalem, and chief in the time of the Maccabees, for only the Syrians, and the Egyptians fought against the Maccabees. Finally, Ezechiel describeth such a victory against Gog and Magog, that afterward no enemies were to be feared, but all battles should be ended, but the victory of the Maccabees was not such against the Kings of Syria and Egypt, for neither the jews did ever altogether overcome the Kings of Syria and Egypt, and a little after the jews were vexed and subdued again by the Romans; neither did they ever deliver themselves out of their hands, as S. Augustine deduceth, and proveth lib. 18. de civitate Dei cap. 45. therefore the Prophecy of Ezechiel was not fulfilled before Christ's tyme. The other part of bibliander's opinion, which is his own, and peculiar to him, is not only false, but also impious; for first S. john saith, that the battle of Gog and Magog shallbe against the Camp of the Saints, and the beloved City, that is against God's true Church. But the war of the Christians for the recovery of the Holy Land was wholly against the Saracen Mahometans, unless perhaps Bibliander would have the Mahometans to be the true Church, and camp of the Saints. Secondly, S. john saith, that there shallbe in the army of Gog, men out of the 4. corners of the earth. But in the Army of the Christians, there were only out of the West, and North, that is French, Germans, Italians. Besides S. john saith, that the war of Gog, and Magog being ended, Jerusalem shall forthwith be renewed, and glorified, and that the Devil, & Antichrist, and the false Prophets shallbe thrown into everlasting fire. But the war of Christians for the Holy Land, is long since ended, and yet we see not any Jerusalem renewed, nor the Devil, and the false Prophets cast into hell, for now, as our Adversaries also confess, the Devil, and false Prophets most of all flourish. Furthermore, God himself by manifest signs, and wonders, aswell at Antioch of Syria, as in other places manifestly showed, that, that war was acceptable unto him, of which, see Gulielm. Tyri●s lib. 6. de bello sacro, and Paulus Aemilius lib. 4. de rebus Francorum. Finally S. Bernard, whom Bibliander calleth a Saint, in Chronico, where he treateth of the times of Eugenius the 3. besides other holy men, was one of the chiefest Authors of this war, for he, both by words and miracles persuaded an infinite multitude of French, and Germans, to go to that war, as he himself showeth, initio lib. 2. de Consid. and the author of his life lib. 2. cap. 4. writeth, that S. Bernard after the battle was ended, restored a blind man to his sight, in testimony that he had preached that war in the name of God. The 6. opinion is of the Magdeburgenses, cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. column. 435. where they teach that Gog & Magog, is the Kingdom of the Saracens, or Turks; which opinion is wholly opposite to the opinion of Bibliander; & therefore it is better, or rather less evil. But yet absolutely it is fals●; for Gog shall come in the last years, and shall not endure long, as it is plainly gathered out of S. john, & Ezechiel. But the Kingdom of the Saracens began long since, and hath endured hitherto, almost a thousand years, which doubtless cannot be called a little tyme. The 7. is of S. Ambrose, lib. 2. de fide cap. vlt. that Gog are the Goths, who destroyed many Provinces of the people of Rome. S. Hierome maketh mention of this opinion in quaest. heb. cap. 10. and saith, Whether it be true or no, the end of the war will show. And now doubtless, the issue of the war hath taught us, that it was not true, for neither hath there followed any renewing of the Church after the war of the Goths; neither have all wars ceased. The 8. is of S. Hierome himself in cap. 38. Ezech. who seeing the difficulty, omitting the literal sense did mystically expound it of the Heretics: for he will have Gog, which in Hebrew signifieth the House top, to signify the heresiarchs, who like to the top of an House are lifted up, and proud; and Magog which is interpreted, of the top of an House, to signify them who believe these arch-heretics, and are subject to them, as the House to the roof or top. This opinion taken for the mystical sense, is most true, but not in the literal; for Ezech. cap. 38. saith: that Gog shall come in the last years, and S. john Apoc. 20. saith, that the same Gog shall come after a thousand years, and by the name of a thousand years, all Catholics understand all the time, which is from Christ's coming to Antichrist. Since therefore Gog shall not come but about the end of the world, and heresies began in the beginning of the Church, while the Apostles lived, it is manifest, that properly, and literally, Gog doth not signify the Heretics. We must also know, that S. Hierome, when he saith, that Gog is interpreted an house roof, and Magog, of an house roof, meaneth not, that Gog and Magog in Hebrew are altogether the same, that an house roof, or of an house roof with us; but he meaneth that it is in a manner the same, for properly an house roof is not Gog, but Gog, and of an house roof, is not Magog, but Miggag. The 9 opinion is of S. Augustine lib. 20. de civitate Dei cap. 11. who by Gog understandeth the Devil, who is like a great house roof, that is a great house roof in which all the evil do dwell; and by Magog he understandeth the army of Antichrist gathered of the Nations of the whole world: which opinion doutbles is most true, and to be embraced, in that it referreth Gog and Magog to the times of Antichrist, aswell, because all Catholic Authors, which writ upon the Apocalyps do follow it, as Arethas, Primasius, Beda, Haym●, Rupertus, Richardus, Anselmus, and others; as also, because that all which is said by Ezechiel, and S. john, of Gog and Magog do most rightly agree to Antichrist; for then truly shallbe the last and greatest persecution, and after it shall jerusalem be renewed, that is, the Church glorified: neither shall there any battles be heard of after. But in that by Gog it understandeth the Devil, it seemeth not true, for S. john saith, that the Devil being let lose, shall call Gog and Magog to wars, wherefore the Devil is one thing and Gog another. Wherefore our opinion, which is the 10. containeth three things. First we affirm, that the battle of Gog and Magog is the battle of Antichrist against the Church, as S. Augustine rightly taught. Secondly, we say, that it is very probable, that by Gog, Antichrist himself is signified, by Magog his army. For Ezechiel always calleth Gog a Prince, and Magog a Land or Nation. Thirdly, we say that it is probable that Gog is so called of Magog; and not contrariwise, so that Antichrist is called Gog because he is Prince of that Nation which is called Magog, and that the army of Antichrist is called Magog of the Scythian Nation, not that it consisteth of those Scythians, which the jews faygne to be beyond Cancasus and the Caspian Sea, but either because a great part of antichrist's army shall consist of Barbarous people, which came out of Scythta, as Turks, Tartars, and the rest, or (which I rather think) because it shallbe a very terrible and cruel army, for we call them Scythians, which we would call bloody. For that Magog signifieth the Scythian Nation, it is manifest out of Genes. 10. where we read that the second son of japhet was called Magog, of whom the Country of Magog was denominated, which his posterity inhabited, which was Scythia, as jasephus teacheth lib. Amiq. cap. 11. and S. Hierome in quest. hebr. in Gen. cap. 10. For as from the three son of Cham, that is Chus, Myrami, and Chanaham, Aethiopia is called Chus, Egypt Myrami, and Palestina Chanaham; so doubtless Scythia is called Magog of Magog the son of japhet. And that Ezechiel naming Magog, had relation to the Nation denominated of Magog the son of japhet, it is manifest, because in the same place, he addeth as companions to Gog, other Nations denominated of other sons or nephews of japhet, as Gomer, Togorma, Mosoch, Tubal etc. Wherefore let us conclude, that the battle of Gog and Magog is the last persecution which Antichrist shall raise in the whole world against the Church. Neither is it against us, that Ezech. cap. 38. saith, that the weapons of Gog and Magog shall be burnt for the space of 7. years, whereas notwithstanding it is manifest, that after antichrist's death there shall not be past 45. days to the end of the world, as is gathered out of Daniel 12. for Ezechiel speaketh not properly but figuratively after the manner of Prophets, neither meaneth he, that indeed those weapons are to be burned for the space of 7. years, but that it shall be so notable an overthrow, that the Lances and Targets of the slain might suffice a very long time to make fires, if need were. One doubt remaineth, whether by reason of the most cruel persecution of Antichrist, the Faith and Religion of Christ shall be altogether extinguished. For Dominicus Soto in lib. 4. sent. dist. 46. q. 1. art. 1. thought surely that it would be so. The departing (saith he) and defection from that Seae, shallbe a sign of the consummation of the world. And after. Faith being extinguished by the departure from that Sea Apostolic the whole world shallbe vain, and should without cause continue any longer. And after. Let therefore men be astonished, how pestilent self love is; for thence floweth puffing up and pride, which under the conduct of Antichrist shall at length consume the City of God. But this opinion in my judgement cannot be defended; for first it is repugnant to S. Augustine, who lib. 20. the civit. Dei cap 11. saith: that the Church shall be ever invincible against Antichrist. Neither shall she (saith he) forsake her warfare, who is called by the name of Tents. Secondly, it seemeth to me also, to be repugnant to the Gospel; for Matth. 16. we read: Upon this Book I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall nor prevail against her. But how shall they not prevail, if they shall wholly extinguish her? Likewise Matth. 24. Our Lord saith of the Ministers of Antichrist: They shall give great signs, so that the elect also shallbe led into error, if it be possible. Where our Lord would signify, that there shall be many elect at that time, who shall not suffer themselves to be seduced by the miracles of Antichrist. Finally, all Writers, who speak of antichrist's persecution, as Ezechiel, Daniel, S. Paul, S. john, & all the Fathers alleged before, say, that the victory of that war or persecution shall at length be the Churches. And surely, reason itself teacheth the same. For, who can believe, that in that Battle, in which with their whole Camps, God and the Devil, Christ and Antichrist shall fight, God shallbe overcome by the Devil, and Christ by Antichrist? M. Downams Answer confuted. 1. Thus far Bellarmine. In which M. Downam is fully confuted. For the reasons which Bellarmine useth against the first part of bibliander's opinion, do evidently convince, that Ezechiel speaketh not of the Seleucidae, nor of their wars against the jews; and that which M. Downam addeth, that S. john speaketh of the enemies of the Church, which Satan incited after he was loosed, is the same in effect, which Bellarmine affirmeth. For we have proved before, that Antichrist shallbe in the world, when Satan is loosed, and not before. Wherefore it remaineth evident, that this Battle of Gog and Magog belongeth to Antichrist, and not to the Pope, and therefore that the Pope is not Antichrist, as M. Downam, and his Mates most impudently & impiously dare to affirm. THE EIGHTEENTH CHAPTER. The Dotages of the Heretics are refuted, with which they do not so much prove, as impudently affirm, that the Pope is Antichrist. ALTHOUGH (saith Bellarmine) those things, which we have hitherto treated of Antichrist, might suffice, since that we have evidently showed, that none of those things agree to the Pope, which the divine Scriptures attribute to Antichrist: yet lest any thing should be wanting, and that the impudence of our Adversaries may be made manifest, I will briefly propose, and confute those arguments which Luther, Libellus Smalcaldicus, Caluin, Illyricus, Tilemanus, & Chytraus bring to prove, that the Pope is Antichrist. And first Luther, although every where he calleth the Pope the chiefest Antichrist, and chief in his book the captivieate Babylonica lib. contra execr abilem Bullam, Antichristi, in assert. articulorum, lib. cont. Ambros. Catarrh. notwithstanding I could only find one argument of his, with which he endeavoureth to prove it, for in asser. art. 27. he speaketh thus: Daniel foretold cap. 8. that Antichrist shallbe a King with an impudent face; that is, as the Hebrew hath, mighty in shows, pomps, and cerimonyes of outward works, the spirit of saith in the ●eare time being extinguished, as we have seen in fulfilled, with so many Religions, Orders, colleges, Rites, Garments, Habits, Buildings, Constitutions, Rules, Observances, so that thou canst hardly rehearse the number of their names. And these same faces of Antichrist, as he calleth them, he recounteth and explicateth at large, lib. cont. Ambros. Catarrh. de visione Danielis. But this argument of Luther hath three faults. The first is in the Foundation itself, for the Hebrew words sabbagim verbatim signify Rob●stus fancy, and according to the Hebrew phrase, an unpudent fellow, who can not blush: for first so the 70. translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Inuerecundus fancy: so doth S. Hierome translate, so Theodoretus readeth, so out of the rules of the rabbins expoundeth it Franciseus Vatablus, Fortis fancy (faith he) is he that blusheth not, and who is no▪ ashamed. Finally the same is gathered out of the like words Ezech. 3. the house of Israel hath a worn forehead, and an hard heart: behold I have given thy face more forcible, than their faces, and thy forehead adwarder than their foreheads. Where in the Hebrew it is: The house of Israel have a strong forehead, and I have given thy face stronger than their faces, which have no other sense, than this, ●s S. Hierome rightly explicateth, they are impudent indeed, but thou shalt not yield to their impudence, and if they do evil boldly, and without shame, thou shalt reprehend them boldly, and without shame: which since it is so, let Luther look, lest he hath an impudent face, if he will prefer his own interpretation, before the Rabbyus, Theodoretus, S. Hierome, the 70. Interpreters, and Ezechiel himself. The second fault of Luther's argument is, because it cannot be rightly gathered out of this sentence, that the Pope is Antichrist (whatsoever it signifieth) for though it were manifest, that Antichrist shallbe potent in outward pomps, and cerimonyes; yet it could not forthwith be gathered, that whosoever is mighty in outward pomps and cerimonyes, is Antichrist, for as the Logicians teach, nothing is gathered out of particular affirmatives: otherwise also Moses was Antichrist, who instituted so many Cerimonyes in Exodus and Leviticus, that they can searsly be numbered. And when in the same place it is said of Antiochus, and in his figure of Antichrist, that he shall understand Aenigmas or dark speeches, if Luther's argument were good, it would follow, that all they who can solve Aenigmas, were Antichrists, which certainly is false and ridiculous. The third fault is, that he attributeth to the Pope the Institution of all Orders, and Ecclesiastical Ceremonies, whereas notwithstanding it is manifest, that many of them were not instituted by the Pope, but by other holy Fathers; for the Greek Church ever had and hath still Monasteries, rites, observations, ceremonies which they received from S. Basil, S. Paconius, and other Greek Fathers, and not from the Bishop of Rome. See Cassianus his book de Institutis renuntiantium, and S. Basilij Constitutiones. In the West also, the Orders of S. Benedict, S. Romualdus, S. Bruno, S. Dominick, and S. Francis were indeed approved by the Pope, but invented and instituted by those holy men, whom the holy Ghost instructed. So that if these orders belong to antichrist's face, rather those holy Fathers, are to be called Antichrists, than the Pope. Add lastly, that the words of Daniel agree more fitly to no man (excepting the true Antichrist, who is to be revealed in his time) then to Luther; for he above all others had an impudent face; for being a Priest, and a Monk, he marryedopenly a Nun, of which there can be no example given in all Antiquity. Likewise he wrote lies without any number, which are noted and published in writing by many. joannes Cochlaeus in act. Lutheri anno 1523. writeth, that out of one of Luther's books, there were noted by one 50. lies: and that by another, Luther was convinced of 874. lies. Finally, what an impudence was that, when in lib. cont. Bullam. Leonis X. the same Luther durst excommunicate his Bishop, together with the whole Church, that adhereth to him? Who ever heard, that a Bishop could be excommunicated by a Priest? The Council of Chalcedon in times past, trembled at the audaciousness of Dioscorus, who presiding in the second Ephesine Council, presumed to excommunicate Pope Leo. But what comparison can there be betwixt Dioscorus. Patriarch of the second Sea, presiding in a general Council, and Luther a simple Monk writing in his chamber? But now leaving Luther, let us come to Melancthon. THE nineteenth CHAPTER. The trifles of the smalcaldical Synod: of the Lutherans are confuted. THERE is a book of the Power & Primacy of the Pope, or of the Kingdom of Antichrist, put forth in the name of the smalcaldical Synod; which to me seemeth to be Melancthons'; but whosoever it be, it hath nothing but words, & vain bragging. It is well known (saith the Author of the book) that the Bishops of Rome with their members defend impious doctrine, and impious worships, and plainly the notes of Antichrist agree to the kingdom of the Pope and his members. Hitherto the Proposition. Now let us hear the proofs: for Paul ad Thessaly. describing Antichrist, calleth him the adversary of Christ, extolling himself above all that is said, or worshipped for God, suiting in the Temple as God, wherefore he speaketh of some that reigneth in the Church, not of Heathen Kings; and him he calleth the adversary of Christ; because he shall invent doctrine repugnant to the Gospel; and he will usurp to himself divine authority. Although all this if it were true, would hurt us very little, yet I ask upon what foundation this exposition is built? S. Paul plainly saith, that Antichrist shall extol himself above every God, and that he shall sit in the Temple, not as a King, not as a Bishop, but plainly as a God; and this same expressly affirm S. Chrysostome, S. Ambrose, and the rest of the ancient Father's interpreters of this place. With what right do you then without witness and without reason affirm, that he is antichrist, who sitteth in the Temple, not as a God, but as a Bishop? And is so far from extolling himself above every God, that he doth not only adore God the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost, but also in the presence of all the people prostrateth himself before the Sacrament of the Eucharist, before the Tombs of the Apostles, and Martyrs, before the Cross and Images of Christ, and his Saints, which you yourselves, though impiously, are wont to call strange Gods and Idols? But let us see how you apply this same to the Pope. The Synod. And first it is manifest that the Pope reigneth in the Church, and under the pretext of Ecclesiastical authority and Ministry, hath made himself this Kingdom, for he pretended these words: I will give unto thee the Keys. Bellarmine. You say indeed, that the Pope reigneth in the Church, but you prove it not. But we can easily show the contrary, for he, that reigneth, acknowledgeth not any superior in his Kingdom, but the Pope professeth himself to be the Vicar, and Servant of Christ his King. And although he useth most ample power in the whole House of God, and in the universail Kingdom of Christ; notwithstanding that power exceedeth not the condition of an administrator, and servant: for Moses also (as S. Paul saith Hebr. 3.) was faithful in the whole house of God, but as a servant; and Christ, as a Son in his own. But to go forward. The Synod. Besides, the doctrine of the Pope is many ways repugnant to the Gospel, and usurpeth to himself divine authority in three manners. First, in that he taketh to himself authority to change the doctrine of Christ, and the worships instituted by God: and he will have his doctrine, and his worships observed as if they were divine. Bellarmine. This likewise you say, but prove it not, and it seemeth to us not only false, but also a most impudent lie, for you are not ignorant, that in the Catholic Church it is taught by all, that the doctrine of Christ and worships cannot be changed by any man, no nor by any Angel neither. Was there ever any question betwixt you and us, whether that, which Christ taught or commanded, aught to be believed and done; but whether you or we interpret better the doctrine and procepts of Christ? In which question you in a manner are wont to bring nothing else, but your own interpretation; but we bring the consent of the Fathers, and either the decrees or customs of the Catholic Church, for we do not oppose (as you falsely brag) the consents of the Fathers, and the decres and customs of the Church to the word of God, but to your judgement, and interpretation. But let us here the second proof. The Synod. Secondly, because he taketh to himself not only power to lose and bind in this world: but also power over souls after this life. Bellarmine. This also is said, but not proved: for the Pope doth not take to himself authority over the souls of the departed, since that he doth not absolve them from their sins and punishments by his authority, but only communicate with them the prayers and the good works of the faithful which live, by manner of suffrage. And all the ancient Fathers do teach, that the prayers and alms of the living, and chief the Sacrifice of the Mass, do profit the dead, of which since we have largely disputed else where, it shallbe sufficient to have noted one testimony of S. Augustine in this place: wherefore serm. 34. de verb. Apost. S. Augustine speaketh thus: It is not to be doubted, that the dead are helped by the prayers of the holy Church, and the wholesome Sacrifice, and the alms which are given for their souls. But let us go on. The Synod. Thirdly, because the Pope will not be judged by the Church, or any other, and taketh away their authority from the judgement of councils, and of the whole Church. But this is to make himself God, to refuse to be judged by the Church, or by any other. Bellarmine. Hear also two things are said, which are not proved: for first by what Scriptures, by what councils, by what reason do you prove, that the Pope ought to be judged by the councils or the Church? For we read (to omit other things which are sufficiently disputed in the former book) that it was said to S. Peter by Christ john 21. Feed my sheep, and we think, that there can be no doubt, that the sheep are to be ruled, and judged by the Shepherd, and not the Shepherd by the sheep. We also read Luc. 12. that it was said to the same Peter: Who thinkest thou is a faithful and prudent Dispenser, whom the Lord appointeth over his family? In which place we see a certain Steward put over the whole family of Christ, certainly to govern it, and not to be governed by it. And lest perhaps some should object, what if he were a naughty Steward, by whom shall he be judged, if he be above all, and subject to none? Therefore our Lord addeth forth with: And if that servant shall say in his heart, my Lord delayeth to come, and shall begin to strike the Men and Maidservants, and to eat and drink, and be drunk; the Lord of that servant will come in the day which he hopeth not, and in the hour he knoweth not, and will divide him, and put his part with Infidels. Do you hear who is the judge of the evil Steward whom our Lord hath appointed over his Family? For Christ saith not, that he shallbe judged by a Council, but the Lord will come in the day, which he hopeth not, and that which followeth. Wherefore our Lord reserveth to himself the judgement of that Servant, whom he hath appointed over all his Family, and therefore the Pope taketh not away their authority from the judgement of the councils, and the whole Church, when he suffereth not himself to be judged by it, for that cannot be taken away which was never given. But never did the councils rightly congregated ever take that to themselves, that excepting the case of Heresy, they would give sentence against the Pope. But of this we have said enough in due place. The other thing, which you say, and prove not, is, that this is to make himself God, to refuse to be judged by the Church, or by any other, for when you say (of any) without doubt you mean of any man; for you are not ignorant, that the Pope believeth and professeth, that he is to be judged by Christ. Now, how doth he make himself God, who believeth, that he is to be judged by God? Besides, certainly the Kings of the earth, do not acknowledge any judge upon earth, for so much as doth belong to political affairs, and in your opinion, who take coactive power from Bishops, they have not any judge even in Ecclesiastical matters; shall there therefore be so many Gods as Kings? I do not think, that you are so mad, as to say this; wherefore it remaineth that it is not true, that he forth with maketh himself God, who will not be judged by any man. Lastly you add. The Synod. These so horrible errors, and this impiety he defendeth with exceeding great cruelty, and killeth them who descent from him. Bellarmine. Now, how impudently you lie in this place, you may know even by this one instance, that I myself who writ these things, do openly affirm, and that in the City of Rome (not unknown to the Pope) that the Pope may not change the doctrine, or worships of Christ, nor institute new worships which should be held for divine, or should any way be repugnant to the Gospel; and yet I am not only not killed by him, but neither receive any molestation. Because the Pope knoweth very well, that I say true, & you lie. As also a little after, when you add: The doctrine of penance is altogether depraved by the Pope, and his members; for he teacheth, that sins are remitted for the worthiness of our works. Likewise they never teach, that sins are freely remitted for Christ. Which surely are not our opinions, but your lies: for we teach not that, but altogether the contrary, as the Council of Trent plainly witnesseth Sess. 6. cap. 5. 6. 7. & 8. But of this enough. I pass to Caluin. THE twentieth CHAPTER. Caluins' lies are refuted. WHEREFORE john Caluin expounding the place of the Apostle 2. Thess. 2. Who extolleth himself above all that is called God, saith indeed many things, and with great pomp of words, but he proveth in a manner nothing. Paul (saith he) signified in these words, that Antichrist would usurp to himself those things, which are proper to God alone, so that he will extol himself above all divine power and the whole religion, and all the worship of God shall lie under his feet. And after: Now whosoever shallbe taught out of the Scripture what things are most proper to God, and on the other side shall behold what the Pope usurpeth to himself, although he be a child of ten years old, he will not much labour in the discerning of Antichrist. Surely a magnifical promise. But let us here with what reasons he proveth at length that, which he hath proposed: for peradventure they willbe such that children of 10. years old will not labour much in solving them. The Scripture pronounceth, that God is the only lawgiver, Isa. 33. v. 22. who can keep, and destroy, jacob. 4. v. 12. The only King, whose office is to govern souls with his word: it maketh him likewise the author of all holy things: it teacheth that justice and salvation is only to be sought for of Christ: it assigneth also the manner and means. There is none of these things which the Pope affirmeth not to belong to his power: he glorieth, that it is his office to bind consciences with what laws he thinketh good, and to subject them to eternal punishments. He either suiteth new Sacraments at his pleasure, or corrupteth and vitiateth, yea wholly abolisheth those which were instituted by Christ, that he may substitute in their place the sacrileges which be hath seygned. He forgeth means of obtaining salvation altogether repugnant to the doctrine of the Gospel. Finally he doubteth not to change the whole Religion at his beck: what I beseech you, is it to extol himself above all that is reputed God, if the Pope doth it not? Did not I ●ay, well, that many things are said by Caluin, little or nothing proved? For that the Pope glorieth, that it is his office to bind consciences with what laws he thinketh good, that he suiteth new Sacraments, that he abolisheth the old, that he forgeth means to salvation repugnant to the doctrine of the Gospel, that he changeth all religion; Caluin saith so indeed, but he proveth it not. And if to say with him, be to prove; by like reason to deny, must be to refute. Certainly all we Catholics, which obey the Bishop of Rome Christ's Vicar say freely, and without any injury to him, that it is not lawful for him to bind men with any laws whatsoever, that is, with pernicious also and unjust, nor to institute new Sacraments, nor to corrupt and abolish those which are instituted by Christ, nor to invent means to Salvation repugnant to the doctrine of the Gospel, nor to pervert or change Christian Religion: and this we say the more willingly, because we know, that he also thinketh and saith so: for if he thinketh not so, if he thinketh that he may make unjust laws, institute new Sacraments, abolish the old, and do other things of that sort; how doth he suffer us to speak so, who notwithstanding are in his power, and not in I know not what corner, but teach in the City of Rome itself, by his knowledge and will? But they will say, the Pope saith not, that it is lawful for him to do these things; but yet in very deed, and in fact he striveth, that it is lawful for him to do them. Let it be proved then, that he hath done any of these things, for otherwise to assume that which is to be proved, which indeed is common with our Adversaries, is called by the Logicians, petiti● princip●. Now these two places, Isa. 33. and jac. 4. which Caluin only produceth, are not any thing contrary to our opinion, for that which Isaias, and S. james say, that our King, judge, & Lawgiver is one; certainly is not repugnant to those words, Prou. 8. By me Kings do reign, and the makers of Laws do discerneiust things: and with those Psal. 2. And now Kings understand, be instructed, you who judge the earth, and with 600. other of the same kind. Wherefore Isayas, and S. james do not make God the only King, judge, & Lawgiver in whatsoever manner; but only in that sort, that he only is so King, & judge, & Lawgiver, that he ought to give account to none other, that he dependeth of none, that he reigneth and judgeth, and maketh Laws by his own authority, that is not received from another, and finally, that he alone can also with effect destroy and save, as S. james saith. For we attribute none of these things to the Pope, or other Princes. THE XXI. CHAPTER. The lies of Illyricus are refuted. NOw Illyricus, in the book which he writeth against the Pope's Primacy, saith thus: But among other arguments, that must we hold most firmly which hath been most truly and clearly proved by many in this time, that the Pope teacheth and descendeth impious Doctrine, and that he is the very Antichrist himself; the reasons whereof I will here repeat. joan. 1. epist. 2. defineth that Antichrist is he who denieth jesus to be Christ. That the Pope plainly doth, not in words, but in deed. For Meschias in Hebrew, in Greek Christ, is a Person sent by God, to be the perpotuall Priest and King of the people. It is the office of a Priest to teach, pray, and sacrifice; but it is a King's office to govern and defend. So he. Now let us hear, how he proveth, that the Pope hath taken away these offices from Christ, and what testimonies, what reasons he bringeth. But if I be not deceived, we shall only hear vain words. Thus than he goeth forward: Wherefore the Pope taketh away the Priesthood from Christ, for he will not only have the beloved Son heard, but rather himself, and his false Apostles, who bring another Gospel. Likewise because he substituteth to us many other Mediators in Heaven for Christ who may make intercession for us before the Father, Christ the severe judge being neglected. Likewise because he hath substituted infinite petty Sacrificers for Christ, who may appease God to mankind, to whom he saith, that the Priesthood was translated from Christ by Peter. Finally because, he will have us saved by the merits of his spiritual men and Saints. Behold with what clear testimonies of Scripture Illyricus convinceth us: what if we demonstrate, that all these are mere lies? For where I pray you have you read, that the Pope had rather have himself heard then Christ? We deny it: prove it, for we contrariwise see that the Scriptures are greatly honoured by the Pope, and that they are accounted heretics who have taught any thing against the Scriptures. Besides, is it not a most manifest lie, that the Pope hath substituted Mediators for Christ, and that he would have them make intercession to the Father, Christ being neglected? Do not our Litanies begin thus, Kyrie Eleison, Christ Eleison? Are not all the prayers of our Church which we read in the Mass and ecclesiastical office directed to God, and ended by Christ our Lord? Do we not acknowledge the mediation and intercession of Christ, since that whatsoever we ask of God, or we desire to be asked for us by the Saints, we ask it all by the merits of Christ? For we have not the Saints in the place of God or Christ, but we desire of them, that they will join their prayers with ours, that in this sort we may obtain more easily of God by Christ whatsoever we will have. In like manner it is a lie, that we say, that the Pope hath substituted petty Sacrificers for Christ, and that the priesthood of Christ is translated by S. Peter to petty Sacrificers, for you neither prove, neither ever will be able to prove any of these things. Neither can there be any doubt, but that if you had any thing, you would produce it: but this is it, which we say, that Christ, who is a Priest for ever, & always liveth to make intercession for us, hath offered himself once to God an host of pacification by his death of the Cross: and that now he offereth himself by the hands of the Priests again, and again in Mystery. And as, though many baptise in this time, notwithstanding that is true, which we read joan 1. This is he who baptizeth in the Holy Ghost: for the office of Christ is not translated from Christ to Priests, but it is he, who always baptizeth by the Ministry of Priests; so also, though many Priests at this day offer Christ in the venerable Mysteries, notwithstanding he is the principal Priest, and truly the chiefest Bishop, who offereth himself by the Ministry of all Priests. The works, saith S. Chrysostome hom. 83. in Matth. are not of human virtue; He that did it then in that supper, he worketh now also, he finisheth it, we hold the order of ministries. But I would willingly learn or thee Illyricus, since that all the ancient writers aswell Greek, as Latin, make mention of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, and of Christian Priests, which no man denieth but such as have not read them; why dost thou attribute this only to the Bishop of Rome, that he hath transferred the Priesthood of Christ to petty Sacrificers? but let us go on to the rest. That which thou addest in the last place; he will have us saved by the merits of his spiritual men and Saints, is only a notable lie; otherwise produce a place where the Pope said so, for we believe to be saved by the grace of our Lord jesus Christ, as also our Fathers were saved, as S. Peter saith Act. 15. Neither do we acknowledge any other Saviour, but jesus, and him crucified, who gave himself a redemption for all, 1. Tim. 2. Now that the merits and prayers of the Saints do profit us in their manner, cannot be denied, but by him, who knoweth not, or believeth not, that there is communication and connexion betwixt the members of the body of the Church, of which thing since we have treated else where, it shall suffice to have added two testimonies in this place. Wherefore S. Aug. quaest. 149. in Exod. saith thus: That by that means we might be admonished, when our own merits had oppressed us, so that we are not loved of God, that we may be relieved by him, by the merits of them, whom God loveth. And again lib. 21. de civitate Dei cap. 17. he divers times repeateth, that some obtain pardon by the merits of Saints; and that this was signified by our Lord when he said: Make you friends of Mammon of iniquity, that when they fail, they may receive you into everlasting Tabermacles, Luc. 16. And as we have also experienced, saith S. Leaser. 1. 〈…〉. Apostol●●um, and our Ancestors have proved, 〈◊〉 believe and ●●●st, that we shall always be helped by the prayers of our special 〈◊〉, among all the labours of the life, to obtain the mercy of God, that by h●w much we are depressed by our sins, so much we may be erected by Apostolical merits. So he. And although we are not wont to speak so, as Illyricus saith, that we are saved by the merits of spiritual men: ye● if any did speak so, and would only signify, that we are in some sort helped by the merits of Saints to obtain salvation by Christ, he could not be more reprehended than the Apostle S. Paul, who 1. Cor. 9 saith, jam made all things to all men, that I might make all men saved, and the Apostle S. judas, who speaketh in like manner, when he saith; Do you reprehead, these indeed being judged, and save those taking them from the fire. And thus much of the Priesthood of Christ. Illyricus goeth forward: Now he taketh away Christ's Kingdom from him, because in earth he will be the head of the Church, and in Heaven he appointeth us other helpers and saviours, to whom he commandeth us to fly in our miseries: wherefore the Pope denieth that jesus is Christ. Hear first I ask, whether the Pope or any of the Catholics call the Saint's saviours? Then I add, if to affirm, that he is the head of the Church under Christ as his Vicar and Minister, which the Pope doth, be to deny that jesus is Christ, why by the same reason whosoever affirmeth that he is Viceroy, or Governor of some Prince, is not forthwith censured to deny the King to be his Lord? Finally if to fly to Saints as helpers in miseries, is to deny, that jesus is Christ, how I pray you did not S. Paul deny jesus to be Christ, when he saith Rom. 15. I beseech you brethren by our Lord jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you help me in prayers for me to God, that I may be delivered from the infidalls which are in judea? How did not Basil the Great deny jesus to be Christ, when in orat. de 40. Mart. he spoke thus. He that is oppressed with any distress, let him fly to these. Again, he that rejoiceth let him pray to these: he to be delivered from miseries. this other, that he may continue in prosperity? I omit the rest of the Fathers, for fear lest if we examine them, we shall find none, who hath not denieth jesus to be Christ. Illyricus goeth on. Dan. 11. describeth Antichrist by many notes. First saith he, he shall do what he will, surely the Pope doth what he listeth. But holy Daniel, when he saith of Antichrist he shall do what he will, signifieth that Antichrist shall acknowledge no superior at all, no not God himself, for so it, followeth: And he shallbe extelled against every God: wherefore Antichrist neglecting also the law and commandment of God, shall live at his own will, which cetainely the Pope doth not, who denieth not, that he is bound by the law of God, and acknowledgeth Christ his judge and Superior. He himself (saith Illyricus) confesseth it dist 40. If the Pope should draw with him infinite so●●es into hell, yet no man must say unto him, what dost thou? And the gloss saith, the Pope's will standeth for reason. The Canon which beginneth Simo Papa, is not as Illyricus falsely saith, of any Bishop of Rome, but of S. Boniface Bishop of Me●tz Apostle of the Germans, and a Martyr: who donieth not, that the chief Bishop if he liveth ill is to be rebuked and admonished by brotherly charity: but he denieth, that he can be reprehended by authority and judged, since that he is the judge of all men; which Boniface also in those words, which go before that Canon (as is to be seen in the new edition of the Decree) expressly calleth the Church of Rome the head of all Churches, and affirmeth that the prosperity of the whole Church doth depend of the safety of the Bishop of Rome after God. Wherefore I demand of Illyricus, whether the sentence of S. Bonifacius Apostle of the Germans be true or no, for if it be not true, why is it objected unto us? if it be true, why is it not received? I will say the same more plainly. If that sentence be not true, than it is not true that it may not be said to the Pope drawing many souls with himself into hell, What dost thou? If it be true, then is the Pope truly the head of all Churches, and being to judge all, is to be judged by none. Wherefore let Illyricus lean alleging the Canons, which can profit him nothing. As for the gloss, let Illyricus know, that it is either taken away by the Pope himself, as false in the new edition of the Decree, or else was never in the decree; certainly I could not find it. Illyricus goeth forward. Secondly Daniel saith that he will extol himself above God: that the Pope did, as is manifest by that which hath been said. Likewise, because he will have himself heard more than God, and blaspheming he crieth out, that the Scripture is the Fountain of all heresies and schismas, doubtful and obscure etc. But thou shouldest have rehearsed daniel's words faithfully, for he saith not, he will extell himself above God; but he shallbe extelled against every God; and after: Neither shall he care for any of the Gods, because he shall rise against all. Which note most clearly showeth that the Pope hath nothing common with Antichrist, for Antichrist will care for none of the Gods; but the Pope worshippeth the only true God, the Father, the Son, and holy Ghost. Neither doth he that alone, but also (if we believe you) he adoreth openly so many Gods, as there be Saints in Heaven, Images on earth, and relics under the earth. Now that which thou addest, that the Pope crieth out, that the Scripture is the fountain of heresy and schisms; Certainly I never read it in the writings of any Pope, but I hear, that it is the word of thy friend Luther, that the Scripture is the book of heretics, Luth. praefat. historia, qua contigit in Strasfort. anno 36. which word if it be rightly taken, I see not why it should be deservedly reprehended; for S. Hilary lib. de Synod: extre●●o, showeth that most heresies arose out of the Scriptures ill understood, and Tertullian in lib. de prescript more boldly saith thus: Neither am I afraid to say, that the very Scriptures are so disposed by the will of God, that they might minister matter to Heretics, since I read Heresies must be, which cannot be without Scriptures. And that the Scriptures are ambiguous and obscure in many places, not only the Pope most truly teacheth, but also all the old Fathers, and even Luther himself whether he would or no was constrained to confess it, when praefat. in Psal. he wrote thus: I would not have that presumed of me by any which none of the most holy and most learned could yet perform, that is to understand and teach the Psalter in all things with the true and lawful sense. It is sufficient to have understood some, and those in part; the spirit hath reserved many things to himself, that he may always have us his scholars, many things be only showeth to entice, many things be delivereth to move our affections. And after: I know, that he is most impudently rath, who dareth profess that one book of the Scripture is understood by him in all parts. Also did not the same Luther in lib. de Concilijs & Ecclesia pag. 52. openly confess, that he had sought with great sweat the true and proper sense of the Scripture? Finally so many Translations of the Scripture, so many expositions, so many most divers sects among our adversaries, what other do they proclaim, then that the Scripture is ambiguous and obscure? Illyricus. Thirdly Daniel saith, that he (Antichrist) shall have prosporous success until the anger of God be ended. The Pope hath oppressed as he desired by his tyranny and impiety both many common wealths, and also innumerable Churches. Bellarmine. And with what reason, or by what author do you prove this? Can you tell, what Common Wealths, what Churches the Bishop of Rome hath oppressed? what if we contrariwise demonstrate, that the note altogether opposite to this third note of Antichrist, agreeth to the Pope? for from that time, at which in your opinion the Pope began to be Antichrist, his Kingdom hath not only increased, but hath always more, and more decreased. In the time of S. Leo the Great, that is 150. years before Antichrist was borne in your opinion, the Pope of Rome had more Nations under him, than the bounds of the Roman Empire extended to. For so writeth the same S. Leo serm. 1. the natal. Apost. Thou being made, o Rome, the head of the world by the holy Seat of S. Peter, rulest more largely by divine Religion, then by earthly domination: for although increased with many victories thou hast extended the right of the Empire by Land and by Sea; yet that is less which warlike labour hath subdued unto thee, then that which Christian peace hath subjecteth. And S. Prosper lib. de ingratis: Sedes Roma Petri, quae Pastoralis honoris Facta caput mundi, quidquid non possidet armi●, — Relligione tenet. But afterward Antichrist reigning, as you affirm, by little and little the Roman Sea hath lost almost all Africa, the greatest part of Asia, all Greece, and in our times in which you cry out that Antichrist rageth most of all, all things have succeeded so prosperously, that it hath lost a great part of Germany, S●●tia, G●thia, Nerutgia, all Denmark, a good part of England, France, Helvetia, Pol●nia, Bohemia, and Pa●●●nia. Wherefore, if to have prosperous success be a note of Antichrist, not the Pope, who hath been deprived of so many Provinces, but Luther, who by preaching carnal liberty▪ hath seduced so many people, and hath proceeded with such prosperity, that of a private Monk he is become the Prophet of all Germany, and as it were a certain Pope, may deservedly be called Antichrist: but go forward. Illyricus. Fourthly Daniel saith, that he will not care for the God of his Fathers, that this is truly said of the Pope, we clearly proved before in the place of john. Bellarmine. And we reproved the same more clearly in the same place: wherefore go forward to other. Illyricus. Fiftly he saith, that he will not care for the love of women, which the Pope hath done, both by commanding his followers continency, as also by his Sodomitical lusts. Bellarmine. Hear I omit to speak of your rashness, with which you dare say any thing, little weighing in the mean time, whether those things which you say can be proved, or not. That I will not omit, that the words of Daniel, although in the greek text, they signify so as you say, notwithstanding out of the hebrew Fountain they are translated by S. Hierome into the quite contrary sense, for thus he translateth: And he shallbe in the concupiscence of women. And although the Hebrew words We gall kemdath nasi●, only signify, In the concupiscence of women, and have not any word a ljoined by which it may be understood, whether Antichrist shallbe or not in the concupiscences of women: Notwithstanding there are two conjectures, which make the translation of S. Hierome the more probable. The one, because it is manifest that Antiochus of whom literally Daniel speaketh, and who bore the figure of Antichrist, was very much addicted to the love of women: Antiochus (saith S. Hierome in commentar. h●iu● loci) i● said to have been most lecharous, and that he came into such ignominy by ravishements, and corruptions of the Kingly Majesty, that he did also publicly accompany queans, and harlots, and satisfy his lust in the people's presence. Which since it is so, how is it credible that Daniel would say of such a King he shall not be in the concupiscences of women? The other conjecture is since that Antichrist shallbe the Messiah of the jews, & the jews besides other benefits, expect of their Messiah multitude of wives, it is in no sort probable, that Antichrist shall either command, or praise continency. Lastly I add, that if it be a note of Antichrist, to bring in continency for Priests, not only the Pope, but all the ancient Fathers and the Apostles themselves were certain Antichrists: for to omit the rest, which shallbe brought in their places, hear what the Fathers of the second Council of Carthage say can. 2. It pleaseth us all, that Bishops, Priests, Deacons, or they that handle the Sacraments, keeping chastity, abstain also from their wives, that we may also observe that, which the Apostles taught, and Antiquity itself hath kept. Go on. Illyricus. Sixtly, Daniel saith, that he shall worship the God Maozim, and that with gold and silver: which he hath done while he placeth all piety in this, that many and great Temples fairly built may shine with all kind of ornaments, and sound with singing. Bellarmine. Of the God Maozim there hath been much said before, where we showed, that the God Maozim is either Antichrist himself, or the Devil himself, whom Antichrist shall worship secretly. But our friend Illyricus seemeth to me, to make jesus Christ the God Maozim, which surely is an intolerable blasphemy: for that all the Temples, which are costly built, and are adorned with gold and silver by the Bishops of Rome, are consecrated and dedicated to Christ our God there is no man but knoweth. Therefore if he, that is worshipped in these Temples, be the God Maozim. Neither did the building and adorning of Temples begin from the year 666. in which year our adversaries will have Antichrist to have appeated, but almost 300. years before this tyme. Hear Eusebius ex versione Russini lib. 9 Hist. Eccles. cap. 10. By which there was, as it were by God's gift, joy infused to all, especially seeing those places, which a little before had been destroyed by the impious devices of Tyrants with a new building arise more costly and stately, and the huge Temples were erected instead of mean meeting places. Hear S. Cyril Hierosol. catech. 14. These Kings which now are, by their piety covering this holy Church of the Resurrection in which now we are, with silver and gold, built it up, and made it resplendens with silver ornaments. See beside, if you list, of the magnificence of Christian Temples, and the splendour of holy Vessels of the Church Eusebius lib. 3. & 4. de vita Constantini, S. Greg. Nissen orat. de S. Mart. Theodoro. S. Greg. Nazianz. orat. in julian. S. Chrys. hom. 66. ad Pop. Antioch. S. Cyril. Alexand. lib. de rect. fide ad Regin. S. Damas'. in vit. S. Siluestri, S. Ambrose lib. 2. the office cap. 21. S. Hierom. in comen. cap. 8. Zachar. S. August. in psal. 113. S. Paul. in natal. 3. S. Felicis, Prudentius in hymno de S. Laurentio, & Procop. in lib. de aedificijs justiniani. Certainly all these lived before the times of Antichrist, and yet they witness, that there were such buildings, and ornaments of Christian Temples every one in their own age, that those which we see now, can in no sort be compared to them. Illyricus. seven, Daniel saith that Antichrist shall enrich his fellows: that the Pope hath done. Bellarmine. doubtless he greatly enriched john Eckins, Io. Cochl●us, Io. B. of Rochester, Latomus, Driedon, Tapper, Peter à Soto, and so many other most learned men, who having laboured night and day to suppress your furies, never received one halfpenny of the Bishop of Rome; although neither did they desire reward of man, who laboured chiefly for the glory of God. And if the Bishop of Rome giveth rich benefices to Cardinals, and Bishops, he is not so much to be thought to enrich them, as the piety of the faithful, who gave these rents to the Church. Illyricus goeth on, Paul 2. Thess. 2. putteth 5. notes of Antichrist besides the aforesaid. The first, that he shall sit in the Temple of God. This the Pope doth, feigning himself the Vicar of Christ, and reigning in the consciences of men. For if he should profess himself the enemy of Christ, as Mahomet doth, he should be out of the Church. But S. Paul (Illyricus) doth not only say, that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God (for every Bishop sitteth in the Temple of God) but he explicateth the manner, how he shall sit in the Temple of God, saying: showing himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But the Pope by thy own Testimony maketh himself the Vicar of God, and consequently not God: for the Vicar of God cannot be God, unless thou feignest lesser, & greater Gods. Besides, I ask of thee, if the Pope be not out of the Church, as thou sayst in this place, and consequently is within the Church; where I pray thee, art thou and thine? art thou not out of the Church? for the Church is one, and the Pope sitteth in it: wherefore you who are not in that, are in none. But let us hear the rest. Illyricus. The second, because he faith that the mystery was then doing: this I think to signify that the Bishop of Rome began a little after to list his head above others. Bellarmine. This is that, which I briefly noted before, following Nicolas Sanders, who before had seen and written the same, that in your opinion S. Peter is Antichrist, and Simon Magus, or Nero Christ. For S. Paul saith not the mystery shall work a little after, but it worketh now; wherefore if this Mystery belongeth to the Bishop of Rome it must needs belong to S. Peter, and if S. Peter (which my heart abhorreth to think, and my hand trembleth to write) was Antichrist, who seethe not, that Simon, and Nero S. Peter's enemies were Christ and God? But keep to thyself such Gods and Christ's, for we envy thee not; but go forward. Illyricus. The third, because he saith, that Antichrist shall come with lying signs: which the Pope hath done, as experience witnesseth, The fourth, that God shall send the efficacy of illusion: which hath manifestly happened in the Papacy, for we believed in all things the Pope more family, then God. We treated before of the miracles of Antichrist cap. 15. and it is a most impudent lie, that Illyricus saith of experience; for the Popes have done neither true, nor false miracles, either in this age, or in the former, with which notwithstanding they say that Antichirst doth chief reign. And that which he addeth of the efficacy of illusion, every man seethe, how easily it may be returned upon our adversaries; for what greater efficacy of illusion can be imagined, then that there should some be found in these times, who choose rather to believe two or three Apostates, than the whole Church, all councils, and all the Fathers, who besides their admirable doctrine and excellent sanctity of life, were renowned also with many signs and miracles? Now that which Illyricus bringeth out of S. Ambrose to explicate the fifth note, is before refuted in the second demonstration, with which we proved, that Antichrist is not yet come. Illyricus in the last place addeth somewhat out of ep. 1. ad Tim. 4. In the last times same shall departed from the saith: The Pope denieth that there is any other saith but historical. They shall attend to deceiving spirits: The Pope proveth all things with visions of spirits and souls. They shall prohibit marriage, and the use of meats: both these are most true and manifest of the Pope. But good Sir, the Pope hath learned of S. Paul, that there is one Faith: look thou from whence thou hast learned another faith. Besides, one God (saith the Apostle Ephes. 4.) one faith, one baptism. Neither did S. Paul ever define this one faith to be a confidence relying upon the promise and word of God, as you define it cent. 1. lib. 2. col. 262. but he saith Rom. 10. This is the word of faith which we preach, because if thou confessest in thy mouth one Lord jesus, and hast believed in thy heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. And Hebr. 11. he saith, by Faith we believe that the worlds were framed by the word of God. And who knoweth not that it pertaineth to the sacred history, that Christ hath risen from death, and that the worlds were framed by the word of God? And yet we name not this one only, and true Faith, by which we most certainly believe whatsoever God hath vonchsafed to reveal by the Apostles and Prophets, an historical faith; but the Catholic faith, for we leave to you the novelties of words. That which thou addest, that the Pope proveth all things with the visions of spirits and souls, I know not what spirit hath revealed unto thee. For we sometime bring something out of the apparitions of souls written by approved and ancient authors to confirm those things which belong to the state of souls, of which sort is that which Eusebius writeth of the apparition of S. Potamiena lib. 6. hist. Eccles. cap. 5. and that which S. Augustine relateth of the apparition of S. Felix Nolanus lib. de cura pro mortuis, cap. 16. But for the confirmation of other doctrines, I know not what Catholic ever alleged the visions of souls: but this is not your first lie. That which thou bringest in the last place, of the forbidding of meats and marriages, is evidently enough confuted by S. Aug. lib. 30. cont. Faust. cap. 6. where he saith thus: If you were exhorted to Virginity in such sort, as the Apostles doctrine exhorteth; He that giveth to marriage doth well, and he that giveth not to marriage doth well: so that you did say, Marriage is good, but Virginity better, as the Church doth, which truly is the Church of Christ; the holy Ghost would not foretell you thus saying, forbidding to marry; for he forbiddeth, who saith that this is evil, not he who preferreth another thing better before this which is good. And after: You see therefore, that there is a great difference betwixt those, which exhort to virginity, preferring a greater good before a less, and those which forbid to marry, vehemently accusing the act of propagation, which only properly belongeth to marriage. And that there is a great difference betwixt those who abstain from meats, for the sacred signification, or for the chastising of the flesh, and those which abstain from meats which God hath created, saying; that God hath not created them. Wherhfore that is the Prophets and Apostles doctrine, this is the doctrine of lying Devils. Thus S. Augustine for himself and us. Neither is it necessary to add any thing. Illyricus concludeth. Wherhfore it is manifest out of these signs, that the Pope is that very true Antichrist himself, of whom the Scriptures have prophesied. But perhaps he might have concluded more fitly in this manner: Wherefore it is manifest by these lies, that Illyricus is one of his forerunners, whom holy Daniel long before foretold, that he should have an impudent face. THE XXII. CHAPTER. The fooleries of Tilemanus are refuted. TILEMANUS Heshusius in the Book which he entitled, de sexcentis erroribus Pontificiorum, whereas he should have entitled it, de sexcentis mendacijs Luther anorum, made a peculiar title of Antichrist, that is titul. 33. and it comprehendeth four errors. Thus than he saith. Tilemanus. First the Papists say, that Antichrist shall come out of Babylon of the Tribe of Dan. Compendium Theologia lib. 7. cap. 8. Bellarmine. We thank Tilemanus who teacheth, that so ancient, and so holy Fathers are Papists, for if they be Papists who say, that Antichrist shall come of the Tribe of Dan, surely S. Irgnaeus, S. Hippolrtur, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Prosper, Theodorctus, S. Gregory, Beda, Arethas, Rupertus, Anselmus, and Richardus are Papists. For all these, as we showed before cap. 12. with common consent, do teach that Antichrist shallbe borne of the Tribe of Dan. But go on. Tilemanus. Secondly, the Papists deny, that the Bishop of Rome with his Company is the true Antichrist; whereas it is proved, and demonstrated with most forcible, and most plain testimonies of God's word. Bellarmine. But we have not yet seen these testimonies, neither are they in any place of our Hebrew, Greek, or Latin Bibles: for the testimonies which are alleged by your brethren, do not so much as name the Bishop of Rome. Tilemanus. Thirdly, they teach, that Antichrist shall reign only 3. years and a half. Compend: Theologiae. Bellarmine. Hear we give thee immortal thanks, that thou confessest, that not only all the ancient Fathers, but also the Prophet Daniel, and S. john Evangelist are Papists; and surely I have compassion of thee, and thine, to whom thou only reservest the dregs of writers, having given all the learned & approved Fathers to the Papists. See, if thou wilt, what we taught before cap. 8. and thou shalt find, that S. Irenaus, S. Hippolytus, S. Cyril, S. Hierome, S. Aug. Theodoretus, Primasius, drethas, Bed●, Anselmus, Richardus, Rupertus, and also Daniel and S. john did expressly teach that, which thou affirmest the Papists to teach. Tilemanus. Fourthly, they teach that Antichrist shallbe slain in the Mount Olivet. Compend. Theol. lib. 7. cap. 4. Bellarmine. But here also thou makest great men Papists, for that Antichrist was to be slain in the Mount of Olivet S. Hierome in comment. cap. 11. Dan. gathereth out of Daniel himself, and Isayas. Theodoretus also writing upon the same place, although he nameth not the mount Olivet, yet he affirmeth, that Antichrist is to be killed not far from Jerusalem. But let us see now with what arguments thou confutest the foresaid errors, for thou addest a preservative immediately in these words. Tilemanus. The Papists trifles of Antichrist, because they are grounded upon no testimony of the holy Scripture, are to be rejected and detested: for as S. Hierome rightly speaketh, that which hath no authority in the Scripture is contemned with the same facility, with which it is affirmed. And Paul admonisheth that we should take heed of the traditions of men. Coloss. 2. And this I say, lest any man deceive you with false reasons etc. Likewise see that no man prey upon you by Philosophy: we must seek out of the word of God what is to be thought of Antichrist as 1. joan. 2. Who is a liar, but he that denieth jesus to be Christ: This is Antichrist. Likewise 2. Thess. 2. the man of sin, and the son of perdition extolleth himself above every God etc. Likewise Matth. 24. There shall arise false Christ's, and false Prophets, and they shall give signs etc. Likewise Dan. 11. and he shall make the munition of the God Maozim etc. Likewise Apoc. 17. And I saw a woman drinken with the bold of Saints, and with the blood of the Martyrs of jesus. Out of these testimonies of the sacred Scripture, it appeareth manifestly, what the Christian saith is of Antichrist, whom Christ, and the Apostles foretold was to come. And since it is clearer than noonday, that every one do most exactly agree to the Bishop of Rome, it ought not to be doubted, but that, that most naughty Roman Tyrant is Antichrist. Thus he. Bellarmine. It will not be offen five I trust, if we reduce these thy arguments to the form of syllogisms, for the more ignorant sort, and conclude thence most evidently the confutation of the above written errors. Wherefore the first error is refuted thus. The Papists trifles, because they are grounded upon no Testimony of Scripture, are to be rejected, and detested. But the word of God proclaimeth, who denieth jesus to be Christ, this is Antichrist, 1. Io. 2. Wherefore it is an error to say, that Antichrist shall come of the Tribe of Dan. The second error is thus confuted, as Hierome rightly saith, that which hath not authority in the Scripture is contemned with the same facility, with which it is affirmed: but Paul saith the man of sin and the son of perdition extolleth himself above every God, 2. Thess. 2. Therefore the Papists err, when they deny, that the Pope is Antichrist. The third thus, and more firmly, because out of two Scriptures Paul saith; And this I say, lest any man deceive you with false reasons etc. Coloss. 2. But there shall arise false Christ's and false Prophets, and they shall give signs etc. Matth. 24. Therefore the error of the Papists is intolerable, who say, that Antichrist shall reign three years and a half. The last thus, and most firmly, because out of three Scriptures Paul admonisheth, See that no man prey upon you by Philosophy etc. Coloss. 2. But Antichrist shall make the munition of the God Maozim, Dan. 11. and john saw a woman drunk with the blood of the Saints, Apoc. 17. Wherefore the Papists err exceedingly, when they say, that Antichrist shallbe slain in Mount Olivet. The gentle Reader will pardon me, for using Tileman so ridiculously: for the impudence of the man compelled me, who bringing nothing worth the confutation, yet prateth and boasteth in such sort, as if he had produced Demonstrations, more certain, and more clear than those, which the Mathematicians use. THE XXIII. CHAPTER. The lies of Chytraeus are refuted. DAVID Chytraeus in Commont. cap. 9 Apoc. expounding the vision of S. john, in which when the fifth Angel sounded his trumpet, there was an huge star seen to fall from heaven upon the earth, to which was given the key of the bottomless pit. And after there was seen a most thick smoke to ascend from the pit, which obscured the Sun, and the air. Lastly there was seen out of the sinoke certain wonderful locusts, to come forth, which a little after carried the shapes of Horses, and Lions, and Scorpions, and armed men: Chytraeus (I say) explicating this vision, thought himself, and would have other think, that it agreed so fitly to the Bishop of Rome, that he said; there is no doubt, but that Antichrist or the order of the Roman Papacy is described in this vision. And further he teacheth, that the beginning of this vision, is to be taken from the year 600. and that the star, which fell from Heaven is Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, and his successors, who having cast away the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, received the keys of the bottomless pit, and that the smoke coming out of the pit are the corruptions of doctrine, and the divers traditions of the Bishops of Rome. Finally he will have the swarm of Locusts, to be the Bishops, Clergy, and Monks etc. and to dissolve this smoke in some sort, he proposed the Antithesis of the Pope's doctrine, and the gospels, or of Antichristian, or Christian doctrine, which comprehendeth 12. articles like another Creed. But this his opinion may be confuted many ways; first, because it is grounded upon no witness, for the old interpreters, as Arethas, Beda, Primasius, Anselmus, Rupertus and others upon this place understand by that star, which fell from heaven, the Devil himself, and not any Bishop; for of the Devil it is said Isa. 14. How fellest thou from heaven Lucifer, who ar●sest in the morning? And because the Devil fell long before S. john wrote the Apocalyps, therefore the Father's note, that S. john said not, I saw a star falling from heaven, but I saw a star fallen from heaven; for S. john saw that star now creeping upon the earth, which in times past had shined most clearly in heaven. Also, that which followeth agreeth most fitly to the Devil, And the key of the bottomless pit●●● given unto him; for as Christ hath, and communicateth to his the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and reigneth in the minds of the faithful and pious: So the Devil hath the keys of the bottomless pit, and reigneth in the children of diffidence, and is often called in the Scriptures, the Prince of darkness, the Prince of this world, the God of this world, joan. 12. & 14. 2. Cor. 4. Ephes. 6. Colos. 1. and in other places. It is he also, who by God's permission raiseth the smoke of errors out of the pit, and sendeth new swarms of Locusts, that is new arch-heretics with their armies, into the limits of the Church, almost in every age. Secondly, because Chytraeus his opinion cannot stand with that, which S. john saith in this same Chapter of the sixth Angel, and the sixth persecution; for S. john in 8. and 9 chap. Apoc. describeth by the trumpets of the 6. Angels, six persecutions of heretics, which were to be from the time of the Apostles, until the consummation of the world. And Chytraeus himself by the first trumpet, doth not ill understand the heresy of the Ebionites, which was raised in the time of the Apostles; by the second, he understandeth the heresy of the Gnostics which followed; by the third, the heresy of Samosatens, and Arians, which was after; by the fourth, the heresy of Pelagius which was latter than they all. Now, if by the fifth be understood the persecution of the Roman Antichrist, which as they also confess, is the last persecution; what shall we understand by the sixth trumpet? Chytraeus answereth, that by the sixth trumpet is signified the persecution of Mahomet, and the Turks. But this is not well said, both because the Mahometans are not heretics, but Pagans; and also, because the persecution of Mahomet shall not follow, but go before antichrist's persecution as we think, or they are both together, as Chytraeus saith. Wherefore Chytraeus is compelled to confound the fift trumpet with the sixth, whereas he referred the rest plainly enough to divers times: wherefore the Catholics understand better by the sixth trumpet, the persecution of Antichrist, which shall truly be the last, and most grievous, and by the fift some very pernicious heresy, which shall go next before the times of Antichrist, which surely many very probably conjecture to be the heresy of the Lutherans. Thirdly, because Chytraeus erreth most grossly, when he teacheth, that S. Gregory is the falling star; for S. Gregory, if any credit may be given to histories, fell not from heaven to earth, but ascended from earth to heaven; for of a Praetor he became a Monk, and of a Monk a Bishop: neither did he ever return from being a Bishop to his Praetorship, nor from being a Monk to the world. As also S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Chrysostome Grecians; S. Martin, S. Paulinus, and S. Augustine Latins of secular, became Monks, and of Monks Bishops, neither did ever any say, that they did therefore fall from heaven to earth. Besides, S. Gregory was second to none in continency, sobriety, and love of heavenly things; and in humility, he in a manner excelled all: and yet Chytraeus dareth affirm, that he fell from heaven, that is, from an heavenly life to earth, that is, to an earthly and delicate life. Finally, Luther himself in supput. temp. saith, that S. Gregory was an holy Bishop: and Theodorus Bibliander tab.. 10. Chronol. following Luther, praiseth S. Gregory exceedingly, and saith, that it may be known by his books, how much be profited in piety and learning. Which doubtless is most true, for his writings breathe out a wonderful holiness. Neither is that less vain, which Chytraus addeth of the smoke of the pit, which he interpreteth the corruptions of doctrine, brought in by S. Gregory and his Successors into the Church. For S. Gregory innovated nothing, which belonged to doctrine, but concerning rites and discipline, he corrected many things, which had crept in by abuse, many things he restored which by negligence of times were forgotten, he instituted a new very few things, and those with mature counsel, as may be known both by the 4. books of his life, written by joannes Diaconus, as also by his 63. epist. lib. 7. where he giveth account of the rites which he renewed or ordained. But this will be most plain, if we run over the antithesis or opposition, betwixt the doctrine of the Gospel, and the Pope, which Chytraeus proposeth, and to which he often afterward remitteth his Readers. §. I. Of the true Knowledge, and Invocation of God. Chytraeus. THE Gospel teacheth, that one only God is to be innocated and worthipped, as he hath commanded himself to be worshipped in his word, and that all the confidence of our salvation, is to be placed in the only goodness and mercy of God. The Papists command us not to call upon one only true God, but also upon dead men or Saints. and to ask and expect their aid and help in dangers etc. Besides also plainly, after an heathen manner, they tie the invocation and worship of God to certain statuas in such sort, as if God were more favourable, and propitious to him that calleth upon him, at this or that Status, then in other places. Bellarmine. Because we have else where at large treated of these controversies which are touched in this antithesis; here we will only most briefly demonstrate that the doctrine, which Chytraeus calleth Popish, is neither repugnant to God's word, nor began in the time of S. Gregory. Therefore the word of God teacheth indeed, that one only God is to be worshipped and invocated with that invocation, and adoration which is only due to God; for the true God, who is also a zealous God, doth not suffer us to take any creature for the Creator. In the mean time notwithstanding, the very same word of God biddeth us honour the more excellent creatures, and invocate also some, not as God, but as dear and familiar friends to God. As Kings would be much offended, if they should see Kingly honours given to their servants, who notwithstanding are well pleased, if they see the same servants honoured and observed. Adore (saith David psal. 98.) the footstool of his feet. And job. 5. Call (saith he) if there be any man, that may answer thee, and turn thyself to some of the Saints. Wherefore Abdias a great and holy man adored Elias prostrate upon the earth 3. Reg. 18. And the children of the Prophets, when they heard, that the spirit of Elias had rested upon Flizaeus, coming to him they adored him prostrate upon the earth 4. Reg. 2. And the Apostle S. Paul almost in every Epistle, craveth the prayers of Christians, that by them he may be delivered from many dangers. Neither can there any reason be given, why the honour due to God is diminished, if we ask of the spirits of Saints, that they will pray for us; & it is not diminished, if we ask the very same of the living. Finally S. Ambrose was 200. years elder than S. Gregory, and yet lib. de riduis he speaketh thus: The Angels are to be beseeched, who are given us for our defence. The Martyrs are to be beseeched, of whom we seem to challenge ascertain patronage by the pledge of the body. And after: Let us not be ashamed to take them for intercessors of our infirmity etc. Moreover we do not tie the worship and invocation to the statuas of saints, to the memories of Martyrs, and other religious monuments in any other sort, than God in times past tied them to the sanctuary or Temple of Solomon: for although God heareth us every where, and we may lift up our hands to God in every place, yet not without cause the holy Ghost in Isaias cap. 56. and Christ in S. Matth. cap. 21. called the Temple of God, the House of prayer, nor without cause the most pious Emperor Theodosius (to omit many other examples of antiquity) went with the Priests and the people, about all the places of Prayer, lay prostrate in haircloth before the shrines of the Martyrs, and the Apostles, and craved assured help by the intercession of saints. And certainly Theodosius, who did this, & Russinus who wrote this lib. 2. hist. Eccles. cap. 33. were before S. Gregory almost 200. years. §. II. Of the Office and Benefits of Christ. Chytraeus. THE Gospel teacheth that remission of sins, & eternal salvation is given to us for the only & alone Son of God our Lord jesus Christ crucified for us, dead, and risen again, freely, not for any works or merits of ours: And that this is the proper honour of God alone, as it is said, Isa. 43. I am, I am he, who taketh away iniquities: likewise there is no salvation in any other. The Papists contrariwise do teach, that we are justified and saved, not for the merits of Christ alone, but partly for Christ, partly for contrition, and obedience. Bellarmine. The Catholic doctrine hath not this: that sinners are justified, partly for Christ, partly for their works, as though the works themselves merit any thing without Christ. For we distinguish three kinds of works, one of those which are done out of the only forces of nature without faith, or the grace of God, and of these we plainly pronounce with the Apostle, that man is not justified by works but by faith, and if any were justified by such works, he should have glory, but not with God, as S. Paul saith of Abraham, Rom. 4. wherefore of these works, there is no controversy betwixt us, although every where with a most impudent lie, you attribute this to us, that we teach, that works without the merits of Christ are meritorious. Another kind of works there is, which proceedeth from faith, and the Grace of God, and disposeth to reconciliation with God, and remission of sins; of which sort are alms, prayers, fastings, sorrow for sins and other like; which works we affirm not to be meritorious ex justitia, of our reconciliation, but rather contrariwise we hear the Council of Trent, saying: Sess. 6. cap. 8. that men are freely justified, because neither faith, nor works which go before justification deserve it, to wit, of justice, as though justification were due to works: we confess notwithstanding, that these works, as they proceed from Faith, and Gods help, are divine works, and merit in their manner, that is, obtain by way of request the remission of sins: for although you grant not this, yet the word of God doth grant it: for what is that which Ezechiel saith cap. 18. When the impious shall turn himself from his impiety, he shall quicken his soul? What is that which Dan. saith cap. 4. Redeem thy sins with alms? What is that which jonas saith cap. 3. God saw their works (fastings and hayrecloth) and took compassion of them? What is that which Christ saith, Luc. 7. Many sins are forgiven her, because she loved much? And not only S. Gregory, but many Fathers before him taught the same. S. Ambrose lib. 10. in Lucam. Tears (saith he) do not ask, but merit pardon. S. Hierome lib. 2. adverse. Pelagianos. They who simply confess their sins merit by humility the clemency of our Saviour. S. Augustine epist. 105. Neither is the remission of sins itself without some merit, if faith obtain it: for the merit of faith is not none, with which faith he said: God be propitious to me a sinner; and the faithful humbled, descended justified deseruealy etc. And epist. 106. If any shall say, that Faith meriteth grace to work well, we cannot deny it, yea we most freely confess it. Finally, the last kind of works is of those, which are done by a man already justified, and proceed from the holy Ghost, inhabiting the heart of man, and diffusing charity in it. To which works, whether you will or no, we attribute merit; not with which they merit remission of sins which went before, and which cannot properly fall under merit, but with which they truly and properly merit glory and everlasting blessedness: for otherwise how would S. Paul say 2. Tim. 4. I have fought a good fight, I have consummate my course, I have kept the faith: Concerning the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the just judge will render mein that day. For if everlasting life be not truly the reward of good works, why calleth he it a Crown of justice, and not rather a gift of clemency? Why, saith he, is it to be rendered and not given? why by a just judge, not by a liberal King? Wherefore rightly S. Augustine ep. 105. from whence (saith he) life everlasting itself, which doubtless in the end shall be had without faith, and therefore is rendered to precedent merits, yet because those merits to which it is rendered are not gotten by us by our sufficiency, but are done in us by grace, it also is called grace, and not therefore, because it is not given to merits, but because the merits also of themselves are given, to which it is given. Neither do those two testimonies of Scripture terrify us: I am he who take away iniquities: and, there is not salvation in any other, for such testimonies exclude another God, another Christ, another Saviour, and Physician of souls, who may promise salvation, the true God, and Christ jesus being excluded, notwithstanding they exclude not faith, hope, charity, penance, Sacraments, with which as it were with certain means and instruments God himself chief working the merit of Christ is applied unto us, for otherwise how do these sentences: I am he, who take away iniquities; and, there is not salvation in any other, agree with those, Thy saith hath made thee safe. Luc. 7. He will save those who have hoped in him. Psal. 36. he shall quicken his soul. Ezech. 18. The sear of God expelleth sin. Ezech. 1. He that hath believed, and hath been baptised, shallbe saved. Marc. vlt. he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. joan. 6. But thus much of this, Chytraeus. But go forward. §. III. Chytraeus. THE Gospel teacheth that he who doth penance, and heareth the promise, aught to believe the promise, and to determine that sins are remitted, not only to others, to Peter, or to Paul, but also to himself for Christ, that he himself pleaseth God, is received, and heard by God; and that we must have access to God with this faith, and daily invocation. The Papists contend, that we must always doubt, whether we have remission of sins, which doubtfulness is simply repugnant to faith, and plainly heathen. So he. Bellarmine. One Gospel teacheth plainly enough that we must give credit to God's promises, and all Catholics teach, that we must in no fort doubt of them. But that remission of sins is absolutely promised by God to men, we read in no place of our Gospel. And much less read we, that, every one must certainly determine, that his sins are forgiven him, that he pleaseth God, and that he is received and heard by God. And not without cause we ead not this because it would destroy the rest, which is most plainly and clearly read in it; for what is more clear, then that which the wise man writeth Ecclesiast. 9 There are just and wise, and their works in the hand of God, and yet a man knoweth not whether he be worthy of hatred or love? Likewise how manifest is that, which job saith cap. 9 Although I shallbe simple, this very same, my soul shallbe ignorant of? and after: I feared all my works knowing that thou wouldst not spare the offender? Besides almost all God's promises have a condition annexed, which no man can certainly know, whether he have fulfilled it as he ought, or no. Matt. 19 If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments. Luc. 14. If any man cometh to me, and hateth not Father and Mother, and Wife and Children, and Brethren and Sisters, yea and his own life beside, he cannot be my Disciple. Rom 8. The spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirits, that we are the sons of God, and if sons, heirs also, heirs truly of God, and coheir of Christ, yet if we suffer with him, that we may also be glorised with him. Finally S. Ambrose much more ancient (as we have said) then S. Gregory, inserm. 5. super Psalm. 118. He would (saith he) have his shame taken away, which he suspected, either because he had thought in his heart and not done it, and though it were abolished by penance, yet be suspected lest peradventure his shame remained still, and therefore he prayeth to God to take it away, who only knoweth, that which he himself that did it, may be ignorant of. §. FOUR Chytraeus. THE Gospel teacheth, that there is one only propitiatory Sacrifice in the world etc. Heb. 7. 10. Christ was once offered that he might take away sin etc. The Papists teach that Christ is offered every day in the Sacrifice of the Mass to God the Father by Priests etc. Bellarmine. The Gospel teacheth indeed, that there is only one propitiatory Sacrifice in the world, viz. which was once offered upon the Cross; neither do Catholics deny this; but the Gospel no where teacheth, that this only Sacrifice may not be every day reiterated in mystery by the same chief B. Christ, by the hands of Priests; and this Catholics affirm. Neither do they only affirm it, who have been since S. Gregory's time, but all the Fathers together, even those who were many ages before S. Gregory. Hear in the name of the rest, only S. Augustine epist. 23. ad Bonifacium speaking thus: Was not Christ offered once in himself? and yet in the Sacrament, not only all the solemnities of Easter, but every day he i● sacrificed, and offered for the people. §. V Chytraeus. THE Gospel teacheth, that not only outward actions repugnant to the law of God, are sin, but also doubts of God, carnal security, and contumacy, and concupiscence which is borne in us, and remaineth in those which are borne again, Rom. 7. The Papists deny, that these evils remaining in those, which are borne again, are sins repugnant to the law of God. Bellarmine. The Papists, that is Catholics, teach in no place, that only outward actions are sins: but it is lawful for you to lie; for you learned that of your Father, who stood not in truth. Now, we doubt not, that doubts of God, carnal security, contumacy, and concupiscence are sins, if they be voluntary; but if they be involuntary, as those desires of the flesh against the spirit were, which S. Paul felt, though he did not consent unto them, we constantly deny that they are sins. Neither do we strive with you about S. Paul's words, as though they seemed true to you, and false to us, but about the interpretation of those words. Neither must you take it ill, if we prefer S. Augustine and all the Quyre of Saints, before you new Upstarts. For thus speaketh S. Augustine lib. 1. cont. duas epistolas Pelagianorum. cap. 13. But concerning this concupiscence of the flesh, I think they are deceived or deceive with which it is necessary, that even the baptised, and this if he profiteth most diligently, and be moved with the spirit of God, doth strive with a pious mind. But this although it be called sin, it is so called, not because it is sin, but because it was made by sin, as a writing is called a man's hand, because his hand made it. §. VI Chytraeus. THE Gospel teacheth, that man in his weakness of nature cannot satisfy the law of God, and that he is not just and free from all sin by this perfect fulfilling of the law, Rom. 8. The sense of the flesh is enmity against God, for it obeyeth not the law of God, neither indeed can it. The Papists strive, that man may satisfy the law of God, and that he is just, and deserveth everlasting life with this fulfilling of the law. Bellarmine. The Papists, that is the children of the Catholic Church, say not, that man in this weakness of nature is free from all sin, for we acknowledge and profess that it is most true which S. john saith in the beginning of his first epistle, If we shall say, that we have no sin, we seduce ourselves. But because these daily sins neither take away justice, nor are so much against, as besides the law, since that for the remission of such offences, every Saint prayeth in opportune time, Psal. 31. and all the children of God, doubtless just and holy, are taught daily to say, Forgive us our debts, Matth. 6. Therefore we are not afraid to say, that man being justified by the grace of God, may by the help of the same grace both fulfil the law of God, and by that fulfilling, merit everlasting life: for we know who said, And his Commandments are not heavy, Io. 1. 5. and who likewise said: Call the workmen and render them their reward, Matth. 20. And again, Come you blessed of my Father, possess the Kingdom prepared for you etc. for I was hungry, and you gave me to eat. Wherefore S. Augustine lib. de gratia & lib. arb. cap. 16. It is certain (saith he) that we keep the commandments, if we will, but because our will is prepared by our Lord, we must ask of him, that we may will so much, as is sufficient, that willing we may do. And the spirit. & lit. cap. 10. Grace is therefore given, not because we have fulfilled the law, but that we may fulfil the law. Neither doth that word of the Apostle move us, The sense of the flesh is enmity against God: for the same Apostle had said before Rom. 7. Therefore I myself with my mind serve the law of God, but with my flesh the law of sin. But that which we do with our mind we truly do, and that which we do with our flesh, if the mind repugneth, is not our deed, as the same Apostle saith, If I do that (saith he) which I will not, now I work it not. §. VII. Chytraeus. THE Gospel teacheth that those only are good works which are commanded by God etc. according to the rule which I command thee, do only these things for thy Lord, neither add nor diminish. The Papists contrariwise have overwhelmed the whole Church with traditions etc. Bellarmine. These things have been already a thousand times repeated by you, and refuted by us. And it is false, which thou sayest, that it is in the Gospel, that those are only good works, which God hath commanded: for where I pray thee hath God commanded virginity? Doth not S. Paul say: But of Virgins I have not our lords precept, 1. Cor. 7? And yet he saith in the same place, that it is a good work to remain a Virgin. Therefore (saith he) he that joineth his virgin in Matrimony doth well, and he that joineth her not doth better. Neither doth that rule much help thee: Do only those things for the Lord, which I command thee. For God forbiddeth not any other thing in that place, but that we corrupt not his precepts, but that we keep them entirely as he hath commanded, not declining to the right hand, nor to the left. Wherefore S. Aug. lib. de sanct. virginit. cap. 30. distinguishing precepts from counsels, for neither (saith he) as it is said, Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not kill: can it be so, Thou shalt not marry: those things are exacted, these are offered. If these be done, they are praised, unless those be done they are condemned. In those God commandeth us a debt, in these, if thou shalt supererogate; or bestow any more (Note) he will restore it you at his return. §. VIII. Chytraeus. THE Gospel teacheth that both parts of the Sacrament of the lords supper are to be ministered to all Christians, and truly of the cup he expressly saith, Drink all of this. The Papists contrariwise determine and define etc. Bellarmine. Hitherto we have not seen that place of the Gospel, where we are taught that both parts of the Sacrament of our Lord's supper are to be ministered to all Christians. For our Lord saith not of the chalice, Drink all you Christians of this: but drink you all of this, and who those all were, S. Mark explicated, when he added: And they drank all of it: but all Christians drank not, but all the Apostles, who only then did eat with our Lord. §. IX. Chytraeus. THE Gospel teacheth that true repentance, or conversion to God is an earnest sorrow of heart, of sins committed, and a faith determining that sins are certainly remitted to him for Christ etc. The Papists contrariwise although they number contrition among the parts of repentance, yet they feign that it meriteth this remission of sins, and they add auricular confession not commanded by God and satisfaction or works not due, with which they feign, that the eternal pains of sins may be satisfied, and that these same works may be redeemed with money. all which doctrine is blasphemous against the merit of the Son of God, who alone hath satisfied for our sins. Bellarmine. Hear I see nothing proved; no testimonies of the Gospel produced, but only vain words interlaced with lies; for thou mightest have omitted that which thou sayest of conversion, and earnest sorrow of the heart: for we truly require conversion, and earnest sorrow of the heart in Penitents, whereas you only have, I know not what terrors instead of contrition. That which thou addest of faith, determining that our sins are forgiven us, is refuted before. That which thou sayest, that among the Papists, the contrition deserveth remission of sins, is a lie, before refuted also. That also, which thou affirmest that the Papists say, that everlasting pains are satisfied by temporal satisfactions, is likewise a lie: for we think not that we satisfy for everlasting pains, which we doubt not to be remitted us in our justification; but for temporal punishments which either here, or in Purgatory God exacteth of them, who after Baptism come to penance and reconciliation, The punishment (saith S. Augustine tract. 124. in joan.) endureth longer than the fault; lest the fault should be thought small, if the punishment were also ended with it. Finally, that which thou addest, that auricular confession is not commanded, and that satisfaction is repugnant to the merit of Christ; thou sayst indeed, but dost not prove it. Read if thou please S. Cyprian ser. 5. de lapsis, and thou shalt find Confession and Satisfaction to be necessary, and these very words often repeated. Now that Satisfaction is to be redeemed with money (lest peradventure thou shouldest suspect some unlawful negotiation) is nothing else among Catholics, than that one kind of satisfaction may be changed into another, by the Priest's judgement, as fasting into alms. Let us go forward to the rest. §. X. Chytraeus. THE Gospel teacheth, that marriage is granted, and free for all men, Lay, and Priests, and expressly saith, that the forbidding of marriage, and meats is a devilish doctrine. Contrariwise the Papists forbidden a great part of men, Priests, and Monks marriage, and command abstinence from certain meats upon certain days. Bellarmine. But where I pray thee doth the Gospel teach, that marriage is granted to them who have a vow of continency? Peradventure Hebr. 13. where we read, Marriage is honourable in all. But if (in all) comprehendeth all men whatsoever, marriage shallbe honourable in the Father & the Daughter, in the Mother and the Son, in Brother and Sister; or if this pleaseth you not, let it not please you neither, that marriage ought to be called honourable betwixt a Monk and a Nun, and other men for whom it it is not lawful to marry, by reason of their vow, for the Apostles meaning only is, that we honour Marriage in all who are duly and lawfully married, and it remaineth that you prove, that those are duly and lawfully married, who have vowed to God perpetual continency. Hear S. Chrysostome what he writeth epist. 6. to Theodore a Monk, who meant to marry a wife, or perhaps had already married one: Marriage (saith he) is honourable, but it is not fitting for thee now to keep the privileges of marriage: although thou often callest this Marriage, yet I think it worse than adultery. Concerning the place of the Apostle 1. Tim. 4. forbidding to marry etc. see what we said before chap. 21. near the end of it. §. XI. Chytraeus. THE Gospel teacheth that there is one true, and foundation upon which the Church of God is built: viz. our Lord jesus Christ 1. Cor. 3. Act. 4. and Augustine so interpreteth the place of Matth. 16. Upon this rock which thou hast known, saying: Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, that is upon myself the Son of the living God, I will build my Church, I will build thee upon me, not me upon thee. The Pope contrary wise crieth out, that upon the rock of the Roman Church, and the ordinary succession of Popes, all the rest of the Church in the Christian world is built. Bellarmine. But I believe S. Paul is not repugnant to himself when he saith Ephes. 2. we that are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. Neither is S. john Apoc. 21. where he saith that the 12. Apostles are 12. foundations of the Church, contrary to S. Paul 1. Cor. 3. affirming, that there is no other Foundation of the Church, but Christ: for S. Paul 1. Cor. 3. speaketh of the principal foundation. But both he Ephes. 2. and S. Io. Apoc. 21. speak of secondary Foundations. Of which manner of foundation S. Augustine also speaketh in psal. contra part. Donat. where he saith: Number the Priests, even from the very seat of S. Peter, that is the rock, which the proud gate of hell do not overcome. But of this we have spoken sufficiently before, lib. x. de Pontifice cap. 10. §. XII. Chytraeus. THE Gospel teacheth, that no Apostle or Bishop or other Minister of the Gospel, hath superior, and greater power and rule, than another, so far as pertaineth to the Ministry, but that all Ministers have equal power to teach the Gospel, administer Sacraments, bind wicked, and absolve those which do penance, as the Scriptures clearly teach, Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 3. v. 4. joan. 20. & Matth. 18. the keys of the kingdom of Heaven are given to all the Apostles together. On the contrary side the Bishop of Rome boasteth, that he hath by God's law supreme power over all other Bishops, and the whole Church, and both swords, the spiritual and politic etc. Bllarmine. I could not yet find, where the Gospel teacheth, that one Bishop or Minister hath not greater power than another, for the places which thou citest do plainly signify the contrary: for Luc. 22. our Lord indeed exhorteth his disciples to humility, and forbiddeth Kingly and tyrannical domination to them, who ought to govern the Church. In the mean time notwithstanding he affirmeth, that among the Apostles, one is greater than the rest, yea and the guide or captain of the rest. For he saith: let him that is greater among you: become as the less, and the precessour (in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is Dux, the guide or captain) as a servant or Minister. And the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. where he saith, that he had planted, and Apollo watered: and again, that he as the Architect had laid the Foundation, and that others do build upon it; doth he not plainly enough signify, that he was greater than Apollo, and his other coadiutours? Moreover Io. 20. it is said indeed to all the Apostles, Behold I send you: and whose sins you remit etc. notwithstanding cap. 21. all the Apostles, and the rest of the faithful are subjecteth to S. Peter as sheep to their Pastor, when it is said by our Lord to S. Peter alone in the presence of other Apostles; feed my sheep. Finally although Matth. 18. it be said to all the Apostles: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. notwithstanding Matth. 16. it is said to Peter alone, To thee I will give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven etc. and without doubt our Lord would not promise him any thing singularly, unless also he would give him some singular thing: but of these we have said many things before lib. 1. cap. 12. 13. 14. To that which thou objectest of both the sword against the Extravagant of Bonifacius 8. where thou also laughest at the Pope's arguments: I will only answer in this place, that they are all taken out of S. Bernard, whom Caluin, Melancthon, and other of your crew are wont to call an holy man, and to allege him oftener than once: See lib. 2. & 4. the Consider: or if thou pleasest, see what we have treated of this very matter in our last Book de Pontifice. And this shall suffice of thy Antithesis, or opposition in this place. Now it remaineth, that we show, that this very vision of S. john doth best agree to Luther, and Lutherans: for first it is plain, that Luther may be signified by that star, which fell from heaven to earth, seeing that he became of a religious man, a secular; of a continent, a married, and of poor, rich; and changed his sober and slender fare, with plentiful and dainty cheer. For what else is this, then to have fallen from heavenly to earthly conversation? Now, he that feeleth not the smoke of the bottomless pit which hath ensued upon his fall, is altogether blind and stupid: for before Luther fell from the Catholic Church, almost all the West was of the same faith, and religion, and whithersoever a man went, he presently acknowledged his brethren, for they were all in light. But a●ter Luther's fall, there arose such a smoke of Errors, Sects, and Schisms, that now one cannot know another in the same Province, ye●, not in the same City or house. This smoke hath also darkened the Sun, and the Air, as it is said in the Apocalyps, for both we and our Adversaries do understand by the Sun Christ, and by the Air the Scriptures: by which we after a certain sort breath in this life. And truly how vehemently this smoke hath obscured Christ, Transiluania, and the countries thereabout do testify, where Christ's Divinity is openly denied. Germany also witnesseth, where the Anabaptists plainly, and the ubiquists more obscurely deny Christ's Humanity. And though there were in times past many heretics, which did likewise impugn Christ, yet none more impudently than the heretics of our time; for many of them do not only deny Christ to be God, but they add, that he cannot be invocated, nor knoweth what we do. It is an horror to hear or read, with what temerity the mysteries of Christ are disputed of at this tyme. Likewise it is incredible, how vehemently this smoke hath obscured the Scriptures, for now there are so many Translations and Commentaries contrary one to another, that those things, which in times past were most clear, seem now most obscure. What can be said more plainly, then that which S. Paul saith, 1. Corinth. 7. Of Virgius I have not the precept of our Lord, but I give counsel: And yet all the heretics of this time do constantly deny, that there is any counsel of Virginity, and that S. Paul meant not to give any counsel to embrace Virginity in that place, but rather to terrify men from it. What can be more plainly spoken, than that word of our Lord, This is my Body: and yet there is nothing more obscure at this time? What should I say of those of Transiluania, who have so perverted with their Commentaries the Gospel of S. john, which is well known to have been chief written against Cerinthus, and Ebion, who denied Christ's Divinity, that they most of all prove out of it, that Christ is not God? Let us come to the Locusts, which went out of the smoke of the pit. Chytraeus by the Locusts understandeth the Bishops, Clerks, and Monks in the Church before S. Gregoryes time, and yet these wonderful Locusts were not yet risen. But all which S. john saith of the Locusts do most aptly agree to the Lutherans, and the other heretics of this tyme. For first the Locusts are wont always to come in great multitude, and to go in flocks Prou. 30. the Locust hath no King, and they all go out by their swarms: so the Lutherans properly have not one Head, because they deny, that there ought to be one Head of the whole Church. Notwithstanding in a very short time they have increased to a huge multitude; neither is it any marvel, for they have opened the gate to all vicious men: the gluttons run to them because the Lutherans have no certain fasts: the incontinent, because among them all vows of continency are disliked, and Monks, Priests, & nuns are permitted to marry. Likewise all Apostates, because among them all Cloisters are opened, and converted into Palaces; covetous, and ambitious Princes, because both Ecclesiastical goods and persons, are subjecteth to their power; the idle, and the enemies of good works, because among them, only Faith is sufficient, good works are not necessary. Finally, all sinful and wicked people, because all necessity of confessing their sins, and giving account to their own Pastor, which is wont to be a very great bridle to sinners, is taken away among them. Hence therefore are the Locusts so multiplied. Now these Locusts are strangely described by S. john, for they are said to have a man's face, yea a woman's, the tail of scorpions, the body of Locusts. Likewise they wear upon their heads a crown, as it were of gold; they have the teeth of Lions, and their breast armed with an iron plate. Finally, they seemed to be as horses prepared to the war: and the sound of their wings was heard, as the noise of chariots running to war, and they had for King over them an Angel or the bottomless pit; who is called an Exterminatour. Their smooth face signifieth the beginning of their preaching, which always beginneth from the Gospel, for they promise to say nothing, but the most pure word of God, so they most easily allure the simple. The scorpions tail signifieth the poisoned and deadly event, for after they have proposed the word of God, they deprave it with their perverse interpretation, and in that sort as it were writhing their tail, they strike in their sting, and infuse their deadly poison. The Locusts body which is in a manner nothing but belly (for the locust hath a great belly and therefore it can neither go nor fly well, but skippeth a little up, and presently falleth down to the ground again) signifieth that the heretics of this time are men addicted to their bellies, enemies of fasting and continency, and therefore they can neither go by the way of the commandments, nor fly to the contemplation of heavenly things. They endeavour indeed sometime to erect themselves, and amend their manners, but they presently fall to the earth again like Locusts, of which the saxonical Visitation may serve for an example. For when Luther considered that by reason of the evangelical liberty, which he preached, and the abrogation of all Ecclesiastical laws, the people did run into all vices without a bridle, he ordained a Visitation, and admonished the Pastors, that they should preach penance, the fear of God, obedience, good works etc. but it profited nothing. See Cochlaeus in vita & acts Lutheri, anno 1527. In like manner they endeavour to fly by contemplation, and they write every where books of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, and of such other mysteries; but they fall into most grievous errors, yea most pernicious heresies, as is manifest of the ubiquists, who destroy the whole mystery of the Incarnation, and Trinity. The Crowns upon the heads of the Locusts, signify the arrogancy and pride▪ with which they extol themselves above all men. There is a book of Luther's, extant to Duke George. In it he saith thus: From the time of the Apostles no Doctor or Witer, no Divine or Lawyer hath so notably and clearly confirmed, instructed, and comforted the consciences of secular states as I have done. By the singular grace of God I know this certainly, that neither Augustine, nor Ambrose, which notwithstanding are the best in this affairs, are equal to me in this. What, that not only Luther and Caluin do set nothing by a 1000 Cyprians, and Augustine's, but also every paltry Minister account all Papists asses, and blocks? Now these Crowns were, as it were of gold, that is, they seemed of gold, but they were not, because they feign that they are moved to that which they say, with the zeal of God's honour and charity: whereas notwithstanding, they know nothing less than the zeal of God. The Lion's teeth signify the detractions, with which both in writing & speeches they tear the fame of Bishops, Clerks, Monks, and of the very Saints themselves which reign happily with God. And surely they seem to be nourished with detraction, and they say so many things, which neither are, or have been, and perhaps shall never be, that they seem to have cast of all conscience; this is manifest enough aswell by other things which are every where read in their books, as by those, which we cited a little before out of the smalcaldical Synod, Illyricus, Tilemanus, Caluin, and Chytraeus. The breast armed with an iron plate, signifieth their obstinacy, for they are so obdurate, that though they be most plainly convinced, yet they never yield, and many times they had rather die, then leave their obstinacy. The likeness of horses, which seemed prepartd to war signifieth their boldness, and temerity, for they most boldly provoke all to war, whereas notwithstanding afterwards for the most part, they bring only lies for arguments: Luther in assertione art. 25. Come hither (saith he) all you Papists together, join all your studies, if perhaps you can undo this knot. In which manner do almost all the rest speak. Now the similitude of the flying chariots signifieth the swiftness, which this new heresy useth in taking possession of divers Countries; for in short time it hath not only invaded many Kingdoms in the North parts, but also durst run out to the Indians, although God permitted not, that is could stay there; for that new and tender Church of Christ, did not deserve so great a scourge. Finally, the Angel of the bottomless pit, is said to be the King of these Locusts: for although the Locusts have not a visible King, as we said before, yet they cannot want an invisible King, that is the Devil, for he is King over all the children of Pride, job. 41. Now, the King of the Locusts is called an Exterminatour, because the Devil never so destroyed, and wasted the Church by any heresy or persecution, as he hath done by the Lutherans; for other heresies for the most part destroyed one or two articles, but did not wholly overthow the whole order and discipline of the Church. But the Lutheran Heresy partly by herself, and partly by her offspring the Anabaptists, Caluinists, Trinitarians, Libertines, hath destroyed all the good things, which the Church had, in the places where it could prevail, for it hath taken from God the Trinity by the new Samosatenes, the Deity from Christ by the same men, and his Humanity by the Anabaptists, from all the Angels and Saints all worship and invocation, from Purgatory the suffrages of the living, yea it hath exterminated Purgatory itself. From the Church which is in earth, it hath taken away many books of divine Scripture, in a manner all Sacraments, all Traditions, the Priesthood, the Sacrifice, Vows, Fasts, Holidays, Temples, Atars, Relics, Crosses, Images, all Monuments of piety. Likewise all Ecclesiastical laws, all discipline, and order. But perhaps she hath spared hell, lest she should wrong her King the Angel of the bottomless pit. She hath not. For many of the Lutherans do also deny the true and local hell, and feign I know not what imaginary hell, as we showed before in the disputation of Christ's descending into hell. Truly therefore, this may be called an exterminating heresy, and worthy of that Captain, who is called in Hebrew anaddoch, in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Latin Exterminator. And surely it were a wonder, if the Lutherans themselves did not admire this extermination, unless they were altogether blinded with the smoke of which we spoke before. But amidst so many evils, there is one consolation, that, as S. john saith, these Locusts hurt not the green herbs and trees, but only those men that have not the sign of the living God: for since that this heresy is wholly carnal, it cannot easily deceive good men, and those in whose minds religion and piety is green, and doth flourish. So we see, that it hath seldom, or never happened, that any hath fallen from the Church to the Lutherans, who began not first to be of a corrupt and lose life among catholics. But thus much of this. THE XXIIII. CHAPTER. The arguments of Caluin, and Illyricus are confuted, who go about to prove that the Pope is no longer a Bishop; where also the fable of Pope joane the Woman is confuted. THERE remaineth that which we propounded in the last place, viz. that we show, that the Bishop of Rome is not only not Antichrist, but that he hath not lost his Bishopric by any other means: for Caluin and Illyricus, the one with a reason, the other with a certain conjecture, go about to prove that he is not a true Bishop at this tyme. And to begin with Caluin, thus he speaketh lib. 4. Instit. cap. 7. §. 23. & 24. I would know what Episcopal thing the Pope hath? First the chiefest thing in a Bishop is to teach the people with the word of God. Another, and next to this, to administer Sacraments: the third, to admonish and exhort, and to correct those who offend, and to contain the people in holy discipline: what of these doth he? Yea, what doth he feign himself to do? Let them say therefore, how they will have him to be accounted a Bishop, who toucheth not with his least finger, no not so much, as in show, any part of that office. It is not the same of a Bishop and a King: For a King although he doth not that which is proper to a King, notwithstanding he retaineth his honour and title. But in discerning a Bishop Christ's commandment is regarded, which ought always to be of force in the Church. Wherhfore let the Romanists untie me this knot: I deny that their Pope is Prince of Bishops, since he is no Bishop. So he. If I be not decaved, all this discourse may be reduced to this short syllogism. Since this is the difference betwixt a Bishop and a King, that a King is a name of power and government, to which the office of governing the people is annexed: but a Bishop is a name of the office only of ministering the word of God, and the Sacraments. Certainly if neither King nor the Bishop preforme their office, the King shall retain his name and dignity, and the Bishop shall lose his. But the Bishop of Rome doth not perform his office, so much as in show, since that he neither ministereth the word of God, nor the Sacraments to the people: wherefore the Pope of Rome hath lost his name, and dignity and consequently cannot be called a Bishop. Now the Madgeburgenses centur. 9 cap. 20. col. 500 go about to confirm the same with a conjecture and sign, for they say that it was an evident sign of the changing of the Roman Church into the whore of Babylon: that God would, that above those times, in which this change was made, a certain true Woman and harlot should sit in the Popish seat, who was called john 8. This they prove first, out of the authors Platina, Martinus Polonus, Sigebertus, and Marianus Scotus. Secondly out of the steps or sign thereof, which have remained to our times: viz. by a certain seat of Prophyry hollow within, which remained in the palace of S. Io. Lateran, the use of which they say was appointed, after the discovery of this crime, to wit to discern, whether the new Pope were a man or no. Likewise by a certain Statue of a woman with child, which hath remained to our times in that place, where john 8. is said to have been delivered. Finally, for that the Popes when they go from the Vatican to S. Io. Lateran's, are wont to decline that place, where this woman is said to have been delivered in detestation of that fact. For otherwise that is the right way: but it is no hard matter to untie these knots: And first to answer to Caluin, either he speaketh of the signification of the name, or of the thing itself, when he saith, that a Bishop is a name of an office, a King the name of dignity: if he speaketh of the signification of the name, he is plainly deceived, for as Episcopus is derived of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, of considering, or looking upon, and signifieth the office of looking to, so also Rex is derived of governing, in latin à regendo, and signifieth the office of governing, and as Rex is the name of a Magistrate, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also among the Heathens was the name of a Magistrate, viz. of the Praetor, as is manifest out of Aristophan in avibus; and that which is more, the same name of Pastor in the Scripture, is attributed to a Bishop, and a King, as is manifest Ephes. 4. & Isa. 44. And if he speaketh of the thing itself, he is no less deceived, for as Kingly office is not a simple office of iudgging, as of other judges, but a true Prefecture in political affairs, that is a power of governing men that are subject to him, by commanding & punishing: so also a Bishopric is not a simple office of preaching, as it is of many other, who preach and are not Pastors: but it it a true Ecclesiastical Prefecture, that is a power to govern men in spiritual, & divine affairs, and consequently of commanding & punishing, of which we have said much already, and yet will say more in the book following. Now it shall suffice to note a few, but most clear places. The Apostle S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. saith: I will dispose the rest when I come. and 2. Cor. 13. that I deal not more severely according to the power which our Lord hath given me. and Heb. 13. obey your Superiors, & be subject unto them. and 1. Tim. 5. Receive not aceusation against a Priest, but under 2. or 3. WItnesses. Add to this also, that it is false, the Popes perform not the Episcopal function; for they are not bound to preach, and minister Sacraments themselves, if they be hindered by some just cause; but it is sufficient if they procure, that all this be done by others; otherwise Bishops should be bound to impossibilities, for there is no Bishop so little, who can be sufficient of himself to preach & minister Sacraments in all his Diocese. As therefore he satisfieth, if in that place where he cannot himself, he preacheth by another; so likewise he satisfieth, if in all places he preacheth by another, when he cannot do it himself in any. Neither want there examples of antiquity: for Possidius writeth in the life of S. Augustine, that S. Valerius Bishop of H●ppe committed the office of preaching to S. Augustine his Priest, because he being a Grecian could not preach himself to a Latin people: and in the same place Possidius relateth, that in the East Church, many Bishops were wont to commit the office of Preaching to their Priests, which they could not exercise themselves. And yet we cannot say, that either S. Valerius or others, who preached not the word of God themselves, were not Bishops. To the argument of the Magdeburgians, I say, that their history of Pope john the Woman is a fable, which Onuphrius refuteth sufficiently in his addition to Platina. And first it is convinced to be a fable by the testimony of Greek & Latin Writers. The first of all, who could write of this thing, and who best knew it, was Athanasius Bibliothec. who lived in that very time, in which this john ●. is feigned to have been Pope, viz. about the year 850. & was present at the creation of many Popes, who either were before or followed this john. He therefore writeth that after Leo 4. the Sea was vacant 15. days, and presently by common consent Benedictus 3. was created: by which words he showeth, that there was no john a woman, for all that admit this john, do say, that he ●ate after Leo the 4. and before Benedictus 3. and that he lived in the Popedom two years, and 15. months. They will say perhaps, that Anastasius omitteth this joln 8. in favour of the Popes. But against this, at the leastwise, he should have said, that the Sea was vacant after Leo 4. two years and a half, lest he should admit a manifest error in his Chronology, and an error which might be refuted by eye witnesses who lived then. They answer, that there is no error in the Chronology, because these two years of john are added to Leo 4. for Leo 4. is said by Anastasius to have sitten 8. years, which are so to be taken, that 6. years are of Leo himself, and other two are added out of the years of john the woman. But against this, is, that not only Anastasius but also Martinus Polonus, and Platina, and the Magdeburgians, and Bibliander, and others, who will have Io. 8. to have sitten two years, give 8. years to Leo. Wherefore there willbe perforce an error in the Chronology of Anastasius, if this john be put Pope after Leo. Besides not only Anastasius, but also A●o Bishop of V●en●a, who lived at the same time, and of whom there is no suspicion that he would lie in favour of the Popes, teacheth, that there was no john betwixt Leo 4. and Benedictus 3. for thus he speaketh in the Chronicle of the year 865. Gregory the Bishop of Rome dieth, and Sergius is ordained in his place: he being dead Leo succeed, who dying Benedictus is substituted in the Apostolical Sea. And in the like sort speak Rhegino, Lambertus, Hermanus Contractus, Abbess V●spergensis, Otho Fri●●gensis, and all other Historiographers, which are very many, until Martinus Polonus who was 400. years after this feigned Io. 8. and he first mentioned this john 8. against the testimony of all the ancient, and from him did Platina and the other later take it. And not only the Latins, but also the Greeks', who wrote before Martinus Polonus, as Z●naras, Cedren●s, joannes Curopalates, and others make no mention of this prodigious history among the things of that time, whereas notwithstanding they favour not the Bishop of Rome, and would willingly have taken an occasion to scoff at the Latins in this respect, if they might. Now how is it credible, that Martinus Polonus who lived in the year 1250. knew better, what passed about the year 850. then all other Historiographers who lived in the year 800. or 900. or 1000? And that, which the Magdeburgians say, that Sigebert, and Marianus Scotus, who are more ancient than Martinus Polonus, did put john the Woman in their Chronicles, is false. Although in the printed Sigebert, and Marianus Scotus, john the Woman is found; yet in the most ancient manuscripts she is not found, and it is sufficiently known, that those authors are corrupted. There is yet extant in the Monastery of Gemblacum, where Sigebert was monk, a most ancient manuscript copy, which is thought to be Sigebert's own, and in it there is no mention of john the Woman, which manuscript copy john Molanus a Doctor of Lovayne, who is yet alive, witnesseth, that he hath seen. Likewise that in the most ancient copies of Marianus Scotus, john the Woman is not to be found, he witnesseth who put forth the Metropolis of Albertus Krantzius, at Colen, in the year 1574. Secondly that this narration of Martinus concerning john the Woman is a fable, is proved out of the narration itself: for first he saith, that this john was an English Woman of Mentz: but Mentz is not in England, but in Germany. And others to amend this error are strangely repugnant one to the other: for Platina saith, that she was an English Woman, but come out of Mentz. The Magdeburgians contrary wise say, that she was of Mentz, but come out of England. But Theodorus Bibliander in his chronicle saith that she was neither borne, nor come out of England, but brought up and instructed in England. Secondly Martin, and those which follow him say, that she studied at Athens. But it is manifest, that in that time, there were no Schools, neither at Athens, nor in any other place of Greece, for Synesius writeth in epist. vlt. ad Fratrem suum, that in his time there was nothing but the name of an Academy at Athens. And Synesius was a little after the times of S. Basil, and S. Nazianzen. Cedrenu● also, and Zonaras do write in vita Michaelis, & Theodorae Impp. that about the end of Michael's reign, viz. when he reigned alone, his mother Theodora being removed, the Schools of learning and Philosophy were restored by Bardas Caesar; whereas until that time, for many years, all studies of wisdom were so extinguished in Greece, that there was not so much as any step or sign of them extant. Now it is manifest, that the Empire of Michael alone, Theodora being removed, fell in the time of Nicolas the 1. who succeeded Benedictus 3. who had succeeded as these men feign john 8. the Woman: yea all Chronologies, and Billiander himself put the beginning of the Empire of Michael alone in the year 856. and the Popedom of john the Woman in the year 854. By which it followeth, that the studies of wisdom, began to be revived in Greece after the death of this john, Thirdly the Magdeburgians say, that this Io. 8. was delivered in his journey when he would have visited the Lateran Church, from the Vatican. But it is most certain, as Onuphrius demonstrateth lib. the 7. Eccl. that the B. of Rome did not dwell in the Vatican, but in the Lateran Palace, until the time of Bonifacius the 9 that is, until the year 1309. how then if she dwelled in the Lateran, would she go from the Vatican to visit the Lateran? Certainly if one should write now, that the Pope came from the Lateran to visit the Vatican Church, he would be ridiculous, since all know that the Pope dwelleth in the Vatican. Fourthly Martin, and all the rest say, that this john was delivered in a solemn and public Procession. But certainly there is no probability, that a woman gone with child so many months, would then chief go in Procession, when she was in most danger to be discovered. Thirdly this is proved out of the epist. of Leo 9 a most grave pope, to Michael Bishop of Constantinople cap. 23. where Pope Leo writeth, that it is a constant fame, that many eunuchs had sitten in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, & that among them there had crept in, and been Patriarch a Woman; which certainly Leo would never have objected to the Grecians, if any such thing had happened a little before to the Roman Sea: yea perhaps from hence arose this fable of john the Woman: for whereas there was a rumour, that a certain woman had been Bishop of Constantinople, and after by little and little, the name of Constantinople being omitted, there remained the fame and opinion of a woman Bishop, and Universal Bishop; some began in hatred of the Roman Church to say, that that woman had been Bishop of Rome. And it is very like, that this fame arose about the time of Martin himself. Certainly Martinus Polonus, who first wrote it, bringeth no Author, but only said: It is reported: wherefore he only had it by an uncertain rumour. Neither ought it to seem strange, if some feigned this fable in hatred of the Church of Rome, that ground of a woman being Bishop supposed, and there being so many contentions at that time betwixt those which favoured the Emperors, and others which favoured the Popes; for now also we see, that the Magdeburgians do feign more incredible things; for whereas Martin only wrote, that this was an English woman of Mentz, and added nothing of the Parents & proper name of the woman, and other things; the Magdeburgians have added, that the Father of this woman was an English Priest, and that she in the beginning was called Gilbert, and that she was brought up in the habit of a man, in the Monastery of Fulda, and that she wrote books of witchcraft; which are all mere fancies invented without witness or reason. Add, that this Martinue Polonus seemeth to have been a most simple man, for he writeth many other fables, as though they were most authentical histories. Now, that which they object of the hollow seat, of the woman's Statue, and the going out of the way, is easily solved; for as is manifest, out of the first book of sacred Cerimonyes Sect. 2. there were three seats of stone in the Lateran Church, in which the new Pope did sit at the time of his Coronation. The first seat was before the entrance into the Temple, which was vile and abject, to which seat, the new Pope was first brought, and did sit upon it for a little space, that it might be signified by that ceremony, that he ascended from a most low place, to the highest place that is, for lifting him from thence, they sung that 1. Reg. 2. Suscitat de pulvere egenum, & de stercore erigit pa●perem; ut sedeat cum Principibus, & solium gloria teneat: and this is the cause, why that seat is called Stercoraria. Another seat was of Porphiry in the Palace itself, and there he sat the second time, in token of Possession: and sitting there he received the Keys of the Church of the Lateran Palace. The third seat was like the second, and not far from it, and after sitting a little in it, he delivered the same keys to him, of whom he had received them before. Perhaps, that by that cerimomony he might be admonished of death, by which ere long he was to resign that power to another. Of any seat to discover the sex, there is no mention any where. And that Statue of the woman with child, without doubt was not of Pope john: for if our Adversaries say, that the ancient Historiographers would not make mention of this woman in their books, in the Pope's favour: how is it probable, that the Popes themselves would have memory of it extant in a Statue? Besides, if it were the Statue of this john, it should have represented a Woman with an infant newly borne, but that Image did neither represent a woman, nor did carry an infant in her arms, but did express a good big boy, and many years old, as a servant going before. Wherefore some do conjecture, that it was a Status of some heathen Priest prepared to Sacrifice, before whom his Minister went. Finally it is not in destestation of that crime, why the Popes go not the shorter way to the Lateran, but because the way is narrow and steepy, and therefore incommodious for the Pope's train, or company, which always useth to be very great. Add, that as Onuphrius witnesseth, there want not Popes, who have oftener than once gone that very way. FINIS. Omnia Ecclesiae Catholicae Romanae subiecta sunto. A TABLE OF THE PARTICULER MATTERS CONTAINED IN THIS BOOK. ADORATION of Images, & the Eucharist used before the year 606. c. 11. n. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what it signifieth in composition cap. 1. nu. 3. Antichrist how taken in the Scriptures, & other Authors. c. 1. n. 4. His members sometime open enemies to Christ. cap. 2. n. 11. How he shallbe an Apostata, c. 2. n. 15. How he shall draw men to follow him, c. 2. n. 17. His coming and revelation all one, cap. n. 18. He shallbe one particular man cap. 2. per totum. He is signified by the former beast (Apoc. 13) cap. 5 n. 5. His false Prophet is signified by the latter, ibid. Whether he be the wounded head Apoc. 13. ibi. His persecution most grievous, cap 7. n. 1. Greater than the calamities of the jews, cap. 7: n 2. It shallbe most manifest: c, 7: n: ●: In antichrist's time all the Church's enemies shall join to impugn her, c. 7. n. 6. The public and daily sacrifice shall cease. cap. 7. n. 7. The last month of antichrist's life is not accounted in his reign, cap 8. n. ●. He shall reign; years & a half, cap. 8. per totum. He shallbe Prince of all the wicked in general, c. 8. n. 3. The time of his reign very short. cap. 8. n. 5. He may raise an universal persecution at one time. cap. 8. n. 6. Two degrees of his destruction, c. 9 n. 2. antichrist's coming shall not be long before the end of the world, c. 9 per totum. He cannot be said to come at all, but in the last hour cap. 9 n. 3. His name shallbe known when he is come, cap. 9 n. 1. & 2. It is yet unknown, c. 10. n. 4. He shallbe a most potent King c, 10. n. 7. His Mark or Character but one, cap. 11. n. 4. He shall be received of the jews for their Messiah, cap 12. n. 4. & seq: He shallbe jew, cap 12. n. 10. His seat shallbe at jerusalem. c. 13. n. 1. & seq. Why those that follow him are called Gentills, cap 13. 1. He shall sit in material Churches, and not in the Church of Christ as a Bishop cap. 13. n. 10. Whosoever usurpeth more dignity than is due to him, is his forerunner, ib. He is the head of all the proud, ib. He shall openly deny jesus to be Christ c. 14. n. 2. & seq. How he shall seduce, cap. 14. n 3. He shall exceed all heretics, ibid. He shall deny Christ to be so much as the adopted son of God, c. 14. n. 4. he shall prohibit the sign of the Cross in Baptism, ib. he shallbe the jews Captain, ibid. he shall restore all their ceremonies, ibid. he shall cause the Sabaoth to be observed, ibid. he will openly affirm himself to be Christ, c. 14. n. 7. he will openly name himself God, cap. 14. n. 9 Why & how he shall sit in the Temple, ibid. He will permit no other Gods besides himself, cap. 14. 11. & 12. He shall commit the greatest sins when he cannot all cap 14. n. 12. How he may extol himself above God, ibid. he shall not worship or honour many Gods, c 14 n. 14. He shall adore the devil secretly, c. 14. n. 14. his disposition, ibid. He shall work many signs, c 15. n. 1. he is not proved to be King of the jews because Antiochus was so, c. 16. n. 9 he shall arise from base estate, cap. 16. n. 14. & sequ. He shall overcome ● King's, cap. 16. n 12. he shall subdue the 7 Kings which remain after the three, and so he shallbe monarch of the whole world, cap. 16. n 14. he shall persecute the Christians through the whole world with an innumerable army; cap. 16. n. 1● etc. 17. per totum. Antichristianisme is not Atheism c. 4. n. 12. Antiochus Epiphanes is not spoken of at all in the 7. & 11. chap of Daniel, cap 7 n. 7. he was an Idolater, c. 14. n. 12. he impugned not the Gods of Syria, c. 14. n. 16. he worshipped many Gods, ibid. he was a type of Antichrist only in some principal points, cap. 16. n. 3. Only he among the Kings of Syria, is in the Scripture accounted a persecutor of the jews, c 16. n. 7. how he arose from base estate, cap. 16. n. 14. & seq. he invaded not Egypt oftener than twice, c. 16. n. 13. Antiochus Magnus & Seleucus Philopater his elder son were the jews benefactors, c. 16. n. 7. Arias Montanus, cap. 6, n. 3. S. Augustine answereth Downam's objection, c. 6 n 5. & 8. he maketh no more doubt that Elias shall come, than that S. john Baptist is come, ibid. The Apostasy is not the mystery of iniquity, c. 2. n. 16. c. 14. n. 3. B BELL ARMINES' advantage in this controversy. cap. 1. n. 1. He agreeth with former Catholics, c. 1. n. 2. he is unjustly charged by Downam, cap. 7. n. 5. c. 8. n. 5. c. 10 n. 7. c 14 n 10. c 16. n. 11. he urgeth Downam's objection further than he doth himself, c. 11. n. 9 his sincere dealing, cap. 12. n. 1. He reverenceth the Fathers, c. 14. n 7. C CALVIN thinketh that only Christ is in heaven, and that others stay without, cap. 6. n. 6. The Canons of the general Council, c ●. n. 4. Catholic doctrine standeth not so much upon denials, as the Protestants doth, c. 12. & 13. The Character of Antichrist shall be common to all in his Kingdom, c. 11. n. 4. It shallbe carried not only by Christians, but also by jews, ibid. It may be carried in the right hand, or in the forehead, ib. It is not profession or practice, ibid. It shallbe visible, c. 11. n. 12. Christ's first coming was not terrible as his second shallbe. c. 6. n. 3. His power and knowledge are not to be limited by that which he did, cap. 2. n. 17 He and Antichrist cannot have both one mark, c. 11. n. 7. The Church of Christ cannot have the mark of Antichrist, c. 11 n. 5. The Church was always subject to the Pope, ibid. The Church comprehendeth not all, that profess the name of Christ, cap. 13. n. 4. There is one visible Catholic Church, cap. 13. n. 5. It is to endure to the end of the world, cap. 13. n. 7. Chrism used in the Church before the year 607, c 11. n 6. how it maketh us christian's, ib. how it is more to be reverenced then Baptism, ibid. The Converting of one argueth more power, than the perverting of many, cap 6. n. 6 The Council of Chalcedon, cap. 3. n. 4. D THE Tribe of Dan fell not first to Idolatry, c. 12. n. 2. Why it is omitted Apoc 7. ib. Days are not taken for years, cap. 8. n. 7. The Devil is signified by the beast (Apoc 17.) c. 15. n 5 & 6. M. Downam seemeth not to have read so much of Bellarmine as he impugneth, cap. 3. n. 4. he omiteth Bellarmine's proofs, and answereth his own, cap 4 n. 4. 5. 6. 7. he changeth Bellarmine's argument, c. 5. n ● & 3. c. 8 n. 7. c 13. n. 9 he taketh the objection, and omitteth the answer, c. 6 n. 4. c. 13 n 9 & 10. He cannot defend his fellows, c. 2. n. 14. c. 6 n. 6. c 8. n. 7. c. 14. n. 12. & 19 c. 16. n. 14. he impugneth his fellows, cap. 8 n▪ 7. c. 10. n. 7. He impugneth himself, cap. 12. n. 2. & 9 c. 15. n. 5. & ●. he contradicteth himself, cap. 5. n▪ 5. c. 10. n. 3. 4. & 6. c 11. n. 4. & 12. c. 13. n. 1. c. 16. n. 5. 7. 12. he speaketh from the purpose, c. 2. n 12. & 15. c 14. n. 6. 8. & 10. c. 16. n. 4. & 8. his petitio principij, c. 2. n. 17. & 20. c. 5. n. 3. c. 6. n. 4. c 7. n. 3. & 7. c. 10 n. 4. 5. & 7. c. 11. n. 4. & 7. c. 13. n. 6. 8. & 10. he dissembleth the difficulty, c. 2. n. 20. c. 4. n. 7. c. 7. n. 4. c. 16. n. 11. his poor shifts, c. 3. n. 1. & 5. c. 6. n 4. his juggling, c. 10. n. 2. c. 12. n. 2. c. 13 n. 1. & 2. he translateth not well, c 3. n. 1 c. 5. n. 4. c. 15. n. 3. he expoundeth the Scripture childishly, c. 4. n. 8, He mangleth the scripture, c. 5: n. 5. c. 6. n. 5. he admitteth what translation & interpretation he listeth, c. 6. n. 3. he condemneth Ecclesiasticus, & the jews of his time, c: 6. n: 4. he condemneth the Apostles, and in some sort our Saviour himself c. 6. n. 5. he joineth with Porphiry an Apostata against all ecclesiastical writers, and jews also. c. 5. n. ●. 6. 7. n. 7. c. 16. n. 5. Our saviours words in his opinion are not true, c. 14. n. 7. his boldness with the Scripture, c. 14. n. 16. he joineth with the jews in impugning the Pope, c. 16. n. 3. his exposition contrary to all others, even his own fellows, c, 16. n. 7. he belieth the Primitive Church against the testimonies of the Fathers, c: 13 n. 9 he scoffeth at S. Gregory, cap. 6 n. 7. c: 8. n. 6. he corrupteth S. Ireraeus his words and meaning, c: 10. n. 7. he impugneth the father's authority, c. 12. n. 2. he acknowledgeth the Fathers to be against him, c. 14. n. 19 he abuseth S. Hierome, c. 16, n. 9: he maketh much account of one Father, if he favoureth his fancy, c. 4. n. 1●. he forgetteth what he impugneth, c 5. n. 2 c. 7. n. 6. he confirmeth one absurdity with another far greater, c 5. n. 2. he cutteth of those words which make most to the purpose, c: 6. n. 3 he proveth an universal by a particular, c: 10, n, 3. he runneth to generalities, when he cannot answer the particular argument, c. 1●. n. 4. his strange paradexe, cap. 14. n. 9 he belieth the Pope and Church of Rome, c. 14. n. 17 he weakeneth his fellows arguments, c. ● n. 9 his absurd folly, c. 2, n. 10. He censureth the Fathers, c: 2. n: 13. His vain bragging, c: 2: n. 19: c. 6. n. 8. he addeth an head of his own to the 7. of the beast (Apoc. 17.) c. 2. n: 21. he is nothing scrupulous in his account, c. 3. n. 3. his fond imagination, c. 4. n. 10. his immodesty, c. 4. n. 14. he is not moderate in his censure, c. 5. n. 3. his impudence, c 5. n. 3. c. 6. n. 3. c. 14. n. 4. He seemeth to think, that the Devil can do true miracles, c. ●: n. 5. c. ●5. n. 3. he attributeth more to merits then ever any Catholic did, c. 6 n. 3. In his opinion enoch's translation maketh as much for any other virtue, as for penance, contrary to the Scripture, c. 6 n: 4. & 8. his Martyrs, heretics and rebels, c. 7. n. 3. he maintaineth open rebellion and treason, c. 7. n. 4. his shamlesselye. c. 7. n. 3. his & Porphiryes pertinacy, c. 7. n. 7. his conference of Scripture, ibid. his and Fox's exposition of Scripture. c. 8. n. 3. his, and his fellows manner of disputing, c. 7. n. 7. his childish cavil, c: 8 n: 1. he maketh the ancient Church to be very corrupt, c: 11: n: 5. his blasphemy, ibid. He seemeth to have been a Puritan when he wrote of Antichrist, c. 13. nu. 3. & 10. his trifling, c. 14. n. 4. he belieth Gregory the 7. cap. 16. n. 12. He belieth the Cardinals, ibid. Why he admitteth any of the Fathers, c. 16. n. 14. E THE Book of Ecclesiasticus canonical Scripture, cap 6. n 4. Elias and Enoch shall preach in a manner, as long as Antichrist shall reign, cap. 6. n. 7. Elias shall come in person, cap. 2. n: 13: & cap: 6: per totum. How Elias shall restore all things ibid. The necessity of the coming of Enoch and Elias, cap, 6: n: 5: Enoch & Elias are not in heaven, cap, 6. n: 6 Enoch and Elias shall begin to preach in the beginning of antichrist's reign, cap. 8: n: 4. The End of the world is not only the last instant c, 9: n: 4. Whether they which live at antichrist's death may gather how long it is to the end of the world, c. 8. n. 4. Only the just and learned shall make this collection, ibid. The Tribe of Ephraim not omitted Apoc. 7. cap. 12. n: 2. When the proper Exposition is to be preferred, cap. 4: n: 12. How far divers Expositions are to be admitted, cap. 2. n: 16. F the necessity of the Father's expositions, c. 10. n. 3. Their authority, ibid. how Catholics esteem of them, cap. 12. n. 1. The Foolish dream of the feel Fox, c. 8. n. 3. G HOw the Gospel was in the whole world in the Apostles time, cap 4 n 14. The Gospel shallbe preached to all Nations before antichrist's coming, cap. 4. per ●o●●m. Greek article, when it signifieth a particular thing c. 2 n 4 S. Gregory answereth Downam's objection, cap, c. n 8. Gregory the 14. c. 16. n. 12. Gog & Magog, c. 17. per totum. H A Great Happiness to be put to death by Antichrist, cap. 6. n: 8. The Herodians, c. 12. n: 10. Why Heretics can work no miracles, cap. 15. n. 2. The 7. Heads of the beast Apoc. 13. are not the same with Apoc. 17. cap. 15. n. 4. The little Horn Dan. 7. is not the same with that of Dan. 8. c. 16. n. 1. S. Hippolytus, cap. 11. n. 12. I JANSENIUS, cap. 6. n. 4. S. Jerome confuteth Porphiry & Downam, c: 7. n: 7. The Importance of the controversy, c: 1: n. 1. The Interruption of the jews sacrifice was only 3. years, c. 7. n. 7. josephus corrupted, c. 8. n: 2: jupiter, cap: 14: n: 12: K THE Kingdoms whereof Daniel speaketh, were not to be ended before Christ, cap. 16. nu. 5. When our Saviour is to destroy them, ibid. When he began spiritually to overthrow them, ibid. The ●. Kingdoms into which that of Alexander was divided, belong to the; beast described Dan. 7. and not to the 4. c. 16. n 6. & 18. The Kingdoms of the Lagidae, and Seleu●idae cannot be signified by the 4 beast, Dan. 7. c. 16. n. 6. Why the● Kings, which Antichrist shall slay, are called the 3. first ●● former, c. ●●. n. 1●. L THE Latin Interpreter is nor to be rejected, cap. 6. n. 4. The name of Latin cannot be given to the Pope, c. 10. n. 4. It containeth not the number 666. ib. n. 7. How Latria is given to the Cross by Catholics, c. 11. n. 1●. Why the Tribe of Levi is often omitted, c. 1●. n. 2. M MARTINUS 5. his Bull against the Huffites, cap 11. n. 4. A Mortal man may be truly called God, cap 14. n. 1●. Maozim signifieth not the true God, c. 14. n 14. It may signify Antichrist, ibid. It signifieth a strong tower, cap 14. n. 15 Miracles in general belong both to good & bad, c. 15. n 2. Why the devils help is necessary to work counterfeit Miracles, c. 5. n. 5. etc. 15. n. 3. N THE Name which containeth the number 666. shallbe the proper & usual name of Antichrist c. 10. n. 7. Many Names contain that number, ibid. Nilas cap. 15 n. 2. O THE Oath of Obedience made to the B. of Rome before the year 606. cap. 11. n. 8. If the Oath be lawful, the often exacting of it is not culpable, ibid. One faith, & one Church, c. 13. n 3. P PROTESTANT'S put Catholics to death for Religionn, c 7. n. 4. An invisible Persecution of an invisible congregation, cap. 7. n. 6. Pholas gave not the title of universal to the Pope, c. n. 4. And that which he gave, the Pope had before, ibid. The Pope hath power to depose Princes for the spiritual good of Christ's Church, cap. 3. n. 5. The Popes whom the Protestants account Antichrist, arise not from base estate, cap. 16. n. 11. The Pope no temporal Monarch, cap. 16. n. 14. The Protestants exposition of Scripture not much worth, cap. ●. n. 16. How much they agree with the Samosatens, and all other heretics, c. 3. n 2. Their disagreement about antichrist's coming, c 3 n. 3. The Prophecies concerning the destruction of jerusalem, and the end of the world intermingled, c 4. n. 9 The Persecution of Catholics in England, c. 7 n. 4. R THE reason of Rome's pre-eminence, is not because it is the chief City, c. 3. n. 4. X. Kings shall divide the Roman Empire among them, so that there shallbe no Roman Emperor in their time, cap 5. n. 2. The Roman Empire signified by the 2. iron Legs of nabuchodonosor's Statue, and the 4. beast (Dan 7.) cap. 5. n. 2. By the 10. toes of nabuchodonosor's Statue, and the 10. horns of the 4. beast Dan. 7. are signified the 10. Kings, which shall divide the Roman Empire among them, cap. 5. n. 2. The Roman Empire shallbe utterly destroyed by the 10. Kings, c. 5. n. 3. & per totum. How many ways the Fathers affirm the utter destruction of the Roman Empire, & why they speak sparingly of this point, c. 5. n. 3. There is now a Roman Emp. indeed, and not in name or title only, cap. 5. n. 3. The name Romanus containeth not the number 666 c. 10. n. 7. To cleave to the Roman Church was the sign of a true Catholic before the year 696. c. 11. n. 7. How the Church of Rome is united & standeth with other Churches, ibid. Those which belong not to the Church of Rome, belong not to Christ, but to Antichrist, ibid. Not Christian, but Heathen Rome is called Babylon and an Harlot (Apoc. 17. etc.) cap. 13. n. 8. S SACRIFICE for the dead used before the year 606. c 11. n. 10. The difficulty of Scripture, and why many err in the interpretation thereof, cap 7. n. 7. When the Scripture is literally to be understood of the figure, and when of the thing figured, c. 14. n. 13. How we may argue from the mystical sense of Scripture, c. 10. n. 3. The mystical S●nse intended by the holy Ghost, ibid. Except the literal Sense be certain, we cannot argue from it, ibid. The consent of the Fathers, maketh both Senses certain, ibid. Why Seleucus Philopater is called Vilissimus, c. 16. n. 8. The seventy two Interpreters not to be rejected, c. 6. n. 7. The Sibyl's verses of Adrian are expounded, c. 10. n. 2. Why simeon is omitted in Moses his blessing, cap. 12. n. 2. How the Signs of Antichrist shallbe lying, c. 15 n. 1. T TEMPLE what it signifieth in the new Testament, c. 13. n. 3. How the Temple of jerusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of God c. 13. n 9 And it shallbe built again in the end of the world, ibid. But it shallbe always profane ibid. It shall not be finished, ibid. The thousand years, Apoc. 2. are to be taken indefinitely, cap. 7. n. 2. By the great Tribulation, Matth. 24. is meant the persecution of Antichrist a little before the end of the world, cap. 4. n. 5. & 13. The Turks inferior to Antichrist, c. 14. n. 7. V UNCTION of Priests used before the year 606 cap. 11. n. 9 The word (until) signifieth neither continuance nor cessation, but is indifferent to both, cap. 13. n. 9 Vrbanus 7. cap. 16. n. 12. FINIS. Faults escaped in the Printing. Page, Line, Fault, Correction. ●8. 29. is forerunner is forerun 41. 39 in the Apostasy in the Apostles time 133. 33. beginning neither beginning neither: ibid. 8. hatred of hatred out of 172. 15. deemeth denieth 180. 34. granteth groundeth 192. 12. 19 and last chapter 19 last chapters 229. 34. former grounds founder grounds 237. 38. them, so them so, 266. 39 Antichrist sitting Antichrist his sitting 272. 20. all Idols. also Idols. 275. 2. frame himself feign himself 276. 7. showing as showing himself as 281. 7. provided proved 298. 5. prove, that prove, but that 310. 18. tortures torturers 315. 29. antichrist's Antichrist 320. 36. one and one. And 335. 23. as neither the 2. as neither the 3. 339. 34. exposition, whereof exposition whereof 380. 1. Maozim. Neither Maozim, who seethe not that Christ is the God Maozim? Neither etc. 387: 13. bold of blood of 413. 24. above those about those Other faults of less moment by reason of the obscure copy, and absence of the Author, have likewise escaped, which the Reader may easily find, and correct of himself.