A TREATISE CONCERNING ANTICHRIST, DIVIDED INTO TWO BOOKS, THE FORMER, PROVING THAT THE POPE IS ANTICHRIST: THE LATTER, MAINTAIning the same assertion, against all the objections of Robert Bellarmine, jesuit and Cardinal of the Church of Rome. By GEORGE DOWNAME, Doctor of Divinity, and lately reader of the Divinity Lecture in Paul's. Apoc. 18, 4. 6. Come out of Babylon my people, that you be not partakers with her in her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues, etc. Render unto her as she hath rewarded you, and repay her double according to her works. AT LONDON Imprinted for Cuthbert Burbie. 1603. TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY, MOST CHRISTIAN AND WORTHY KING, JAMES, by the grace of God King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, etc. All prosperity and true happiness in this life, and eternal felicity in the life to come. THE blessed dispensation of Gods most gracious providence towards this land; (for which his holy name is always to be praised in his church) in bringing your Highness unto this kingdom, in the beginning of this seventeenth century after Christ, seemeth to presage, that the happy reformation of the church, restitution of the Gospel, consumption of Antichrist, decay of Babylon happily begun in the last centenary, shall in this age or century receive a notable confirmation and increase, if not a perfect consummation. For howsoever whiles the darkness of Popery over spread the Christian world, not only the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the golden cup of the whore of Babylon's Apoc. 17. 2, & 18. 3. fornications, but the Kings also and Princes of the earth having drunk of the same cup, committed spiritual whoredom Apo. 17. 13 with her, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power to support 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: 〈◊〉 when as it 〈◊〉 God 〈◊〉 enlighten the world with the bright beams of his glorious Gospel, than Antichrist began to consume, and Babylon to decay: the Preachers discovering Antichrist, the people coming Apoc. 1●…. 1. & 14. 6. 3. out of Babylon, and the Princes which before had assisted Antichrist, setting themselves against him. This great work of God in the full consumption of Antichrist and confusion of Babylon, the Ministers of God, that is to say, Princes and Preachers, are Rom. 13. 4. to accomplish and bring to pass. The Preachers, by preaching the everlasting Gospel; at the sound whereof Babylon falleth, as once Apoc. 14. 6. 7. 8. the walls of jericho at the noise of the Trumpets sounded by the Priests: and by the ministery whereof as it were the spirit of the joh. 6. Lords mouth, Antichrist falleth into a consumption, as Dagon 2. Thes. 2. 8 once did fall before the Ark. Th' Princes, partly by their godly example, going out and in before the people in the sincere profession 2. Sam. 5. of the truth, and detestation of popery; partly by their authority, providing faithful Ministers, countenancing their ministery, oppugning Antichrist in his religion and in his members, bereaving the whore of Babylon the Pope's concubine of her means, Apo. 17. 16 and lastly sacking her and consuming her with fire. For which cause as I thought it my duty (being called to read a Lecture in divinity) when I perceived the Papists within these few years (I know not upon what other hopes then of raising their fortunes out of the ruins of this whole Island) grown more insolent then in former times, to make the best opposition I could against them, and to that end handled this main controversy concerning Antichrist (whereupon all Popery dependeth) both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proving the affirmative, viz. that the Pope is Antichrist, and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disproving the negative against the objections of Bellarmine the Goliath of the Papists: so being now at the instance of many well disposed persons, to publish this treatise, I have thought good to dedicate the same to your Majesty, as the chief patron and defender of the faith and Gospel of Christ (upon earth) against Antichrist and his adherents. For hereby not only your royal courage may be stirred up, and your godly resolution in oppugning Antichrist (according to the prophecies of the scripture, foretelling the duty of Christian Princes in this behalf) more and more confirmed: but also it may most evidently appear to all men, that upon most just and weighty considerations, you and your people renounce all communion with the Pope and church of Rome, and by all good means do set ourselves against them. For if the Pope be Antichrist (which is proved in this Book) & consequently the church of Rome, the whore of Babylon, and synagogue of Antichrist: the papists, (who call themselves Catholics, and us Heretics) the limbs of Antichrist; the religion and doctrine of popery, the mystery of iniquity and mere Antichristianisme: it followeth necessarily, that Christian princes are not to tolerate either the religion of papists or their persons within their dominions. The religion Deu. 13. 1. 5 of papistry being a Catholic Apostasy from God, consisting not only in respect of the worship, of manifold superstition and most gross idolatry; but also in respect of the doctrine, of many hundred Antichristian errors and doctrines of devils. The persons of Catholick-papists, being Catholic heretics and revolters from God, members of Antichrist, palpable idolaters; many of them (especially the Seminary priests and jesuits) persuaders of others to idolatry and apostasy from God. Not to speak of the treason against Christian Princes which is enclosed in the bowels of popery, and bosoms of papists. For they teach that all Christian Princes who acknowledge not the Pope for their supreme head and Lord, (as no true Christians do) are Schismatics at the least, and consequently that the Pope hath authority to depose them, and to absolve their subjects from their allegiance: and that the Pope when he proceedeth to the sentence of excommunication and deposition of them (as he did against your sister of blessed memory Queen Elizabeth, and doth, so oft as he dareth, against others) he doth not err in his definitive sentence. And therefore (whatsoever they pretend to the contrary) it is certain, that they being the marked slaves of Antichrist, wholly devoted to his will, are also willing and ready (when means and opportunity fail not) to put in execution his Antichristian censures, and devilish designments. In consideration whereof, Christian Princes and people, are not only bound to come out of Babylon, and to renounce Apoc. 18. 4. all communion with the Pope and Church of Rome, but also they are to reward the where of Babylon, as she hath rewarded us, Apoc. 18. 6. yea to repay her double: and not only to hate her, but also to make her desolate and naked, to eat her flesh and consume Apo. 17. 16. her with fire. And hereof Christian Princes are to be assured, that as those which join with the Pope in persecuting the faithful, do fight under the banner of Antichrist the beast, against Christ the Lamb: so they in oppugning the Pope and Church of Apo. 19 19 Rome, do fight the battles of Christ against Antichrist. And consequently are to promise to themselves undoubted victory: they fight under the banner of the Lamb, who shall be sure to overcome, seeing he is the Lord of Lords, and King of Kings: Apo. 17. 14. and those also that are with him, though esteemed of Antichrist Qui monet ut facias, quod iam facis, ipse monendo Laudat, & ●…atu comprobat acta su●…. and his adherents, as Schismatics and Heretics, yet are they called, elect, and faithful. Encourage therefore yourself most Christian King (as we doubt not but you do) to maintain for ever the truth of Christ, against the falsehood of Antichrist. And doubt you not both of happy success and victory in this life, and of an immortal crown of glory in the life to come. The God of all mercy and power, who in his unspeakable bounty towards us, hath placed your Highness over us in peace, make both you and us truly thankful to his majesty for this inestimable benefit: and establish your Highness and your Royal posterity in the throne of this Kingdom, to the glory of his great name, advancement of his Kingdom, propagation of the Gospel, confusion of Popery, consolation of all true Christians, and your own everlasting comfort. Amen. Your majesties most humble and dutiful subject GEORGE DOWNAME. Faults escaped in the Printing, are thus to be corrected. In the first Book. Pag. 7, lin. vlt. read the Apoc. Pag. 1●…, l. 9, (Apocal. 13) In margin, li. 6. ad Marecl●… P. 14, l. 4. atq 〈◊〉, l. 9 which with, l. ●…0. which word, l. 12. superst ●…ous, p. 15. l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, P. 17. l 18. Pannonia, P. 21. mark l. 3. Algasiam, P. 24, l. 1 for as, & mark lin vlt hist. ●…otor. p. 28. l vlt P 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 29. l. 10. would, p. 31, l. 3. as 〈◊〉, l. 25. hinder d then, pag. 35, l 9 donation, l. 16. Exarch, p. 36. l. 23. Luttp●…dus, p. 40 mark l. 16. ●…aleu, p. ●…2, l. 16. Seleucidae, p. 47. l. 22. blot out the one while. p. 50. mark l. 6. Mat. 4. 9, p 59 mark l. 2. Lubb, p. 69. l. a fine 5. Cooks, with, p. 70, l. 9 Monstrance, & in mark l. a fine. 4. arcu, pag. 71. add lin. 2. in mark scribe, 〈◊〉 can. sub sinem extravag. loan. 22. Tat. 14. 〈◊〉 significatione C. cum inter, p. 74. mark l. 16. Electi potest, p. 77 l. 6. ipsissimum, p. 78. l. 7. eight, p. 80 mark l. 7. Na●…r, p. 83, l. 16. blot out 〈◊〉, & in mark l. vlt. refer subtiliss ad lin. a f. 7, p. 86. l. 7. Tecetius, p. 90. l penult Donation, p. ●…1. l. a. f. 8. first and second, p. 92. l. vlt. Lando, p. 94, l 2 unto, l. a. f. 5. & 4. Benedict, p. 100 l. a. f. 10. Impleu●…ris, p. 104. mark l. vlt. Non nos, p. 106. l. 6. we are, p. 110. l 23. Babylon's, p. 123. l. 5. This, l. a. f. 11. received, p. 128. l. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 129. l. 19 other names, p. ●…38. l. 18. There. In the second Book. Pag, 6. l. 13. that he is, p. 10. l penult. another, p. 11. l. 11. prefixed, p. 13. l. 27. the King is supreme, p. 16. l. a f. 4. revealed: as, p. 20. l. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 21. l. a f. 5 prefixed, p. 25. l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, l 11. beast, p 27. mark l 3. for § 2. read lib. 1. cap. 4. § 2, p. 28. l. 21. he seethe, p. 30. l. 6. revolted, p. 32 l. 19 own, p. 37. mark l 5, Annal Boior, p. 41. l. 14. women with child, p. 46. l. 8. come: for, p. 48. set chap. 16. against line 12, p. 60. l. 1. of the 13: I, & mark l. penult. can. p 70. l. 11. Neverthe esse, p. 72, l. a. f. 13. time. unto, p. 73. l. a f. 5. adornc, pag. 77, l. 10. seemeth, p. 80, l. 1. blot out of, p. 82, l. 24. men, l. 26. out, p. 85, l. 24, in mark deal 3. p. 89. l. a f. 8. lizen. sse, p. 97, l. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, l. 20, Dicl●…, l. 23. Luther's, l. 24. Lulter, p. 98, l. 15, be come, p. 102. l. 18. pronounce, p. 106, l. a f. 14. saith he, p 109, l. 3. were, p. 110, l a f. 4. bload shed, p. 114, l. 21. or altogether, p. 124, l. 19 spiritually, p. 125, l. 18, Apoc. 17. 16. p. 133, l. 7. desolatours, p. 135, l. 1. monarchs, p. 137, l. 2. a mere sable, p. 139, l. 15, & 141, l. 11. & 12, deprave p. 144, l. 13. aequè ac, p. 151, l. a f. 5. and therefore, p. 152. l. 17. & 18. glorify, p. 156. l. 21 blot out ad, l. 23. d scribe, p. 157, l. 14. of Babylon's, p. 161. l. a f. 4. first, of, p. 162. l. 6. & 7. Omnes, p. 163. l. penult. five, p. 168. l. 7. & 22. Lagidae, p. 169. l. 1. vid●…atur, l. 3 to Porphyry, l. 7. Daniel. The, p. 175. l. 5. the land Tzebi, l. 6. eight horn, p. 181. l. 1. & 〈◊〉. Casleu, p. 188. Marg. l. 3. vid. Tremell. The first Book, proving that the Pope is Antichrist. The first Chapter, propounding the state of the controversy, and the grounds of our proofs. 1. Whereas the holy Ghost, 2. Thess. 2. Thess. 2. 8. 2. 8. hath foreshowed, that Christ our Saviour shall consume Antichrist with the spirit of his mouth, that is, by the ministery of his word, which Esay 11. 4. is called the rod or Esay. 11. 4. sceptre of his mouth, & the spirit of his lips: it cannot therefore be denied, but that it is the duty of all faithful ministers, who are as it were the mouth of christ unto his people, to set themselves against Antichrist; that by their ministry his kingdom may be weakened, and the kingdom of Christ jesus more and more advanced. For which cause I took upon me in my public readings not long since, to entreat of this main controversy betwixt us and the church of Rome, concerning Antichrist. But because my speech could profit only those that heard me, I have for diverse causes thought good by writing to make the benefit of my labours common: First, that by this means the Papists which be tractable may be reclaimed: Secondly, that those which be obstinate among them may be confounded: Thirdly, that Protestants and professors of the truth which be found & resolute, may be more & more confirmed: lastly & especially that those which be weak & wavering may be stayed, and preserved from falling into that fearful judgement, which as the Lord hath threatened 2. Thess. 2. against unsound professors in these latter times, so hath it within these few years fallen upon very many, who having by the great mercy of God been delivered out of the more than Egyptian bondage of Antichrist: and being set in the way toward the celestial Canaan and land of promise, seemed with the unthankful Israelites to be weary of the celestial Manna the food of their souls, and desired to be again among the flesh-pots of Egypt. For seeing they had not received the love of the truth that they might be saved, therefore God hath sent upon them the efficacy of error 2. Thess. 2. 10. 11. 12. that they should believe lies (meaning the lies of Antichrist) that all they might be condemned, which believed not the truth, but delighted in unrighteousness, meaning the mystery of iniquity whereof he had spoken verse. 7. that is to say, Antichristianisme or 2. Thess. 2. 7. Popery. 2 And that we may proceed in order, we are first to set down the state of this controversy, which in deed is the cheese of all controversies betwixt us and the Papists, and of the greatest consequence. For if this were once thoroughly cleared, all others would easily be decided. Our assertion therefore in few words is this, That the Pope of Rome, who is as it were the God of the Papists, is that grand Antichrist, who according to the prophecies of the holy Ghost in the Scriptures, was to be revealed in these latter times. The Papists hold the contrary. And whereas we say and prove that their Lord God the Pope's holiness in Antichrist, they affirm that our assertion is blasphemy, and our arguments dotages. Rhemist. in 2. Thess. 2. Bellarmin lib. 3. de Pont. Rom. sive de antichrist cap. 18. But if it were no harder a matter to demonstrate the truth of our assertion, then to prove their conceit concerning Antichrist and the proofs thereof to be mere dotages; I should very easily put this Question out of controversy; that the Pope is Antichrist. 3 But first our assertion is to be expounded, and afterwards proved. As touching the name we agree (saith Bellarmine) in Lib. 3. de pont. Rom. c. 2. this, that as the name Christ is taken two ways, to wit, commonly and properly, so also the name Antichrist. The name Christ commonly belongeth to all that are anointed of God; and that either to the special calling of a King, Prophet or Priest, or to the general calling of a Christian. And in this sense it is taken either Psal. 105. 15. more largely for the whole body of those that profess the name of Christ, whereof some are members of Christ in title and profession 1. Cor. 12. 12. only; or more strictly for the society of the elect the citizens of heaven, who have the mark of God, and are not only Apoc. 9 4. in show and profession, but also indeed and in truth members of the mystical body of Christ. Peculiarly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the name Christ belongeth to jesus the son of God, who was anointed with the oil of gladness above all his fellows, and is the Psalm. 45. 7. head, after a general manner, of all Christians, but more specially of the elect. In like sort the contrary name Antichrist belongeth commonly to all that be enemies to Christ; and those either open & professed enemies as the jews, Turks, Infidels (in which sense the word is not used in the Scripture) or else covert, professing themselves Christians, and under the name and profession of Christ, oppugning Christ and his truth. And so it is taken 1. John. 2. 18. 22. either more largely to signify the whole body of Heretics (as in the Epistles of john) or more strictly the society of them who having made an apostasy from Christ, have received the mark of the beast. Properly or rather peculiarly & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it belongeth to the man of sin, the son of perdition: who after 2. Thess. 2. 3. a more general manner is the head of all Heretics, and more specially of that society, which hath the mark, the number and Apoc. 13. 17. name of the beast. The society or body of those who having made an apostasy from Christ to Antichrist, & the Antichristian state which in the Scriptures is called the whore of Babylon, we hold to be the apostatical church of Rome. The head of this Antichristian Apoc. 17. body & catholic apostasy, we hold to be the Pope of Rome; and consequently that the Pope is that grand Antichrist, whom the holy Ghost in the Scriptures hath described unto us; And that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called the Antichrist, not only because he is the head of the Antichristian body, but also because he being in profession the vicar of Christ, is in deed Aemulus Christi, that is, an enemy opposed unto Christ, in emulation of like honour, as if we should say, a counter-Christ, as the word Antichrist doth also signify. 4 But when we say that the Pope is Antichrist, we mean not this or that Pope, howsoever some of them have been more notorious Antichrists than others: as for example Silvester the 2. Gregory the 7. aliâs Hildebrand, Boniface 8. john 22. aliâs 24. Alexander 6. etc. but the whole row or rabble of them, from Boniface the 3. downward. For although the Antichrist be but one person, yet he is not one as Christ the head of the Christian body, is one, Christ because he liveth for ever hath no successors, and therefore is one in nature and number, as being one singular & definite person. The head of the Antichristian body, which is to continue to the end of the world, is continued not in one singular and definite person, but in a succession of many, who are mortal and momentary; which successively have been, are, or shallbe the heads of the catholic apostasy: of any whereof indefinitely, or of all commonly, the word Antichrist is understood. For even as the Pope or vicar of Christ according to the Popish conceit, is one person not in number and nature, but by law and institution, one at once ordinarily, but many successively; so Antichrist is not one singular person, but a succession of Antichristian Popes, which we begin at Boniface the third. Because he with much ado, about the year of our Lord 607. obtained from the Emperor Phocas, and all his successors since, have challenged unto them, the Antichristian title of the head of the catholic or universal Church, or ecumenical & universal Bishop. Which title of blasphemy, as Gregory calleth it, befitting Lib. 4. epist 32. & 34. & 38. him that resembleth Lucifer in pride, when as john the Bishop of Constantinople had challenged not long before, to wit, about the year 600. in the time of Mauritius, whom Phocas cruelly murdered, Gregory the great than Pope of Rome affirmed confidently (for so he saith, Fidenter dico) that therein he was the forerunner of Antichrist, who was now even at hand. Omnia enim Lib. 4. epist. 38. quae praedicta sunt, fiunt. Rex superbiae propè est, & quod dici nefas est, sacerdotum ei praeparatur exercitus. For all things (saith he) which were foretold, do now come to pass. The king of pride (meaning Antichrist) is at hand: and that which is horrible to be spoken, an army of priests is prepared for him. Whereby he would also insinuate, that he should be the prince of priests. Now this is a principle in the church of Rome, that the Pope, (especially such a Pope as Gregory the great, speaking definit●…uelie and confidently) can not err. And if this be true (as they may not deny, the Pope being the foundation of all their truth) then must they needs confess that Antichrist was come, almost a thousand years since, and that the Pope their prince of priests, who not only succeed john of Constantinople in that Antichristian title, but also far exceedeth him in all Antichristian pride, challenging a sovereign and universal authority not only above all other Bishops and priests, but also above all kings and Emperors, is that Antichrist. 5 To this testimony of Gregory I might add diverse other witnesses. But my purpose is not to draw mine arguments from the writings, and as it were the cisterns of men, who lived before the revelation of Antichrist, and therefore except themselves had been prophets, could not fully expound these prophecies: but from the pure fountains of holy scriptures expounded by the history and event, the best interpreters of prophecies. For as Daniel saith of the like (or rather as the Papists say of these same Dan. 129. prophecies concerning Antichrist) The words are closed up, and sealed, until the appointed tyme. And accordingly was it said by Augustine, prophetias citiùs impleri quàm intelligt, that prophecies are fulfilled sooner than understood, and by Irenaeus whom Bellarmine also allegeth to the same purpose, omnes prophetiae Lib. 〈◊〉. advers. haeres. c. 43. Bell. de pont. R. lib. 3 c. 10. (saith he) priusquam habeant efficaciam, aemgmata sunt & ambiguitas hominibus, All prophecies before they have their complement, are unto men dark and doubtful speeches. And therefore speaking of some part of the prophecies concerning Antichrist, he Apoc. 13. saith, Certius & sine periculo est sustinere adimplet ionem prophetiae, quàm suspicari, &c: It is more sure and safe to wait for the fulfilling of the prophecy, then before hand to deliver uncertain guesses. Lib. 5. advers. hares. pag. antepenult. Omitting therefore the uncertain conjectures of men (for such are diverse opinions of the father's concerning Antichrist, as Bellarmine confesseth of some,) from the sacred scriptures, the Lib. 3. de pont. R. c. 10. undoubted oracles of God, I frame this demonstration; 6 Unto whomsoever the prophecies of holy scripture describing Antichrist the head of the Antichristian body, do wholly and only agree, he is that grand Antichrist who is foretold in the scriptures. Unto the Pope of Rome the prophecies of holy scripture concerning Antichrist the head of the Antichristian body, do wholly and only agree: therefore the Pope of Rome is that grand Antichrist which is foretold in the scriptures. The proposition I take for granted. For seeing the holy ghost hath of purpose in diverse places of the scripture taken upon him fully and sufficiently to describe Antichrist, and that to this end, that he might be known; we need not doubt, but that this description of Antichrist is so perfect and so proper unto him, as to whom that description agreeth not, he is not Antichrist: & contrariwise whom it wholly and only fitteth, he must be held and acknowledged to be that Antichrist. All the controversy therefore is concerning the assumption, namely, whether the descriptions of Antichrist in the scriptures agree to the Pope or not. Antichrist is described by the holy ghost, especially in three places, viz. in the second chapter of the second epistle to the Thessalonians, in the thirteenth of the Revelation from the eleventh verse to the end, and in the seventeenth chapter of the same book. For I omit those places in the prophecy of Daniel which usually are alleged, (because they speak properly of Antiochus Epiphanes, Chap. 7. & 8. & 11. & 12. who was but a type of Antichrist, as Bellarmine also confesseth,) and the ninth of the Apocalypse, because it is by some expounded Lib. 3. de pont. R. c, 18. & 21. of the Turks. 7 And that the description of Antichrist in the scriptures fitly agreeth to the Pope, it appeareth by this induction. For whereas all the arguments and notes whereby Antichrist is described in the scriptures, may be reduced to these heads, to wit, the place or seat where we are to find him; the time, when we were to look for him; his condition and qualities, that he is an adversary opposed unto Christ in emulation of like honour, a man of sin in general, and more particularly an horrible idolater: his actions and passions, that is, such things as he shall either do or suffer: I will make it evident by the help of God (whose all-seeing spirit I humbly beseech to guide me into the truth) that all and every one of them do so fitly and properly agree to the Pope of Rome, that in the descriptions of Antichrist in the scripture, the Pope may behold himself as it were in a glass. Chap. 2. Of the place or seat of Antichrist. 1. ANd first as touching the place or seat of Antichrist, I reason thus, Mystical Babylon spoken of in the seventeenth and eighteenth of the Apocalypse, is the seat of Antichrist: Rome is Mystical Babylon, spoken of in the seventeenth and eighteenth of the Apocalypse. Therefore Rome is the seat of Antichrist. As touching the proposition, you are to understand that Babylon in the scriptures is taken sometimes literally, and sometimes mystically: literally, for Babylon either in Chaldaea, or in Egypt. Babylon in Chaldaea was the Metropolis or imperial city of the Babylonian and Assyrian Monarchy. Babylon in Egypt is called Babylis and Cayrus, of which some understand the Apostle Peter to speak 1. Epist. 5. 13. Babylon mystical in the Apocalypse, is the seat or chief city of Antichrist, resembling the 1. Pet. 5. 13. Apoc. 17. 5. Assyrian Babylon in pride, idolatry, filthiness, and especially in most cruel persecution of the church of God. And for the same causes Apoc. 11. 8. is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt. Sodom, Ap. 11. 8. for pride and filthiness: Egypt, for idolatry and for cruelty towards the Israel of God. And as the church of Christ in the Apocalypse is called jerusalem mystically, or the holy city: so the church & especially the Metropolis or chief city of Antichrist, is mystically called Babylon. This as it is the received opinion of the faithful, so may it evidently be gathered out of the seventeenth and eighteenth of Apocalypse, which without all doubt are prophecies concerning Antichrist, and the Antichristian city and seat, as the Papists themselves often confess. Bellarm. lib. 3. de P●…t. R. c. 2. Saunder. demonstr. 13. & 18. etc. 2 For that which the Papists sometimes object, That by Babylon is meant not any one city or company, but the universal company of the reprobate, it is unworthy the answering. And the argument which our Rhemists bring to prove their assertion, is without sense, to wit in their annotation upon Apoc. 18. 21. where the Angel throwing a great stone into the Sea, saith, with such violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown, and be found no more. By this (say they) it seemeth clear, that the Apostle meaneth not any one city, but the universal company of the reprobate, which shall perish in the day of judgement. But I answer, that the destruction of the universal company of the reprobate in the day of judgement, is described afterward chap. 20. 11. And this destruction, as appeareth plainly by the circumstances of the text, especially in the ninth verse, and those which follow unto the eighteenth, shall be before the day of judgement, and therefore is not the destruction of the universal company of the wicked. For if the universal destruction of the wicked were here signified, than none of the wicked should ●…uruiue after this destruction to lament the same, as there shall, vers. 9 10. 17. And that the universal society of the wicked is not meant by Babylon, evidently appeareth by the whole discourse, chapters 17. and 18, where the holy ghost speaketh of a city ruling over the princes of the earth, situated upon seven hills, sitting upon many waters, that is, ruling over many people, nations and languages, with whom all princes and inhabitants of the earth have committed fonication, whose destruction is bewailed of all sorts of the wicked, none of which people or princes, or wicked ones that mourn for her, should be of the universal company of the reprobate (as undoubtedly they are) if Babylon signified the whole number of the wicked. And whereas they allege jerem. 52, where only the history of the Babylonian captivity is recorded, to prove that Babylon signifieth the whole number of God's enemies: it argueth, that they have not so much as any show of reason to object against the truth of this proposition, namely that mystical Babylon is the seat, or as they speak, the See of Antichrist, See●…. 18. and therefore from henceforth until something further be objected, I will take it for granted. 3. But let us come to the assumption, viz, that Rome is mystical Babylon: which I will prove by three arguments. First, because the description of Babylon, and of the whore of Babylon set down by the holy Ghost, Apoc. 17. agreeth in all points to Rome and the Roman state. But most plainly in these two; First that the whore of Babylon is that great city which in the Apostles time, had the kingdom over the Apoc. 17. 8. Kings of the earth. And secondly, that this city is situated on 7. hills: which two notes most properly describe Rome. Apoc. 17. 9 And so Propertius describeth it, Septem urbs alta iugis, toti quae praesidet orbi, That is the city Eleg. 10. lib. 3. mounted on 7. hills, overruling the whole world. That Rome was the Imperial city of the world, and the Metropolis of the Roman Monarchy, it is out of Question, neither is there any of our adversaries either so ignorant o●…so shameless as to deny it. Pron hence therefore I reason thus: That city which in th'apostles time had dominion over the Kings of the earth, is the whore of Babylon. Rome is that city which in th'apostles time, and since also under the Pope, had the dominion over the kings of the earth: therefore Rome is the whore of Babylon. And that Rome also Georgic. 2. in fine. was situated on 7. hills, it is most manifest. Of her Virgi●… saith, Scilicet & rerum facta est pulcherrima Roma, Septem quae una sibi muro circumdedit arces. Varro speaking of a festival day, which among the Romans Lib 5. de ling. la●…. was called Septimontium, he saith it was so called, ab his 7. montibus in quibus urbs sit a est. that is, of the 7. hills whereon the city was situated. And Plutarch upon the same occasion calleth Problem, Rom. Romae inst●…. lib. 1, num. 65. Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. Septicollem, that is Seven hilled. Blondus saith, Montes in urbe septem numerantur, The hills within the city are seven in number. and the names of these 7. hills are commonly known, & usually named in Roman authors, viz, Palatinus, Capitolinus, Qutrinalis, Coelius, Esquilinus, Viminalis, Aventinus. 4. Yea but say our English Rhemists, The Angel himself In Apo. 17. 9 here 〈◊〉 ●…eth these 7. hills to be alone with the 7. heads, and the 7. kings. And yet the heretics take them literally for 7. hills: whereas the number of 7. is mystical, signifying universally all of that sort. And they might mark, that the Propets visions here are most by seven, whether he talk of heads, horns (which notwithstanding are not 7. but 10.) candelsticks, churches, kings, hills. For answer whereunto, we must know that the beast whereon the whore of Babylon sitteth, is generally the Empire of Rome, but more specially urbs Romae, the city of Rome, which was the imperial, and is the papal seat. This beast is said to have 7. heads: which the holy Ghost expoundeth two ways. 7. capita urbis, the 7. heads of the city, are 7. hills: the 7. heads of the Empire or people subject to Rome (which also are compared to waters whereon the whore sitteth) are 7. kings, Apo. 17. 1. 15. that is seven several regiments, or heads of government, (for so the holy Ghost elsewhere calleth them,) whereby the Empire or Dan. 8. 21. people of Rome hath at divers times been governed: to wit, Kings (which also were seven.) Consuls, Decemuirs, Tribunes (not tribuni plebis, but tribunt militum consulari potestate), Dictator's, Emperors, and Popes. Now the Apostle doth not say, the seven heads are seven hills, and the seven hills are seven Kings: but the 7. heads are seven hills, and they (namely seven heads) are (also) seven kings, as Bellarmine also acknowledgeth. For this interpretation which they give to Lib. 3. de pont. Rom. cap. 5. the Angel, First, is inconvenient. For heads do more fitly resemble kings which are the heads of the body politic, than hills do. And secondly false, for if the hills be kings, than the city which is the woman vers. 18. sitteth upon the seven kings, for she sitteth on the hills, vers. 9 Neither is this interpretation of seven heads, that they be seven hills, any interpretation Apoc. 17. 9 18. at all, except we understand hills properly. Moreover both the hills and kings are said to be seven, not because 7. is a mystical number, signifying all the kingdoms of persecutors, but because they are 7. indeed. Which also may be said of the 7. candlesticks & 7. Churches. Apoc. 1. & 2. & 3. which they bring for an instance. Of the hills there is no question: and it is as true of the Kings, and therefore the Angel numb. eth them vers. 10. Five (saith he) are fallen, one is, and the other is Apoc 17. 10. not yet come: which is verified of these 7. regiments whereof I spoke. For the regiments of Kings, consuls, Decemuirs, Tribunes, Dictator's, were ceased in the Apostles time: One (that is of the Emperors) then was, and the seventh, that is to say, of the Popes, was not yet come. And as touching the Roman Empire erected and revived by the Pope: it is the beast that was a flourishing imperial state, but is not Apoc. 17. 8. indeed and in truth the Empire of Rome, but rather an image of it. Apocal. 13. although it be in name and title the Empire of Rome. This beast that was and is not, it is also the eight head or regiment, and is one of the seven, namely of Apoc. 17. 11. Emperors. 5. Secondly that Rome is mystical Babylon, it may be Hieronym. in Esay cap. 47. v. 1. item, in epist. ad Marcell●…: quaest. 11. ad Algasiam: in praef. de spirit. sanct. ad Paulin. proved by the testimonies of very good Authors. Jerome saith, Romanam urbem in Apocalypsi joannis & Epistola Petri Babylonem specialiter appellar●…, that the city of Rome is called Babylon specially, in the Revelation of john, and epistle of Peter. Augustine calleth Rome the second Babylon, and Babylon of the West. To these we may add Tertullian, Primasius, Victorinus (who saith, the seven heads are the seven hills on De civit. Dei. lib. 18. cap. 22. & 27. which the woman, that is, the city of Rome doth sit) Prosper, and many others, Sibylla also oftentimes expressly calleth Rome Babylon. Lib. advers. Indaeos 3. 6. Thirdly, by the confession of our adversaries themselves. De promise. & praedict. For first to prove that Peter was at Rome, they say, that by Babylon mentioned, 1. Pet. 5. 13. is meant Rome: although there can no sufficient reason be given, why the Apostle if he had meant Rome, should not rather have used the name of Rome, then of Babylon. Secondly, the Rhemists convicted with clearness of truth writing on the last verse of the 17. of the In Apoc. 17. 18. Apocalypse confess, that if by Babylon is meant any one city (which before we have proved) it is most like to be old Rome. And on the 5. verse they do confess, that as the persecuting Emperors, which (as they say) were figures of Antichrist, did principally sit in Rome; so it may well be, that the great Antichrist shall have his seat there. And again on the 18. verse they allege a reason For (say they) by the authority of the old Roman Empire, Christ was put to death first: applying the prophecy of the 11. Chapt. verse 8. to Rome: thereby at unawares confessing that Rome is that great city, which as in the 17. of the Apocalypse is called Babylon mystically, so in that place is termed spiritually Sodom and Egypt, where our Lord was also crucified. Thirdly, the author of the Wardword, not knowing how to deny this so evident truth, is content thus far to agree with us, that Rome is Babylon. For not only S. john (saith he) in the Apocalypse, but Peter also in his Epistle doth call Rome Babylon, and we do not deny it. Bellarmine also confesseth so much, Per meretricem intelligi Romain, that Lib. 3. de pont. R. c. 13. by the whore of Babylon is to be understood Rome, and proveth the same by the testimony of Tertullian and Hierome. Therefore seeing mystical Babylon is the chief city and See of Antichrist, as our adversaries cannot deny with any show of reason: and seeing Rome is mystical Babylon, as hath been proved not only by reason & testimonies, but also by the confession of our adversaries: the conclusion must necessarily be inferred, that Rome therefore is the seat of Antichrist. 7 What then what can the Papist answer to this syllogism? Mystical Babylon is the seat of Antichrist, Rome is mystical Babylon, Therefore Rome is the seat of Antichrist. It may well be, ●…y the Rhemists, that the great Antichrist shall have his seat there. And we do not deny saith the author of the Wardword, but that Rome is Babylon. And Bellarmine doth not only say it, but prove it. How then? Forsooth we must distinguish of Rome. For Rome is either Heathenish or Christened. Heathenish Rome under the persecuting Emperors was Babylon: But Rome Christened is the Apostolic See, and as it were the jerusalem of the Christians. But this cuasion of theirs, howsoever they please themselves in it, is frivolous and absurd, as shall appear by these reasons. For 1. first, if Rome be Babylon, as now at the length they confess, and consequently the seat of Antichrist, as they cannot deny with any show of reason: I would feign know of them, whether under the heathenish Emperors Rome could be called the seat of Antichrist, because Antichrist did then sit in Rome, or because he was to sit there after the Heathenish Emperors were removed. If they say, because he sat there then, their answer is ridiculous, and contrary to all that themselves hold concerning Antichrist. Therefore they must needs confess, that Rome is called Babylon and the seat of Antichrist; not because Antichrist sat there whiles it was heathenish, but because he was to sit there after the Emperors were removed. 8 And that the holy ghost by Babylon doth not mean Heathenish Rome under the persecuting Emperors, either only or principally, but Rome christened under the Pope, it may further appear out of the whole discourse of Saint john in the seventeenth and eighteenth of the Apocalypse. The whore of Babylon is the great city, which in the Apostles 2. time, and since under the Popes, reigned over the kings of the earth; called a whore, and the mother of fornications: not only because herself hath by spiritual fornications played the strumpet, according to that which is said of jerusalem: Fidelis civit as fact a est meretrix, The faithful city is become an Esay. 1. harlot: but also infected all kings and nations, subject unto her, with her superstition & idolatry. But Rome heathenish, which neither dealt by whorish sleights and allurements, but by martial policy and power, neither had professed herself to be the Church and spouse of Christ, could not so fitly be called an harlot, whereby is signified an adulterous and apostatical state. And beside, Heathenish Rome for the most part permitted to every country their own religion: and was so far from enforcing her religion upon other nations subject unto her, that as in her was erected the Pantheon in honour of all the Gods (which Boniface the fourth having obtained of Phocas Marcellin. lib. 16. Rosin. lib. 2. c. 9 consecrated to the virgin Mary and all the Saints) so she admitted the idols, religions, and superstitions almost of all other countries, excepting the religions of the Egyptians and the jews, because they did not forsooth beseem the majesty of the Empire. But Popish Rome, of Bethel is become Bethaven, and of a faithful city an harlot, exceeding all others in whorish enticements, cousinages, impudencies, cruelties, and all filthiness: insomuch that we may truly say with Mantuan, Roma est iam tota lupanar, Rome wholly is become a stews: and with Petrarch, that she is scelerum aetque dedecorum omnium sentina, The sink and sewer of all villantes and shameful practices: and hath not only played the harlot herself, but is become the mother of all fornications, that is, idolatry and superstitions, and the fountain of all other abominations in the christian world. With which the cup of her fornications inebriateth (which more argueth the sottishness of the Romish religion) all kings and people that consent unto her, and with fire & sword, obtrudeth her superstitions and Idolatrous religion, unto all nations that they can make subject to that See. 9 Again, if john had spoken of old Rome, which then openly persecuted the saints, than had he not spoken of a mystery 3. (as he doth) neither would he so greatly have wondered to Apoc. 17. 5. 7. see the whore of Babylon's either idolatry or cruelty, against the Saints (as he doth vers. 6.) if by the whore were meant old Rome, whose Idolatry and cruelty to john was not strange. And further that the holy ghost by Babylon meaneth Popish 4. Rome, it may be proved out of the rest of the 17. chapter beginning at the 8. verse: where the Angel declareth unto john the mystery of the beast, whereon the woman sitteth, which hath the 7. heads and ten horns. For although this beast, as appeareth by conference with the thirteenth chapter, may signify in general the Roman state as it is opposed to Christ, Apoc. 13. 1. 2. etc. which in respect of the regiment, hath been subject to seven heads of government, in respect of the imperial city is seated on seven hills, and in respect of the Empire was divided in the Apostles time, into ten provinces or kingdoms, as Strabo and others testify: yet, here the Angel speaketh especially of the Roman state and Empire renewed, and as it were re●…ed by the Pope. To the which, as also to the Papacy (which is the second beast in the 13. of the Apocalypse) though they be either of them but several heads of the beast (vers. 10, & 11.) yet the holy ghost giveth the name of the beast. For this beast saith he, on which the woman sitteth, was & is not, and shall arise out of the depth: and again, that it is the beast which was and is not, though it be. And vers. 11. having showed that the 7. heads of this beast signify both the imperial seat standing on 7. hills, & also 7. kings, that is, 7. chief governments: he saith, that this beast which was and is not, is the eight (namely head of government, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for he speaketh in the masculine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and is one of the seven, namely of Emperors. All which cannot be understood of the Roman Empire, as it was heathenish, but as it is Popish. For this head which had been and after was not (for it lay void from the time of Augustulus unto Charlemaigne, the space of 325. years, viz, from the year 475, unto the year 800) was after to arise (for so he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) being revived by the Pope, who was to put Ap. 13. life into the image of the former beast. For this Empire erected by the Pope, although it hath the name of the beast ascribed unto it, yet it is but the image of the former beast, & therefore is not, in truth & imperial authority & dominion, the Empire of Rome, although in title it be. And further it is said, that this beast is the 8. head, & is one of the 7. which cannot be understood of the heathenish Emperors but of the Popish. If therefore this beast whereupon the whore of Babylon sitteth, ruling & guiding the same, as the rider doth the beast on which he sitteth, be not the old Empire but the new, erected by the Pope: then the whore of Babylon is not old Rome under the heathenish Emperors, but Rome christened under the Pope. But the first is true, therefore the last. 10 And siftly the ten homes (saith the Angel) which thou sawest are ten kings, that is, the chief governors of the ten provinces 5. or kingdoms, who before the dissolution of the Empire in Apoc. 17. 12. the west, had not as yet received the kingdom; because they still remained as proconsul's or propraetors, that is deputies & lief tenants under the Emperor. But after the Empire was dissolved in the west, they received power as kings about the same time with the beast. i. Antichrist the Pope (for so antichrist both in the 13. chap. & in the 17. is considered, 1. as a head of the beast, & 2. as a beast by itself.) For albeit neither he could reign in Rome, nor they in the provinces, by sovereign authority, while the Empire stood in the west, and flourished; yet when it was once decayed, (but especially when the Emperor also of the cast had by the Pope's means lost his title in Italy and Rome, and was by him bereaved, as the author of the book called fasciculus temporum saith, of the western Empire) than he seizeth on Rome, and a great part of Italy, and they on the several provinces. And that these ten horns are the heads of ten kingdoms, which together with the beast (meaning Antichrist) shall divide among them the Roman Empire, (for that is signified when it is said that they receive power as kings, that is, sovereign authority, the same hour with the beast) it is the received opinion of the best writers. Yea Bellarmine himself saith, joannes dicit decem reges, qui sibi divident Rom. imperium, odio habituros purpuratam meretricem. i. Romam, Lib. 3. de Pont. R. cap. 13. et eam desolatam facturos, john doth say that the ten kings which shall divide among them the Roman Empire, shall hate the harlot arrayed with purple, that is (saith he) Rome, and shall make her desolate. And therefore the holy ghost in that place speaketh not of Rome as it was under the Heathenish Emperors, nor of the Empire as it was Heathenish, for than it was not dissolved; and long before the dissolution, had Rome ceased to be Heathenish: but of the Empire erected and renewed by the Pope; which although it neither enjoyeth Rome itself the imperial seat, nor yet the provinces which in times past belonged to the Empire, yet hath the name and title thereof. And consequently, he speaketh of Rome as she should be, not only after the dissolution of the old Empire in the west, but also after the erection of the new, that is to say of Rome Popish. 11 Of these ten horns it is further said, that they have all 6. one mind, being all of the same Popish religion, all of them Apoc. 17. 13. with one consent wholly devoted to the Pope, and sworn unto him. To whom for a time they give over themselves, and their whole power to help and support the beast, thinking themselves bound (as he hath persuaded them) to exercise their temporal sword, that is, their civil power, for the De maiorit. c. unam sanctam. church, meaning himself, and at his beck and commandment. And being joined to him & united one with another by holy leagues (as they call them) make holy wars, forsooth, against Apoc. 17. 13. 14. Christ the lamb in his true members. But when as Christ shall begin to consume Antichrist with the preaching of his word, (as he is sure to overcome because he is the Lord of Lords) than these ten horns which before had joined with Antichrist, and had committed spiritual fornication with the whore, shall begin to hate the whore and to leave her desolate and naked. Which cannot be understood of old Rome, but of Apoc. 17. 2. that which now is, whereof this Prophecy already is in part fulfilled. For since the revelation of Antichrist in these latter times, the Pope hath lost, as Bellarmine complaineth, magnam Germaniae partem, Suetiam, Gothiam, Noruegiam, Danian universam, bonam Lib. 3. de pont. R. cap. 21. Angliae, Galliae, Heluetiae, Poloniae, Boemiae ac Pamnoniae partem, that is, a great part of Germany, all Suevia, Gothland, Norway, Denmark, a good part of England, (but he might as well have said all England, and thereunto added, Scotland and Ireland) a good part of France, Helvetia, Polonia, Boemia, & Pannonie. So that diverse of these 10. King's have already forsaken the whore of Babylon, and have bereaved her of a great part of her maintenance, and left her, as much as in them lieth, naked, & the rest in God's good time will accomplish his will. 12. Seventhly, It is apparent that john his treatise of Rome, 7. extendeth until the destruction thereof. If therefore by Babylon Apo. 17. & 18. is meant only heathenish Rome under the persecuting Emperors; then the destruction which the holy Ghost denounceth against the whore of Babylon, did befall Rome, whiles it was heathenish. But it is absurd to say that this destruction befell heathenish Rome. For first this destruction is an utter & final destruction. Apocal. 18. 21. 22. 23. And before this destruction the Empire was to be divided into ten kingdoms, which first should join with Antichrist, and afterward oppugn him. Which is utterly false of Rome heathenish, but yet is begun to be fulfilled of Rome Popish, and will in due time be accomplished. And again it is most plain that john 8. entreateth of the state and condition of Rome, as it shallbe in the time of Antichrist. But Antichrist, as the Papists themselves confess, was not to come whiles Rome was heathenish, but after the dissolution of the Roman Empire. And lastly, Hierome and other of the fathers, in whose times Rome was not Heathenish, do notwithstanding call it Babylon. Not that 9 then it was, or had been before, but because it should be according to the Prophecies of the holy Ghost, the seat of Antichrist, whose coming he and other of the fathers supposed not to be far of: and therefore Hierome in his Epistle to Marcelia, useth this argument as the principal to persuade her to come from Rome (which then was not Heathenish) because it is Babylon. 13. These arguments might suffice to prove that not Rome Heathenish under the Emperors, but Rome Christened under the Popes, is mystical Babylon the chief city and See of Antichrist. But yet for better evidence of this truth, and for the clearer manifestation of Antichrist, I will further prove unto you, that Rome Christened and professing herself to be the Church of Christ, is the seat of Antichrist. For if Antichrist shall sit at all in Rome, then shall he sit in Rome Christened professing herself to be the Church of Christ. But he shall sit in Rome (as hath been proved in part and shall further be cleared) therefore in Rome christened, and professing herself to be the Church of God. The proposition is built upon this foundation, that Antichrist shall sit in the Church of God, and therefore if Antichrist shall sit at Rome, he shall sit in Rome professing herself the Church of God. Now then that Antichrist shall sit in the Church of God, I prove by the testimony of Saint Paul, affirming 2. Thessal. 2. 4. that Antichrist shall sit in the temple 2. Thess. 2. 4. of God. But because the Papists labour by might and main to extort this place from us, as serving rather to prove their conceit, that Antichrist shall sit in the temple of God at jerusalem: I will therefore deliver the place from their corruptions, and also make good our interpretation. For first, the temple at jerusalem, and city itself, as it was a type of the church of Christ: so when the church of Christ was once planted by the preaching of the gospel throughout the world, it was utterly and finally to be abolished, according to the Prophecy of our Saviour Christ, Mat. 24. 14. And then shallbe the end, namely of the temple and city of jerusalem. For after the temple was once utterly destroyed by Titus Vespasian, as Christ Mat. 24. 2. had foreshowed, it is never to be re-edified. For as Daniel saith, according to the vulgar translation, which with the Papists is the only authentic Text of Scripture, Chap. 9 27. Et erit Dan. 9 27. in templo abominatio desolationis, & usque ad consummationem & finem perseverabit desolatio, And there shallbe in the temple the abomination of desolation, and unto the consummation and end, the desolation shall continue: or as Hierome speaketh In Dan. 9 more plainly, Vsque ad consummationem & finem mundi perseverabit desolatio: The desolation shall continued unto the consummation and end of the world. Our Saviour Christ also Luo. 21. 22. 24. foretold, that jerusalem being destroyed by the Luc. 21. 22. 24. Romans, should be trodden under foot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, that is until the second coming of Christ, which in the next words is described. Wherefore when as julian the Apostata endeavoured by the jews to re-edify the temple that he might convince the preaching of Christ of falsehood, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 3. cap. 20. Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 20. Sozom. lib. 5. cap. vlt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Theodoret speaketh) which he could not do, unless Christ had taught that it should not be re-edified. Our Saviour Christ by fire first from heaven, and after out of the earth, and by a fearful earthquake hindered this enterprise, thereby approving his godhead, and showing that he was not pleased, as Sozomen saith, with the renewing of the temple. It seemeth also to have been the judgement of cyril with many others in the primitive church, that the temple should never be re-edified: and Hierome saith, that the opinion which is Ad Marcell. for the restoring of the temple, is a jewish fable. Whereas therefore the Papists teach, that Antichrist shall cause this temple to be built, and that he shall have his seat there, which they know shall never be: what do they else but make a mockery of all the prophecies of the holy Ghost concerning the coming of Antichrist, and with julian go about to give the lie to Daniel and our Saviour Christ. 14. Again, if th'apostle had by temple meant such a temple as should be built by Antichrist, he would not have called it the Temple of God, but rather of the Devil. Non enim templum alicuius idoli (saith Augustine) aut daemonis, De civit. Dei lib. 10. c. 19 templum Dei Apostolus diceret. For the temple of some idol or Devil, the Apostle would not call the temple of God. Neither are we by the temple of God to understand a material building, for such (as Bellarmine truly saith) are not called the temple of God in the new Testament. And therefore the more gross is he to understand it of a material temple, and of a corporal sitting. For first, material temples in the writings of th'apostles are not called the temples of God: but the congregations of God's people are the temple of God. See 1. Cor. 3. 16. 17. 2. Cor. 6. 16. Ephes. 2. 21. Apoc. 3. 12. And according to the Scriptures phrase speaketh Lactan●…us, Sol●… Instit. lib. 4. cap. 30. (saith he) catholica Ecclesia est, quae verum cultum retinet, hic est fons veritatis, hoc est domicilium fidei, hoc templum Dei. It is the catholic Church alone which retaineth the true worship: this is the wellspring of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God. The temple of God therefore signifieth the congregation or company of them which profess the name of Christ. In this temple Antichrist sitteth, that is, ruleth and reigneth. For we are not to understand it of the corporal gesture, as appeareth by that which followeth, he shall sit in the temple of God as God, that is, he shall rule and reign as if he were a God: for that is meant by Gods sitting, who doth not sit after a corporal manner. In the temple Psalm. 9 5. of God therefore, which is his Church, Antichrist sitteth, that is ruleth and governeth, challenging a sovereign and universal dominion over all those that profess the name of Christ, as being the head, husband and Lord of the universal church: which agreeth most fitly and properly to the Popes of Rome. Neither are we to omit the phrase of sitting. For whereas princes are said to reign so many years, the Popes are said to sit, and the chief place of his dominion is called his Sedes, that is Sec or seat. 15 And this our interpretation is confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient. The temple of God (saith Theodoret) he calleth the churches, wherein Antichrist shall challenge to himself in 2. Thess. 2. the first seat, endeavouring to show himself to be God. And again, Dei autem templum vocat ecclesias, The temple of God Epitome. he calleth the churches. Hierome, & in templo Dei (saith he) vel Hierosolymis ut quidam putant, vel in ecclesia ut veriùs arbitramur: Ad Algasiam quaest. 11. And he shall sit in the temple of God, either at jerusalem as some think, or in the church, as we more truly suppose. chrysostom, in 2. Thess. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where it seemeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put corruptly for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for so the greek scholiast, who usually reporteth word for word, out of chrysostom saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see Oecumen. in 2. Thess. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In the temple,) He saith not in the temple at jerusalem, but in the churches of God. And likewise Theophylact, not in the temple which is at jerusalem in 2. Thess. 2. specially, but simply in the churches and in every temple of God. Augustine of these words saith, But in what temple of God he shall sit as God, it is uncertain; whether in that ruin of De civit. Dei lib. 20. c. 19 the temple which king Solomon built, or else in the church. For the Apostle would not call the temple of an idol or devil, the temple of God. Whereupon some (to whose judgement not only Augustine in this place, but Primasius also subscribeth) some I say by Antichrist in this place will have understood not the prince Bellarmine citeth it, as Augustine's own judgement. cap. 13. himself, but his whole body after a sort, that is the multitude of men pertaining unto him together with the prince himself. And they think it might better be read in the latin as it is in the greek, non in templo Dei, sed in templum dei sedeat, tanquam ipse sit templum Dei quod est ecclesia. Sicut dicimus sedet in amicum. i. velut i amicus, etc. He sitteth not in the temple of God, but as the temple of God, as if he were the temple of God which is the church, even as we say sedet in amicum, that is, he sitteth as a friend. Which exposition most fitly agreeth to the Pope, and church of Rome who esteem themselves alone to be the catholic church, and all others professing the name of Christ, to be heretics and schismatics. By this which hath been said, it is plain that by the temple we are to understand the church of God. And yet this doth no more prove the church of Rome to be the true church of God, than they can prove the temple of Antichrist at jerusalem, where they say he should sit, to be Of this see more in the 2. book, & 13. chap. §. 4. 5. & 6. the temple of God. It is sufficient that the church where Antichrist sitteth, hath been the true church, and still is in title and profession; although in truth it be but an Apostatical church. Eor Antichrist, as he was to sit in the church, so he was to be the head of the Apostasy, and of those that fall from god: who notwithstanding (according to that exposition in Augustine) shall sit in templum Dei as though they alone were the true church of God. 16 But the Papists confirm their exposition, viz, that the temple of God signifieth the temple at jerusalem, out of the Apoc. 11. 8. eleventh of the Apocalypse & eight verse. Where john showeth (say they) That the bodies of Enoch and Elias being slain by Antichrist, shall lie in the streets of jerusalem. Whereunto I answer, that john in that place neither speaketh of Enoch and Elias, not yet of jerusalem. And whether he speak of the persecution of Antichrist, there may be some doubt; because he seemeth verse. 2. and 7. to speak of the same persecution of the holy city that is the church, under the heathen; & namely the persecuting Emperors, for 42. months, which is mentioned Apocalypse 13. 5. But supposing it to be understood of Antichrist his persecution, let us consider the force of their argument. Where the two witnesses of God are slain by Antichrist, there is (say they) the seat of Antichrist: At jerusalem the two witnesses of God shall be slain, therefore at jerusalem shall be the seat of Antichrist. The proposition they take for granted, the which notwithstanding is not generally true. For the two witnesses of God may be slain in that place by the authority and commandment of Antichrist, where his proper seat is not. For as our Saviour Christ was put to death, by the authority of the Roman Empire, at jerusalem, where notwithstanding was not the imperial seat of the Emperor: So the witnesses of our Saviour Christ might be slain by the authority and commandment of the Antichrist of Rome, either at jerusalem or else where, where notwithstanding is not the proper seat of Antichrist, This alone is sufficient to overthrow their whole argument. For if their proposition be not generally true, than their whole argumentation from a particular proposition is mere sophistry. 17 Notwithstanding, their assumption is also to be denied, because the holy ghost speaketh not of jerusalem (as Hierome proveth) but of Rome, or rather of the Empire of Rome. Yea but (say they) Christ also was crucified where the two witnesses should be slain: at jerusalem Christ was crucified, and not at Rome, therefore at jerusalem the two witnesses should be slain. I answer to the assumption: Christ was crucified at jerusalem, and in the great city also, that is to say, within the Roman Empire, wherein and by authority where of our Saviour Christ was put to death. In which sense the Rhemists seem to apply this prophecy to Rome. If by the great city (say they) is meant any one city, it is most like to be old Rome, For by in Apoc. 17. 18. the authority of the old Roman Empire Christ was put to death first. Whereunto I might add, that even in Rome itself Christ hath been crucified in his members: and that within jerusalem Christ was not crucified Heb. 13. 12. Now that jerusalem is not here meant, but Rome, or rather, the Roman Empire, I prove; first, because it is called the great city. By which title throughout the Apocalypse is meant Babylon or Rome, as appeareth by conference of these places. Apoc. 14 8. and 16. 19 & 18. 10. 16. 18. 19 21. but especially Apoc. 17. 18. where the woman, that is, the whore of Babylon is said to be the great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth: And of this great city▪ i. Empire of Rome (which as it is called Sodom, which is the name of a city, so also Egypt, which is the name of a kingdom) the streets may fitly signify the cities or towns of the several provinces. Once only is this title given to jerusalem, & then not to the earthly jerusalem, but to the heavenly. Ap. 21. 10. And so Augustine expoundeth this place, In pla Homil. 8. ●…n. Apoc. te is civit at is magnae. i. in medio ecclesiae, in the streets of the great city, that is, in the midst of the church. Saving that by the name church; he must needs understand an adulterous & apostatical church (which elsewhere is called the whore of Babylon), because as it followeth in the text, it is called spiritually Sodom or E- For even as in the midst of the church even at jerusalem christ was crucified, so also the two witnesses of Christ were to be slain in the midst of the church, & even in that city which professeth herself to be as it were the jerusalem of Christendom. Secondly, the great city whereof he speaketh, is called spiritually Sodom or Egypt. Sodom, for her pride and uncleanness, Egypt for her idolatry and cruelty towards the Israel of God. Which titles most fitly agree to Rome: which is not inferior either to Sodom in pride and uncleanness, or to Egypt in gross idolatry, and savage cruelty towards the Mat 4. 5. Mat. 27. 53. church of God. But they are not in this place ascribed to Jerusalem, which in the Apocalypse and elsewhere in the new testament, is called the holy city, even then when it had crucified our Saviour Christ. And not to seek further, even in that eleventh chapter of the Apocalypse vers. 2. neither is the city of jerusalem in the Apocalypse any where spoken of in the ill Hicrome ad Marcell. part. This is also Hieroms argument in his Epistle to Marcelia. None of the holy scripture (saith he) can be contrary to itself, and much less the same place of scripture. For about ten verses before, jerusalem is called the holy city. Now if it be called the holy city even after the passion of our Lord, how is it again call●…d Cap. 13. spiritually Sodom and Egypt? But Bellarmine answereth, that Hierome did not write this in good sooth: by which answer it were easy to elude any testimony: as though Hierome made no conscience to write untruths, especially in so weighty a Irenaus. matter, although in the name of others. Thirdly, before the time of this revelation which was in the latter end of Domitian's reign, the temple and city of jerusalem were utterly destroyed, and never so to be re-edified as to become the seat of Antichrist, therefore this place cannot be understood of jerusalem. Wherefore these objections notwithstanding, our assertion remaineth fi●…e and steadfast, that Antichrist was to sit in Rome christened, and professing herself the church of God. Even as the Bishops of Germany in Aventinus applying both this prophecy of Paul, and that of john Apocalypse 17, to the Lib. 5. hist. Boe. Antichrist of Rome, In Babylonia say they, in temple Dei sedet: he sitteth in Babylon in the temple of God. 18. Now let us further consider what other evasions they use to avoid this truth. First they say, that Babylon did not signify any one city, but the whole society of the wicked. Secondly, if it signified any one city, that then it was old Rome. Now thirdly, if the whore of Babylon do signify Rome christened, that yet notwithstanding it is not (as Bellarmine De Pont. Rom. lib. 3. c. 13. is not ashamed to say) the seat of Antichrist. But if Rome christened or Church of Rome be the whore of Babylon (as we have proved though our adversaries should not confess it) then is it so called because she is an adulterous and apostatical church, which hath fallen from Christ to Antichrist, whom in steed of Christ she acknowledgeth to be her husband and head: then is she the mother both of all fornications, Apoc. 17. 5. that is of all superstitious and idolatrous worship, and also of all abominations, as Atheism, Machiauellisme, Sodomy and Antichristian heresies, with whom the Kings and inhabitants Apoc. 17. 2. 4. of the earth have committed fornication, being made drunk and intoxicated with the golden cup of her fornications, that is, of her glorious idolatries and Antichristian heresies: who as she is clothed with Scarlet, so is she died red, and Apoc 17. 4. 6. drunk with the blood of the Saints, and with the blood of the Martyrs of jesus: as being that city and church wherein the two witnesses of Christ are put to death. Apoc. 11. And can she then be the whore of Babylon, and not the Antichristian city and state? especially considering these two things which the Papists themselves are forced to confess, first, that the state of Rome is here figured as it shallbe in the time of Antichrist: secondly, that Antichrist shallbe one of the seven heads, & namely the last head of the Roman beast, and consequently shall have Rome for his principal seat. Let us see then whether the jesuit be able to bring so much as a show of reason against this truth. For it may be you expect his proof. Antichrist, saith he, Lib. 3. de pont. Rom. cap. 13. making his collection out of Apoc. 17. 16. shall hate Rome, and shall fight with her, and shall make her desolate, and burn her. Whereupon it followeth manifestly, that Rome shall not be the seat of Antichrist. But it should seem the jesuit was in a dream when he framed this argument. For it is evident that not Antichrist, but the ten horns, that is the ten Kings, shall hate the whore, that is, the Antichristian city & precedent thereof: & accordingly Tertullian, Prostituta illa civitas, à decemregib. dignos exitus referet, That city which hath prostituted herself to De resurrect. carn. c. 25. play the harlot, shall from the ten Kings receive her deserved end. And so in another place himself being better awaked reasosoneth from that place. The ten kings (saith he) which shall divide among them the Roman Empire, and in whose time Antichrist shall come, shall hate the purple harlot that is Rome and make her desolate, how then shall she be the seat of Antichrist? Whereunto I answer, that the very contrary is to be inferred upon that place: where it is said that the 10. horns, that is the 10. kings, which shall divide among them the Roman Empire, shall in deed for a time join with Antichrist, and give their power unto him. But when as Christ shall begin to waste and to weaken him with the spirit of his mouth, that then these 10. King's shall oppose themselves against the Antichristian city and the head thereof. Which, event and experience in part hath proved to be true in some of these 10. Kings, as hath before been showed. From that place therefore we §. 11. may reason thus; The purple harlot which the 10. King's shall assault is the city of Antichrist. Rome is that purple harlot, as the adversary himself confesseth, therefore Rome is the city of Antichrist. 19 Their last refuge is this: that Rome Christian, where the Pope sitteth, doth not stand upon 7. hills, but is removed from the seven hills into the plain of Campus Martius: and that the Pope sitteth on the other side of the river upon the mount Vatican. Saunders therefore thought it to be but a childish argument to prove from the 7. hills that the seat of Antichrist is at Rome. But we would know of him whether it be the same Rome where they say Peter sat or not. If it be the same, than it standeth on seven hills, if it be not the same, how is it then the Apostolic seat and chair of Peter? True in deed it is, that in the time of the Emperors the Pomarium of the city was enlarged, so that it enclosed a good part of Campus Martius: and that since some more ancient parts of the city being decayed, the greatest part of private buildings stand in the plain. Yet notwithstanding even to this day, the seven hills are enclosed within the walls of the city, and upon them there do yet remain, besides some of the Pope's palaces and courts, divers churches and houses of religion and other buildings of note: as that learned divine of blessed memory D. Fulke particularly showeth In Apoc. 17. 9 in his answer to the Rhemists. Neither doth the enlarging of the city in one part, and the decaying of it in another, prove it not to be the same city. And although the Pope doth live in the Vatican, or in any other palace of his wheresoever: yet who knoweth not, that Rome is the Papal or as they call it the Apostolic seat, appointed as they a Rod. Cupers de eccles. pag. 37. num. 1. say by Christ himself. Neither can the Pope as b Cupers dae eccles. p. 226. num. 16. they teach change his seat: or if he should, he should cease to be the successor of Peter. For whosoever is chosen Bishop of the city of Rome, he (say they) is the successor of S. Peter, the vicar of Christ, and Bishop of the world. And as Rome in general is the Pope's seat, or See; Cupers pag. 37. num 4. so more specially the cathedral church of Lateran, whereof more properly the Pope is Bishop, as the husband of one wife. Cupers. pag. 221. n. 31. In which respect they say, that as S. Peter and his successors be the head of the whole church or university of the faithful, so the Lateran church being referred to other material Cupers. pag. 106. num. 11. churches, is the head of all churches of the world. Unto this church was adjoined the chief palace of the Pope, which was inhabited by them until the time of Boniface the 9 as Onuphrius testifieth, that is to say 1400. years almost after De 7. urb. eecls. Christ: howsoever since the time of Leo the 10. who lodged therein, it is within these last hundred years decayed. Now it is well known that the palace and church of Laterane standeth on the mount Coelius in the most remote part of the city, and furthest distant from the Vatican. So that all these shifts and evasions of the Papists notwithstanding, it is evident, that Rome, which we have now proved to be the seat of the Pope, is by the former reasons alleged, the seat of Antichrist. CHAP. 3. Concerning the time of the Revelation of Antichrist. 1. AS from the place we gather the Pope to be Antichrist, because the seat of Antichrist is Rome christened, or professing herself the church of Christ: So the consideration of the time joined with that of the place, doth make this truth much more evident. Rome Christened is the seat of Antichrist: but when doth Antichrist sit, that is, reign there? I answer that he could not exercise Antichristian dominion there, whiles the Emperors had their seat in Rome. But when the Emperors were removed and the Empire in the West dissolved: then did Antichrist succeed them in the seat, that is, in the government of Rome. And this may be proved first, by the testimony of S. Paul. 2. Thess. 2. 8. And then that outlaw, meaning Antichrist, shallbe revealed. And when 2. Thess. 2. 8. is that? When he that hindereth shallbe taken out of the way. And who is that which hindereth the revelation of Antichrist for a time, that he might be revealed in his due time? Who this was, 2. Thess. 2. 6. 7. the Apostle had told the Thessaly. by word of mouth, and therefore forbore for just causes to tell them by writing which they knew already, to wit, that he might not incur the needless 2. Thess. 2. 5. 6. hatred of the Romans. But that which he had told them, in all likelihood, was continued in the church. For although this place in itself be most difficult, yet generally it is understood of the Empire and Emperors of Rome by most of the ancient writers of the Church. Tertullian: who shall be taken out of the way, but the Roman state? whose departure being divided De resurrect. carn. among ten Kings shall bring in Antichrist. Ambrose, After the decay of the Roman Empire, Paul saith that Antichrist In 2. Thess. 2. shall appear. chrysostom on these words, Only he that holdeth that is (as he expoundeth) hindereth now until he In 2. Thess. 2. be taken out of the way: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the Empire of Rome, when it shall be taken out of the way, than he (meaning Antichrist) shall come, and worthily. For whiles men shall be in awe of the Empire, none will hastily be brought in subjection to Antichrist. But when the Empire shall be dissolved he shall seize upon the vacancy, and shall challenge to himself the Empire or rule both human and divine. Hierome speaking of these words, And now what hindereth you know, that he Ad Algas. quaest. 11. might be revealed in his time: that is (saith he) what the cause is why Antichrist cometh not yet, you know very well. Neither could he plainly say that the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, which the Emperors think is aternall. Wherefore according to the Apocalypse of john, there is written in the forehead of the harlot clothed with purple, a name of blasphemy, that is, Romae aeternae, to Rome aternal. And afterwards these words only he which holdeth now must hold until he be taken out of the way, and then that out law shall be revealed, he expoundeth thus, only that the Roman Empire which now holdeth (that is, governeth) all nations, depart and be taken out of the way, and then Antichrist shall come. Cyrill, Antichrist shall come, when the Catech. 15. times of the Roman Empire shall be fulfilled. Primasius, The kingdom of the Romans shall be taken out of the way, before in 2. Thess. 2. Antichrist be revealed: Theophylact, when the Roman Empire shall be taken out of the way, then shall Antichrist come. The in 2. Thess. 2. greek scholiast on those words, that which holdeth etc. he in 2. Thess. 2. 6. meaneth saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which letteth and hindereth. And what is that? Many understand the holy ghost, others the Roman Empire, whose judgement is the better? For until that be dissolved, Antichrist shall not come. And for this cause blessed Paul spoke so obscurely, because he would not incur unseasonable enmity with the Romans. For when they should hear that the Empire of the Romans shall be dissolved, they would persecute him and all the faithful, as being such as looked for the dissolution of the Empire. But if he had spoken of the holy ghost, what letted him to have said plainly, that the grace of the holy ghost did hinder him that he should not appear? To which we may add, that in the sixth verse the Apostle speaketh in the neuter gender, and in the seventh in the masculine: the former whereof may signify the Empire, the latter the Emperor, of whom the holy ghost speaketh, as of one man (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as he useth to speak sometimes of Antichrist and we of the Pope; although both by the one and the other is signified not one man, but a state or succession. Augustine in deed saith of De civit. Dei. lib. 20. c. 19 these words, but he that hindereth shall hinder. I do confess that I am utterly ignorant what he saith. Some think that this is spoken of the Roman Empire, and that Paul the Apostle would not therefore write it plainly, lest he should incur this slander that he was an ill willer to the Roman Empire; which men hoped to be aternall. Notwithstanding this seemeth to have been his judgement also, for afterwards he thinketh those words may thus be expounded of the Empire of Rome, tan●…ū qui modò imperat, imperet etc. only he which reigneth must reign (for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also may signify, & to the same purpose Primasius expoundeth those words, tantum ut qui tenet nunc, sc. imperium, only he which holdeth now, to wit the Empire) until he be done, that is taken, out of the way; and then that outlaw shall be revealed, whom no man doubteth to signify Antichrist. 2 But what need I to be so diligent in gathering testimonies for the confirmation of this truth, seeing it is not only confirmed by the former assertion (for how could Antichrist reign in Rome while the Roman Emperors remained or reigned there) but also is confessed by Bellarmine himself, namely that by this let, is to be understood the Empire of Rome. Rather let us consider when there the Empire that hindered, be taken out of the way, or not. Beliarmine understandeth this taking away, of an utter abolishing Cap. 5. of the Roman Empire, so that there should not remain so much as the name of the Emperor or King of the Romans. Fron whence he would prove that Antichrist is not yet come, because the Roman Empire is not yet abolished. We confess that the Roman Empire which hindered the revelation of Antichrist was to be dissolved, and also divided among ten, that is many kings (for so this number of ten is often used indefinitely): Num. 14. 22. job. 19 3. Nehem. 4. 12. which is all that can be gathered either out of the scriptures or fathers. But that there should be such an utter abolishment of the Roman Empire, as that there should not remain so much as the name or title of the Emperor or King of the Romans, we do utterly deny. It is sufficient that the Emperor was so far See a. book. chap. 5. forth taken out of the way as it hindered the Revelation or dominion of Antichrist, And so much the phrase of the Apostle seemeth to import, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 until he be done out of the way, (or as the Rhemists themselves do read, until he be taken out of the way) as may appear by conference of like places. Let us then consider, in what sense the Roman Empire did Mat. 13. 49. Act. 17. 53. & 23. 10. hinder, and was to be taken away, and in what sense it hindered not, and was to remain: For the better understanding whereof we are to distinguish betwixt the old Empire and 1. Cor. 5. 2. 2, Co●…. 6. 17. the new. The old Empire, as it hindered the dominion of Antichrist, was to be taken out of the way, that it might be no more an hindrance thereunto. The new Empire in the west erected by the Pope hindereth not the dominion of Antichrist, but rather supporteth him, and therefore together with Antichrist was to remain. Neither doth the Apostle speak of the new Empire, but of the old, as shall appear by these reasons; 3 First the Apostle speaketh of the Empire which hindered 1. or held then, & of that only: for so he saith, only he which now letteth will let until he be taken out of the way. And Hierome expoundeth those words, and now what hindereth, you know, after Ad Algas. quaest. 11. this manner, quae causa sit ut Antichrist us in praesentiarum non veniat optimè nostis, You know very well what the cause is that Antichrist cometh not now: But the old Empire hindered them and not the new. And therefore the Apostle speaketh of the taking away of the old Empire & not of the new, Again when he saith 2. the Empire hindered, he meaneth the imperial authority & dominion, & that at Rome, not the title or name thereof in Germany. For it is not the name or title of an Emperor in Germany, that can hinder the dominion of Antichrist at Rome, & much less at jerusalem, where the Papists say his seat shall be. Thirdly, 3. Antichrist appeared & showed himself (and in that sense was revealed) before the erection of the new Empire. For the new Empire is the image of the former beast: which Antichrist the 2. beast Ap. 13. causeth to be made. And whereas Antichrist is (as the Papists also confess) the 7. head of the beast which hath heads, the Empire renewed (which is the beast that was and is not though it be) is the 8. in order, though in name it is one of the 7. and in that sense is to be referred to the sixth head, namely the Emperors. Fourthly the whore of Babylon, that 4. is the Antichristian state, was to sit upon the beast which afterwards was to ascend, that is, the Empire renewed. Therefore with Antichrist there was to remain an imperial state, though much abased under him. Fiftly, the Empire renewed is the 5. beast whereon the whore of Babylon sitteth. And therefore is joan de turrecrem. lib. 2. c. 114. so far from hindering Antichrist, that it supporteth him, as the beast doth the rider. And to that end in deed was this Empire erected in the west, that it might support the church of Rome. For when as the church of Rome was oppressed by the king Adrian. 4. in epistol. ad archiep. German. apud Auenlin. lib. 4. of the Lombard's, it sought aid of the Emperors of Constantinople; and when they would not defend the church, the Pope translated the Empire to the French king: and from him upon the same occasion to the Germans, and that to this end, ut Dist. 96. c. si imperator, in glossa. Rex Teutonicorum foret imperator & patronus sedis Apostolicae, that the king of the Almains might be Emperor, and patron of the See Apostolic. And for the same cause the Emperor 6. is called of them procurator sive defensor Romanae Ecclesiae, the proctor or defender of the church of Rome. Sixtly, the Papists themselves do hold that the Empire which now is, shall continue unto the end of the world. For they say that in the second of Daniel (as many others also have said) is described a succession of the chief kingdoms or Monarchies of the earth, which should continue until the end of the world: the last whereof is the Roman Empire, Seventhly, the destruction of the Roman Empire (which the father's say shall go before the revelation of Antichrist), is the dissolution and division thereof among ten kings, which in deed long since happened to the old Empire, but cannot happen to the new: unless we can imagine that ten mighty kings shall arise out of the bare name and title of an Emperor divided among them. When as the Papists therefore teach us not to expect Antichrist until the Empire that now is either be divided into ten kingdoms, they are ridiculous; or utterly abolished which they say shall continue to the end, they are absurd, and in both impious, making (as it may seem) a scorn of the prophecies concerning Antichrist, which they make to imply impossibilities and contradictions. 4. By this which hath been said it plainly appeareth, that howsoever the old Empire in the west, which hindered the dominion of Antichrist, was to be taken out of the way before Antichrist should be revealed; yet notwithstanding even with, & under Antichrist there was to be an imperial state in name & title, which is the beast whereon the whore of Babylon sitteth, & therefore is so far from hindering Antichrist, as that it supporteth him. Let us then consider how the Empire which hindered the revelation of Antichrist was taken out of the way, & how afterwards Antichrist was revealed. Of the taking away of the Emperor, as also of the revelation of Antichrist there are two degrees. The Roman Emperor was first taken out of the way, when the imperia●… seat was by Constantine the great translated from Rome to Byzantium or Constantinople, and that to this end, as they have set down in the forged donation of Constantine, that he might leave room to the Pope. Because forsooth where the princehood of priests, and head of Christian religion Dist. 69. c. Constantinus, & de electione c. fundament. in sexto. was by the heavenly Emperor placed, there it is not just that the earthly Emperor should have power. Secondly, after the death of Constantine the great, and of Flavius Valerius Constantinus his son, the Roman Empire being divided into 2. parts the Eastern & the Western, and by division being weakened, the Western was overthrown in the year of our Lord 475. & Rome itself taken by the Goths. So that neither in Rome any Roman afterwards had his seat of authority, until the Pope took upon him the sovereignty: neither in the West was there any Roman Emperor until Charles the great, that is to say, from the year 475. unto the end of the year 800. In the mean time Italy was governed first by the Goths, and afterwards a great part thereof by the Lombard's. And howsoever the Emperors of the East had recovered Rome, and some part of Italy, which because they governed by exarchs having their seat in Ravenna, was called the exarchat of Ravenna, the Lombard's, enjoying the rest: yet before the renewing of the Empire in the West, the Emperor of the East had lost all Italy and Rome, and that by the Pope's means. For when as Leo the third called Isaurus, Emperor of Greece, had held a council at Constantinople of 330. Bishops, wherein was decreed that all images within the Empire should be destroyed & burnt: and afterwards put the same decree in execution: the Popes of Rome first Gregory the 2. and after Gregory the 3. excommunicate him, forbidtributes to be paid him out of Italy and Rome, absolve his subjects from their allegiance unto him, and having stirred up not only the Italians, but Lombard's also against him, the exarch of Ravenna is slain, and the Emperor deprived of all his dominion & revenues in Italy and Rome. So that howsoever the Empire in the East stood all this while: yet according to the prophecy of th'apostle, he which hindered the revelation of Antichrist, that is to say, the Emperor of Rome, was taken out of the way; First, by removing to Constantinople from Rome, where Antichrist could not usurp that dominion and sovereignty whiles the Emperor had his seat there, which afterwards he did. Secondly, because the Empire of the west, which properly was the Empire of Rome, was dissolved, & the Emperor of the East lost his title & interest in Italy and Rome. 5. Of the revelation of Antichrist there be also two degrees. The first, of his reigning and showing himself in his colours: the second, of his acknowledgement. Of his reigning there be 2. degrees also. The first, when he challenged supreme authority over the universal church of Christ. Which he did when he usurped the title of universal or ecumenical Bishop or head of the universal Church: which was done as we said about the year 607. About which time besides other prodigious sights Anno. 607. there appeared a terrible comet, & then we hold that Antichrist (to wit, the head of the Antichristian body) was borne. True it is that the seeds of Antichristianisme were sown before his time: & even from th'apostles time the mystery of iniquity, that is, Antichristianisme, was working although more covertly, & preparation was made towards the birth of the great Antichrist, partly by heresies & some declinations in the church of Rome in religion from the purity of the primitive church, partly by the ambition of divers of the Bishops of Rome, who advancing themselves as Socrates saith, beyond the limit of priesthood into foreign dominion, contended to have the primacy above Lib. 7. c. 11. all other churches (and that is the chief scope of many of their Epistles decretal) and to the same end forged a Canon of the council of Nice, when their ambition was kerbed by other general counsels. And lastly by the indulgence of devout Emperors and Princes, who have by great devotions and privileges advanced that church. Notwithstanding we hold that Antichrist was not revealed, until he showed himself by usurping an universal dominion over the church of God. 6. But notwithstanding this great title & authority, Antichrist was yet but in his nonage, and under the government not only of the Emperor, but also, for a time, of the Emperor's Lieutenant in Italy the Eparch of Ravenna, by whom the election of the Pope (made by the Clergy and people of Rome) was of necessity to be ratified and confimed, until Benedict Anno. 684. the 2, obtained this privilege from the Emperor Constantine 4. called Pogonatus, that the election of the Pope by the clergy and people of Rome should be good without the confirmation of the Emperor. Upon which privilege obtained, the Pope began to care little for the Emperor, holding himself henceforth to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather as th'apostle speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Thess. 2. 8. without law, & subject to the judgement of no man, as they profess in divers of their canons. Not long after they began to advance themselves both against & above the Emperor. Constantine the 1. suffereth the Emperor justmian to kiss his feet, about the year of our Lord 710. Within three years after the same Anno. 710. Constantine setteth himself against the Emperor Philippicus Bardanes in defence of images, as did his two successors Gregory the 2. and third against Leo Isaurus in the same quarrel. In whose three times, (that we may know Rome to be the mother of spiritual fornications) were held three Counsels at Rome, wherein worshipping of images is approved and the oppugners there of excommunicated. And we must note that about this time (saith the Author of the book called Fasciculus temporum) the Popes began above their wont to oppose themselves even in temporal matters against the Emperors: because of their unsoundness in the faith (for so he calleth their oppugning of images) and to translate the Empire from nation to nation, as time required. As for Gregory the 2. he was the first which anouched himself supcriour to the Emperor; who Anno. 723. also excommunicated Leo the 3. because he sought to abolish the idolatry of his time, which they call worshipping of images. But his successor Gregory the 3. not only excommunicated the said Emperor for the same cause, but also forbade any tributes or duties to be paid unto him out of Italy & Rome, & absolved his subjects from their allegiance unto him. Whereupon Rome (being then a Duchy) with divers other cities in Italy, revolting from the Emperor, swore obedience to the Pope, Who Anno. 727. by the defection of the Italians, and help of the Lombard's, dispossesseth the Emperor of all his revenues in Italy; & consequently (as the popish author of the book called Fasciculus temporum saith) totum regnum occidentis ab eo abstulit, He took from him the whole kingdom of the West. But when as the Lombard's held the exarchat of Ravonna which the Pope intended to himself, & sought to rule over all Italy as the Goths had done, not exempting Rome or those other cities which had revolted to the Pope; first, Gregory the 3. when Rome was besieged by Luitprendus, used the friendship of Carolus Martellus Anno. 732. to free him from the siege. Whereupon the Pope removeth the tuition of the Church of Rome from the Emperor of Greece unto Carolus Martellus the great Master of France, & to his son Pipinus after him. Whom that the Pope might bind unto him, and find a sufficient defence against his enemies, he (namely Zacharias) having (as themselves testify) Caus. 15 quaest. 6. c. alius. deposed Childerick the King of France from his kingdom, and absolved his subjects from their allegiance (because Anno. 750. forsooth he was too simple to rule) maketh him (namely Pipin) King of France. Who afterwards when his help was entreated by the Pope Steven the third, against Aistulphus the king of Lombard's, enforced the said King to yield up the Anno. 754. exarchat of Ravenna, and Pentapolis, which he gave to the Pope. This donation his son Charles the great confirmed and enlarged with a plentiful addition (reserving notwithstanding to himself the royalties of those possessions) when he had at the entreaty of Adrian the Pope overthrown the kingdom Anno. 773. of the Lombard's in Italy. For which cause, as also for that he assisted the Pope Leo the third, against the insurrections of the people of Rome, punished his adversaries, and caused the people of Rome to swear allegiance to the Pope: The Pope (namely Leo the third) crowned him Emperor of Rome, translating Anno. 800. that title from the Emperor of the East to him, and in him renewing the Empire of the west, which had been void since the time of Augustulus. And as he made him Emperor, so to him was committed by Adrian and Leo, the confirmation of those which were elected to the Papacy. Which yoke as the Pope's following oft struggled against: so at the last, they shook it off. And whereas, in former times, the Pope was subject to the Emperor, & being elected was confirmed by him, Adrian. 3. an. 883. afterwards it came to pass that as the Empire was renewed in Charlemaigne, and after revived in Otto the great, and that to this end that it might support the Papacy; so the Pope (namely Anno. 960. john the 12, aliâs 13.) causeth the Emperor to swear unto him to that end, taketh order for the election of the Emperor, Gregory. 5. appointing 7, electors, reserving the coronation of the Emperor Anno. 995. and confirmation of the election unto himself; and at the length subjecteth the Emperor unto him as his vassal, challenging both swords and usurping an universal dominion and sovereignty over all the christian world, not only over ecclesiastical persons, as Bishops and Priests, but also civil, as princes, Kings, Emperors, whom he esteemeth as his vassals, and maketh them kiss his feet, as we shall show more fully when we come to speak of his Antichristian pride. Unto this Monarchy C. Fundamenta. de elect. in sexto. (as they call it) not only of spiritual but also of temporal power, they long aspired, but never fully attained, until the time of Gregory the seventh, in whom Antichrist was Anno. 1073. come to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or full growth, wherein he flourished, until our Saviour Christ the king of kings and Lord of Lords began to waste and consume him with the breath of his mouth. This is that which Aventine saith, Hildebrand who also is called Lib. 5. annal. Boior. Gregory the seventh, first established the Pontifical Empire. which his successors for the space of 450. years (that is to Aventine and also Luther's time) so held, in spite of the world, and maugre the Emperors, that they have brought all both in heaven & hell into bondage etc. at their pleasure they cast men headlong from heaven to hell, and again from hell advance to heaven. The Emperor from henceforth is nothing but a bare title without body or show. 7 But no sooner was Antichrist come to his full growth (whereby he plainly revealed & discovered himself) but straightways he began to be acknowledged, which is the 2. part of his revelation, whereof also there are degrees. For first he was acknowledged particularly die diverse learned & godly men in the time of Gregory the 7. and in every age since until the time of Luther. As for example, the Bishops of Germany affirm Gregory the 7. to be Antichrist. Antichristum esse praedicant. Under the name & title of Christ (say they) he contriveth the business of Antichrist: he sitteth in Babylon in the temple of God: he extolleth Auentin. annal. Boior. lib. 5. himself above all that is worshipped, as if he were a God, he boasteth that he cannot err. And afterward Auentin either in his own name or in the person of Sigeberius, speaking of the times Lib. 5. annal. Boior. of Gregory the 7, All men almost (saith he) that were good, open-hearted, just, ingenuous, and single hearted, have left in writing, that the Empire of Antichrist did then begin, because they saw those things which our Saviour Christ so many years before had prophesied unto us, to happen in that time. The Bishop of Florence, in the time of Paschalis the second, preached that Antichrist was come, meaning the Pope. Anno. 1119. Catalogue. test. Anno. 1120. Catalogue. test. & Magde, centur. 12. Honorius Augustudonensis apply the prophecies in the Apocalypse concerning Antichrist, to the Pope and church of Rome. Dialog. de lib. arb. & praedest. Bernard in his time acknowledgeth a general apostasy, and complaineth of the state of the church as Antichristian Anno. 1140. Serm. 33. in Cant. in conuers. Pauli serm. 1. joannes Sarisburiensis taught that the pope is Antichrist, and the city of Rome the whore of Babylon. About the same time Petrus Blesensis wrote, that Rome is that very Babylon whereof john speaketh in the Apocalypse. Anno. 1157. Polan. in Dan. Anno. 1158. Gerhardus and Dulcinus Navarrensis preach that the Pope is Antichrist, and that the clergy and prelate's of Rome were the very whore of Babylon prefigured in the Apocalypse. Ex I Fox. In the time of Alexander the third, the Waldenses teach that Anno. 1170. Ex I. Fox & cattle. test. Roger Hoveden in Ricardi. 1. Bal. centur. 3. c. 35. in append. Anno. 1189. Catalogue. test. the Pope is Antichrist, and Rome Babylon. joachim the abbot, being demanded of Richard the first king of England, now going towards the holy land, concerning Antichrist, answered thus; Antichrist is already borne in the city of Rome, and is advanced in the See Apostolic. And in certain German verses also published at Francofurt, he affirmeth that the Pope and his priests are Antichrists. Eberhardus archiepiscopus Iwacensis, Hyldebrand (saith he) about an hundred and 70. years ago did first, under the show Anno. 1241. Auentin. annal. Boior. lib. 7. of religion, lay the foundation of Antichrists kingdom. And straightways after, those priests of Babylon (saith he) covet to reign alone, they cannot endure an equal. Neither will they cease until they have trodden all under their feet, and do sit in the temple of God, and be extolled about all that is worshipped. Their hunger afterwealth, and thirst for honour, is insatiable etc. he that is the servant of servants desireth to be the Lord of Lords, as if he were a God. And again, he wasteth and spotleth, he deceiveth and killeth, I mean that man of perdition whom they call Antichrist, in whose forehead a name of blasphemy is written, I am God, I cannot err, he sitteth in the temple of God, he ruleth far and wide. Robert Grosthead, the worthy Bishop of Lincoln, on his deathbed complaining of the Pope, and bewailing the loss of Anno. 1253. Mat. Paris. in Henr. 3. souls which happened through the avarice of the Pope's court, with sighs he said; Christ came into the world to gain souls: therefore if any fear not to destroy souls, is not he worthily to be called Antichrist? Guilie●…s de sancto amore, a master of Paris and chief ruler Anno. 1260. of that university, called the monks and priests the subjects of Antichrist. One Laurence also an Englishman & master of Paris, proved the Pope to be Antichrist, & the synagogue of Rome the great Anno. 1290. I. Fox. Babylon. About the same time Maenardus Tyrolius in a public edict calleth the Pope's effeminate Antichrists. And again, if they be not Antichrists, I pray you what are they? Auentin. annal. boior. li. 7. Michael Cesenas principal of the grey friars, wrote against the pride, tyranny and primacy of the Pope, accusing him to be Anno. 1322. 1. Fox. Antichrist, and the church of Rome the whore of Babylon drunken with the blood of Saints. Hayabalus a friar in the time of Clement the sixth, preached (and that, as he said, by Anno. 1345. Henry. de Herford. in Chronic. Catalogue. test. 1. Fox. commandment from God) that the church of Rome is the whore of Babylon, and that the Pope with his Cardinals is the very Antichrist. Wilh●…lmus Occomensis, as Aventine calleth him, wrote a book against Charles and Clement the sixth, wherein he calleth the Pope Antichrist. Auentin. annal. Boior. li. 7. Bridget, whom the Papists worship as a canonised Saint, calleth the Pope a murderer of souls, more cruel than judas, Anno. 1370. more unjust than Pilate, worse than Lucifer himself. She prophesieth 1. Fox. that the See of Rome shall be thrown down into the deep like a millstone, (according to the prophecy of Saint john, Apocalypse. 18. 21) About the same year, Mathias Parifiensis, a Bohemian, writing a book of Antichrist, proveth that he is already come, and noateth him to be the Pope. Franciscus Petrarch, in many places of his writings, calleth Anno. 1374. the court of Rome the whore of Babylon, the mother of the fornications and abominations of the earth. Vrhanus the sixth, and Clement the seventh two Popes at once, call one the other Antichrist. As Bernard before had called Baldus. de vit. pontiff. Anacletus, against whom Innocentius the second was chosen as Antipope. That beast saith he in the Apocalypse, to Anno 1378. Anno. 1130. Epist. 125. whom is given a mouth speaking blasphemies, & to war with the Saints (meaning Antichrist), occupieth the chair of Peter, as a Lion ready for the pray. But most effectually doth our godly and learned countryman john Wicleffe discover the enormities and heresies of the Anno. 1383. Bellar. de pont. Rom. lib. 3. c. 1. Pope whom he pronounced to be Antichrist. Artic. 30. His judgement as in other things, so also in this, that worthy Martyr of Christ john Husse followed. Who affirmeth in his Anno. 1405. book de ecclesia, that he was troubled because he preached Christ, and discovered Antichrist. That the Censures of the Romish church were Antichristian, and proceeding from Antichrist: & (as Gerson & the Parisians object against him Art. 16) that in those times & many ages before, there had been no true Pope, nor true Roman church: but the Popes were Antichrists & the church of Rome the synagogue of Satan. Whose judgement many in Bohemia followed. Sir john Old●…astell, the Lord Anno 1413. 1. Fox. Cobham, that famous & noble martyr of Christ, processed to K. Henry the 5. that by the Scriptures he knew the Pope to be the great Antichrist, the son of perdition etc. Hieronimus Savanarola taught that the Pope is Antichrist, because he did attribute Anno. 1500. 1. Fox. more to his own indulgences & pardons then to Christ's merits. About the year of our Lord 1517. Luther began to preach against the Pope's indulgences, and afterwards against other Anno. 1517. errors and abominations of the Pope and church of Rome, discovering more plainly than any had done before him, that Rome is Babylon, and the Pope Antichrist. Since whose times this truth hath been almost generally acknowledged by the true and reformed Churches of Christ. Seeing therefore we have proved, that Antichrist was to sit in Rome professing herself the church of God, and that after the taking away of the Roman Emperor whom he was to succeed in the government of Rome, and there to be revealed both by his own showing himself in his colours, & also by the acknowledgement of others: it cannot be avoided but that the Pope is Antichrist. For he and none but he sitteth, that is reigneth in Rome, professing herself the church of God, and that after the taking away of the Roman Emperor, (not only by the removing of the imperial seat, but also by the dissolution of the Empire in the West) whom he succeed in the government of Rome, where he hath been revealed not only by his own showing himself in his colours, but also by the acknowledgement of others. 8. Unto the former place of the Epistle to the Thessaly. we will add two other places out of th'apocalypse, from whence both the place and time of Antichrist may be jointly gathered. The former place is in the 13. of th'apocalypse, where two beasts are described, signifying two estates of the Roman government 2. as they are opposed unto Christ: the former representeth the persecuting Emperors, the latter Antichrist. Of the former he saith thus, I saw a beast arising out of 〈◊〉 sea (that is, of many & divers peoples which it had vanquished.) Now the description of this beast containeth in it the resemblances of those 4. kingdoms which are described in Daniel, the Roman Empire far surpassing them al. The first of the beasts in Daniel, signifying the kingdom of the Babylonians, is compared to a Lion: The 2. resembling the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, to a Bear: The 3. representing the monarchy of the Macedonians, to a Leopard: The 4. figuring the kingdom of the Seleucidae and Lagidae, to a beast with 10. horns, resembling so many of their kings, who should tyrannize over jewry. The Empire of Rome therefore, as if it were compounded of them all, is resembled to a beast having ten horns with so many diadems upon them, both in respect of the ten persecuting Emperors, answering the 10. Seleucedae & Lagidae, as also in regard of the 10. kingdoms or provinces wherinto the Roman Empire in those times was divided; being also like a Leopard, having the feet or paws as it were of a Bear, & the ravening mouth of a Lion. And besides all this, is said to have seven heads, which afterwards (chapped 17.) are expounded to be 7. hills, & also 7. heads of government etc. & to this beast was given authority or power, over every tribe, Verse. 7. language and nation etc. all which are proper to the Empire of Rome. The former beast therefore signifieth the Roman state, especially as it was under the persecuting Emperors, as Bellarmine Lib. 3. de pont. R. cap. 15. confesseth. The second beast, described vers. 11. and so forward to the end of the chapter, is (as Bellarmine saith all men do confess) Antichrist: who also is, by the confession of the said Bellarmine, De pont. Rom. lib. 3. c. 10. & 15. one of the heads of the former beast. By the description of this beast (that we may now note that which serveth for the present purpose, reserving the residue until their due time & place) it is apparent, that there is one & the same principal seat of both the beasts, that in that seat the second beast succeed the former, practising all the power or authority of the former beast & Verse. 12. that before him, that is to say, even at Rome: and that his chief endeavours tend to magnify the beast, that is the Roman state; as in making men to worship it, in causing men to make an image of & to the beast, whereunto he giveth spirit & speech, & enforcing men to worship the same: finally in compelling men to take upon them the mark of the beast, his name, & number of his name. All which as they argue Antichrist to be a Roman, succeeding the Emperors in the government of Rome: so also they fitly & properly agree to the Pope, who succeed the Emperors in the government of Rome, where he usurpeth all & more than all the power of the Emperors, challenging a more universal & sovereign, or rather divine authority, than belonged to them; whose main endeavours are to advance the Roman state, which he calleth the See Apostolic, & which he maketh all men to worship: causing them also to make an image of the Empire (which was the head that had received the deadly wound) to & in behoof of the Roman state; an image I say, partly in the Emperor of Almain, resembling the title ornaments & show of the former Emperors: partly in his own courts not only in Rome, but in all other countries representing the former imperial authority & tyranny both in Rome itself, and in the provinces thereunto belonging. This image both in the Empire & popish courts he animateth & authorizeth. For as there is no question to be made hereof in respect of his courts, so is it as true in respect of the Empire, if that be true which themselves profess. Namely, that what the Emperor hath, he hath it wholly from them: that the Empire in the West was renewed by the Pope, who translated the title of the Emperor of Rome from the Emperor of the East, first to the French, & after to the Germane: that the Pope caused this new Emperor to be made, that he crowned & authorized him, that he appointed 7. Electors in Germany, reserving the confirmation of the election & coronation of the Emperor to himself: of which points we shall hereafter speak more at large. Further, he causeth all men to worship the image by him Chap. 7. erected, & compelleth all men to receive the mark of the beast, as also the name of the beast (which can be no other but either Roman or Latin,) & the number of his name. i. to live insubiection to the See of Rome, & to profess themselves to be Romans & Latins in respect of their religion, as hereafter shallbe showed. Chap. 8. 9 The same is proved out of the 17. chap. of th'apocalypse, 3. where be reckoned 7. heads, that is 7. kinds of principal rulers as it were heads of government, whereby Rome hath been governed, every one succeeding another. The sixth head being the Emperors, the seventh Antichrist which is the Pope. For Antichrist is one of the 7. heads of the beast which hath 7. heads & 10. horns. And this beast signifieth the Roman state, therefore Antichrist is a head of the Roman state. All which Bellarmine after a sort confesseth. Now it is most certain that Antichrist is Lib. 3. de pont. R. c. 15. none of the first 5. heads, for they were passed in th'apostles time: neither is he the sixth head which was of the Emperors, that then was; for that was to be done out of the way, as the Papists themselves do teach, before the revelation of Antichrist. It remaineth therefore that the seventh head which is the Pope is Antichrist. The eight head, which also is one of the seven, is the Empire renewed by the Pope, & is said to be the beast, which was & is not though it be, whereon the whore of Babylon sitteth. If it be objected that the seventh head whereby Antichrist is signified, was to continue but a short time, as it is said vers. 10: and that this therefore cannot agree to the Pope, who hath reigned already in Rome many 100 years: I answer that this is spoken of purpose to arm the faithful with patience, who otherwise would think the reign of Antichrist very long, & our Saviour Christ also to be slow in coming. Whereas in truth neither is our Saviour Christ slow in coming as Peter showeth, neither is 2. Peter. 3. the kingdom of Antichrist long. But in respect of God with whom a 1000 years are as one day, & in compatison of the eternal kingdom of Christ (with whom the faithful are to reign after they have suffered under Antichrist,) it is to be accounted very short. And surely if the whole time from the Ascension of of our Saviour until his return unto judgement, is noted in the Scriptures to be very short, and that to this end that we should not think it long, then is the reign of Antichrist (which is but part of this time) much more short. The holy Ghost in the beginning of the Revelation signifieth that the time of fulfilling Apoc 1. 3. the prophecies therein m●…tioned was at hand. And our Saviour Heb. 10. 37. Christ promiseth by the Apostle, that after a very little while he would come: & in the last chapped. of the revelation, he saith, yea, I Apoc. 22. 20. come quickly. And john likewise in his Epistle noteth that the 〈◊〉. john. 2. 18. whole time of Antichrist was but a part of the last hour. 10. And further whereas the Papists object, in respect of the time, that Antichrist is not yet come, because the Roman Empire is not yet dissolved, and consequently that the Pope is not Antichrist: it may notwithstanding evidently be showed out of the same chapter of the Apocalypse compared with the Apoc. 17. event, both that the Empire is dissolved, and that Antichrist is already come. For the Empire is then known to be dissolved, when it is divided among ten who shall have received power as kings, as john noteth, the fathers teach, & the Papists themselves confess. But it is most certain that the old Empire of of Rome is divided among ten kings at the least, who before the dissolution had not sovereign authority: and that the Empire which now is, being but a title, and containing no such kingdoms, is not capable of such a partition. And that Antichrist also is come it is as evident. For those ten horns which in the Apostles time had not receiuèd the kingdom nor sovereign authority, but were governors of the provinces by deputation from the Emperor, were after the dissolution of the Empire to receive powèr as kings with the beast; or, as the Papists read, after the beast, that is Antichrist, If therefore the governors Ap. 17. 12. of the kingdoms whereinto the Roman Empire was divided, have received power as kings, than it is certain that Antichrist is already come. For oither after him, or at least with him they were to receive their sovereignty. It is as certain therefore that Antichrist is come, as it is sure that the governors of the provinces which once belonged to the Empire are sovereign princes and not lieutenants under the Emperor. And that this Antichrist which is already come is the Pope, it is plain enough by the same chapter. For whosoever succeed the Emperors (who were the sixth head) in the government of Rome, as the seventh head of the Roman state, he is Antichrist. But the Pope as the seventh head of the Roman state succeed the Emperors (who were the sixth head) in the government of Rome; therefore he is Antichrist. If you say, the seventh head was not come in the Apostles time verse 10. and yet there were Bishops of Rome then: I answer that the Bishops of Rome, in the first three hundred years, were mean men in respect of their outward estate, & nothing less than heads of the Roman state. And that howsoever afterwards they obtained great authority, & more & more aspired unto the sovereignty: notwithstanding, until the sixth head was taken out of the way, the 7. was not revealed. But after the sixth head was gone, the 7. succeeded in the government of Rome. Cupers de eccl. p. 37. n. 9 urbem Romanam ad papam pleno iure spectare constat. & pag. 258. n. 7. Romana urbsita Papae dominio cessit, ut Caesari nil juris in ●…areseruelur. Insomuch that now for a long time the city of Rome hath so wholly belonged to the Pope, as that the Emperor hath no manner of right therein. To conclude therefore, If Antichrist was to sit in Rome professing herself the church of God, & that after the taking away of the Roman Emperor whom he was to succeed in the government of Rome, as hath been proved: it followeth necessarily, seeing these notes agree to the Popes of Rome and to none but them, that therefore the Pope is Antichrist. Chap. 4. Of the conditions of Antichrist, and his opposition unto Christ. 1. NOw if to those former notes of place and time, we shall add the rest, & find them all properly to fit the Popes of Rome, then may it not be doubted, but that the Pope is Antichrist. In the next place therefore let us consider his condition & qualities, in respect whereof he is called the man of sin. For first Antichrist in respect of his opposition to Christ, he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an adversary, in respect of his pride & ambition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lifted up above all that is called god etc. Fron these 2. notes therefore we may argue thus; He that is such an adversary as the scriptures desoribe opposed unto Christ in emulation of like honour, he is Antichrist: The Pope is such an adversaie as the scriptures describe opposed unto Christ in 2. Thess. 2. 4. emulation of like honour: Therefore the Pope is Antichrist. The truth of the proposition is testified by the Apostle, implied in the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth hostem & aemulum Christi, and confessed by the adversaries. The assumption Bellarmine would disprove by this slender argument; because the Pope forsooth professeth himself the servant of Christ. For even as he professeth himself to be Christ's servant, so he termeth himself; Of this see more in the 2. book & 1. chap. Gen. 9 25. the servant of servants, (which is Cham's title) when as in truth he would be esteemed Lord of Lords. But this is so far from disproving the assumption, as that the Pope could not be such an adversary as is described in the scriptures, and consequently not Antichrist, unless he professed himself to be the servant of Christ. Let us therefore consider what manner of enemy Antichrist is according to the scriptures. First, he is an Apostate or revolter: 2. a disguised enemy or hypocrite; that is, one that is fallen indeed from god & his truth as it werea star from heaven, yet retaineth the name & profession of Christ; under which name & profession he oppugneth christ & his truth: Even as a rebellious subject, when he presumeth without commission to levy a power of men against his Sovereign, that he may deceive the rest of the subjects, abuseth the name and authority of his prince to colour his rebellious practices. And that this is the property of Antichrist, Hilary hath well observed: It is Ad Auxentium the property of Antichrists name, to be contrary to Christ. This is now practised under the opinion of counterfeit piety: this, under a show of preaching the Gospel, is preached, that our Lord jesus Christ may be denied whiles whiles he is thought to be preached. Tract. 3. in I●…an. Epistol. Augustine saith, we have found many Antichrists which confess Christ with their mouth. 2. First I say he is an apostate, yea the head of that Apostasy 2. Thess. 2. 3. or falling away from the truth, mentioned 2. T●…hess 2. insomuch as some of the learned as chrysostom, Augustine, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius by that Apostasy understand Antichrist Lib. 3. de pont, R. chap. 2. himself. Yea Bellar. himself affirmeth that by Apostasy in that place Antichrist himself may be most fitly understood. But the Papists, which falsely hold that the visible church of Christ cannot err, & much less fall away, expound this Apostasy or defection, to be a revolt or falling away from the Roman Empire. Neither do we deny but that also there hath been a defection from the Roman Empire: but yet we deny that it is understood in this place. Ambrose saith, then shall dissolution draw near because In 2. Thess. 2. De civit. Dei lib. 20. c. 19 many falling by error shall revolt from the true religion. He calleth him a revolter, saith Augustine, namely from the Lord God. Cyrill, Now is the Apostasy, for men are revolted from the true Catech. 11. faith. chrysostom and Oecumenius, the Apostasy he calleth Antichrist himself, because he shall cause many to revolt from In 2. Thess. 2. Christ. Or else he calleth apostasy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the departure from God and the thing itself. The same hath Theophylact in effect. And likewise Theodoret on this place. The defection (saith he) he calleth Antichrist himself giving In 2. Thess. 2. him a name from the thing itself. For his endeavour is to withdraw men from the truth, and to cause them to revolt. Primasius by Apostasy understandeth the forsaking of the truth, and Lyra, the departure from the Catholic faith. But to omit In 2. Thess 2. human testimonies, the holy ghost who is the best expounder of himself, showeth what kind of defection he speaketh of For afterwards in the same chapter he noteth this Apostasy 2. Thess. 2. 10. 11. 12. to be of those, who because they have not loved nor believed the truth that they might be saved (but have taken pleasure in unrigteousnes) are therefore given over by the just judgement of God to believe the lies of Antichrist to their damnation. But more plainly the same Apostle speaking of that Apostasy which in these later times was to accompany the revelation of Antichtist: he saith 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. The spirit speaketh evidently 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. that in the latter times some shall make an Apostasy from the faith, attending to erroneous spirits and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared. 3 Now the Papists are as ready to object this Apostasy to us, as we to them. How then shall we discern whether we or they have made this revolt? The Apostle in the same place setteth down two of those doctrines of devils, as certain notes whereby those which make this Apostasy may be discerned. Forbidding (saith he) to marry, and commanding to abstain 1. Tim 4. 3. from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving. The former where of Hierome also hath noted to be a In Dan. 11. mark of Antiehrist. Nota est Antichristi prohibere nuptias. But these notes agree not unto us, who neither forbidden marriage, nor command abstinence from any meats for religion sake. As for the Papists (especially since the times of Gregory the seventh, they forbidden marriage to some men at all times, and certain meats to all men at sometimes and that for religion sake: esteeming of marriage in their clergy worse than adultery or Sodomy; and eating of flesh in Lent, or other forbidden times, as a mortal sin. And as touching the falling away of the Church; certain it is, that although neither the invisible 1. john. 2. 19 church in general, nor any one sound member thereof can fall away from faith either totally or finally: yet not only the members of visible churches, but also the churches themselves consisting of hypocrites, as of the greater part, may fall away. As the Church of England which was in King Edward's days, revolted in Queen Mary's time, from Christ to Antichrist. So hath the church of Rome (which once was famous for her Rom. 1. faith) as may appear not only by those notes set down by the Apostle 1. Tim. 4. 3. and some others which hereafter See the 2. book chapt. 2. shallbe noted: but also in those innumerable particulars both in doctrine and manners wherein they have revolted from the purity of the primitive Church. And of this catholic Apostasy the Pope is head. 4. Secondly, Antichrist is not an open and outward, but a covert & disguised enemy, oppugning Christ & his church not by open violence, but with all deceiveableness of unrighteousness. 2. Thess. 2. 10. For he is not so foolish as to profess himself to be Antichrist. Neither could that be which the Apostle testifieth (as Radulphus Flaviacensis saith) that Antichrist should attain unto ecclesiastical In Leuit. lib. 18 cap. 1. apud Magdeburg. centur. 10. honours, and in the temple of God that is the society of the faithful, should take the chair of honour, unless having first pretended a kind of comformity with the faithful he should deceive those of whom he is to be ordained. Therefore Antichristianisme is called the mystery of iniquity: whereupon the Gloze saith, 2. Thess. 2. 7. The impiety of Antichrist is mystical, that is, cloaked under the In 2. Thess. 2. name of godliness. And, as in the Pope's mitre was wont, so also in the whore of Babylon's forehead is written a mystery. Apoc. 17. 2. Thess. 2. 4. Augustin. Primas●…: & gloss●…in Apoc. 13. And Antichrist himself is deciphered as an hypocrite, sitting in the temple of God, professing himself and his followers to be the only true church of God, using the two Testaments, pretending himself, as Hierome saith, to be the Prince of the covenant, And consequently head of the Church: deceiving unsound In Dan. 11. Christians with a glorious profession of religion (signified by the Apo. 17. golden cup) & with a show of counterfeit holiness (otherwise he could never so effectually deceive many christians, as that the elect Mat. ●…4. 24. should be in any danger to be seduced) speaking lies in hypocrisy, oppugning Christ & his truth under the outward show 1. Tim. 4. 2. & profession of Christian religion, having two horns like the Apoc. 13. 11. lamb, counterfeiting in some things the humility & meekness of Christ, & yet challenging that double power both spiritual & temporal which belongeth to Christ the lamb, as our chief priest and king: and not only that, but speaking also like the dragon. Which is to be understood partly of his blasphemous speeches which he doth utter, partly of the doctrines of devils which he 1. Tim. 4 1. doth teach, partly of those hellish curses which he thundereth against the true professors of the faith, partly of those great promises, which like the prince of the world he maketh to those Mat. 9 4 that will adore him. These things need no application for those to whom the disguising & more than pharisaical hypocrisy of the Pope & Papists is known. For must not his holiness be called sanctissimus, most holy, when he is most wicked? doth not he call himself Seruunseruorun, the servant of servants, when in truth he maketh himself the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords? And as Faber hath observed, the Pope in word saith that he is the servant of servants, but in deed he permitteth himself to be adored, Praesat. instit. which the Angel in th' Apocalypse refused. Fron which fact of the Pope, as if it were a rule of justice, Antoninus concludeth, that Su●…. part. 3. there is no less honour due to the Pope then to the Angels. Whereupon ●…it. 22. 〈◊〉. 4. (saith he) he receiveth from the faithful adorations, prostration or falling down before him, and the kisses of his feet; which the Angel permitted not to be done unto him by john the Evangelist. Neither was Bernard's complaint either unjust or Apoc. 22. Serm. in conuers. Pauli. untrue, Heuheu, Do●…ine Deus etc. Alas Lord God, that they be first in thy persecution, which seem to love the primacy in thy Church, and to bear rule. And else where, A silihy contagion (saith he) spreadeth itself now adays through the whole In cant. se●…m. 33. body of the Church etc. All are lovers, and all enemies, all friends, & all adversaries; all domestical or of the household, and none peaceable: all neighbours, and yet all seek their own: they are ministers of Christ, and they serve Antichrist. And such was the complaint of diverse Bishops in their Epistle to Pope Nicolas recorded in Aventine: Thou bearest the person An. Do. 862▪ Annal. Boior. lib. 4. of a Bishop (say they) but thou playest the tyrant: under the habit or attire of a pastor, we feel a Wolf: the lying title calleth thee Father, thou in thy deeds boastest thyself to be another jupiter. When as thou art the servant of servants, thou strivest to be the Lord of Lords etc. He counterfeiteth the Lamb, in calling himself the vicar of Christ, and exercising the very same office which Christ himself had Bellarm. whiles he was upon the earth. And because, by horn, in the Scriptures often is meant power: he may be said to have two horns like the Lamb, whiles he challengeth that twofold power which is peculiar to Christ the Lamb as our King and Priest, and usurpeth both the sword, I mean both spiritual and temporal. He speaketh like the Dragon, in teaching those doctrines of Devils, mentioned 1. Tim. 4. 3. (forbidding to marry and commanding abstinence from meats) in belching forth most horrible blasphemies (whereof we will remember some in the next chapter:) in his devilish curses against the Saints, and Satanical promises of the world and kingdoms thereof to them that will adore him. Luc. 4. 6. Ecce in potestate nostra est imperium, ut demus illud cui volumus Auentin. Annal. Boior. lib. 6. saith Adrian the Pope, Behold the Empire is in our power, that we may give it to whom we will. And whereas Hierome writing of those words, 1. Tim. 4. They speak in Hypocrisy (saith he) who, being not continent, would seem to be so chaste, as that they condemn marriage, and so abstemious as that they judge those who use the creature sparingly; whereas themselves are given over to belly cheer, what could have been spoken more fitly to show forth the hypocrisy of the Pope & Papists. For do not they, whiles they condemn & contemn marriage, under the show of vowed chastity practise all uncleanness; and whiles they condemn all moderate eating of flesh, do not they under a colour of fasting, feast & feed themselves with the choicest dainties? Do not many of them under the pretence of voluntary poverty gather infinite riches? And doth not all their religion stand in Opere operate, in the bare performance of the outward work, that is to say, in hypocrisy? Neither are we to omit an hypocritical policy which of late they have used. For when as they could not prevail with their Sophistry, that is to say, with their Books of controversies: they hoped to prevail among the simple with their hypocrisy, that is to say, with their books of devotion. Wherein there is a notable show of counterfeit devotion, zeal and holiness, to blear the eyes of the simple and unstaid. But it were to be wished, that as they are, so they were esteemed to be no better than baits of Antichrist, serving to allure men under show of devotion, unto idolatry & apostasy from God: especially if we consider that the principal of these books were set forth by Parsons & other jesuits, who Quodlibet etc. are plainly discovered even by some of their own side, to be mere Machivilians and wicked Atheists. 5. Thus you see what manner of adversary Antichrist is. Now we must show in particular wherein he is opposed to jesus Christ. He is opposed unto him as he is Christ, and as he is jesus: as he is Christ, that is, as he was anointed of God to be our Prophet, our King, and our Priest; in which respect especially he is called Antichrist. He is also opposed unto him as he is jesus, that is to say, as he is our Saviour. So that Antichrist opposeth himself both to the offices of Christ signified in the name Christ, and also to the benefits signified in the name jesus. Now these things also most fitly agree to the Pope: who opposeth himself to Christ in all these respects, not indeed aperto mart as an open and professed enemy, (for so it becometh not Antichrist, who was to be an hypocrite sitting in the Church of God etc.) but covertly and cunningly. For we must remember that Antichristianisme is the mystery of iniquity, wherein Christ was in word & show to be professed, but indeed & truth, denied. First, them to Christ our Prophet he is opposed, partly as he oppugneth the prophecy of Christ, and partly as himself is a false Prophet. He oppugneth the prophecy of Christ; First, in denying Christ to be our only Prophet (whose voice in the canonical Scriptures concerning matters necessarily to be believed unto salvation, we ought only to hear) whiles he and his followers do teach that the scriptures are not perfect, and that besides the Apocryphal writings (which they have matched with the canonical) their own traditions also are necessary, and of equal authority with the scriptures. Secondly by withholding from the people the scriptures (which contain the whole doctrine of Christ our prophet) in a strange language, and also by reading and preaching unto them their own fancies and inventions, out of the legends and lives of saints, and festivals etc. in steed of the sincere truth of God. And by these two practices, the Pope, whiles he leaveth to Christ the name and title of being our prophet, he taketh the thing to himself. Again he is opposed to Christ our prophet as himself is the false prophet spoken of in the Apocalypse, teaching Antichristian errors and doctrines of devils. For so many errors, as are taught and held by the Pope and church of Rome, are so many oppositions betwixt him and Christ our prophet. Of the errors of the Romish church there be many centuries or hundreds, and diverse of them fundamental. In respect whereof we may truly say that the catholic Apostasy (for so I call the Romish religion) is the common sewer of many gross heresies. 6 But it will be said, that howsoever the Pope holdeth diverse errors, yet he teacheth not those, which the holy ghost hath noted as the peculiar doctrines of Antichrist. Whereof the author of the Wardword reckoneth up three, and Bellarmine hath a fourth: But neither of them durst mention those two doctrines of devils which Paul assigneth to that Apostasy, 1. Tim. 4. 3. whereof Antichrist is the head, The first doctrine of Antichrist (say they) is, to deny jesus to be Christ. Which they Of this see more in the 2. book and 14. chapter. would prove out of 1. john. 2. 22. & 4. 3. and 2. john. 7. But the Pope (say they) doth not deny jesus to be Christ. To the prosyllogism or proof of the proposition I answer, that these places of the Apostle john do not speak properly of the grand Antichrist, who is the head of the Antichristian body, but of certain petite Antichrists, or heretics of those times, which denied either of the natures of Christ, (for he speaketh of such as were then already come into the world:) and therefore from thence it cannot be proved that the great Antichrist shall directly and expressly deny jesus to be Christ. Notwithstanding, seeing they are called Antichrists not only because they belong to the Antichristian body as inferior members thereof, but also as it may be thought, because they did after a sort deny Christ as the great Antichrist also should do, although not after the same manner: I do therefore thus far grant the proposition itself, that Antichrist was in some sort to deny Christ. For john speaketh not of the manner how he doth deny Christ. Neither are we to think that Antichrist will deny him after every manner, but in such sort as shall be most consonant to the whole mystery of iniquity, and suitable to the rest of his lying and deceit. That is to say, in outward 2. Thess. 2. show and semblance to profess Christ (as those Antichrists did, of whom john speaketh) but in deed and in truth to deny him. To come therefore to the assumption: let us consider whether the Pope and church of Rome do not in some sort deny Christ, Christ may be denied, either in deeds or words. Quisquis autem factis negat Christum, is Antichristus est, And whosoever in deeds (saith Augustine) denieth Christ, he is Antichrist. Let us therefore mark (saith he) who it is that denieth, & Tract. 3. in Epist. joan. let us not attend to his tongue but to his works. I regard not what he speaketh, but how he liveth. Works do speak, and do we require words? He is the more lying Antichrist, who with his mouth professeth jesus to be Christ, and by deeds denieth him. According to the Lawyer's rule, it is more to testify a matter by deeds then by words. And Tully saith, that where the things themselves Contra Sallust. bear witness, words are needless. And as Antichrist was thus to deny Christ, both as he is the man of sin, and an adversary oppugning Christ and his church: So doth the Pope, howsoever in word he professeth Christ. For even the devils themselves have in word confessed Christ, whom notwithstanding by their deeds they deny. If therefore the Pope be a man of sin (which we shall prove anon) and an adversary opposed unto Christ, (which now we have in hand to prove) than it cannot be denied but that indeed he denieth Christ. 7 Secondly, Christ may be the denied in word & doctrine, and that either indirectly and by consequent, or else directly & expressly. He that denieth Christ by consequent, howsoever openly he doth confess him, doth indeed deny him; as those which deny either of his natures, or any of his offices. For such is the necessary coherence of truth within itself, as nothing can by necessary consequence be deducted from it, which is not also true. And therefore it is impossible that the consequent should be false, the antecedent being true. Whereupon it followeth, that whosoever denieth the consequent, doth indeed deny the antecedent. jesus is Immanuel, and consequently God and man.. He is Christ, and consequently anointed of God to be our King, our priest, & our prophet. He therefore that denieth any of these, denieth jesus to be Christ. And further, is Christ truly God? then is he also jehovah, one that is of & from himself, namely as he is God: them is he also the Lord & creator of all things, governing all things with his presence and providence. Is he truly man? then hath he a true body consisting of three dimensions, length, breadth, thickness, circumscribed, visible, con●…ined in one place at once, as being but one body not discontinued. Is he the true Messias & Mediator betwixt God & man? then is he the only mediator, for there is but one. Wherefore 1. Tim. 2. 5. Act. 4. 12. whosoever saith, that Christ is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himself, he denieth him to be God: or preferreth any creature before him either in heaven or in earth, he denieth him to be the Lord and maker of all; or assigneth a vicar unto him to supply his absence on earth, denieth his omnipresence. Again, whosoever saith that Christ his body doth not consist of 3. dimensions, that it is not circumscribed, that it is not visible, that it is not contained in one place as all other bodies, yea as all other finite natures are; he denieth jesus to be truly man, & consequently denieth him to be Christ. Lastly whosoever adjoin other mediators unto Christ and in some respects preser others above him, deny him to be the only mediator; & therefore deny him to be the true mediator, for there is but one, & consequently deny jesus to be christ. And thus as the Antichrists whereof john speaketh (according 1. john. 2. 22. Lib. 3. de pont. Rc. ap. 14. to Bellarmin his own exposition) did, & as the grand Antichrist (according to our confession) doth deny Christ, not only in deed, but also in word and doctrine, although not openly and expressly yet indirectly, and by consequent: So doth the Pope and church of Rome, deny jesus to be Christ. For, what a God and Lord, what a creator and governor of all things the Pope and Papists make our Saviour Christ, you may easily conceive; First, when they de●…y him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himself, and consequently jehovah. For whosoever is jehovah, he is of, and from himself. True indeed it is, that Christ is filius a patre, sed Deus a se, quate nus est Deus: that is, son of and from his father, but God of and from himself, namely as he is God. And if he were not of and from himself, he were not God. And although in the concrete we may and must say with the council of Nice, that Christ is God of God, that is, Christ who is God, is from the father who is God (the word God being taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 personallio) because the person of the son who is Deus genitus God begotten is from the person of the father who is Deus gignens God begetting: yet it is not likewise true in the abstract. For howsoever the Godhead is communicated from the father to the son by eternal generation, and from the father and the son to the holy ghost by eternal procession, yet the deity of the son and so of the holy ghost, being the self same infinite eternal and indivisible essence of the father, is from, and of, and by, and for itself. And who knoweth not that such is the simplicity of the divine nature as that God is the godhead, and the godhead is God, and consequently that Christ as he is God is the Godhead, which is of and from itself. And therefore to conclude, Christ is God of God, in respect of his person, and he is also God of himself in respect of his essence which is of itself: he is God of God, the name God being used personally and relatively (for he is God the son, of God the father: and God begotten, of God begetting) and he is God of himself, the name God being taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 essentially & absolutely, namely as he together with the father and the holy ghost is one and the same eternal jehovah and only true God. In which respect if the Papists deny Christ to be God of himself, as they do when they accuse this our doctrine of heresy, and deny him so to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (God of himself) as we affirm, they do also deny him to be God. Secondly, when as not only in heaven they set above him his mother whom they call the Queen of heaven, desiring her to command him, & to show herself to be a mother (as though Christ were as they paint him a baby under his mother's government) for so they say, jube natum, & iure matris impera, & again monstra te esse matrens etc. but also on earth, when every shaveling priest can by breathing out a few words out of his unclean mouth, create his maker (for so they teach, Sacerdos est creator creatoris sui, that is, the priest is maker of his maker. And again, Qui creavit Stella clericor. serm. discip. serm. 111. apud juellum. vos, dedit vobis creare se, He which made you, gave you power to make him,) & when he hath so done, offer him up to his father. Wherein every priest among them, being the sacrificer, is after a sort preferred above Christ, who is the sacrifice. Thirdly, when as they appoint unto Christ a vicar to supply his absence, unto whom they assign all power which is in heaven and earth, yea Vid. Cap. 5. infinite power, which they say is translated from Christ unto him, what do they else but make Christ a titular king, and with the Epicures an idle God, who hath as it were resigned all his right & authority to the Pope. What a man they make our Saviour Christ who knoweth not, when they hold, & with fire & faggot persecute those that will not hold the same, that his body is multipresent, that is, present in many or rather infinite places at once, and that discontinued: for they say that it being in heaven is also present really and corporally upon the earth, wheresoever their Mass is celebrated or their host reserved, howsoever it is not in the space betwixt heaven and earth, nor in those places where the host is not▪ which is to assign many or rather innumerable bodies to our Saviour Christ. And further that his very body, which they say is really present in the Mass, is void of quantity & quality, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not circumscribed, not visible, nor any way sensible, & consequently, no body. The which in effect is as much as to deny that Christ is come in the flesh, which is the doctrine of that Antichrist whereof John speaketh. And here by the way note the absurdity of Papists, 1. john. 4. 3. 2. john. 7. who circumscribe the deity of the father whiles they resemble the same by pictures or images, and deny the humanity of the son to be circumscribed: & consequently against all reason make the deity finite, and the humanity infinite. The office of Christ is his mediation. Now what a mediator they make him you may easily judge, when they join infinite others with him. For the Apostle saith, that there is but one mediator 1. Tim. 2. 5. betwixt God and man, and this one alone our Saviour Christ is, or else he is none at all. 8. Again, Christ may be denied directly & expressly: & that may be done either secretly & in private, or else openly & in public profession. After the latter sort Antichrist was not to deny our Saviour Christ: because he was to be an hypocrite & a disguised enemy as hath been proved. Neither was it necessary that he should deny Christ expressly & directly, & yet this also may be proved of diverse Popes. Who howsoever they professed publicly that jesus is Christ (which is all that our adversaries allege in this case, and yet that all is nothing, for the Devils themselves have publicly professed jesus to be Christ) yet privately and among their favourets they have denied Christ, & not that only, but have showed themselves also to have been mere Atheists, & devils incarnate. For to omit john the 22. who denied the immortality of the soul, & of some is called the 23. of others 24. were not Alexander the 6. & Sixtus the fourth, julius 2. and Paulus 3. besides divers others, very Atheists? were not more than twenty of them known Necromancers and sorcerers? not to speak of them which were not known, which renouncing Christ our Saviour, betook themselves to the Devil. As namely Silvester 2. Benedict 9 Gregory 5. & Gregory the 7. who also in a rage cast the Eucharist, that is according to their opinion the very body of Christ into the fire, because it did not answer to his questions when as he consulted therewith. And what may we think of Clement the seventh? who, when he was at death's door, said he should now be certified of three things whereof he had doubted all his life, viz. whether there be a God, whether the soul be immortal, and whether there be a life after this life. Or of julius the 3. who being forbidden by the Physicians the use of Pork, commanded his pork to be set before him, All dispette di Dio, In despite of God? As for Pope Leo the 10. he did plainly enough deny Christ when as more than once he called the Gospel, the fable of Christ, For when he had received an incredible sum of money for indulgences, he said to Bembus, O quantum nobis Ex. Sibrand. ●…ull. de pap. Rom. l. 10. c. 18 profuit illa de Christo fabula! O how much that fable of Christ hath profited us! And another time when Bembus alleged for his comfort a testimony out of the Gospel, he answered: Quid mihi narras fabulamillā de Christo? What dost thou tell me of that fable of Christ? If therefore this be a property of Antichrist to deny Christ, than it cannot be avoided but that according to our adversaries own grounds, the Pope who so many ways denieth Christ, is Antichrist. And so much of his opposition to the Prophecy of Christ. For of the other three doctrines which the Papists assign to Antichrist, See book 〈◊〉. chap. 14. we are to entreat when we come to answer the objections of the Papists. 9 To the Priesthood of Christ our only priest and mediator, who according to the Scriptures with the oblation of himself once made hath perfectly redeemed us, are opposed. 1. Heb. 10. 12. 14 Their priesthood, whereby Christ is daily offered and his sacrifice repeated in their abominable sacrifice of the Mass propitiatory as they say both for the quick and the dead: 2. Their own satisfactions as prices of sin opposed to the satisfaction of Christ: 3. Their adjoining unto Christ other intercessors and mediators, by whose not only intercession they hope to be heard, but also merits, hope to be saved. Of Gregory they say thus in their prayers, Hic nos saluet à peccatis, ut in coelo cum beatis possimus quiescere. That is, Let him save us from our sins, that in heaven we may rest with the blessed. Of Thomas Becket th'archbishop of Canterbury, because he died in the Pope's quarrel, which like a rebel he maintained against his sovereign king Henry the second, they say full devoutly, Tu per Thomae sanguinem, quem pro te impendit, Fac nos christ scandere quò Thomas ascendit. That is, By the blood of Thomas, which he for thee did spend, Make us Christ to come whither Thomas did ascend. Of Peter and Paul, Concede ut ambo●…ū meritis aeternitatis gloriam consequamur. Grant that by the merries of them Ex. Rom. Breviar. both we may obtain eternal glory. To Mary the blessed virgin whom they idolatrously call our Lady and the Queen of heaven, they pray thus, O unica spes miserorum, libera nos Ex compassionib. Mariae. ab omni malo, O thou that art the only hope of them that are in misery, deliver us from all evil. And elsewhere they call her, Desperatorum spem unicam, peccatorum salvatricem, Innoc. in orat. de 300. dier. indulgent. In orat. de 5. vnb●…rib. The only hope of them which are in despair, and the Saviour of sinners. Again, Mediatrix Dei & hominum, salus & spes in the sperantium, O thou the mediatrix betwixt God and men, the salvation and hope of them that hope in thee. And somewhere it is said: O regina poli, matter gratissima proli Spe●…ere me noli, me commendo tibi soli. O Queen of heaven, mother most dear to thy son, do not thou despise me, unto thee alone I commend me. And again: Cum nulla spes sit altera nisi tu virgo puerpera In missali Paristensi. patris parens & filia cui me reconcilia. Seeing there is no other hope, besides thee O virgin mother, the mother and daughter ofthy father, to whom I pray thee reconcile me. And to conclude (for innumerable such speeches might be produced,) they say; O foelix puerpera nostra pians scelera Ibid. iure matris impera redemptori. O happy mother which dost purge away our sins, by thy motherly authority command our redeemer. So that sometimes they do join unto our Saviour Christ other mediators not only of intercession, but also of redemption, (which indeed is presupposed in the former) sometimes also they exclude our Saviour Innocent, in orat. in laudem virgins. Christ, when as they say that Mary purgeth away the sins of all the faithful, and that she and no other is the only hope of them that are in misery and despair. And not to speak of their blasphemous psalter, wherein they turn that which is spoken in the Psalms either of God or Christ, to the virgin Mary: some of them say, that whereas the kingdom of Christ consisteth in two things, justice and mercy; Christ reserveth justice unto himself, & mercy he hath given up to his mother. And therefore one saith, A foro justitiae Dei appellundum est ad Bernardinus in Mar●…al. forum misericordiae matris eius. From the court of God's justice, we must appeal to the court of his mother's mercy. 10 As touching the kingdom of Christ, what doth not the Pope oppugn in it? The realm and kingdom of Christ is his church which he ruleth by his spirit inwardly, and outwardly by his word, which is both his sceptre and his law, and also by such officers and ministers as he hath ordained both in the church and common wealth. The church and people of God this son of perdition seeketh to destroy. First by killing the bodies of the true servants of Christ that refuse his mark, in respect whereof he may most worthily be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or abaddon that is, a destroyer, & his church the whore Apoc. 9 of Babylon, which is drunk with the blood of Saints and of the Martyrs of jesus, as shall be shown in the second book and seventh chapter. And as he killeth the bodies of those that will not receive his mark, so he murdereth the souls of them that submit themselves unto him, poisoning them with his damnable errors and making them drunk with the wine of his fornications, after which they shall drink of the cup of Apoc. 14. 9 God's wrath. Now in making havoc of men's souls he taketh such liberty unto him, as that if he should draw with him innumerable souls into hell, yet no man may say unto him Domine cur ita facis? Sir, why do you so? And in the Canon, Si papa dist. 40. it is said, If the Pope do carry with him innumerable Gloss●…iur. ca●…. peoples by troops into hell, no man in this world may presume to reprove his fault, because he is to judge all, and to be judged of none, unless he be found to err from the faith, which the Pope as he is Pope cannot do. Hereunto Bellarmine answereth that the words of this Canon be not the words of any Pope, Cupers. pag. 18. num. 12. but of Boniface the Archbishop of Mentz. Yea, but say I, the Lib. 3. de pont. Rom. cap. 21. Pope hath so approved this speech being delivered by another, as that he hath canonised it, and appointed it for one of the canons of his law. Which is more than if it had been spoken by himself. But Bellarmine replieth; If this sentence of Boniface be not true, why do you object it: if it be true, why do you not receive it? I answer, because it being not only false, but blasphemous also and Antichristian, is notwithstanding by the Pope authorized for a Canon in his law. Moreover, one of the chief works of God's spirit the spirit of adoption, which is special faith, apprehending the righteousness of Christ to our justification, he laboureth to extinguish in the hearts of men, calling it presumption: acknowledging no other faith jam. 2. but such as is common to the devils (which consisteth only of knowledge and assent), and yet not requiring that in the lay people whom under the name of implicit faith, he nuzleth in palpable ignorance, and leadeth them being blind, as Elizeus did the Aramites, even whether it pleaseth 2. King 6. him. The pure wheat of God's word he suppresseth and keepeth from the people in an unknown tongue, and see death them with the mast of their Legends and festivals and lies (I should have said lives) of Saints. The laws of Christ he partly dispenseth with, and partly abrogateth, making them of none effect by his own constitutions and traditions. In the church, in steed of the offices and functions ordained by Christ, he hath created a new priesthood, erected an hierarchy, consecrated orders and religions of his own. In the common wealth he absolveth the people from their obedience to their princes if they shall displease him. And it is a principle among them, that it is lawful for him to depose Emperors and Kings, and to absolve their sworn subjects from fidelity and allegiance towards them. And thus you see how the Pope opposeth himself to the prophecy, priesthood and kingdom of Christ. Whereunto I might add how he is opposed to these offices of Christ, not only in these respects already mentioned, but as an aemulus, as an antiprophet, an antipriest, and a counter king seeking in his Antichristian pride to match our Saviour Christ in all those offices: but hereof I shall have occasion to speak in the next chapter. Now to the benefits of Christ he is opposite, as he is an enemy to the grace of god: as he taketh away Christian liberty, and taketh upon him to make new laws, to bind the conscience: as he abridgeth the merits of Christ, and ascribeth the merit of salvation not only to our own works prescribed of God, but also to such as have been in superstition, will worship, and idolatry, devised by themselves: as he teacheth men to seek salvation elsewhere then in Christ. All which oppositions of the Pope to Christ, whosoever shall duly consider, he will not seek further for Antichrist. Chap. 5. Of the pride and ambition of Antichrist, advancing himself above all that is called God, etc. 1. But Antichrist is not only hostis an enemy to Christ, but also (as our adversaries confess), aemulus Christi, that is, such an adversary as is opposed unto Christ in emulation of like honour, as the word Antichrist doth also signify. It remaineth therefore that we should speak of the pride and ambition of Antichrist●…, whereby he seeking to match Christ our Saviour, advanceth himself as the Apostle speaketh Above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, insomuch that he sitteth in the temple 2. Thess. 2. 4. of God, as God, showing himself that he is God, or as the Papists themselves read, as though he were God. Where (for avoiding of error) we are to understand the pride of Antichrist Vulgat edit. ●…em. to be described such as is incident to a wretched man, a man of sin, a son of perdition. And the greatest pride that is incident not only to any man, but to any creature, be it the devil himself (whose Satanical pride Antichrist was to imitate and not to exceed) is this, to seek to be as God. When as Es. 14. therefore it is said that Antichrist advanceth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, it is not meant that he shall seek to advance himself, above God or the deity itself: For God being infinite in goodness, excellency and power, there cannot be conceived a better, a superior, a greater. And therefore we cannot imagine how Antichrist should advance himself above God. And it is evident that the height of Antichrists pride here spoken of, is noted in these words, Insomuch as he shall sit in the temple of God, as God, By all therefore that is called God, we are to understand all those to whom the name of God is communicated: not essence, for that cannot be communicated to any that is not god. Now the name of God is communicated to Angels in heaven, Psal. 8. 5. cum Heb. 2. 7. & Psal. 97. 7. cum Heb. 1. 6. and to princes and magistrates on earth, Exod. 22. 28. Psal. 82. 1. 6. And whereas it is said that he shall advance himself above all that is worshipped, we are to understand by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not God himself, but any thing that is worshipped as God, or wherein God is worshipped. So Wisd. 15. 17. images, and Act. 17. 23, altars among the heathen are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Such in the church of Rome, are Saints, images, the cross and relics of Saints, the eucharist, etc. The meaning then of the Apostle is this, that Antichrist being a wicked and wretched man, shall advance himself above all that is called God, as Angels and Kings, or that which is worshipped, as Saints and images and altars, the cross and eucharist itself, insomuch that he shall sit in the temple of God as God, that is, he shall rule & reign in the church of God, challenging a sovereign, universal and divine authority over all those that profess the name of Christ, as if he were a God upon earth, showing himself whether by words or by deeds that he is god, or which is all one, behaving himself tanquam sit Deus, As though he were God. The like things were foretold of Antiochus Epiphanes, who is thought to have been a type of Antichrist. Dan. 11. 36. But (to come to the application of this prophecy) if Antiochus were comparable to the Pope in advancing himself above all that is called God: or if I shall not prove out of their own (I mean popish) writings, that he hath lifted up himself in such manner as is scarcely credible to be incident unto a mortal man; then let not the Pope be deemed Antichrist, but rather look for some other, who shall go beyond him in Antichristian insolency and Satanical pride. 2. From this place therefore of th'apostle, I argue thus: Whosoever advanceth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, insomuch that he sitteth in the temple of God, as God, taking upon him as though he were a God, he according to the testimony of th'apostle, is antichrist, that is, Aemulus Christi, such an enemy as in a kind of emulation seeketh to match Christ and to be equal to him. But the Pope of Rome (as shallbe proved) advanceth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, insomuch that he sitteth in the temple of God as God, taking upon him as though he were a God upon earth, therefore according to this testimony of th'apostle the Pope is Antichrist. And first that the Pope advanceth himself above all that is called God, it is plain, because he lifteth up himself not only over Kings and Emperors on earth, but also above the Angels in heaven. Of his lifting up himself above Kings & Emperors is the testimony before alleged 2. Thess. 2. 4. Papa superioritatem habet in imperium. Clemeatin. Pastoralis de re judic. especially to be understood. For he speaketh of such an advancement whereby Antichrist should be revealed, as was to be hindered for a time by the Roman Empire. Let us then consider how he advanceth himself above Kings and Emperors who are called Gods. The Pope if you will believe him & his followers, is the 1 Paulus 4. ad ducem Floret. in bulla. Rod. Cupers. meritò rex regum & dominus dominantium censetur Papa, reque ipsa existit. pag. 43. num. 39 c. solitas, extr. de maior. & obed. etc. per venerabilem opt. qui filii sunt legitimi. Antonius de Rosellis. King of Kings and Lord of Lords, by 2 Lib. Carem. whom Prince's reign, and from 3 Clem. 5. in council. vienn. whom the right of Kings dependeth. For you must know that as they full solemnly dispute, the 4 R. Cupers. pag. 251. num. 62. Empire or temporal rule, as well as the priesthood or ecclesiastical dominion is translated unto the successors of Peter: that the 5 Idem pag. 52. num. 28. & p. 1. 251. n. 63. & 64. right of rule & direct dominion of the Empire and kingdoms belongeth to the Pope, howbeit he committeth the exercise thereof to Emperors & Kings: that 6 Idem pag. 28 num. 7. Emperors, Kings, & all Princes receive their right of governing their kingdoms from the Pope, & that by him they are confirmed, & by him deposed: that to him Emperors & Kings as being but his vassals are bound to swear 7 c. tibi domino. dist. 63. etc. 1. de iuretur. allegiance and sidelity: that he so far surpasseth the 8 c. solitae de maior. & obed. Emperor as the Sun excelleth the Moon, that is, according to their Astronomy, 9 G●…oss. ibid. Sta●…st. Orichovius quantum Deus praestat sacerdoti, tantum sacerdos praestat regi. qui regé anteponit sacerdoti, is anteponit creaturam creatori. Apud juellum. seven and fifty times, or rather as the creator is superior to the creature. Therefore Kings and Emperors 10 Li. ●…erem. 1. sect. 5. cap. 3. & lib. 3. sect. 1. cap. 3. when they come into the presence of his holiness, must, after obeisance done in three several distances, fall down before him and kiss his foot, even as Mantuan saith of him, Ense potens gemino, cuius vestigia adorant Caesar, & aurato vestitimurice reges. And if they be in presence when he taketh 11 Lib. 1. c●…erē. sect. 2. c. 3. horse, the Emperor or chiefest Prince that is present must hold his right stirrup, & when he is mounted must hold the bridle, & play the lackey for a certain space, & likewise when he lighteth off, must hold the right stirrup; which if he happen to mistake as being not used to service, he must look for a check, as we read 12 Helmoldus Chron. Slavor: l. 1. c. 81. & Bal: de vit. pont. of Hadrian the 4. who bitterly checked Frederick the Emperor for holding the stirrup on the wrong side. Or if it be his pleasure to be carried aloft on men's shoulders, 13 lib. caerem. 1. sect. 2. & 5. de processione pontifi●…s & Caesaris per urbem. Lib. 1. c. 8. caerem. the Emperor, kings, & princes that are present, must put under their shoulder & help to carry his holiness for a space, and whiles he is on foot the Emperor or chiefest Prince must bear up his train. If the Emperor be at the Pope's 14 L●…b. caerem. 1. sect. 3. Antonin. sin. part. 3. ●…it, 22. cap. 5. §. 13. E. venerabilem de elect. feast, his duty is before dinner to hold the Pope water to wash his hands, and to bring in the first mess. For in deed Imperator est minister Papae, The Emperor is the Pope's minister. 3. These are but matters of ceremony. But as he vaunteth that all the right of kings dependeth on him, so he challengeth authority and power to translate kingdoms, to create & depose Kings, to translate the Empire from nation to nation, and to give the same to whom it pleaseth him. The Emperor (saith 1 Hadrian, apud Auent●…n. lib. 6. he) is Emperor by us. Whence hath he the Empire but from us? Behold the Empire is in our power to give it to whom we well. And accordingly he hath 2 Bellarm. de pont. Rom. lib. 3. cap. 16. deposed diverse Kings and Emperors, and created others, as I shall not need to prove, for both they and their followers boast thereof. And if you desire some other examples of their insolent and Antichristian behaviour towards Emperors and Kings, did not Gregory the seventh make Henry the Emperor, who came in all humility to submit himself unto him with his wife and child, dance attendance at his gate barefoot and barehead by the space of three days, before he would grant them any access unto him? When as the Emperor Frederick Naucler. generat. 40. Barbarossa was excommunicated by the Pope, and his son taken prisoner in Venice, he came to the Pope Alexander the third, into the Church of Saint Mark there, to the end that he might be absolved, and his son restored. Where, before all the people, the Pope having commanded the Emperor to prostrate himself upon the ground and so to ask pardon, he setteth his foot in the neck of the Emperor, saying, it is written, Super aspidem & basiliscum ambulabis, & conculcabis Leonem & Draconem, Thou shalt walk upon the Asp and Cockatrice, and shalt tread upon the Lion and the Dragon. Which indignity when the Emperor being not well able to brook, made answer, Not to thee but to Peter, the holy father treading on the emperors neck replied, Et mihi & Petro, Both to me and to Peter. And when as Henry the sixth came to be crowned Emperor, and to that end kneeled before Celestin the third sitting in his pontifical chair, did not he after he had set the imperial Diadem on his head, and as some say with his feet, kick it of with his foot again? What should I tell you of Innocent the second, how he caused his own with the emperors picture to be set up in the Palace of Laterane, himself sitting in his pontifical throne, and the Emperor kneeling before him and holding up his hands as unto God, with these verses subscribed, Rexvenit ante sores, iurans prids urbis honores, Pòst homo sit Papae, sumit quo dante coronam, That is, The King of the Romans cometh before the gates, swearing first to the honours & privileges of the city, afterward he becometh the Pope's man, of whose gift he receiveth the imperiallcrowne. 4. And thus hath the Pope lifted up himself above all that is called God upon earth, that is to say, Kings & Emperors: let us now consider whether he exalteth himself above those which are called Gods in heaven, that is to say, the Angels. First, in general it is avouched by himself & his approved writers, that the power of the Pope is greater than all other created power. a Antonin. s●…m. pact. 3. lit. 22. c. 5. Potestas Papaemaior est omni alia potestate creata: b Concil. Lateranens. sub Leo. 10. sess. 10. That unto him is given all power above all powers as well of heaven as of the earth. Qui totum dicit nihil excludit, He that saith all excludeth nothing: c Innocent. Papa. extr. de constit. R. Cupers. pag. 28. num. 5. that to the vicar of the creator, that is the Pope, every creature is subject: and more particularly, that he hath d Felinus apud juellun. vi●…riatum Christi, Christ's vicarship, not only about things in heaven, in earth, in hell, but also above the Angels both good & bad: e Nicolaus Egmundanus apud Bal. de vit. pōl. Pontificem Romanum habere imperium in angelos ac daemonas, That the Pope hath rule over the Angels and Devils. That he hath power to command the Angels, for so they say, f Gregor. Haimburg. in appellat. Sigism. apud jewel. Papa Angelis habet imperare, & g Camotensis. Papa angelis praecipit. And according to these testimonies which avouch his right, is the Pope's practice. For not only he challengeth greater honour & reverence to be done to himself then is due to the angels (for he admitteth of adorations & fall down before him, which the angels refuse because they are our fellow servants:) but also he taketh upon him to command the holy Angels at his pleasure to remove souls departed out of purgatory into heaven. Clement the 6. in his bull concerning those which should come to Rome to celebrate the jubilee, he commandeth the Angels of heaven, that if any of them should die in that lourney, to bring their souls being wholly freed from Purgatory into the glory of Paradise. His words be these: Prorsus mandamus angelis paradisi, quatenus animam à purgatorio penitus absolutam, in paradisi gloriam introducant. 5. It remaineth that I should show how the Pope advanceth himself above the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is the things wherein God is worshipped, or which are worshipped as God in the church of Rome, as namely the Saints, the cross, the altar, and their God of bread. As for the saints they are subject to the Antonin. part. 3. lit. 22. cap. 5. §. 5. Pope quoad canonizationem, standing at the courtesy and free disposition of the Pope whether to be deified that is as they speak to be canonised, or to be deposed. For such is his authority Troilus Maluil. in tract. de canonis. sanct. 3. dub. (if you will believe him) in canonizing of Saints, that he can canonize whom he will, yea of a damned person cast into hell he can make a saint in heaven, and contrariwise he Antoninus' part 3. lit. 22 c, 5. §. 6. can unsaint those which before wore canonised. The cross which they say is to be worshipped with divine worship, is notwithstanding made an ensign of the Pope's authority, Traianum Gregorius per orationem sud a poena inf●…rni quae infinita est absoluit. and is borne before him as the mace before the magistrate, or the sword before the prince, & when their procession is at an end it is laid under his feet. And that he may be known even literally so to sit in the material temple as if he were a God, it is to be noted that his seat in the church is above the altar. But their chief 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is their God of bread, which because they imagine it to be Christ himself it is worshipped among them as their maker and redeemer, notwithstanding in the Pope's processions and journeys it is made an attendant on his holiness. For I shall not need to tell you now which you heard before, how Pope Hildebrand, when it did not answer his demands as being not used to speak, did cast it into the fire. It is worthy to be remembered which is reported by joannes Monlucius the Bishop of Valence, who was the french Lib de religione ad Reginam matr●…. Fulmen brut. pag. 12. & 13. king's Ambassador at Rome, & testified by others, that when the Pope is to travel abroad, three or four days before, he sendeth the Eucharist (that is Christ their maker) on horseback accompanied with muletors and horse-keepers, and courtisants and cooks with sumpterhorses and all the baggage of his court. Afterwards the Pope who professeth himself his vicar followeth, attended with Cardinals, Primates, Bishops, and Potentates. And when he cometh near to the place whether he traveleth, their Christ is brought to meet him on the way that it may be carried before him into the town. But with what difference of honour is he and his attendant carried in such solemn processions? The Pope either rideth on a goodly white horse under a stately canopy, or else is carried aloft upon noble men's shoulders in a chair of gold, when the Christ of the Papists, the Pope's attendant is carried upon a simple hackney in comparison, with no such magnificence▪ & yet that hackney is the Pope's vicar appointed in his steed to Stapleton in epist. ded cat. ante p●…incip. do●…in. ca●…ie the Monstrame. In a word, he is supremum numen in terris the chief or supreme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to be worshipped on earth. 6 But let us come to the height of Antichrists pride, For it is not sufficient for the Pope to be lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, unless he take upon him as if he were God, and seek to match himself with Christ, as the name Antichrist importeth: that unto him the height of Antichrists a In c. ecclesia, ut lite pe●…dente, & in Concil. Lateran. sub Iu●…o. Bald. in l. barber. de off. praet. pride may also be applied, which is described in these words, insomuch that he sit teeth in the temple of God as God, behaving himself as if he were god, or (which is all one) showing himself that he is god. For of his followers and flatterers he is said to be all and above all, the cause of causes, and the first b Gomesius de regul. cancel. cause. Bald. in c. ecclesia ut lite pendente, that he is numen quoddam, visibilem quendam Deum praese serens, a certain divine majesty showing himself to be a certain visible God. Agreeable to the prophecy 2. Thess. 2. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is as Beza translateth praese ferens, hebr. moreh i facrens se apparere of some he is called c Decius c. 1. de constitutionib. Ca●…dill. pro council trident. Bald. Cod. sentent. rescindendi. 1. vit. & de electione. Felin. c. ego. N de iureius. terrenus Deus or Deus in terris, a God upon earth. In the council of Lateran it was said to him, & he heard it willingly, d Christoph. Marcellan con●…l. Lateran. sess 4. In arca triumph. Impress. Lug●…uni 〈◊〉. 1555 Tu es alter Deus in terris, thou art another God upon earth: in honour of that hellhound Sixtus the 4. it was written, and presented to his view, that he is worthily believed to be a God upon earth, Orac'lo vocis mundi moderaris habenas, Et meritò in terris crederis esse Deus. By the oracle of thy voice thou governest the world, and worthily art thou believed to be a god upon earth. The Canonists call him, Our Lord God the Pope. For so it is written not only in diverse old editions, but also in that new edition which by the authority of Pope Gregory 13. was corrected and published, Credere dominum Deum nostrum Papam, conditorem dictae decretalis & istius, nö sic potuisse statucre prout statuit, haereticum censeatur: to believe that our Lord God the Pope the author of this, and the aforesaid decretal, could not decree as he hath decreed, it ought to be judged heretical. And as they willingly hear themselves called God (and not only themselves hear or read it, but by their authority appoint the same to be published unto the world) so they are content to be worshipped and adored as God. Neither was the complaint of Frederic the second untrue; Pontifices Romanos affectare dominationem & divinitatem, atque In Epist ad Othon. Bavar. duke. apud A●…entin. lib. 7, ut ab hominibus haud aliter, imó, magis quàm Deus timeantur, That the Popes of Rome affect Lordship, and divinity. and that they may be feared of men no otherwise, yea more than God. Franciscus Zabarella a Cardinal of Rome saith, The Popes have been made to believe (such is their pride) that Apud juellum. they can do all things what they list, even unlawful things, and that they are plusquam Deus, more than God. These are more than sufficient to prove that the Pope taketh upon him as if he were a God, although he should not in word affirm any such thing of himself. But so shameless is this Antichrist, Gregor. 9 de translat. episc. c. quanto. & canter corporalia that he affirmeth the like things of himself. As namely that those things which he doth, be done by a divine power: and the reason is given by his Lawyers, because the Pope canonically elected, is a God upon earth. Whereupon Innocentive. 3. useth ut eccles. benesic. c. v●… nos●…ū. Capistran. fol. 23. these words, ut nostrum prodeat de Dei vultu judicium that our judgement may proceed from the face of god: That Peter & con sequently his successor the Pope (for to that purpose it is alleged) is assumed into the fellowship of the undivided unity. And in Bonifac. in 8. de elect. one place he not only affirmeth, but by testimony also confirmeth C. Fundamenta in sexto. that he is God. Satis evidenter (saith he) ostenditur, a seeulari potest●…te n●… ligart prorsus, nee sol●…i posse pontificem, quem constat Distinct. 96. c. satis cuidenter. a pio principe Constantino Deum appellatum: nec posse Deum ab hominibus judicari manifestum est. Where the Pope proveth he cannot be judged by any secular power, by this reason. God cannot be judged of men. The Pope is god, therefore the pope may not be judged of men. assumption he approveth by the forged testimony of Constantine. And therefore not unworthily by a worthy Bishop in Aventinus, the Pope is said to be Antichrist, in whose forehead this name of blasphemy is written: Deus sum, errare non possum. Lib. 7. Eberhardu●… Ep. sil●…sourgensis. I am God, I cannot err. 7 But as I said, the name Antichrist signifieth such a one as seeketh to match Christ. Let us therefore farther consider how this agreeth to the Pope. For if the Pope do seek to match himself with Christ, then by this argument alone if there were no more, he may be certainly convinced to be Antichrist. In Christ we consider his natures and his offices, As touching his nature the Pope if you will believe their blasphemies, a Extrau. in joan. 22. aequè ac Christus Deus est, ens secundae intentionis compositum ex Deo & homine. As well as Christ he is god, a being Vid Erasm. annotat. in 1. Tim. 1. Papa stupor mundi. Clemen. in pro aem. in gloss. of the second intention compounded of god and man. And as Christ in respect of the one nature is greater than man, and in regard of the other less than God, so they say of the Pope, b joan. a Capistr de Papae & ecclesiae authoritate. Est quasi deus in terris, maior homine, & minor Deo, plenitudinem obtinens potestatis. He is as it were a god upon earth, greater than a man, and less than god, having the fullness of power. That he is a man I shall not need to prove, howbeit some of his followers cannot well tell what to make of him. They say he is the wonderment of the world, c Nec deus es, nec homo: quasi neuter es inter v●…rumque. neither God nor man, but a neuter betwixt both. That he would be supposed and acknowledged as a God, besides all the allegations in the former section, it appeareth also by the divine properties which are attributed to the Pope. His holiness (that is to say) the Pope, (for his holiness is himself,) is d Ps. 94. 1. Rod. Cupers de ecclesia pag. 61. num. 52. Deus vindictae the god of revenge, true without error, yea without possibility of erring, for he cannot err, whose e Sub finem tit de censib. exact. & procur in Clement. ad verbum volumus & Abb. Panorm. de constitut. de translat it. episc. c quanto in gloss. will must stand for reason as if it were the rule of justice. For even as some of his f Ger●…chus apud Auentin. lib. 5. friends say he often beateth upon that of the Satire, Sic volo sic jubeo, sit proratione volunt as. So I will, so I command, my will must stand for reason. And therefore it were no better than g Dist. 40. non nos in gloss. sacrilege to call in question any of his doings. For power, whether you understand potestatem, or potentiam, that is authority or might, he would seem to be infinite in respect of both, for h Lib. caerem. 1. sect. 7. infinite power is given unto him. And if unto Christ i Cupers de eccl. pag 50. num. 45. 46. De maior. & obed. c. unam sanctam in gloss. was given all power in heaven and in earth, than the Pope who is his vicar hath the same power. He forsooth is the k Bald. c. ecclesia. ut lite. pendente. cause of causes, of whose power none must inquire, seeing of the first cause there is no cause: yea to l In L. sacrilegij. c. de crim. sacril. doubt of his power, is no better than sacrilege. m Panormit. ex Hostiensi. extr. de translat. praelat. c. quanto. & de electi. c. licet. Excepto peccato potest quasi omnia facere quae potest Deus, Sin excepted, the Pope may do all things as it were which God may do. He can change the nature of things, yea n De translat. episc. c. quanto in gloss. of nothing he can make something, and of unjustice righteousness, for he hath the fullness of power. 8. If you respect his office he hath the same o Bellarm. de pont. Rom. l. 5. c. 4. which Christ had whiles he was on the earth, howbeit there is great odds in their outward estates. p R. Cupers de eccl: pag. 50. num. 45. 46. Bellarm. de council, l. 2. c. 17. & de pot. Rom. lib. 2. c. 31. joan. de turrecre. sum. de eccl. lib. 2. c. 27. & cap. 80. R. Cupers. pag. 34. num. 1. Bonifac. 8. c. quoniam de immunit. in 6. Panormit. For it is not sit that the Pope should resemble Christ who now is glorified in heaven, as he was contemned, but as the Pastor of the whole world supernal & heavenvly, & as he shall come to be our judge, to whom it is certain that all men of necessity must obey. For it is evident that the work of redemption being accomplished, the power of Christ was extended as well in heaven as in earth. Mat. 28. All power is given unto me in heaven & in earth. Which power is translated unto his Vicar, etc. In respect of his office therefore, he is the foundation, the head, the husband, the Lord of the universal church, in unction Christ, & is therefore to be called a R. Cupers. de eccl. Christus Domini, the Lords Christ Now if it be objected that Christ alone is the head b Eph. t.. 21. 22. 4. 15. 5. 23. Col. 1. 28. of the Catholic Church and so of the c Eph. 5. 24. joan. 3. 29. 2. Cor. 11. 2. 1. Cor. 3. 11. 12. rest: answer is made, that d R. Cupers. de eccl. pag. 128. num. 36. Christ and the Pope in the Church are unum & idem caput, one and the same head, and do make one and the same consistory: e Idem pag. 30. num. 8. for it were a monstrous thing that the Church should have two heads. And to the same purpose saith a f 1. de. turrecre●…at. sum. de eccle. lib. 2. c. 26. Cardinal of Rome, The judgement of the Pope is reputed the judgement of God, and his sentence, and his consistory, the consistory of God: and therefore Christ and the Pope are not properly two heads, but one, as Boniface the eight declareth, In extrav. c. unam sanctam. But to speak more particularly of his offices. For prophecy, he is the universal or ecumenical Bishop, and Pastor of Pastors, Orat. Cornelij episcop●… 〈◊〉. in council. ●…rident. sub. Pau. lo 3. the Ordinary or Bishop of the whole world: Who is oom a light into the world, but men have loved darkness more than light, who hath the supreme authority of interpreting the scriptures, who is the supreme judge in controversies of religion, having De translat. epise. c. quanto in gloss. an heavenly arbitrement, and as it were a divine and infallible judgement, who is above 1 Decret. Greg. l. 1. de elect & 〈◊〉 o●… c. significa●… Concil. Florent. & T●…dent. general counsels, for 2 R. Cupers de ●…ccl. pag. 31. num. 23. Pig●…. lib. 6. c. 13. although in a general council the universal Church is represented, in Cupers. pag. 125 n●…. 9 so much that nothing is greater than the Council, Tamen Papa eidem omnimoda supereminet authoritate, Notwithstanding Cap●…. sol. 23. C. de sum●…. trinit. l. 1. in. f. the Pope surpasseth the same in all manner authority, whose judgement is to be preferred before the judgement of the whole world, insomuch that if the whole world should determine against the Pope, we must stand to his sentence, for so they say, 4 R. Cupers. pag. 11 〈◊〉. 18. Papae sententia totius orbis pl●…to prefertu●…: And again, 5 1. de turrecrem. lib. 3. c. 64. Si totus mundus sentiret (or as the 6 In c. nemo. 9 q 3. gloss readeth senten●…iaret) contra Papam, videtur quòd senten●…ae Papae standum esset, ut 24. q. 1. haec est fides, haec gloss. 7 Baldus. who is of greater authority than all the Saints, and in respect thereof is of 8 1. de turrecrem. sum. lib. 2 cap. 26. great perfection then the whole body of the Church beside. But it is not sufficient for this Antichrist to prefer himself above the whole Church which is the body of Christ, unless also he sought in respect of the prophetical office to match himself with Christ the head of the church, yea and in some respects to overmatch him. 9 He seeketh to match himself with Christ, 1. in taking upon him to make new articles of Eaith, and to propound doctrines not contained in the Scriptures as necessary unto salvation. 2. In making five Sacraments more than Christ appointed, (some whereof he preferreth above baptism) and those two which Christ hath ordained he hath so altered and changed as that the one is scarcely, the other not at all the same. And whereas Christ ordained the Sacrament of his body and blood in two kinds, they not withstanding his institution will have it administered to the people but in one kind. For so it is professed in the Council of Constance, that although Christ administered this venerable sacrament ●…ss. 13. unto his Disciples under both kinds of bread and wine, and although in the primitive church this sacrament was received of the faithful in both kinds, notwithstanding this custom of receiving the bread only was upon good reason brought in, for the avoiding of some dangers and scandals. 3. In making their own devices, decretals & traditions of equal authority with the word of God. Innocentius 3. commanded that the words of the canon joan. Bal: in eius vita. of the Mass should be held equal to the words of the gospel. Agatho the Pope decreed that all the constitutions of the See apostolic are to be received, as authorized by the divine voice D stinct. 19 c. sic omnes. joan. de turrecrem. lib. 2. c. 108. of Peter himself. And in the same distinction, this is the title or argument of one chapter, Inter canonic as Scripturas, decretales epistolae connumerantur, that is, Among the Canonical scriptures the decretal epistles are numbered. Which in D●…st. 19 c. in canonic●…. the chapter itself is absurdly proved out of Augustine misalledged. And as touching traditions (whereby are meant De doctr. Christi. l. 2. c. 8. all points of popery, which as themselves confess are not contained in the written word) the holy Council of Trent hath ordained that they are to be received, and honoured Pari pi●…tatis affectu ac reverentia, With as great affection of Sess. 4. piety and reverence, as the written word of God. Which decree when as a certain Bishop misliked, Ceruinus the Popes jacobus Nachiantes Clodiae follae episcopus. Bal. in vita Marcell●… secundi. legate (who afterwards was Pope, called Marcellus 2.) caused him to be expelled out of the Council. And lastly, lest he should seem in any thing to be inferior to Christ our Prophet, he confirmeth his doctrines by miracles as they call them. 10. And thus the Pope matcheth himself with Christ our Prophet: let us now consider how he advanceth himself above him. Which he manifestly doth in preferring his own and the church's authority above the scriptures. And if the Hervaeus de potest. Tap. e. & R. Cupers. Petrus de palude, de potest. Papae. ●…t. 4. church be above the Scriptures, then much more is he. For he not only virtualiter est tota ecclesia, that is, virtually the whole church, but also his power alone exceedeth the power of all the whole church beside. Now that the authority of the church & much more of the Pope who is superior to the church, is above the scripture, it is both generally affirmed & by some particulars confirmed, Cardinal Cusanus entitleth his book, De authoritate ecclesia & concilij supra & contra scripturam, Of the authority of the Church & council above & against the Scripture. Sylvester Prierias master of the Pope's palace saith, That indulgences are warranted unto us, not by the authority of the Scripture, Contra Lutheri conclusiones de potestate Papae. but by the authority of the Church and Pope of Rome, which is greater. Boniface the Archbishop of Mentz saith, That all men so reverence the Apostolic See of Rome, that they rather desire the ancient institution of Christian religion from the Pope, then from the holy Scriptures. This saying the Pope hath so approved, that he hath caused it to be inserted into the Dist. 40. c. si Papa. Canon law. The particulars which prove the Pope to advance himself above the Scriptures are these. 1, Because he hath as they say authority to add to the Canonical Scriptures, other books that are not in the Canon. And that those Dist. 19 c. si Romanorum. joan. de turrecrem. l. 〈◊〉. cap. 112. which be in the Canon, have their Canonical authority from him. In the 19 distinction cap. Si Romanorum, Pope Nicolas not only matcheth their decretal Epistles with the holy Scriptures, but also affirmeth that the Scriptures are therefore to be received, because the Pope hath judged them canonical. Another saith, Whosoever resteth not on the doctrine of the Roman church and Bishop of Rome as the infallible rule of God, Sylvester Prierias contra Lutherum. à qua sacra scriptura robur trabis & authoritatem, From which the sacred Scripture draweth strength and authority, he is an Heretic. Eckius saith, Scriptura nisiecclesiae authoritate non De ecclesia. est authentica, The Scripture is not authentical but by the authority of the Church. For I will not tell you how some of them have not been ashamed to say, that the Scripture without the authority of the Church, is of itself no better worth than Aesop's fables. Pighius saith, The authority of the church Vid. Chemnit. exam. part. 1. pag. 47. is above the Scriptures, because the authority of the Church hath given the Scriptures canonical authority. Secondly, whereas the Scriptures are not the words and syllables, but the true sense and meaning thereof. They teach that the scriptures are to be understood according to the interpretation of the Pope and Church of Rome: and that sense which the Pope assigneth to the Scriptures, must be taken for the undoubted word of God. The Pope (saith one) hath authority so to expound Heruau●… de potestate Papae. the scriptures, that it is not lawful to hold or think the contrary. A Cardinal of Rome saith, If any man have the interpretation of the church of Rome concerning any place of scripture, although he neither know nor understand whether and Cardinal. Hosius de expresso dei verbo. how it agreeth with the words of the scripture, notwithstanding he hath ipsimum verbum Dei, the very word of God: And if the sense, which they give, be diverse according to the variety of their practice and diversity of times, we must acknowledge that the scripture is to follow the church and not the church to follow the scriptures. Whereupon Cardinal Cusanus, It is no Nicol. Cusanus ad Bohem. epist. 7. marvel (saith he) though the practice of the church expound the scriptures at one time one way and at another time another way. For the understanding or sense of the scripture runneth with the practice. And that sense so agreeing with the practice is the quickening spirit. And therefore the scriptures follow the church, but contrariwise the church followeth not the scriptures. And this is that which one who was no small fool in Rome avouched, The Pope saith he may change the holy gospel, and may Henricus Doctor magister sacri palatij Romae ad legatos ●…ohemicos sub Felice Papa. 1447. give to the gospel according to place and time another sense. And to the same purpose was the speech of that blasphemous Cardinal, that if any man did not believe that Christ is very God and man, and the Pope thought the same, he should not be condemned. To conclude therefore with Cardinal Cusanus, This is the judgement (saith he) of all them that think rightly, Cardinal. s. Angeli ad cosde●… legatos Bohemicos. that found the authority and understanding of the scriptures in the allowance of the church: and not contrariwise lay the foundation of the church in the authority of the scriptures. Ad Bohemos epist. 2. 11 Thirdly, the Pope challengeth authority above the scriptures, when he taketh upon him to dispense with the word and law of God. For whosoever taketh upon him to dispense with the law of another challengeth greater authority than the others, and it is a rule among themselves, In praecepto superioris, non debet dispensare inferior, the inferior may not dispense Antonin. part. 3. lit. 22. cap. 6. §. 2. with the commandment of the superior. That the Pope doth dispense with the laws of God it is evident. For scarcely is there any sin forbidden there, where with he doth not sometimes dispense, nay whereof he will not, if it be for his advantage, make a meritorious work. Incest is an horrible sin, forbidden by the law of God and by the law of nature. And yet there is no incest, excepting that which is committed betwixt the parents and the children, which he hath not authority forsooth to dispense with: for as they say, he may dispense against the law of nature. The Pope dispensed with Henry the eighth to marry his sister in law, and 25. q. 6 authoritatem in gl●…ss. with Philip the late king of Spain, to marry his own niece. Pope Martin the fift dispensed with a certain brother that Antonin. sum. 3. part tit. 1. cap. 11. §. quod Papa. sum. angel. di●…t. Papa. married his own sister. And Clement the seventh licenced Petrus Aluara●…lus the spaniard for a sum of money, to marry two sisters at once etc. Disobedience to parents, perjury that is breaking of lawful oaths, rebellion against lawful princes, murdering of a sacred prince, are condemned by the law of God as heinous offences. But if children shall cast of their parents to enter into a Sodomitical cloister, if the Pope shall absolve the subjects from their oaths and forbid them to obey their princes, if he shall excommunicate a lawful prince, or suborn a wicked traitor, to murder his sovereign: then disobedience to parents, perjury and rebellion in subjects, murdering of sacred Princes, is not only a warrantable but also a meritorious act. For as you have heard Papa ex iniustitia potest facere justitiam. The Pope of sin can make righteousness. And that the Pope may thus dispense with the word of God, his canonists and divines do diversely dispute. One saith, a Michael Medina, Christian. paraenes. lib. 7. c. 17. Gratian. part. 1. pag. 76. Potestas in divinas leges ordinariè in Romano pontifice residet. Power over the laws of God remaineth ordinarily in the pope of Rome. Others say, Papa potest dispensare contra ius divinum. b 16. q. 1. de decimi●…, in ●…loss. Dist. 34. c. Lector. 15 q. 6. authoritatem. Privilegium contra ius divinum concedi potest. The Pope may dispense, or grant a privilege against the law of God: c Abb. Panorm. extr. de d 〈◊〉. cap. sin. that is, as another saith, he may dispense against the law of God in particular, but not in general. Papa potest dispensare contra Apostolum, the Pope may dispense against the Apostle. d Felin. de constitut. cap statuta canonum. The Pope may dispense against the new testament upon a great cause. ᵉ'the Pope may dispense against the Epistles of Paul. And to put this matter out of doubt which is so doubtfully handled by some popish writers, this question in summa angelica is determined and decided, out of diverse authors approved in the church of Dictione, Papa. Rome, That as in the precepts of the second table the Pope cannot dispense universally (for that were not to dispense with them, but wholly to abrogate the laws themselves) but in particular cases ubi ratio legis desicit, where the reason of the law faileth: so hec may dispense with all the precepts of the old and new testament. But how shall we know where the reason of the law faileth? This may partly be known by those examples in the scripture where God himself dispensed with his laws. But where there is no example of God's dispensation in the like case, than it appertaineth to the Pope alone to declare, when and in what particular case the reason of the law faileth. And I sirmelie believe (saith the author of that book) that if any man, craving a dispensation in any case against the law of God, interpose not importunity of reward or suit, but simply put himself into the hands of the Pope by declaring his case, that God will not suffer his vicar to err in dispensing. So that whereas the laws and commandments of God are to be understood with this exception only Nisi Deus ipse aliter volverit, unless God himself otherwise appoint, because he alone may dispense with his own laws: notwithstanding by the popish divinity they are to be understood with this exception, unless the Pope otherwise appoint: that is, we are bound to keep every commandment of God, unless the Pope interpose his authority betwixt God and us (as the tribunes of the comunalty among the Romans were wont to intercede against other magistrates) and exempt us from the obedience thereof. 12 And as the Pope may dispense with all the laws of God, so in the last place, he may and doth take away some, and abrogate others. Papa potest tollere ius divinum ex Felinus de maior. & obed. cap. sin. part non in totum: the Pope may take away the law of God in part, but not in whole. Thus he taketh away the second commandment out of the decalogue, because with it his Idolalatrie cannot stand: and to make up the full number of ten he divideth the last commandment into two, against all reason and authority of antiquity. But that commandment concerning images and diverse others the Pope also abrogateth by his countermands. God forbiddeth us either to worship or to serve any but himself. Mat. 4. 10. 1. Sam. 7. 3. Ex. 20. 3. The Pope commandeth us to worship Angels and Saints, yea and the relics of Saints. God forbiddeth the making and worshipping of images, the Pope commandeth the contrary. God condemneth stews, the Pope alloweth them, yea Six. 4. Concil●…trid. sess. 5. one of them built a famous stews. God condemneth concupiscence as a sin, the Pope alloweth it for no sin. God commandeth all the faithful to drin●… of the cup in the Lord's supper: the Pope forbiddeth the same. God commandeth every soul to be subject to the higher powers: the Pope exempteth his clergy a iugo seculari, from the secular yoke. God commandeth all to mary, who have not the gift of continency: the Pope forbiddeth all his clergy, though never so incontinent, to marry. Besides, it is evident that the Pope's laws in the church of Rome are in greater estimation than the laws of God, the obedience of them being more straightly urged, and the disobedience thereof more severely punished, then of God's laws. As for example, it is more safe for a man in the church of Rome to be a mere Atheist & a worshipper of no God, than not to be a worshipper of their God of bread, though otherwise a good Christian: better for a priest to be a So domit, then to marry: better to be a drunkard and whoremonger then to eat flesh in Lent: better with the begging friars Anno. 1254. Matth. Paris. 1254. to set forth a new gospel (which they called the gospel of the holy ghost and the eternal gospel, wherein they taught that Christ is not God, and that his gospel is not the true gospel, Na●…r. t. 2. 3●…6. and no more to be compared with their gospel then the Bal. in lib. de vitis pontiff. in append. 〈◊〉. Fox. nutshell is to be compared with the kernel) then for that learned man Guilielmus des. Amore to write against them and their gospel, for him the Pope disgraded and deposed from all his dignities when he would not suffer them to be disgraced: him he sent into exile, when he retained them in his high favour. Yet because he had rather be Antichrist, then seem so, he caused the friars Gospel, when it was complained of, to be burnt, yet secretly; that his Friars might not be disgraced nor scandalised. Better for private men to read any books of ribaldry or any villainy whatsoever, then to read any part of the scriptures in their own tongue. To these, many other particulars might be added wherein the Pope advanceth his own laws above the commandments of God, and his own authority above the authority of the Scriptures. Let us therefore humbly conclude according to the popish humility, that as the Pope is above the Church, so the Church is above the scriptures. Humiliter confitemur (saith a Papist) ecclesiae authoritatem joan. Maria verractus apud juellum. esse supra evangelium: We humbly confess that the authority of the church is above the gospel. 13. To his prophetical office let us add his priesthood. Amicij epistol. dedi. ad Gregor. 13. For the Pope forsooth is Pontifex Optimus Maximus (an epithet which the Heathen give to their chief God jupiter) he is that great priest according to the order of Melchisedec, whose foot must be reverently kissed of his Cardinals when Lib. carem. sect. 12. c. 5. he rideth into any city in his Pontificalibus, and the Bishop of the city beginning this Anthem, Ecce sacerdos Magnus, c. fundmenta. de elect. in 6. Behold the great Priest. He is the Prince of Priests, and head of the Christian religion. He is that Priest of Priests, who remitteth both fault and punishment both to quick and dead: whereas Christ remitteth only to the living: and (as they say) forgiveth the fault but not the punishment, neither doth this indulgent father grant pardon alone for sins past, but also for offences to come. 14. But I hasten to his kingly office. For he forsooth is the 1 Paul. 4 ad ducem Florentin. in bulla. King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the 2 Stenchus. & Sim. Begnius in orat. in council. Lateran. sess. 6. Lion of the tribe of juda, to 3 Lib. 1. carem. sect. 7. Pius 5. in bull. ad regem & reginam matrem Galliae. Antonin. in sum. part. 3. tit. 22. ca 5. §. 1. & 5. & 6. Psalm. 8. Heb. 2. 8. whom all power is given in heaven and in earth, yea and under the earth. For as he hath a triple crown, so he hath a triple Empire, in heaven and in earth, and (where Christ hath none) in purgatory. His power is greater than all other created power, extending itself in some sort unto things Celestial, terrestrial and infernal: So that of his power that may be verified which is said in the Psalm of Christ, & that aptly because he is Christ's vicar, Thou hast put all things under his feet. The beasts of the field, that is, men living on the earth: the fishes of the sea, that is to say, the souls in purgatory: the fowls of heaven, that is to say, the Angels and the souls of the blessed. Another wrote and taught that the Pope Nicol. Egmundanus apud Bal●…m. is the Lord of things in heaven, on the earth, and under the earth. In heaven, for as you have heard he hath power over the Angels and Saints, and souls departed. Papa angelis praecipit, Camotensis. & potestatem habet in mortuos, The Pope commandeth the Angels, and hath power over the dead. In earth, for he is, a Epist. ded. Amicij ad Gregor. 15. praefix. Capistr. Totius orbis Dominus, the Lord of the whole earth, having b De Maior c. unam sanctam. caelestis & terrestris potestatis Monarchiam, The Monarchy of the heavenvly and earthly power, c Extra de statu regular. pericu●…. in gloss. obtaining the kingdom of the whole world, unto whom forsooth belongeth that prophecy, d Lib 1. caerem. sect. 7. & capistran. fol. 57 Dominabitur à mari ad mare & à flumine usque adterminos orbis: He shall rule from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the world: his e Capistran. 〈◊〉. 2. fol. 24. Antonin. part. 3. tit. 22. §. 8. Alexander dis●…buted the new found world, betwixt the kings of Spain and Portugal. Lib. 1. caerem. sect. 1. c. 4. Cardin. Episcopus. Hostien●…. power reacheth over all the faithful principally, & secondarily also over the infidels: for under his feet, that is, under his jurisdiction are put the beasts of the field that is the Pagans, oxen that is jews and Heretics, and sheep that is Christians, and it extendeth itself unto all the parts of the world, not only known but also unknown, insomuch that the parts of the new found world are at his disposition to distribute and bestow. And that the Pagans are subject to the Pope it appeareth, because the Pope ruleth the world in steed of Christ. But Christ hath full jurisdiction over every creature. Seeing therefore the Pope is Christ's vicar, no man may lawfully withdraw himself from his obedience, even as none may lawfully withdraw himself from the obedience of God. Anton. part. 3. tit. 22. §. 8. The Deacon which invested the Pope was wont to use these words, I invest thee into the Papacy, Vt praesis urbi & orbi, That thou mayst rule both the city and the world. And likewise the Cardinal Bishop that anointeth him, useth this form of words, Egot●…inungo in pontificem urbis & orbis. Now this Cupers. de ec●…les. pag. 337. Empire or Monarchy which the Pope hath over the whole world is twofold, for he hath the two sword as it is stoutly proved out of the gospel, where one of Christ's disciples saith, Boniface 8. de maior. c. ●…am sanctam. Ecce duo gladij, behold two sword, civil and Ecclesiastical. For as Pope Nicolas saith, Christus beato aeternae vitae clavigero terreni simul & coelestis imperij iura●…commisit. Christ hath Dist. 22. c. 1. omnes. given to blessed Peter the key bearer of eternal life (and so to Io●…. de Parisijs de potestat. Pap. cap. 20. joan. Maior. 4. sent. q. 2. dist. 20. the Pope) the right both of the earthly and heavenly Empire. Civil, as hath been showed over all Kings and rulers, in respect whereof he writeth himself King of Kings, for all secular power is immediately given to the Pope: and he is above kings even in temporal matters, yea he alone is the true Lord of temporal things. Wherefore Pope Boniface the eight, sent unto Philip the French king and told him, That he was Lord Martinus Polonus. & in epist. ad eunden, s●…ire te volumus, quòd in spiritualibus & temporalibus nobis subes. Nicol. Gillius. anna●…ium gallic, scriptor. both in spiritual and also in temporal matters, throughout the world. And therefore that the King should hold his kingdom at his hand, and honour and worship him, Vt dominum regni sui, as the Lord of his Realm. Stenchus. for otherwise to think and hold (he said) it was Heresy. And as touching the Roman Empire, the government thereof belongeth to the Pope, being God's vicar on earth: as unto him by whom kings do reign. And surely whosoever denieth the temporal sword to be in the power of Peter, doth full ill attend to the Caeremon. lib. 1. cap. 2. word of the Lord, saying unto him, Put up thy sword into the sheath. And did not the Lord I beseech you (as some of the De maior. & obed. cap. v●… sanctam. Pope's favourites full solennely dispute) command Peter Luk. 5. 4. to launch into the deep, that he might signify the height of power joan. Capistr. de Pap. & eccl. author. 1. 2. sol. 21. & 122. duke in al●… designaret altitudinem potestatis etc. s. 15. in Peter. And again, Why did the Lord send Peter only to the Sea to fish with an angle or hook, but that he would insinuate that he intended to set Peter over the whole surging Sea of this tempestuous world? and why doth he command him to fish with an iron hook, but that he was disposed to commit unto him the sword both of the spiritual and temporal Empire? Hereunto we may add that worthy dispute of Antoninus Archbishop of Florence, part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 5. §. 17, That the Similiae argumenta habet 〈◊〉. de turr●…. in sum. & al●…. Subtiliss. Pope being the vicar of jesus Christ in the whole world, hath, in stead of the living God, the universal jurisdiction both of spiritual & temporal things. But the immediate administration of temporal things he receiveth not unless in the regions of the Western Empire by reason of the grant made to the church by Constantine. Now, that he useth not the temporal administration in other countries, but only in the parts of Italy etc. this is not for want of authority, but that he would nourish in his sons the bond of peace and unity. For since the Empire was divided, and of diverse in diverse parts diversly and tyrannically usurped, the Church to avoid the scandal of the jews hath made herself tributary with Peter etc. And as touching those which say the Pope hath dominion over the whole world, not in temporal matters but in spirituallonely, they are like the counsellors of the king of Syria, who said 1. King. 20. their gods are gods of the mountains and not of the valleys. For so they say the Popes are gods of the mountains, that is of spiritaull goods, but they are not gods of the valleys, because they have not the dominion of temporal goods. And in the same place he addeth; That from the sentence of all Kings and Princes men may appeal to the Pope. Astouching his ecclesiastical authority which (as some Th. Aquin. in 2. sent. in fine. Antonin. part. 3 tit. 22. cap. 6. §. 6. say) is the foundation of the Church, he is superior and greater than all the residue of the universal Church, and this is proved by seven arguments, 1. Because he is the Pastor of the universal Church. 2. Because he is the head of the 1. de turrecrem. in sum. de eccles. lib. 2. cap. 80. universal Church. 3. Because he is that prelate which hath authority over the whole Church. 4. Because he is the prince of the universal church. 5. Because he hath supreme power in the Church. 6. Because he alone hath fullness of power in the Church. 7. Because he is Christ's vicar general in the whole universal Church. For in the Apostolic See the Lord Dist. II. c. nolite errare. hath placed the princehood of the whole Church, and therefore worthily is he called Ecclesiae princeps ac rex regum torra, 1 I. de turrecrem lib. 3. sum. cap. 9 The prince of the church & king of the kings of the earth; yea 2 Amicij epist. dedic. ad Gre, gor. 13. praefix. Capistr. Princeps optimus maximus, 3 D●…st. 40. c. si Papa, et R. Cis. per pag. 29. joan. Andreas in c. quanto de translat. Panorm. c licet. de elect. Of whom the salvation of the church universal after God dependeth. He is the head, the root, the Monarch, the fountain of ecclesiastical power, having the same consistory with God, & judgement seat with Christ For so they writ: 5 I. de turrecrem. sum. lib. 2. cap. 8. & R. Cupers. pag. 29. n. 16. & 42. n. 14. Idem tribunal Christ's & Pap●…●…erris: Inter Papam & Deum unum & idem fit tribunal, unumque & idem consistorlum. He maketh laws which bind the conscience and that with guilt of mortal sin, 7 R. Cupers. pag. 62. n. 66. de constitut. c. licet in sexto. R. Cupers. pag. 29. n. 1. he is the living law, yea he hath all laws in the closet of his breast, and he can dispose above law and retaineth the fullness of power so as he needeth no addition, 9 I de turrecrem. l. 3. c 64. he alone hath the fullness of power, as being the prince of the church's laws. And even as the first mover 10 R. Cupers. de eccl. pag 166 n. 28. governeth the church triumphant, so doth the Pope rule the church militant. For seeing in the church 11 Clement. lib. 5. de haereticis. c. ad nostrum in gloss. triumphant there is one sovereign prince to whose obedience that whole church is most perfectly subject, that is to say, God: it followeth necessarily that one sovereign prince ruleth over the whole militant church, that is to say the Pope, whose commandments all are bound to obey. And thus much of the Pope's power, in heaven and in earth: in respect whereof it is said that the jurisdiction and care of the Antonin. sum part. 3. tit. ●…2. §. 1. whole world is committed to the Pope, not only as by the name of the world is imported the earth, but also as by the name of the world is imported heaven, because he hath received jurisdiction over heaven and earth. 16 There remaineth the third part of his kingdom which he hath in purgatory. For as one of their approved authors Angelus Parisiensis. saith, Purgatorium est peculium Papae, Purgatory is the Pope's peculiar: where, as also in hell he hath so great authority, as that by his indulgences he is able to deliver thence so many souls Fulm brut. ex. bulla Clement. 6. as it pleaseth him, and to place them in heaven and in the seats of the blessed. Insomuch as this is become a problem in the church of Rome, whether the Pope may empty all purgatory wholly and at once: and by Antoninus the Archbishop of Floence it receiveth this determination under a threefold distinction, namely, that in respect of his absolute jurisdiction the Antonin. part. 3. tit. 2●…. cap. 5. §. 6. & 7. Pope may be communicating his indulgences absolve all that are in purgatory from that pain, and so make a jail delivery. For seeing Gregory the Pope by his prayer absolved trajan from the pain of hell which is infinite, therefore much more may the Pope by communication of indulgenoes absolve all that are in purgatory from that punishment which is but finite. And forasmuch as Christ may take away all pain, therefore the Pope also who is his vicar may. This the Pope may do in respect of his absolute power. But if you regard the orderly execution thereof, in that respect the Pope may not nor aught so to do. Neither in deed is he pleased to let out any from the pains of purgatory unless he be well pleased for his indulgences and pardons. Howbeit I must needs confess, it was a cheap year of souls when Leo the tenth sent Torelius about with Bal. in vita Leonis 10. & 1. Fox. his pardons, offering to every one for the payment of ten shillings (but not a penny under) to set at liberty the soul of any one which they should name in purgatory And lastly if you respect God's acceptation, that is, whether God would take it well that the Pope should release all that be in purgatory at once, or not, Antoninus answereth, he cannot tell. And to conclude this kingly office of the pope with that venerable acclamation of the reverend fathers in the council of Lateran, Thou art all and above all, a Sess. 10. in orat. Steph. Patracensis. to thee all power is given in heaven and in earth. And again, a Sess. 10. in orat. Steph. Patracensis. In the pope is all power above all powers in heaven and in earth. And thus it appeareth evidently that the Pope is Antichrist, not only because he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is an adversary opposed unto Christ, as was proved in the former chapter, but also because he is aemulus and as it were a counterchrist, who seeking to match our Saviour Christ, advanceth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, insomuch that he sitteth in the temple of God as god, showing and demeaning himself as though he were a God upon earth. Chap. 6. Of other vices or sins of Antichrist. 1. NOw are we to entreat of other vices and sins of Antichrist. For albeit by the application of the two former notes concerning the opposition of Antichrist unto Christ, and his incredible ambition in advancing himdelfe above all that is called God, it plainly appeareth that the Pope of Rome meriteth to be called by that peculiar title of Antichrist the man of sin, because those two notes wherein the Apostle insisteth as sufficient 2. Thess. 2. 3. 4. proofs thereof, do most properly agree unto him: notwithstanding, many other notorious sins of the Popes may be produced for the further evidence of this truth. Of which sins some are common to very many of them, and some are common to them all. For howsoever the crimes and enormities of such deep dissemblers, as these Antichristian Popes have been, were many times either not commonly known to the world, or being known were not communicated to posterity, the writers of those times being for the most part the servile flatterers of Antichrist: yet notwithstanding many of them were known, & of those which were known many are recorded to have been guilty of fearful crimes, besides those which either were not known or not recorded. For to begin with their horrible impiety towards God, have not many of these most holy fathers bewrayed themselves to be very Atheists and scorners of religion? Such were those which before I Chap. 4. §. 8. named, john the 24. Alexander the 6. Sixtus 4. Paulus 3. Clement 7. julius 2, & 3. Leo 10. and besides them john 12. alias 13. who used to blaspheme God, & at his dice to call upon the Luitprandus lib. 6. Fascic, temp. devil, & in his feasts to drink unto him. Many of them also (as commonly those which renounce god betake themselves to the devil) have been known sorcerers & necromancers, besides those which were not known. It is recorded even by Popish authors of Sylvester the 2. that he did homage to the devil, & that by the devil he was placed in the Papacy, to which end he had be, Fascic. tempo. Stella. Platina. etc. taken himself both in body & solve to the devil. Such a one was Gregory 7. as Cardinal Benno testifieth, & such also were all the Popes from Sylvester the 2. to Gregory the 7. But among them Benedict 8. alias 9 who before his Papacy was called Theophylact is most worthy to be remembered. For he was wont in woods & mountains to sacrifice to the devil, & by magical art to allure women unto him: he kept a sparrow which brought him news from alcoasts And when he had sold the Papacy to Gregory the 6. for 1500. pound & thought by soloery to recover it again as he first had gotten it, and to that end consulted with the devil, he had his neck wrung in sunder; his successor Gregory the sixth, being a sorcerer as well as he, and now as it may seem in greater favour with the devil than he: and to these three which I have named some twenty more may be added. But now I come to speak of their sins against the second table. 2 For many of them have been murderers and otherwise barbarously cruel. As for example Gregory the seventh, who poisoned six Popes to make himself a way to the Papacy, and sought to murder Henry the Emperor as he was at his Bal. ex Mario Mat. Paris. in Henr. 3. prayers in the church. Innocentius the fourth sought to poison Conrade the Emperor. Clement 6. caused the Emperor Lewis of Bavaria to be poisoved. King john was poisoned by a monk when the Pope had given sentence that he should be deposed, and so was Henry of Lucemburgh even in the eveharist, and that as some report by the appointment of the Pope. By the Gregory. 13. Pope was Parry suborned to murder our gracious Queen Elizabeth, so was the jacobine that murdered Henry the third Sixtus 5. king of France. In the church at Florence a massacre was intended, and julianus Medici's murdered by the appointment Volaterran. geograph. lib. 5. & Politianus de coni●…ratione Pactiana. of Sixtus the fourth, the elevation of the sacrament being made the sign or watchword when this murder should begin. Alexander the sixth for 200000. crowns poisoned the great Turk's brother who was at Rome: he also, or as some say his son appointed his servants to minister poison to certain Cardinals and Senators whom he had invited: but the servitors mistaking the cups and giving him of the same, dispatched him, together with the rest. Paulus the third poisoned his mother and his nephew, that to him might descend the Bal. de Rom. Po●…t. acts. whole inheritance of the Farnesian family. He poisoned his sister whom he used as his harlot, because she fancied others more than himself: and that he might more freely abuse his own daughter Constantia, he poisoned Bosius Sfortia her husband. He poisoned one Bishop and two Cardinals because they inclined to the gospel. I might be long in this argument, but these may serve for a taste. But if besides these you desire to hear some other examples of their cruelty, you may remember how Stephen the 6. caused the body of Formosus the Pope to be taken out of the grave, and having cut of two of his fingers & cast them into the Tiber, he buried the body among the Laity: which body eight years after Sergius the 3. causeth again to be taken out of the grave, and having cut of the other 3. fingers, he casteth than & the body itself into the said river, & condemned him and all his acts, which other Popes not withstanding as Romanus 1. Theodorus 2. john 10. ratified & approved. Likewise Boniface 8. caused the body of Hermannus of Ferrara, who before had been canonised for a Saint, after 30. years to be plucked out of his grave, & to be burnt. Vrbanus the 6. cast seven Cardinals into prison because they favoured Clement the 7. and in spite of him put five of them into sacks and drowned them. And this is some part of their behaviour among themselves. For of their cruelty toward the Saints and Martyrs of jesus who is able sufficiently to entreat? 3. To their cruelty I will add their perfidious treachery, & traitorous practices, especially towards the Emperors & Princes of Christendom. For first, the Emperors of Greece, by the Pope's rebellious opposition against their sovereign Lords in the ungodly defence of images, were bereaved of their dominions in the West. By which means the Empire being rend asunder & weakened, way was made for the Turk. And howsoever at the first they seemed to honour their newly erected Emperors in the West whom they created for their own defence, yet afterward they never ceased until they had gotten superiority over them. And ever since it hath been their practice to strengthen and advance themselves and their own See by weakening and dejecting the Emperor and all other Christian princes. And this they had effected by diverse devilish policies. As first they have used to pick quarrels against them, & upon any pretext or colour of a just quarrel to excommunicate them & to absolve their subjects from their obedience. And if by these means they would not be brought into subjection, then to depose them if they could, & to set up others against them. And if other means failed, to raise up wars against them, & to send forth Croisades into all Christendom with large indulgences & promises of heaven to all that would fight their battles. And besides this, they have also forbidden all other chris●…iās to use any traffic with them & their subjects: and not only that, but they have exposed the princes themselves, sometimes their subjects also, to the violence of murderers, & their countries & kingdoms as a prey to spoilers, warranting any to bereave the prince or the subject of their lives, & to take their kingdom as a prey. Thus besides many others was Henry the 4. Emperor used by Gregory 7. & Paschalis the 2. who not only excommunicated the worthy Emperor, absolved his subjects from obedience, but also both under hand suborned such as should murder him, & openly set up against him in the Empire, first Rodolphus the duke of Suevia, and then his own son: & in the end the good Emperor being deposed, imprisoned, & dead in prison, his body might not for 5. years be vouchsafed christian burial. Thus was Otho 4 used by Innocentius 3. & Lewis the 4. by john 22. Benedict 12. & Clement the 6. by whose means also he was poisoned. Thus diverse kings of France, besides him that now is, have been entreated. But especially Lewis 12, a good king, by julius the 2. a notable Antichrist. For he not only excommunicated Lewis, & interdicted his land, but also stirred up all Christians against him, promising great indulgence and pardon of all sins, to every one that should by any means whatsoever kill any French man. In his own person also he went to war against him, & as he being armed brought forth his army on the bridge over Tiber, he cast his keys into the river, and drew his sword, using this speech in the hearing of many thousands, seeing Peter's keys do nought avail us, I will therefore use Paul's sword. And to conclude, thus also have our Kings been dealt with, as king john, & Henry the 8. & our gracious Q. Elizabeth, whom (to omit the other) the Popes have excommunicated, absolved her subjects from obedience, as much as in them lieth deposed her from her crown, exposed her to the violence of her secret & open enemies, raised rebellions against her, suborned cutthroats to murder her, sent forces into Ireland to win that kingdom from her, stirred up the Spaniard & aided him against her, & lastly by an Antichristian devotion given her realm of Ireland to the Spaniard. But whom Antichrist cursed, Christ blessed: insomuch that having through the Lord's goodness overlived 8. Popes, since she came to the crown, in the end after a long and happy reign she died in peace. Another practice of Antichrist hath been this, to bereave the right owners of their crowns & kingdoms, & to set up others which had no right, that they being advanced by his means, should be obliged as vassals & feed men unto his See. And to this end, when contentions have risen betwixt Christian princes, he hath not only nourished the same, but also taken part with the one against the other; that the one being by his means vanquished & overcome, the other may acknowledge the Pope for his good Lord. To this end was the title of the Roman Empire translated from the Greeks to the French in Charlemaigne, & from the French to the Almains in Otto, whom the Pope caused to swear homage & fealty to him. To this end was Pipin crowned king of France, & Childerick deposed & shorn a Monk. But I shall not need to insist in the enumeration of examples: for scarcely is there any kingdom in Europe, if any at all, which the Pope Vide Fulm. brutum pag. 74. hath not in former times by these and other means made subject & tributary to his See, using the kings as his vassals & making them swear homage unto him. A third stratagem which the Popes have used to weaken the Emperors and princes of christendom, & strengthen themselves, hath been this, to persuade them to go with their forces & chief of their strength into Palestine for the recovery of the Holy land from the Turks and Saracens; that in their absence he might work his will in any part of Europe, not fearing their strength if they should return, being weakened by those wars; but rather hoping they should not return to make resistance. And to this purpose consider only the dealing of Alexander the 3. and Gregory the ninth, with the one and two frederic the Emperors. For Alexander the third fearing the power of Frederick Barbarossa, by Hartmannus the Bishop of Brixia, persuadeth him to go with his army into Palestine for the recovery of the holy Land: the Pope in the mean time sendeth a picture of the Emperor to the Sultan, persuading him, that by some secret ambushment he would apprehend him; which happened accordingly. The Emperor being released by the Sultan, after his return cometh to Venice, where the Pope as you heard before treadeth on his neck etc. The other Frederick being first excommunicated by Gregory 9 Bal. ex Mario & Matth. Paris. because he went not to Palestine according to his appointment, at the length to satisfy the Pope's pleasure, he took his voyage: and having recovered jerusalem & other places from the Sultan, and made truce with him for 10. years, he sendeth these glad ridings to the Pope. Who having received the letters causeth the messengers to be slain, and giveth out that the Emperor was dead. For the Pope having a months mind to the kingdoms of Sicilia & Apulia, whereof Frederick was the true heir, desired according to Saules old policy against David, to have him dispatched by the infidels, & to that end was so earnest to have him gone. For in his absence he seized on those kingdoms, & wrote to the Sultan that he should in no case restore jerusalem unto the Emperor. And when as the Emperor was returned, the Pope excommunicateth him again, because he had made truce with the Sultan, and would not absolve him until he had paid for his absolution on 100000. ounces of gold. 4. But now the filthy lechery of these hollow fathers, who would seem so chaste as that they condemn marriage in their clergy, offereth itself to be spoken of. For although it be a rule among them, Si non castè, tamen cautè, If not chastened, yet charily, Nicol. 1. & one of their Popes professeth Honestius esse pluribus occultè implicari: quàm apertè in hominum vultu & conscientia cum una ligari, That it is more honest to have to do with many women in secret, then openly in the face and notice of men to be tied to one, whether in marriage or otherwise: and therefore in all likelihood, a small part of their uncleanness (which they sought by all means to conceal) is known to the world: yet notwithstanding very many of them have been detected and known to be most filthy fornicators and adulterers, besides john the 8. or rather joane who was a harlot in man's apparel, and was delivered of a child in open procession. In this beadrole of whoremongers & adulteres (besides those which I either know not or do not remember) are numbered, by diverse authors, these which follow, Sergius 3. who by the notable strumpet Marozia begot john 12, Zando, who in fornication begot john the 11. and spent his time among harlots. Both these johns being as bad or worse than their fathers. john 13. also was so given to whoredom as that he is said to have turned the palace of Lateran into a stews. And being at the length taken in adultery, by the husband of the adulteress he was wounded to death. Such were john 14. & 19 & 21. & 24. Likewise Benedict. 6. & 9 who by sorcery alured women unto him, and made them follow him up & down like Cades. In like manner Benedict 12. who kept many strumpets, and among others the sister of Francis Petrarch whom by great rewards he had purchased of her brother Gerhard. Such were Christopherus 1. and Calixtus the 3. Gregory the 6. and the 7. called Hildebrand, who as also Victor the 3. were very inward with Mawde the countess. Innocentius 4. had many bastards, and so had Innocentius the 8. who also used to paint his face. Nicolas 3. by his concubine begat a child which in nails and hair was like a Bear, which some impute to the pictures of bears which he being of the Vrsine family had caused to be made in his house. And therefore Martin 4. who kept the same concubine, fearing the like mischance, caused the pictures of the bears to be taken away. Boniface the 8. kept many harlots, & had by them diverse nephews, for so they call their bastards. Clement 5. was a common whoremonger and patron of harlots, and so was Clement 6. Clement 7. & 8. was worse than so: and Clement 8. that now is, hath been no better than he should be. And such were Pius the 4. who died betwixt 2. harlots, & Sixtus 5. of late memory, etc. 5 These are ordinary matters in the Romish votaries, among whom those Popes may be counted for men of the chaster sort, who have offended only by fornication and adultery. But, as very many of their votaries, so also diverse among the Popes have fearfully sinned against nature by incest and Sodomy. Neither are we to marvel thereat, seeing they do not only embrace the means of lust, as idleness, fullness of bread, and abundance of worldly delights and carnal pleasures, but also reject the remedy appointed of God, which is marriage; but especially because they being Idolaters are by the just judgement of God given over to their lusts and to a reprobate sense, insomuch that they commit abominations against nature. It is recorded of john the 13. and 23. alias 24. that, besides all other their whoredoms and adulteries, the one committed incest with Stephana his father's concubine; and the other with his brother's wife. Alexander the 6. not contented with diverse other strumpets which he kept, by whom he had 6. bastards, committed incest with his own daughter Lucretia. He also gave leave to Cardinal Mendoza to abuse his own bastard son in incestuous Sodomy and Sodomitical incest. Paulus the third committed incest with two of his nieces, prostituted one of his sisters to Alexander 6. to get a cardinalship, and poisoned another because she affected some other of her lovers more than himself, neither did he abstain from his own daughter Constantia. Of Pius 5. it is said that he kept incestuous company with his own sister. Sixtus 4. was not only a filthy whoremonger and Sodomite himself, but also to incite and encourage others to the same filthiness, he built a famous stews not only of women, but also of males also. And he gave licence to the Cardinal of Saint Lucy and to all his family; that they might in the three hot months of the year freely use Sodomy. julius 2. abused unto Sodomy, besides others, two young noblemen of France, whom Anne the Queen had sent to Rome and committed to a Cardinal to be informed. julius the 3. made his Ganymedes a Cardinal, and neither did he as some writ abstain from committing Sodomy with the Cardinals themselves. His Legate at Venice (a fit cover for such a pot) joannes a Casa. Archbishop of Beneventum, set forth a book in Italian metre in commendation of this sin, for which the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrhe with fire and brimstone from heaven. Such sinners against nature were, as authors testify, Bedict 1. Clement 7. john 13. 14. & 24. Leo 10. and Paul 3. whose bastard son Petrus Aloysius I cannot pass over with silence: For he treading in his father's steps, and being greatly loved and advanced by him, besides incest with his sister Constantia, and rapes with other women, and buggery with diverse men, he forced a Sodomitical rape upon Cosmus Cherius a worthy Bishop, using the help of his men to hold him by violence, whiles he committed that outrageous act. But it is shame to speak that which they are not ashamed to do. 6 And yet this is not all that is to be alleged against the Popes, that diverse of them have been Atheists, many of them sorcerers, murderers, traitors, Adulterers and Sodomites. For many of them have been most foul monsters (as some of their own writers call them) compounded of these and other horrible crimes. Such, besides others, were Sixtus 4. john 24. Alexander 6. Clement 7. and Paul 3. etc. Neither may it be objected, that although diverse Popes have been men of sin, yet many of them have been holy men and Saints of God, and consequently not Antichrists: For howsoever all the Roman Bishops of the first 600. years are reverenced as Saints and so called of Popish writers, as Saint Sylvester, Saint Leo, Saint Gregory etc. a very few only excepted, yet a very few of them which have lived this thousand years are even by Popish flatterers esteemed Saints: and those few which be, are honoured among them not for any true holiness, Onuphr. Pontif. Romani. Chronologia praefixa chatechismo Canisij. but either for the Antichristian advancing of their See, or for some supposed miracles which were no better than the lying signs & wonders of Antichrist. But so far indeed these Apostatical Popes have been from being Saints in the sight of God, that all of them have deserved to be called men of sin, sons of perdition, outlaws, although some of them were not so wicked as the rest. Men of sin, because besides those peculiar sins wherewithal every of them were severally infected, the whole order or succession of them hath been guilty of many other crimes also, as common to them all, diverse whereof the holy ghost hath set down as notes of Antichrist. As namely those which I have already proved, to be in the Pope, heresy, opposition or enmity to Christ, apostasy, hypocrisy, satanical pride. For if the Pope be an heretic or false prophet teaching the doctrines of devils, if a notorious hypocrite, if an apostate, yea the head of the catholic apostasy, if an adversary opposed unto Christ, though a covert and disguised enemy, if the king of pride advancing himself most insolently above all that is called God, as we have proved him to be, than we need not doubt, but that in respect of these sins though he had no more, he deserveth to be called the man of sin. 7 But unto these, diverse others may be added, as first and principally the idolatry, superstitious and counterfeit religions of the Pope and church of Rome. For the whore of Babylon, whereby is signified the Antichristian state, is described in the scriptures not only as a spiritual adulteress, but also as the mother of all fornications and abominations in the earth, which with the golden cup of her fornications, that is idolatries Apoc. 17. and superstitions, hath made drunk the kings and inhabitants of the earth. Now the idolatry of the Pope and church of Rome is manifold and grievous. As first, to the bread in the sacrament, which being a small creature they worship as their maker and redeemer, neither do they think that they can worship it enough, and therefore in the worship thereof the chief part of their solemn service consisteth. Secondly to the cross and crucifix, and images of the trinity, all which as they teach are to be worshipped with divine worship, and are so worshipped among them. Thirdly, to the blessed virgin Mary, who hath been worshipped among them as much or rather more than God. Her they call their Lady and goddess, and queen of heaven. In her they repose their trust and affiance, to her they fly in their necessity, of her they crave all good things, and from her they expect remission of sins and eternal salvation, in honour of her they have devised and used diverse services, as offices, litanies, ●…osaryes, psalters &c. full of blasphemous idolatries. Fourthly to Saints departed, who have succeeded the tutelar gods of the heathenish Romans, there being almost no country, city, parish, trade or profession which had not their several Saints to patronize them, no disease nor other calamity in themselves or their cattle for which they had not their peculiar saints, as it were Auerruncos deos to turn away those evils from them. In the merits of Saints they trust for remission of sin and for eternal life. Them they adore, to them they pray, and not only them do they worship but their images also and relics. Wherein the Papists are more gross idolaters than the very heathen. For the Gentiles did not worship the images themselves, but the persons represented by them: but the Papists hold that the very same worship is due to the image which belongeth to the person whom it resembleth. To these notorious idolatries we may Papa solus novas religiones create, & approbat. add their diverse counterfeit religions and orders devised or authorized by the Pope, which are so many by-paths misleading men out of the only true way which leadeth unto heaven, Antonin. part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 5. §. 21. & besides them innumerable traditions, superstitions, trumperies and fooleries. Upon all which notwithstanding the fond people of all nations, in these parts of the world, have so strangely doted, as that they may most truly be said to have been besotted and made drunk with the wine of the whore of Babylon's fornications, that is to say, with the idolatries and superstitions of the Church of Rome. 8. Upon their spiritual adultery, that is to say, their manifold & gross idolatry, hath followed their carnal adultery & uncleanness. For seeing by their idolatry they had dishonoured Rom. 1. 24. God, as the Gentiles did, therefore the Lord hath given over them also to their heart's lusts unto uncleanness. Neither have they only been guilty of uncleanness in themselves, but also the causes thereof in others; whiles they extenuate the sin of fornication as though it were but a venial sin, and reckon Cap. at si clerici extra, de iudic. adultery among the less and lighter offences: whiles they dispense with these sins and give men leave to commit them without controlment, or else assign unto them ridiculous punishments: but especially whiles they forbid marriage unto all their clergy, and maintain open stews. For in forbidding marriage they open a gap to all uncleanness. Tolle de ecclesia (saith Bernard) honorabile coniugium & thorum In Cant. serm. 66. immaculatum, nun reples eam concubinarijs, incestuosis, semini●…uis, m●…llibus, masculorum concubitoribus, & omni denique genere immundorum? Take out of the Church honourable marriage and the bed undefiled, and do you not fill it with keepers of concubines, incestuous fellows, Gonorrhaeans and Sodomites, & in a word with all kind of unclean persons? For proof hereof read but the acts of English votaries, who yet may not be compared 〈◊〉. Bale. with those of hotter countries: remember the survey taken here in England before the dissolution of Abbeys, Vid. praesat. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 libri sui de acti●… Pontif. wherein our irreligious houses were found to be little better than stews of both sorts; not to speak of their secular Priests who were known for the most part to have been the towne-bulles were they dwelled. Neither will I tell you of the innumerable murders of infants, besides those which died in their mother's wombs to prevent their parent's shame. As for common stews, they are maintained not only in other popish countries and cities, but even in Rome itself, and not only maintained by the Pope, but maintainers also of the Pope, to whom they pay as if he were their bawd a yearly pension, which amounteth sometimes to 30000. sometimes to 40000. Ducats. It is said of Paulus the third that in his tables he had the names of 45000. courtesans, which paid a monthly tribute unto him. Which, besides his patronizing of filthiness, argueth his coveting of filthy lucre, of which we are also briefly to speak. For of him in respect of these two vices, filthiness and covetousness, it was said in old time, Eius avaritiae totus non sufficit orbis: Eius luxuriae meretrix non sufficit omnis. M●…t. Paris●…in ●…nric. 3. Neither doth the whole world suffice his covetousness, nor all harlots his l●…chery. 9 Of the insatiable anarice of the Pope and court of Rome many instances might be given. For they have found out innumerable ways and means to scrape together incredible sums of money out of all countries, without measure or modesty, without shame or show of honesty. But it shallbe sufficient by application of Peter's prophecy concerning 〈◊〉. Pet. 〈◊〉. 3. false teachers in these latter times, to show, that through covetousness they have with feigned words and doctrines of their own coining made merchandise of all those that would ●…earken unto them. As for example, they have feigned that Peter was ordained of Christ the Monarch of the whole Church, that to him was committed the right both of the spiritual and temporal Monarchy: that in this Monarchy the Pope succeed Peter, as Christ's vicar general, as the universal Bishop, as the Lord of the whole earth. They have feigned a donation of Constantine wherein he should not only give the City of Rome to the Pope, but also resign unto him the whole Empire of the West. Upon these grounds they have obtained both of Princes and Prelates, what their greedy covetousness armed with such authority shamed not to demand. England, France, Germany and other countries have been exceedingly; or, as some speak, Ludovic. 9 〈◊〉. an. 1228. tit. de tall●…. miserably impoverished by the intolerable exactions of the Pope and his Court. For first, the first fruits he claimed of all spiritual promotions: which in these parts of Europe subject jewel. ex legatione Hadrian. 6. excus. Wi●…tembergae. 1538 to that See, did amount unto two millions and four hundred and three score thousand, eight hundred forty and three Florenes. The first fruits of the spiritual livings in France, and the charges of obtaining the same livings, have been observed Fulm. brut. ex postulatis sena●…us Paris. Ludo●… 1●…. delat●…. art. ●…2. etc. in three years, to amount unto nine hundred forty and six thousand, six hundred sixty and six french crowns. By the same title he took upon him to bestow or rather to sell openly and without shame the livings of the church: and not only when they were void, but also before hand, and that to diverse men. Insomuch that sometimes ten, sometimes twelve have purchased advowsons or reversions of the same Ibid. art. 〈◊〉. preferments against the next avoidance. But which of all them, when the living fell, was to have the benefit of the Pope's grant, that was to be decided at Rome: whither they were to their great charge, but to the enriching of the Romish Harpies, to repair. This gainful trade may well be called making Merchandise of men: for together with the benefices the poor people were bought and sold. In respect here of Blondus saith, That all Europe almost sendeth tributes Rom. in●…. lib. 3. to Rome, greater or at least equal to the revenues of the old times, Dum singulae civitates à Romano pontifice boneficia sacerdotalia accipiunt, Whiles the spiritual promoti●… in every City are received from the Pope. Moreover his yearly perquisites of elections, preventions, dispensations, licenses & many such like merchandises the titles whereof, with their taxes or prices, are set down in the book called Taxae cancellariae Apostolicae, are thought to surmount nine hundred thousand Florenes: not to speak of his smoke-farthings & Peterpences, which nevertheless did arise to no small sum. But besides his ordinary taxations, his extraordinary exactions were intolerable. For he hath not been ashamed to demand the tenths of all spiritual livings, in some whole realms, for many years together: yea sometimes the third part of their living Mat. Westmonast. a●…. 1301. Mat. Paris. an. 1246. Syl●…●…otorum commu●…. In pr●…fat. in lib. Steph. Gardiner. de vera obedient. V●…d: Muscull loc. comm. de ●…ccl. ministr. tit. Nundinati●… Rom. pontiff. & Fulm. brut. pag. 62. Io●… Mon●…chus. that were resident, and the half of theirs that were non residents, & that for diverse years: & sometimes also all the money and goods of them that deceased. Out of France alone in the time of Martin 5. the Pope and court of Rome received 9 millions: In England the Popes pray was almost as great as the revenues of the crown, as Bonner testifieth. 10. But his most odious merchandise is his setting to sale all manner of sin, which is called Taxa poenitentiaria apostolica, whereby is promised impunity to every one who having committed any sin, be it never so grievous, payeth according to the rate for his absolution: as namely for adultery, incest, Sodomy, the abomination not to be spoken of committed with beasts, wilful murder, pari●…ide, perjury, and such like. Hereof a notable Canonist writeth thus, Curia vult marcas, bursas exhaurit & arcas: Si bursae pareas, fuge Papas & Patrlarchas: Si de deris ●…arcas, & eye ●…pleboris areas, Culpa solueris quaque ligatus eris. But with what difference I pray you were these crimes rated? Forsooth he that would be absolved from adultery or incest, it must cost him four Turons: if from both together, it must stand him in six Turons. And what if a Priest busy the body of a party excommunicated in Christian bu●…all, or if he chance upon ignorance to say Mass in a place interdicted? Either of these faults must cost him fix Tu●…ons and two Ducats. And here it is to be noted that the Pope in a covetous policy forbiddeth many things which GOD doth not forbid, namely to this end that the straighter his prohibitions are, the oftener he may have occasion to dispense there with. As for example, he forbiddeth marriage in kinsfolk unto the seventh degree: but for money he will dispense therewith in all degrees of kindred, excepting that which is betwixt the parent and the child. 11 They have with feigned words through covetousness persuaded the world, that the Pope hath all laws in the closet of his breast, that he is the supreme judge in all causes Antonin. sum part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 5. §. 17. and controversies, that to him lieth appeal from all judges whatsoever, and that immediately. By which channels have flowed abundance of riches into the sea of the Pope's treasury. And fitly is it compared to the 11 Theodoric. Niem. tract. 6. c. 37. sea whereunto all rivers flow, and yet doth not overflow. It is lawful, saith one of their own lawyers, to appeal from any to the Pope immediately: which (saith he) they have provided that they might draw controversies Petr. ferrarians. inform. sent. indesin. §. sed ad quemcunque. unto their court, and so might satisfy their own avarice, which notwithstanding they shall never do, noting that it is unsatiable. And hereunto appertaineth that acclamation of one of their own chronographers: for, having showed that searcely there was any spiritual promotion which was not Abbas ursperg. pag. 321. become litigious, & the cause brought to Rome, but not with empty hand; Rejoice saith he our mother Rome, for the flood-gates of the treasures in the earth are opened, that unto thee may flow rivers, and heaps of money in great abundance. Rejoice over the iniquity of the sons of men, because in recompense of so great ovills there is a price or roward given unto thee. Be glad for thy helper discord, which hath burst out of the bottomless pilte of hell, that unto thee many rewards of money might be gathered in heaps. Thou hast that which thou always thirsted after: sing a song, for by the wickedness of men, and not by thy religion thou hast vanquished the world. Unto thee doth not the devotion of men or pure conscience draw them, but the committing of manifold crimes, and the decision of controversies procured by money. Furthermore with feigned words they have taught, that there is a p●…gatory, wherein the souls of many of the elect are tormented for a time: that out of this purgatory the souls may be delivered by the prayers of the living; especially, by the satisfactory prayers of those whom they call religious, by masses and trentals of masses, by the works of supererogation and merits of others applied unto them. By this conceit, which was the foundation of religious houses, the Pope's clergy had gotten the chiefest possessions of all Europe into their hands. monasteries (saith one of their own writers) were founded in times past, for devotion, Petr. Ferrariens●…in form. libel. quo ag●…tur ex substit. §. ex suo corpore. though now adays for rapine and covetousness: insomuch that they have at this day destroyed the world, and brought to nothing the state of the Empire and of all lay men. Wherefore all such places, as are or shall be made, may worthily be called ●…ettes framed to catch lay men's goods. In this small land of ours the revenues of the irreligious houses, which were dissolved, did arise according to the old rents (which are scarce the tenth part of the true value) to the sum of a hundred thirty four thousand six hundred and three pounds, two shillings fourpence halfpenny. Neither are the Popes own revenues arising from these grounds to be omitted. For purgatory forsooth is his peculiar, and the merits of Saints and works of supererogation which are the treasure of the church, are in his disposition. So that by his applying thereof to whom ●…ee pleaseth he can either shorten their time in purgatory, or wholly set them at liberty by his indulgences and pardons accordingly as he is paid for the same. And yet there are many more devices and feigned words, whereby the Pope maketh merchandise of men for the enriching of himself and his clergy. As by his iubileyes, and canonizing of Saints, by his promising of remission of sins and eternal life to those that will fight his battles or execute his wicked designs: by his doctrines of merits and works of supererogation, of invocation of Saints, of adoration of images and relics, of pilgrimages, and in a word by all the doctrines almost of Popery, I mean those, which be peculiar to the Pope and church of Rome, which are feigned words dovised in devilish policy to maintain their unsatiable lust, ambition and covetousness. By all this which hath been said it plainly appeareth that the Pope most worthily deserveth to be called the man of sin: especially if you consider that in respect of diverse of the aforesaid sins, he is such a sinner as jeroboam was, who caused all Israel to sin. For he is not only an apostate, but also the head of the catholic apostasy: not only an heretic, but the false prophet and broacher of popish heresies: not only an idolater and adulterer, but also the cause and author of these abominations in all the Christian world, making all sorts of men drunk with the wine of his fornications. 12 It remaineth therefore that we should consider whether the other two titles of Antichrist do belong to the Pope, namely that he is the son of perdition, and the outlaw or lawless person. As touching the former, there is no question to be made but that if he be the man of sin as hath been proved, he is also the child of perdition, in that sense that judas is so called. john 17. 12. And that he deserveth most justly to be called the outlaw or lawless person it is most evident. Not only because he is a transgressor of the law (for seeing every sin is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A transgression of the law, therefore he that is the man of sin, must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the outlaw) but also because he professeth himself to be the son of belial, that is to say a man without yoke, who taketh himself to be bound to no law, but challengeth authority to break all laws or at least to dispense with them. For first as touching the laws & authority of men, Papa solutus est omni lege humana, that is, the Pope is not bound to any human law. Legi non Casus Papales apud Hostiensem etc. Innocent. 3. extr. de concess. praebend. c. pro. posuit. Bald. in c. ca●…▪ super de causi proprict. & possess. subiacet ulli, he is subject to no law. And according to the fullness of power he may, as himself professeth, de iure supraius dispensare, dispense with the law above law: yea he may do all things, supraius, contraius, & extraius, above law, against law, and without law. And therefore of all others most worthily called the outlaw. And as for human authority: he is to judge all, but to be judged of none. Nec totus Cler●…s, nec totus mundus potest Papam judicare aut deponere. Not the Petr. de palude, de potestate Papae art. 4. whole clergy, nor the whole world may judge the Pope or depose him. Neither doth he indeed subject himself to the law of God. For, he not only taketh upon him to dispense with the word and law of God, as you heard before, but also thinketh he may lawfully break the laws of God. He hath been made to believe that he may do all things, even unlawful things, Francisc. Zabarella. and that he is more than God, as Zabarella saith. And therefore some of them, when they have been admonished of their wicked practices, have used to answer, Am not I pope? thereby joan. 23. signifying, that being Pope he might do what he list. Neither is he indeed subject to any other law but to his own will or rather lust. In ijs quae vult, est es proratione voluntas, In Extr. de transat. episc. c. quanto in gloss. inter casus papales. Dan. 11. 16. R. Cupers de ecclesia pag. 29 num. 1. & 62. vum. 66. de constitutionib. c. licet. in sexto. Hostiens. Francisc de Ripa. R. Cupers. pag. 68 num. 32. & d●…st. 40. non nos in gloss. Extra de concess. praebend. c. proposuit in gloss dist. 40. non nos in gloss. joan. de Parisiis c. 20. Concil. come. l. in purgatione Sixti. Dist. 40. Non os in gloss. those things which he will, his will is unto him for reason. Legi non sub●…acet ulli: judiciumque est pro lege suum, He is subject to no law: and his judgement is in stead of law. So that of him is verified that prophecy concerning Antiochus the type of Antichrist, that he would do what him listed, and that his will should be to him for a law. To this purpose his followers say, that he is lexvivens, a living law, and hath all laws in the closet of his breast, that he can of wrong make right, of unjustice righteousness, that to him all things are lawful. That the Pope's power is absolute, and extendeth as far as him listeth: that he may not be accused of Simon●…e, nor murder, nor adultery, nor any other crime, excepting heresy which they say elsewhere is not incident unto him. Nay his actions may not be inquired into, neither may any man say unto him, Sir, why do you thus? Yea it were no better than sacrilege to call in question the Pope's fact, and to judge of his actions est Ponere os in caelum, it is to set a man's face against heaven: to accuse him is to commit the sin against the holy ghost, which shall never be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come. But what if it be apparent that he hath committed adultery or murder, or that himself is a wicked man, as indeed many of them have been monsters of men? Forsooth the actions of the Pope must be interpreted in the good part. For if a priest when he is seen to be over-familiar with a woman must be thought to bless her, much mere is it to be presumed in the Pope's behalf. Or if they be so black as that they will admit no other colour, than the facts of the Pope must be excused, as the murders Dist. 40. Non nos in gloss. of Samson, the thefts of the Hebrews, and the adultery of jacob. And to the same purpose saith another, Every fact of the most holy Father must be interpreted in the good part, and joan. de Paris●…s de potest. reg. & papal●…. if it be theft or any thing that is in itself evil, we must interpret it to be done by divine instinct. And as touching his person, the Pope be he never so wicked, is always presumed to be good. Quis enim sanctum dubitet esse quem apex Dist. 40. Non nos. Papa semper praesumitur bonus ibid. in gloss. tantae dignitatis attollit? In quo sidesint bona acquisita per meritum, sufl●…iunt quae à loci praedecessore praestantur. For who would doubt that he is holy (saith the Pope of himself) whom the height of so great honour advanceth? In whom if good things gotten by his own merit be wanting, those suffice which are performed by the predecessor in the same place, meaning Peter. And again, There is a certain spiritualty according to De maior. & obedient. c. unam sanctam in gloss. state, when a man is in the most holy and most spiritual state, and in this state is the Pope alone. And therefore every one must call him most holy Father. Seeing therefore the Pope is the man of sin, and a most notorious transgressor of God's laws, seeing he holdeth himself bound to no law but esteemeth his own lust for a law: seeing his transgressions of the law must not be called into question, but either must be commended as virtuous actions, or, excused as done by divine instinct, seeing himself though never so wicked must be deemed most holy in that he is Pope, it cannot be denied, but that above all men he most deserveth to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the outlaw, or lawless person. CHAP. 7. ¶ Of the miracles, or rather lying signs and wonders of Antichrist. 1. ANd thus much may suffice to have spoken of the qualities and conditions of Antichrist: now we have to entreat of his actions and effects. And first of his miracles as he calleth them, or rather, as the holy Ghost termeth them, lying signs and wonders. In speaking whereof I will not stick to use Bellarmine's own grounds. For whereas there are Lib. 3. de pont. Rom. cap. 15. three things (as he saith) mentioned in the Scriptures concerning the miracles of Antichrist, it shall appear by the help of God, that all which the Scriptures have foretold concerning this matter, do most sitly agree to the Pope and church of Rome. The first is, that Antichrist and his followers should do many signs and wonders which they call miracles. For so saith our Saviour Christ, Mat. 24. 24 (which prophecy, the Papists Mat. 24. 24. themselves understand of Antichrist & his adherents) They shall work great signs & wonders, insomuch that the very elect, if it were possible should be seduced. He saith, they shall work great signs, & not he, (saith Bellarmine) because not only Antichrist but his ministers also shall work signs. And th'apostle speaking of Antichrist, saith, his coming shallbe according to the 2. Thess. 2. 9 efficacy of Satan in all power in lying signs & wonders. And likewise john Apoc. 13. 13. affirmeth, that Antichrist worketh Apoc. 13. 13. great signs in the sight of men. And that this note agreeth to the Pope & church of Rome, it is most evident. For they abound with innumerable signs & wonders which they call miracles. Insomuch that there is among them almost no Saint or Author of any sect, who is not renowned for many fair miracles: no temple or monastery of note, no image or relics of saints unto which the people went on pilgrimage, which was not famous for miracles: no doctrine which cannot be proved out of Scripture, that is to say, no point of popery which they h●…uo not commended to the people and authorized by such signs and wonders as they call miracles. And in regard of these miracles (which they esteem as a note of the true church) they contemn and despise all other churches, which do not vaunt of miracles as they do. 2. And yet notwithstanding, all their miracles are nothing worth: First, because they serve to confirm untruths as shallbe showed, & therefore are not to be regarded. Secondly, because the vain brag of manifold miracles among those that profess the name of Christ in these later times (wherein miracles need not for the confirmation of God's truth, which heretofore hath been sufficiently confirmed) is so far from being a note of the true church, as that rather it is a plain sign of false teachers, & an evident mark of the Synagogue of Antichrist. For their own devices indeed & doctrines of men do still need signs & wonders to confirm them. But the truth of the gospel which we profess hath been sufficiently confirmed by the miracles of our Saviour Christ, & of his Apostles and Disciples. Whosoever therefore will not believe this doctrine, thus confirmed, neither will he believe though one should rise from the dead to preach unto Luke. 16. him. Again miracles are granted not for the believers, but for them that live in infidelity. And as Augustine saith, Quisquis Tharasius in council. Nicen. 2. adhuc prodigia, ut credat, inquirit, magnum est ipse prodigium, qui mundo credeme non credit: Whosoever yet seeketh after wonders that he may believe, is himself a great wonder, who when De civit. Dei lib. 22. c. 8. the world believeth, doth not believe. And therefore in another place he saith, Contra istos mirabiliarios cautum me fecit Deus meus etc. Against these miracle-mongers my God hath made Tract. 13. in joan. me wary, saying, There shall arise in the last days false prophets working signs & wonders, that they might bring into error, if it were possible, the very elect. Likewise chrysostom, or whosoever Chrysost homil. 49. in Matth. was the author of those learned Homilies upon Matthew in the 49. Homily (where he proveth that the true Church of Christ cannot now be known or discerned by signs or other means, but only by the Scriptures) he saith, that now the working of signs and wonders is altogether taken away (namely among the true professors) and and the working of counterfeit miracles is more found among false Christians. And that, Peter in the history of Clement declareth, that unto Antichrist shallbe granted the power of working full, that is to say, profitable signs, So that now we cannot know the ministers of Christ by this that they work profitable signs, but because they work no signs at all. And the Papists themselves confess, yea Bellarmine would seem to set it down as one of his grounds, that to Antichrist and his followers shallbe granted the power of working many and great signs and wonders. And therefore unless the Pope and his followers did vaunt of their miracles, we should want one good argument to prove the Pope Antichrist. And thus it appeareth that the first point concerning the miracles of Antichrist doth fit the Pope, and so fit him, as that from hence he may be proved Antichrist. For unto whomsoever in these latter times this properly and only belongeth, to boast of their miracles, they are Antichrist and the synagogue of Antichrist. For the scriptures have foretold that by Antichrist and his adherents many signs and wonders should be wrought in these latter times. But to the Pope & church of Rome in these latter times this properly and only belongeth to vaunt of their manifold and great miracles. For the jews want them: the Turks disclaim them, professing that their religion must be propagated not by miracles but by force & arms. All other Christians which already believe the truth, seek not signs which they know among true believers to be superfluous, and in others to be badges of Antichrist; therefore the Pope is Antichrist and the Church of Rome the Synagogue of Antichrist. 3. The second thing which the Scripture noteth, is, what manner of miracles they are which Antichrist was to work. This the Apostle (saith Bellarmine) declareth in one word, when he calleth them Lying wonders, or as the words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signs and wonders of lying, that is most lying 2. Thess. 2. 9 signs and wonders. Now they are called lying wonders either in respect of the end, which is to seduce men by confirming untruths; or in regard of their substance, which is counterfeit. And thus chrysostom expoundeth the words of th'apostle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and he In 2. Thess. 2. saith lying wonders, that is either false and counterfeit, or else leading into falsehood. Augustine likewise reciteth these two expositions, that they are called lying signs and wonders, because De civit. Dei lib. 20. c. 19 he shall deceive the senses of mortal men by counterfeit shows and appearances, that he may seem to do that which he doth not: or else because howsoever they shall be true wonders, they shall draw unto lies such as shall believe that they could not be done but by the power of God, not knowing the power of the devil etc. First I say they are called lying signs in respect of the end, which is to seduce men Mat. 24. 24. to make them believe lies and to deceive them 2. Thess. 2. 10. 11. Apoc. 13. 14. For this is the end whereunto the signs and wonders not only of Antichrist, but of all false prophets, are referred Deut. 13. 1. 2. Out of which places of scripture we are to observe that the Lord many times suffereth false prophets and Antichrists to work strange signs and wonders for the trial of the faithful, and seducing of those that will not believe the truth that they might be saved. If there arise among you (saith the Lord) a prophet or dreamer of dreams, and give thee a sign Deut. 13. 1. 2. 3 & wonder, and the sign & wonder which he hath told thee, come to pass, saying, let us go after other Gods which thou hast not known, and let us serve them: thou shalt not hearken unto the words of the prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your soul, and with all your heart etc. Our Saviour Christ also hath forewarned us, that in these latter times Mat. 24. 24. there shall arise false Christ's and false prophets which shall show great signs and wonders, so that if it were possible they should deceive even the very elect. In like sort, the Apostle 2. Thess. 2. noteth that the coming of Antichrist shall be according to the 2. Thess. 2. 9 10. efficacy of Satan in all power and lying signs and wonders, and in all deceiveableness of unrighteousness in them that perish etc. on whom God shall send the efficacy of deceit that they may believe lies. Likewise john the divine prophesieth Apoc. 13. 13. 14. of Antichrist that he should do great wonders, whereby he should deceive them that dwell on the earth. Hereby therefore it is evident, that false prophets and Antichrists many times have power to work great signs and wonders, not only in show and appearance, but in deed and in truth. Whereby they, endeavouring to deceive all and to make them believe lies, are permitted both in the justice of God to seduce the wicked, & in his mercy to try the faithful. And therefore signs & wonders as they have not always been signs & tokens of true teachers & professors of the truth, but only then when they have Miracles are divine testimonies whereby the Lord doth bear witness to his truth. Heb. 2. 4. been wrought for the confirmation of the truth: So in these later times, the same being wrought for confirmation of untruths are undoubted signs of the synagogue of Antichrist. 4 Let us then consider whether such signs and wonders be wrought in the church of Rome. It is recorded of Gregory the 7. who was the first of the Popes which was openly acknowledged to be Antichrist, that as he was a notable sorcerer, so he wrought many signs and wonders: & among the rest he used to shake fire out of his sleeves. And of his votaries, after he had forbidden marriage in the clergy, Aventinus writeth that upon that occasion many false prophets did as it were cast mists, and by Annal. Boior. lib. 4. fables and miracles did turn away the people of Christ from the truth. And again, False prophets did then arise, false Apostles, false priests, who by counterfeit religion deceived the people, lib. 5. wrought great signs and wonders, and began to sit in the temple of God, and to be advanced above all that is worshipped. And while they endeavour to establish their own power and dominion they have extinguished Christian charity & simplicity. And since those times the church of Rome hath much boasted of her manifold miracles, which have been partly devised and partly wrought for the confirmation of such Antichristian doctrines & idolatrous superstitions as cannot be confirmed by the scriptures: as namely the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation, and adoration of the breaden God, the heathenish doctrine of purgatory, and superstitious prayer for the dead: the idolatrous invocation and worshipping of Saints, the more than heathenish adoration of images & rotten relics: the Antichristian advancing of the Pope above all that is called God or worshipped: and such like doctrines of devils & lies of Antichrist, for the confirmation whereof the miracles of the Apostatical church of Rome have been invented. But how many miracles soever they produce for the countenancing of such untruths, they are so many arguments to prove their church Antichristian, & their Pope Antichrist. Because as Antichrist and his followers were in these latter times to abound with signs & wonders, but always such as serve to lead men into error: so neither Turks nor jews, nor any other churches of Christians, but only the Pope and church of Rome, do vaunt of miracles: and yet all their miracles are such as serve to deceive men, & to make them believe untruths. And therefore although they were in respect of their substance neither counterfeit nor fabulous (as in deed the most of the miracles in the church of Rome are) yet were they to be esteemed as notes & signs of false prophets & Antichrists, because their end is to seduce men, & confirm lies. 5 Secondly they are called lying signs in respect of the substance, being (as Augustine speaketh) vel figmenta mendacium De unitat. eccl. 16. hominum, vel portenta fallacium spirituum, either fictions of lying men, or wonders of deceit full spirits. And such are the miracles whereby the aforesaid points of Popery are warranted and confirmed. And of them there are three degrees. For many of them were such fabulous fictions, ridiculous fables, incredible lies, (whereof their legends and festivals are full,) as none would ever believe, were they not intoxicated, & made drunk with the whore of Bylons' cup of fornications, and also given over of God to believe lies. And these loud lies and more than poetical fictions were in such request in the church of Rome, that the records of them (I mean their legends & festivals and such like fabulous treatises) were both publicly and privately read in the vulgar tongue, when as the holy scriptures were kept from the people in an unknown language. The 1. degree then is of such miracles as never were indeed, nor yet in apparamnce, but in the opinion only of men besotted & given over to believe incredible untruths. The 2. is of such as were fantastical & in appearance only as being crafty conveyances of deceitful men, or juggling tricks of legerdemain. As for example, the nodding or moving, the smiling or frowning, the sweeting or speaking of images, the apparitions of souls deceased, the manifold cures supposed to be wrought by saints departed or their images & & such like. For of these two sorts there be innumerable wonders recorded, in their legends and festivals & lives of Saints, which are either altogether fabulous, as being reports of things which never were not so much as in apparāce●…or if any such things have been done in the sight of men, they have been either praestigiatory conveyances of wicked men, or mere illusions of the devil. The third degree is of such as were lying miracles in respect of the form (as Bellarmine speaketh) although true in respect of the matter. For howsoever they were things truly done, yet they surpassed not the whole strength of nature: whereas true miracles are supernatural, neither can be wrought by any natural causes whether known or unknown, but only by the omnipotent power of God. And such lying signs are the principal miracles of the Apostatical church of Rome. Neither is the Pope and all his adherents able to produce any one true miracle wrought by the finger of God for the confirmation of those doctrines which are peculiar to that church, that is, to speak more plainly, for the proof of any point of popery. But all their miracles as they are lying signs and wonders in respect of their end, so also in regard of their substance, being either merely fabulous and therefore such things as never were not so much as in show and appearance: or merely fantastical, that is such things as were in show only and not in truth: or merely natural and therefore but counterfeit miracles effected by the power of the devil. 6 Some of their own writers confess, that sometimes there is great deceiving of the people in feigned miracles by the Nicol. Lyran. in Daniel. 14. priests and their adherents for temporal gain. And another saith, in the sacrament appeareth flesh, sometimes by the conveyance of men, sometimes by the operation of the devil. I once did Alexander de Hales. see an image of Saint Nicolas as it was said, when it with many others was burnt in the market place at Chester by the appointment of my father then Bishop there, which was made with such a devise that if one standing behind did pull a certain string which was in the back part thereof, it would move the hand as if it blessed the people. But that it may appear that in the Church of Rome were lying miracles, and that the Popish people were given over to believe lies, I will for a taste recite a few examples out of their own records. Their Golden Legend (so called because as gold excelleth all other metals so that Book * Viz. in lying. excelleth all other books) in the invention of the body of S. Fremin the martyr, reporteth that after the Sun had miraculously sent his beams through a stone wall upon the grave, and thereupon they had digged there to find the body, there issued thence such a sweet smell as they weened they had been in Paradise. Which odour spread itself not only through the city of Amiens where the body lay, but also unto diverse other cities. The sweetness whereof as it moved the people of diverse cities to bring their oblations to this glorious Saint: so it cured some a far off (as the Lord of Baugency) from their diseases. But when this body was taken up and carried in the city of Amiens, strange wonders were wrought. For then (that I may use the words of the English Legend) the elements them moved, by the miracle of this Saint. The snow, that was that time great on the earth, was turned into powder and dust by the heat that was then: and the ice that hung on the trees became flowers and leaves: and the meadows about Amiens flowered & became green. And the Sun which by his nature should go low that day, ascended as high as she is on S. john's day at noon in the s●…mmer. And as men bore the body of this Saint, the trees inclined and worshipped the body, & all manner sick men of what malady they had, they received health in the invention of the blessed body of S. Fremin etc. In the Legend of S. Patrick the Irish Saint, by whose prayer forsooth all venomous beasts were banished out of Ireland (for you may not think it was so before) we read and reading smile, that on a time a sheep being stolen, he admonished all the people that whosoever had stolen it should within seven days restore it to the owner. The 7. days being expired, the sheep was not restored. Then (saith the Legend) S. Patrick commanded by the virtue of God, that the sheep should bleat and cry in the belly of him that had eaten it. And so it happened that in the presence of all the people the sheep cried and bleated in the belly of him that had stolen it. 7. In the Legend of the Annunciation of our Lady, we are told of a noble Knight, who betook himself unto an Abbey: and because he was unlearned, there was a Master assigned unto him. But either he was so dull or the inventor of the tale so doltish, that in a long time he could learn no more but these two words, ave Maria. Which words as he always had in his mouth whiles he was alive, so they grew out of his mouth when he was dead. For these words (saith the Legend) he had so sore imprinted in his heart that always he had them in his mouth, wheresoever he was. At the last he died, and was buried in the Churchyard of the brethren. It happened after that upon his grave their grew a right fair Flower de lice, and in every flower was written in letters of gold ave Maria. Of which miracle all the brethren were marveled, and they did open the sepulchre, and found that the root of this Flowredelyce came out of the mouth of the said Knight, and enough they understood, that our Lord would have him honoured for the great devotion he had to say these words, ave Maria. Likewise in the book of the conformities of S. Francis, which Book I could wish were more common, that Popery might appear unto all in her colours, there is a miracle recorded for the proof of transubstantiation; that on a time friar Francis saying Mass did find a spider in the Chalice, which he would not cast out but drunk it up with the blood. Afterward rubbing his thigh, & scratching where it itched, the spider came whole out of his thigh without any harm to either. But if the bread and wine after consecration be turned into the very body and blood of Christ, then more marvelous and I am sure more true is the story of victor the Pope, and * An. 1154. William Archbishop of York, and Henry of Lucemburgh the Emperor, all which were poisoned, the two first with that which was in the Chalice, and the Emperor with the host which a Monk had poisoned. And to these many more worthy miracles of the Church of Rome may be added. But you-will say, that howsoever their are many miracles wherein the Church of Rome glorieth, yet notwithstanding those special miracles which are assigned to Antichrist in the Scriptures, have not been wrought by the Pope or any of his followers. 8. This is indeed the third thing which Bellarmine observeth, that whereas there are three examples of Antichrist his miracles, specified in the Scriptures: yet none of them have been wrought either by the Pope or any other in the church of Rome. But I answer, that of these three miracles one agreeth not to Antichrist, as shallbe showed hereafter, and the Lib. 2. cap. 15. other two agree to the Pope. For howsoever Bellarmine and other Papists from these grounds do argue, that the Pope The author of the Wardword. is not Antichrist: yet from thence may the contrary be gathered. The former of these miracles is, that Antichrist or at least his ministers shall make fire come down from heaven. The second, that he shall cause the image of the beast to Apoc. 13. 13. speak. These two miracles Bellarmine understandeth literally, and from thence argueth thus; Antichrist or his ministers, shall make fire come down from heaven, and shall cause the image of the beast to speak. But neither the Pope of Rome at any time, nor any of his followers have caused fire to come down from heaven, nor yet made the image of the beast to speak, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. The argument is grounded on Apoc. 13. 13. literally understood. For such is the absurd perverseness of the Papists, that in other parts of Scripture which are simple and plain they do hunt after mystical and allegorical senses: but in this Book of the Revelation which is most mystical and allegorical, without all reason they insist in the literal sense. As for example in that thirteenth chapter, where the holy Ghost speaketh of the mark of the beast, which the followers of Antichrist should receive on their foreheads & on their right hands, they grossly understand this of a real and visible mark wherewithal men of all sorts should suffer themselves to be branded as the slaves or cattle of Antichrist. Where the holy Ghost speaketh of the image of the beast, which Antichrist puttoth life into and causeth to speak, they understand it of a material image animated and made to speak. Where the holy Ghost speaketh of fire to come down from heaven, they understand it of material fire brought down from heaven. Which course whosoever followeth in expounding the prophecies in the Revelation, must never look to see them verified in the event. The which I speak, not that literally they do not agree to the Pope, but because (the mystical sense being the more like to be true) our adversary groundeth his argument wholly upon the literal interpretation. But I will make it plain that both these miracles agree to the Pope not only in the mystical sense, but also in the literal. And to that purpose let us consider these miracles severally. 9 And first as touching that of fire, which Antichrist shall cause to descend from heaven, if it be literally understood, you shall perceive that it agreeth to the Pope, because in diverse Popish miracles there hath been (as they say) fire brought down from heaven. But seeing the place is rather to be understood mystically and allegorically, as well as other prophecies of the Revelation: we are not therefore by the coming down of fire to understand literally a real descending of material fire, but that which mystically in the Scriptures is meant by the coming down of fire from heaven. You are therefore to be informed that descending of fire from heaven, in the Scriptures signifieth three things: 1. God's approving of the religion and sacrifices of his servants: 2. His sending down of the graces of his spirit upon his children: 3. His vengeance executed from heaven upon his enemies. For the first, it is clear that the Lord informer times used to testify his approbation of the religion and sacrifices of his servants, by sending fire from Heaven to consume their sacrifice: in which respect he is said to answer them by fire from heaven. Levit. 9 24 1. Chron, 21. 26. 2. Chron. 7. 1. whereunto some add Gen. 4, 4. jud. 13. 19 When as therefore the people of Israel halted between jehovah and Baal●… Elias to prove that jehovah whom he worshipped was the true God, and his worship the true religion; by prayer miraculously caused fire to come down from heaven to consume the sacrifice, 1. King. 18. 38. Whosoever therefore doth by such signs and wonders confirm that doctrine and religion which 1. King. 18. 38 he professeth, as though God answered him by fire from heaven, he may be said to cause fire to descend from heaven, in the sight and opinion of men; who think such miracles to be wrought by the finger of God, according to this example of Elias, that is, so to have confirmed his religion in the opinion of men, as if he had with Elias fetched fire from heaven. If therefore the Pope of Rome or his ministers have, by as strange signs and wonders in the opinion of men, confirmed their religion, as though God from heaven approved thereof, as he was wont to signify his approbation in answering by fire from heaven: they may be said to have made fire to come down from heaven, although they never had caused material fire to descend. But if besides many other strange signs and wonders which they call miracles, they have confirmed their superstitious religion and Antichristian doctrines by bringing fire from heaven; then can it not be denied but that this place doth most fully and properly agree unto them. But you must remember how Saint john saith in the sight of men, not that they have done so indeed, but only that they have made men believe so. 10 As for example, to prove that their sacrament of the altar after the words of consecration is the very body of Christ, and to be worshipped no otherwise than Christ himself, we have a narration in their festival which was wont solemnly to be read in the church on Corpus Christi day: the words whereof I will recite unto you. Also we find (say they) that in Devonshire beside Exbridge was a woman lay sick and was nigh dead, and sent after a holy person about midnight to have her rights. Than this man in all haste that he might, arose and went to the church, and took God●… body in a box of Iuor●…, and put it into his bosom, and went forth towards this woman. And as he went through a forest i●… a fair m●…de that was next his way, it happened that his box fello●… of his bosom into the ground: and he went forth and witted it not and came to this woman and heard her confession. And then he asked her if she would be houseled, and she said, yea sir. Then he put his hand in his bosom & sought the box. And when he found it not, he was full sorry and sad. And said, dame, I will go after God's body and come anon agine to you, and so went forth sore weeping for his simpleness. And so as he came to a willow tree he made thereof a rod, and stripped himself naked, and beat himself that the blood ran down by his sides, and said thus to himself; Ah thou simple man! Why hast thou lost thy Lord God, thy maker, thy former and creator? And when he had thus beat himself, he did on his clothes and went on forth. And then he was aware of a pillar of fire that lasted from earth to heaven, and he was all astonished thereof, yet he blessed himself and went thereto. And there lay the sacrament fallen out of the box into the grass, and the pillar shone as bright as any Sun, and it lasted from God's body to heaven. And all the beasts of the forest were com●…n about God's body, and stood in compass round about it, and all kneeled on four knees, save one black horse that kneeled but on that one knee. And that black horse was a fiend of hell, who had turned himself into that shape that men might steal him, as diverse had done and were hanged for him, etc. If any man object that all this narration is a foolish fiction, I answer that this was as verily believed as it was solemnly read. And therefore to countenance their abominable idol of the mass, they have in the sight, that is, in the judgement, opinion, and belief of men, caused fire to come down from heaven that it might point out the body, & from it reach to heaven. 11 To win credit to such Saints as they have canonised, and consequently to cause men the more devoutly to pray unto them, to adore their images and relics, to go on pilgrimage to them, they have coined in the life or legend almost of every Saint, strange and incredible miracles. And this is the ordinary conclusion of many legends, Then let us pray to this worthy Saint, or glorious martyr, that he will pray to God for us, ●…hat by his merits we may have pardon and forgiveness of o●…r sins, or something to the like effect. We read of diverse of their Saints, who when they have been beheaded have carried their Saint justinian the monk. Saint Osi●…a. Saint Fulcien and Saint Victorice. heads in their hands, some one mile, some two miles. And it is a wonder that, hasting from so sharp a banquet, they did not leave their heads behind them for haste. Among many other miracles they tell us of fire also which they have caused to come down from heaven in the sight, that is judgement and opinion, of men besotted and given over to believe their monstrous untruths. In the life of Prothe and hyacinth, they make fire to come down from heaven to kill Melancy the false accuser of Eugenne. They have brought down a pillar of fire reaching from heaven unto the earth where the body of Saint Edward the Martyr lay. Upon the head of Saint Martin as he was saying mass they have fetched down a tongue of fire from heaven to make him equal as they say to the Apostles. In the fable of Saint George they make fire to come down from heaven to burn the idols with their temple and priests. In the life of Barbara we read that when her own father being her persecutor had drawn his sword to slay her, she was miraculously taken up in a stone and carried into a mountain; where two shepheades were feeding their sheep. And when one of them had bewrayed her to her father, and she in her charity had cursed him, anon his sheep became locusts and he consumed into a stone. Then her father having apprehended her delivered her to the judge, who put her to death. Whereupon they bring down fire from heaven to consume her father. Their doctrine of purgatory and prayer for the dead, is confirmed by many wonders and strange apparitions of souls departed, begging masses for their deliverance out of purgatory. And in like manner it is reported that when Birstan the Bishop of Winchester staying all night in the churchyard, as his manner was, said over his psalms for the souls departed, coming to these words requ●…scant in pace let them rest in peace, he heard the voice of an infinite number out of the graves crying, Amen. But to this purpose also in their legend they have made fire to descend from heaven. When as they tell us of a certain Bishop, who, appearing in the clouds of heaven to another here upon earth, did let some fire drop upon him to give him a taste of the torments in purgatory. Besides these examples many other might be found if they were worth the seeking in their fabulous writings, as also in some other of their stories which testify that diverse times in the church of Rome, fire hath been brought down from heaven. But these which I joan. Linturius in appead. ad fascic. tempor. have recited may suffice: in seeking and setting down whereof I should have thought my time and pains not well bestowed (such are the ridiculous fooleries of popery, wherewith the churches in the time of darkness have been pestered) saving that I considered that the more incredible the report is of Popish miracles, the more evidently it is proved, both that the Pope is Antichrist, and the Papists the followers of Antichrist, upon whom God hath sent strong illusions that they might believe lies. In the first sense therefore the prophecy Revel. 13. doth fit the Pope and church of Rome, who by great signs and wonders do so confirm their Antichristian errors and superstitions in the sight, that is, in the judgement, opinion, and belief of men besotted and made drunk with the whore of Babylon's cup of fornications, as though God did seem to approve thereof in answering by fire from heaven. And this interpretation seemeth to be confirmed by the words; for it is not directly said that Antichrist should cause fire to come down from heaven, but only thus, that he doth great signs, insomuch that fire descendeth from heaven in the sight of men. That is, insomuch that in the judgement of men God seemeth to answer him by fire from heaven, and to bear witness to his doctrines by miracles wrought by the finger of God. 12 But descending of fire signifieth also the bestowing of the grace of God's spirit which is called fire Mat. 3. 11. Act. 2. 3. In which sense the Pope may be said to make fire come down from heaven, but we must add before men, that is in their opinion and conceit. For he forsooth, as the church of Rome believeth, giveth not only the graces of the spirit to men, but also the power of sanctification both to men and also to some creatures of his own, as to his Ag●… Del, and his holy water sprinkle etc. And in this sense doth Primasius expound this place. Thirdly, the coming down of fire signifieth the wrathful vengeance of God executed upon his enemies, which often in the Scriptures is called fire, to wit, the Apoc. 20. 9 fire of God's wrath. As Elias therefore brought fire from heaven to consume the two Captains and their fifties: so Antichrist, according to this interpretation, shall with a divine revenge, as it were with fire from heaven, take vengeance upon his adversaries, but here also we must add before men, who shall think that those against whom Antichrist shall send the thunderbolt of his wrath, are punished with a Divine revenge, and as it were with fire from heaven. This also is verified of the Pope of Rome, who with a divine revenge (as he forsooth is Deus vindictae, The God of revenge) pursueth his R. Cupers. de eccl. pag. 61. num. 52. enemies, but especially with the thunderbolt of excommunication as themselves do call it. Which as it is terribly sent from this jupiter of Rome, so is it fearfully executed with Gregor. 7. in ep●…st. ad German. apud Auentin. lib. 5. putting out and casting down of lights from above, as if the fire of God's wrath were at their command, or as if with Gregory the seventh they could shake it out of their sleeves. And well may this be reckoned among the wonders of Antichrist. For it were more than a wonder, that Kings and Emperors should by excommunications from the Pope be either so daunted in themselves or abandoned of their subjects as some have been, but that the Popes have professed and their followers have believed, that God himself doth whatsoever is done by the Pope, who being Canonically elected is a God upon earth, and hath the same consistory and judgement seat with God himself, whose vicar he would seem to be; & consequently that those Kings and Emperors were deposed of God, who were excommunicated by the Pope: whereas other Princes and people that are not made drunk with the cup of their fornications have esteemed their bulls of excommunication as Bullas that is bubbles, & the fire of vengeance which they cause to descend in the sight of men, as painted fire, or as the thunder and lightning of Salmoneus, who (as the Poet describeth him not unlike to the Pope) Flammas iovis Aeneid. 6. & sonitus imitatur Olympi, Imitateth the lightnings of jupiter, and the thunder of heaven. But howsoever it is, whether this descending of fire from heaven is to be understood literally or mystically, the prophecy of the holy Ghost concerning this first miracle of Antichrist is verified of the Pope and church of Rome, who have caused fire to come down from heaven according to the literal sense: & according to the allegorical interpretation they have so confirmed their doctrines by signs & wonders, as if God had answered them by fire from heaven: and secondly they have taken upon them to bring down the fire of God's spirit, and to bestow his grace as it pleaseth them: and lastly, they have according to the example of Elias with a divine revenge & as it were with fire from heaven, taken vengeance of their enemies; not to speak of his punishing with fire all those that will not adore him. 13. And thus much may suffice to have spoken of the first miracle. The second miracle (saith Bellarmine) is, that Antichrist or his ministers shall make the image of the beast to speak. But never Pope nor any minister of his did make an image to speak: therefore, saith he, the Pope is not Antichrist. But I answer that this prophecy even according to the Popish interpretation agreeth to the Pope and his followers, among whom it hath been an usual practice to put life as it were into images in the sight and opinion of simple men, making them to sweat, to smile, to srowne, to nod, to beck and many times to speak, which might hap without a miracle, for the Devils sometimes did speak in the images of the Heathen. Notwithstanding we are not after a Popish, that is to say, a gross manner, but after a prophetical and spiritual manner to understand this mystical prophecy of the holy Ghost concerning the image of the beast. For if we understand the beast itself mystically, as needs we must, or else we shall make but a beastly interpretation of it: so we are in like sort to expound the image of the beast with the life and speech thereof. The beast itself signifieth the Roman●… state especially under the Heathenish Emperors as hath been showed. The image therefore of the beast must signify a state which hath some resemblance thereof, or at least the name and title of the Roman Empire, (as images bear the name of that which they resemble) and is indeed but an image thereof. Thus, besides the Pope's courts both in Rome and other countries, is the Empire renewed in the West, which besides the name and some titles and ornaments hath little or nothing of the old Empire. For the old Empire consisted in the government of Rome and the provinces thereunto belonging, none of which the Emperor hath as a Sovereign Prince by right of the Empire, and therefore is said to be the beast which was and is not though it be, being indeed, as it is Apoc. 17. here called, but an image of the former beast. The life of this Empire is the imperial dignity, and the speech are his edicts. Whosoever therefore caused this Empire, which in the west had lain void 325. years, to be renewed: whosoever at the first created this Emperor, & since hath taken order for the election of the Emperor, & confirmeth the election, he may be said to have caused the image of the beast to be made, & to have put life into it, & to have procured authority unto it, whereby it speaketh. 14. Now to whom all this is to be applied, let Bellarmine himself be judge. For he, in his books De translatione imperij Romani, by many testimonies laboureth to prove, first, that the Empire of Rome was translated, but he might better have said renewed, in the West, and as it were revived by the authority of the Pope, and that Charles the great in whom this Empire was renewed, received the same by no other title but by the authority of the Pope. And that is the sum of his first book. Secondly, that the Empire of Rome was translated from the family of Charles the great, and from the French nation to the family of Otho, and the nation of the Saxons and Germans, and that Otho was advanced to the Empire by the Pope: which is the scope of the second Book. Thirdly, that the seven electors of the Empire were ordained and appointed by the Pope, which is the argument of his third book. And in his first book he setteth down the state Chap. 4. of that controversy thus: the question is (saith he) who is the author of this translation (or rather renovation: for the Emperor of the East continued after until the year 1452. & before this time had by the Pope's means lost his right in Italy and Rome, & therefore nothing was translated but the name & title) & who it was that gave the name dignity & power of the Roman Emperor, and Caesar Augustus in the west, to Charles the great & his successors. We answer (saith he) that which the consent of all nations proclaimeth, that Pope Leo 3. was either the only or the chief and principal author of this translation: & that the Dutch nation is to acknowledge the receipt of the Empire from the Pope. Unto the testimony of Bellarmine & of all those authors whom he citeth, we will add the profession of the Popes themselves. Innocentius 3. saith, the 7. electors had their authority, Decret. Gregorian. de electione. c. venerabilem. ab Apostolica sede, quae Romanum imperium in persona magnifici Caroli à Graecis transtulit in Germanos, From the See Apostolic which translated the Roman Empire in the person of Charles the great from the Grecians to the Germans. Upon which translation saith Bellarmine, The Roman commonweal returned again De translat. imper. li. 1. cap. 4. to the same state wherein Constantine the great established it, & wherein it remained from Valentinian the elder, unto Augustulus. Likewise Adrian 4. The Roman Empire, saith he, was Ad archiep. Trevir. Moguntin. & Agrippin. apud Auentin. lib. 6. translated from the Greeks' to the Almains, that the king of the Almains should not be called Emperor before he were crowned of the Pope. Before his consecration he is king, after he is Emperor. unde igitur habet imperium nisi à nobis? From whence then hath he the Empire but from us? By the election of his princes he hath the name of a king: by our consecration he hath the name of Emperor, Augustus, & Caesar. Ergo per nos imperat. Therefore he is Emperor by us. Call to mind Antiquities. Zacharias advanced Charies and gave him a great name that he should be Emperor etc. Imperator quod habet, totum habet à nobis. What soever the Emperor hath, that he hath wholly from us. As Zacharias translated the Empire from the Greeks to the Almains; so we can translate it from the Almains to the Grecians. Ecce in potesta●… nostra est, ut demus illud cui volumus. Behold it is in our power to give it to whom we will. For therefore are we appointed of God over nations and kingdoms, to destroy and pluck up, to build and to plan●…. In the Clementines it is professed that the Pope Cap. Romani de iureiuran do. hath translated the Empire from the Greeks to the Germans: that he hath given power and authority to certain of their princes to elect a king to be Emperor: that the king thus chosen receiveth from the Pope the approbation of his person unto the Empire, as also his anointing, consecration, and imperial crown: and that in respect hereof the Emperors are to submit themselves unto the Pope, and to bind themselves unto him by an oath of fealty and obedience. And elsewhere in their law it is said, Imperator tenet imperium a Papa, unde tenetur praestare juramentum homagij scil. quod vasallus praestare solet domino suo. The Emperor holdeth his Empire from the Pope. Whereupon, he is bound to perform the oath of homage, to wit, which the vassal useth to perform unto his Lord. 15 Thus therefore this argument is returned upon the adversary. Whosoever causeth the image of the beast to be made, putteth life into it and causeth it to speak, he is undoubtedly Antichrist: But the Pope of Rome hath caused the image of the beast to be made, putteth life into it, & causeth it to speak, therefore he is Antichrist. The assumption is proved, because the image of the beast is the Empire renewed in the west: the life is the imperial dignity, and the speech are the edicts thereof. This image the Pope causeth to be made, this he putteth life into, this he hath made to speak. For first he renewed the Empire in the west, after it had lain void by the space of 325. years, when he anointed and crowned Charles the great Emperor of the west, & so caused him to be acknowledged: after he translated the Empire to the Almains, among whom he hath appointed seven electors as it were to renew this image, but so as himself putteth life thereinto, by approving the person and ratifying the election, & maketh him to speak by anointing him Emperor and giving unto him the name and title of Augustus and Caesar. Which things I shall not need further to prove, because they are matters whereof the Pope and Papists do greatly boast. And therefore from their own profession we may conclude that the Pope is Antichrist. Chap. 8. Of the name and mark which Antichrist shall impose upon men of all sorts, with some other effects. 1. THe second effect of Antichrist is noted Apoc. 13. 16. 17. 18. And he Apoc. 13. 16. 17. 18. made all both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand or in their foreheads. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom: let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man: and his number is six hundredth sixty and six. Of which prophecy Bellarmine saith thus. Fatentur omnes pertinere omnino Lib. 3. de pontis. Rom. c. 10. ad Antichristum verba illa joannis Apoc. 13, etc. All men confess that those words of john Apoc. 13. do undoubtedly belong to Antichrist. From this ground therefore we may reason thus. Whosoever enforceth all sorts of men according to this prophecy to take upon them the name of the beast, or the mark or number of his name, he is Antichrist: But the Pope of Rome enforceth all sorts of men according to this prophecy to take upon them the name of the beast, or the mark and number of his name: therefore he is Antichrist. For the clearing of this argument, two things are to be considered. First, what this name, number, and mark is: Secondly, whether the Pope impose the same upon all sorts of men. The number is expressed in the text, to be 666. And it is plainly said to be the number of the name. That we may not think it to be the number of the time when Antichrist should appear as some have imagined: neither can it in any good sense be said that Antichrist enforceth men to take upon them the number of that time. And it is called the number of the name, because in the letters of the name this number is contained. For it is the manner of the Hebrews and Greeks' to use their letters for notes of number, according to their order in the Alphabet etc. it is also called the number of a man, because (as it may seem) the name of the beast, containing this number, is also the name of a man. And this I take to be the most simple interpretation. 2 What the name is whereof the holy ghost here speaketh, it may easily be gathered out of the text. For 1. the holy ghost doth not speak of Antichrist his name properly, but of the name of the beast which Antichrist should cause all sorts of men to take upon them. If therefore we know what the beast is, it will not be hard to tell what the name is. The beast whose name Antichrist shall compel men to take upon them, is the former beast described in the beginning of the chapter. For so it is said, that Antichrist the second beast, exerciseth the authority of the former beast, that he causeth men to worship the first beast whose v. 12. deadly wound was healed: that he causeth an image to be made v. 14. to the beast, that he giveth spirit to the image of the beast, that v. 15. he suffereth none to buy or sell which have not the name of the v. 17. beast: which cannot be understood but of the former beast. Now that beast described in the former part of the chapped. is without doubt the Roman or Latin state, as hath been proved heretofore & the Papists sometimes confess; the name whereof without questi on is Roman or Latin. If therefore the name Roman or Latin in the learned tongues contain the number 666. then the name of the beast which Antichrist causeth men to take upon them, is Roman or Latin. But in what language are we to accounted the number of the beasts name? Surely either in Greek which is most likely, because the revelation was written in greek: or in Hebrew because the revelation (as some think) was given in hebrew to S. john being an Hebrew born: or else we may take the beasts name according to his own language set down in Hebrew characters, because the Latins do not use their letters as the Hebrews & Greeks do in numeration. For seeing we know what the beast itself is, we might well take that name which fitteth this number any of these ways. Irenaeus (whose master Policarpus been Saint john's disciple) reporteth, that those, who had seen john, face to face, did teach, that the number of the name of Lib. 5. the beast according to the computation of the Greeks by the letters which be in it, shall contain 666. He therefore setteth down three names in greek letters containing that number: in two whereof there is no show of reason that either of them should be this name, seeing neither of them (I mean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is the name of the beast. The third name, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereof he writeth thus: Sed & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nomen sexcentorum sexaginta sex numerum; & valde verisimile est. Quoniam verissunum regnum hoc habet vocabulum, Latini enim sunt qui nunc regnant. But the name Lateinos also containeth the number 666. and it is verse likely, because the most true kingdom hath this name. For they are Latines which now reign. Which in effect is as much as if he had said, the name Latin is very likely, because it hath the number 666. and is the name of the beast which figureth verissimum regnum the most true kingdom, that is the Latin or Roman state. The name of the beast Apoc. 13. 7. therefore in greek containing the number, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say Latin. 3. In Hebrew the beasts name comprehending that number is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Roman. For the beasts name being a noun or name collective, may indifferently, according to the manner of the Hebrews, be uttered either in the Masculine or Feminine gender. And the Feminine termination doth better fit the prophecy, not only because it rendereth the just number, but also because the beast as it is subject to Antichrist being the adulterous Roman state, is elsewhere in the feminine called the whore of Babylon, and the mother of fornications. The most usual name of the beast in it own language, that is, the Latin tongue, is Romanus, which in Hebrew characters is, as Master Fox supposeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the knowledge whereof as himself reporteth he attained by earnest prayer. And that the name Latin or Roman in the learned tongues is the name whereof the holy ghost speaketh, it appeareth, because every thing here spoken of the name, agreeth fitly and properly thereunto. For first it is the name of the beast. Secondly, is containeth the number 666, as may appear by this supp●…ion Thirdly, it is such a name as he, to whom all other notes of Antichrist do agree, (I mean the Pope) enforceth men to take upon them, as shallbe showed. Fourthly, because the name Latinus or Romanus is also the name of a man. For Latinus was one of the ancient Kings of Italy, and Romanus was one of the Popes. Wherefore I doubt not to conclude that the name is Roman or Latins in the learned tongues. For howsoever many others names may be produced which comprehend the number 666, yet either they are not the name of the beast, or are such names as Antichrist was not to impose upon men. But Lib. 2. cap. 10. of this, more here after. 4. Now let us see what that mark is whereof the holy Ghost speaketh. Chara●…t or Character is as it were a cognizance & a note of difference whereby men of any profession, or religion, are known and distinguished from others. And it is partly in ward and partly outward. The inward is that which is imprinted in the soul: the outward is that which is either expressed or received outwardly, as namely in the forehead, or in the right hand. In the forehead that is by outward profession, and in the right hand that is by operation, as the ordinary gloze expoundeth. As for example, the character or mark of a christian or servant of Christ is subjection unto Christ and acknowledgement of him to be our head & Saviour. This inwardly is the grace of a true faith wrought in the soul by the finger of God's spirit, whereby we believe in Christ our saviour. For those that truly believe are sealed or signed to salvation. That which Eph. 1. 13. outwardly is expressed, is either by confession of the mouth, or operation of the hands. In respect whereof, profession of the Christian faith may truly be said to be the outward mark of a Christian, as also determinat us modus us vivendi etc. (as the schoolmen speak) the certain manner of living according to the law & religion of Christ. So that he which believeth with his heart & confesseth with his mouth that jesus is Christ, & withal frameth his life according to the law & doctrine of Christ, he may be said to have the mark of God Apoc. 9 4. both in the heart by believing, & in the forehead by profession, & in the right hand by operation. See Rom. 10. 9 10. & 2. Tim. 2. 19 And furthermore the outward marks received to testify our subjection unto Christ & our communion with him, as also to distinguish us from men of other religions, are the Sacraments of Christ, as baptism and the Lords supper. And thus you see the mark of a Christian which is but one in substance, namely the true acknowledgement of Christ, is thus diversly expessed & testified. 5. The like may be said of the mark of the beast, which is also called the mark of his name. The beast as we have proved Apoc. 14. 11. is the Roman state, the name is Roman or Latin. The mark therefore of the beast is that whereby they of the Romish or Latin religion whom we call Papists, are distinguished from others, that is their subjection unto the Pope as their head and acknowledgement of the See of Rome. This inwardly in the soul is their implicit faith: whereby every Papist is bound hand over head to believe whatsoever the Pope or Church of Rome believeth: and the rather because they are to be persuaded that neither of both can err. That which outwardly is expressed is either by confession of the mouth or operation of the hands. So that the profession of the romish religion and certain manner of living according to the Laws and customs of the Pope and church of Rome, may also be said to be the mark of Antichristians: even as the observation of the Heathenish rites is called 2. Macah. 4. 10. the Character of the Grecians. Who soever therefore in heart believeth whatsoever the Pope & church of Rome do or shall believe, & outwardly professeth the Romish religion & frameth his life according to the laws & customs of the church of Rome, as for example to fall down before images, to adore the Eucharist, to frequent the Mass etc. he may be truly said to have the mark of the beast. Moreover the outward marks received to testify their communion with the church of Rome, are certain sacraments of their holy mother church, which as they say do imprimere characterem indelebilem, imprint a character that cannot be done away, and therefore are not to be iterated, as namely their sacraments of confirmation & orders. In the former whereof (which they prefer before baptism) all young ones are anointed in the forehead with oil, which they call Chrisma salutis, The Chrism of salvation, & without which they will have none to be accounted christians. Nunquam erit Christianus (say they in their law) nisi confirmatione De consecrat. dist. 5. c. ut iciuni. episcopali fuerit Chrismat us. In the latter, those of their clergy besides their shaving on their heads, are anointed also on their heads, as Bishops, or on their hands as Priests. Thus you see also how the Characteristical note or mark of Antichristians which is one in substance, namely subjection to the Pope & acknowledgement of the See of Rome, is diversly expressed & testified. Whosoever therefore since the revelation of Antichrist is a Roman or Latin in respect of his religion, acknowledging the Pope's supremacy, & professing himself a member of the church of Rome, that is to say, in one word every resolved Papist, hath the mark of the beast, his name and number of his name. 6. Now it remaineth that, by application of this prophecy to the Pope, I should show that he causeth all both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, that he should give them a mark in their right hand or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Whereby thus much is meant, that Antichrist by his usurped dominion and tyranny should make all sorts of men subject unto him, and to testify their subjection both by words and deed: and that he should suffer none to live among them or to enjoy the benefits of human society, but such as acknowledge the See of Rome, profess themselves members of the Roman church, and use the Latin religion and service. All which doth fully and only agree to the Pope of Rome. For he, by his devilish policy usurped authority, lying wond●…rs & all deceiveableness of vnright●…ousnesse, had not only brought all men both high & low into subjection, but also persuaded them that upon necessity of salvation, and pain of damnation, they were to subject themselves unto him, & both by word and deed to testify their subjection. Hereunto belongeth that oracle (for so sometimes they call their their decrees) of Boniface 8. Subess●… (saith he) Roman●… pont●…fici, omni humana creaturae declaramus, Extr. de Maior. & obed. c. unam sanctam. dicimus, definimus & pronunciamus omninò esse de necessitate salutis. To every human creatur●… we declare, affirm, define, and pronounce, that to be sub●…ect to the Pope of Rome it is a matter altogether necessary to salvation. Whereupon the gloss saith, quicksands quid saluatur est sub Romano pontifice. Whatsoever is saved, is subject to the Pope. The same is concluded by Thomas Aquinas, and others, That to be subject to the Pope is of the necessitis Lib. de error. Graecor. c. 72. Antonin. sum. 3. part. tit. 22. c. 6. §. 5. An. 884. of salvation. Stephanus 5. alias. 6. decreed that such Canons as were concluded upon and given out by the See of Rome, are of necessity unto salvation to be observed. Calixtus 2. straightly forbade any to dissent from the Church of Rome, for as the Son came to do the will of his Father, so Christians must do the will of their mother the church of Rome. Ex. 1. Bal. act. ponti●…. Rom. Capistran fol. 26. For to gain●…say the Church of Rome is Heresy. Those which deny the Pope to have both powers, deny the Gospel: and they which deny the Pope to have the primacy of the universal Cuper●…. pag. 46. in summar. num. 9 Church, their error is equal to the error of the Grecians, who deny the holy Ghost to proceed both from the Father and the Cupers. pag. 56. num. 21. Son. If therefore thou wilt not be an Heretic this must be thy faith, that as there is one God immutable, so there is one vicar general of God upon earth (namely the vicar of Rome) whose Capistran. fol. 32. s●…ip is stable. For seeing in the triumphant church there is one supreme Clementin. lib. 5. de hareticis, cap. ad nostrum in Gloss. prince to whose obedience all that church is most perfectly subject, to wit, God: it followeth necessarily that one supreme prince is pre●…nt over the whole militant Church, towit, the Pope, whose 〈◊〉 all are bound to ob●…y. And this privilege Christ Anton. part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 6. §. 5. hath given to the church of Rome, that all must be obed●…t unto it, a●… unto Christ. Therefore he sustaineth the sentence of condemnation Ibid. cap. 5. §. 17. ex Gloss. ordin. Papae appli●…ta. qui conte●…it f●…i pontificis is obedientiam, tanquamsi contemneret Dei 〈◊〉, w●…o 〈◊〉 the Pope's obedience a●… if he contemned God's omnipotency. And to conclude, as I began, with an other oracle or canon of their law, Peccatum igitur paganitatis 〈◊〉, quisquis dum Christianum se esse asserit, sedi apostolica Dist. 81. c. si qui sunt. ob●…dire cont●…it, He incurreth therefore the sin of Pagani●…, whosoever professing himself to be a Christian, renounceth obedience to the S●… apostolic. 7 And as he hath made all to subject themselves unto him, all I mean whose names are not written in the book of the lamb, (for this is the universality that the Papists brag of) so he hath caused all both small and great, rich and poor etc. to testify their subjection; as namely by pinning their faith on his sleeve, and binding themselves to believe as he believeth: by professing his Antichristian faith and religion of popery; by observing his popish that is to shy superstitious and idolatrous rites and customs, as frequenting masses, adoring images and relics, worshipping the cross and Eucharist, praying to Saint●… yea to stocks and stones, going on pilgrimage, praying in latin and that on beads, etc. by taking his mark both on the forehead in the sacrament of confirmation, and on the hand in the sacrament of orders, but especially by taking an oath of fidelity and obedience unto him. For therein especially they receive his mark both in the forehead by solemn profession, and in the right hand which they lay on the book. This oath not only graduates, priests, Bishops, but Kings also and Emperors were compelled to take. And whereas it is Vid. Meditat. 1. Foxij in 14. cap. Apoc. Decret. Gregor. libro 2. tit. 24. de iureiur. c. Ego N. Clementin. lib. 2. de iureiur. c. Romani. said that Antichrist should take order that none might buy or sell, unless he have the mark, or the name of the beast or the number of his name: that speech doth so fit the Popes of Rome as that it might seem rather to be a narration of that which they have done, th●…n 〈◊〉 prophecy of that which they were to do. For Martin 5. in his bull annexed to the council of Constance giveth strait ch●…rge to all governors, that they should not suffer any Christians (such as john Wickleffe, john Husse and Jerome of prague who in that bull are condemned for heretics) who acknowledge not the See of Rome, nor embrace the doctrines and traditions of holy mother church, not believing as the church of Rome believeth, nor living in the communion of that church, that is to say, which have not the mark, nor the name of the beast, nor number of his name, they should not suffer them I say, domicilia tenere, larem fovere, contractus inire, negotiationes & mercaturas quaslibet exercere, aut humanit at is solatia cum Christi fidelibus habere. To keep house nor hearth, to make contracts, to exercise any traffic or merchandise, or to have any comforts of human society with other Christians. In like sort Paulus 3. when Henry 8. of famous memory had shaken of his yoke, and renounced his mark, he forbade all men to use any traffic or merchandise, or to make any contracts or covenants with him and his subjects: he deposed as much as in him lay, by his bull of excommunication, the king, disabled his posterity, absolved his subjects from obedience, exposed his subjects and their goods to violence and spoil, according to the inscription in his coin, Gens & regnum quod non serui●…rit mihi exterminabitur, The nation or kingdom which serveth not me, shall be rooted out. The like thunderbolt Pius 5. sent out against our Sovereign Lady of blessed memory Queen Elizabeth: and Sixtus 5. against Henry the king of Navarre (now king of France) and Henry prince of Condee. And hereunto serve their bloody inquisitors at this day: who are to suffer none to live, or to have the benefit of human society, who are but suspected of schism or heresy. And who is an heretic? That doth not believe as the Pope and church of Rome believeth; though he believe according to the scriptures. And who is a schismatic? That doth not acknowledge the Antonin. part. 3. tit. 22. c. 5. §. 11. Pope to be the head of the church. Seeing therefore the Pope of Rome causeth all sorts of men to take upon them the mark of the beast, and suffereth none to buy or sell that have not the mark or name of the beast or number of his name, it cannot be avoided but that he is Antichrist. 8 And these were the principal effects of Antichrist noted in the scriptures: whereunto some others may be added out of Apoc. 13. which have in part been touched heretofore: as first, that he exerciseth all the power of the former beast secondly that he causeth men to worship the former beast, thirdly that he forceth men upon pain of death to worship the image of the beast. All which, as well as the former, agree to the Pope. For as touching the first, who knoweth not that the Pope hath swayed the Roman state for many hundred years? exercising a more sovereign and absolute authority over men of all sorts, than ever the heathenish Emperors did. For he forsooth hath the authority of the king Bald. in c. ecclesia, ut lit. pendent. Blood. Rom. ins●…aur. lib. 3. of kings over his subjects; he is perp●…uus dictator, whom the princes of the world adore and worship: he is as Boniface the eighth in the great jubilee Anno. 1300. (having showed himself the one day in his pontifical vestiments, and the second in the imperial robes) proclaimed of himself, I am Pope and Emperor, I have both the heavenly and the earthly Empire, and as they speak in their law, the Monarchy of both powers: he hath the princehood of the whole world, as we have heard before. And where doth he exercise this authority? in the sight of the beast, that is, at Rome, which is his Papal seat, and in the government whereof he succeed the Emperors. 9 And that the Pope maketh the inhabitants of the earth to worship the former beast, it is as evident; seeing his main policies and chief endeavours serve to magnify the Roman state. To this end, besides many other policies in part observed before, do his jubileyes tend: wherein he useth to promise plena●…y remission of all sins to all that either come on pilgrimage to Rome, or miscarry in their journey: as also the incredible indulgences and pardons which he granteth to those which shall come as Pilgrims to Rome, to visit the holy places there, especially the 7. churches which are privileged above the rest. To which purpose there is reported in an old English book, (and the report no doubt was currant in times Arnaldus Londinens. of popery) the whole pardon of Rome granted by diverse Popes, a part whereof I will briefly recite for their behoof, to whom the absurdities of Popery are not known. The seven privileged churches, whereof not only that Author speaketh, but 〈◊〉 also of late hath wrieten a whole book, are 1. the church of Saint Peter in the Vatican: 〈◊〉. the De 7. urbis eccles●…. church of Saint Paul without the walls: 3. the church of Saint Laurence without the walls: 4. the church of holy cross in jerusalem. 5. the church of Saint Mary Maior. 6. the church of Say't Sebastian without the city: 7. the church of Saint john Laterane. To all them that daily go to the church of Saint Peter, Syl●… granted the third part of all than sins released, 1. and 2800. years' pardon. And the 〈◊〉 of as many Lentons or Quarins. Now a Quarin saith my author is to go woolward and barefoot seven year, and to fast bread and water on the fridays 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 one night where he sleepeth another, 〈◊〉 co●… under no co●…ed place unless 〈◊〉 be to hear mass in the church door or porch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or drink out of no other vessel but in the same that he meed his avow in. He that doth all these points seven years together, death and ●…inneth a quarin, that is to say, a Lenton. Besides, there is an image of our Lord about the church door, having between his feet one of the pence that God was sold for; as o●… as you look upon that p●…ny you have 1400 years of pardon. In that church be eleven altars, of which 7. are specially privileged with grace and pardon. At the first altar is the visage of out Lor●… who looketh on that, hath 700. years of pardon, etc. Before the choir door stand 2. 〈◊〉 ●…rosses; who kisseth the crosses hath 500 years pardon. From the 〈◊〉 to the assumption of our Lady, hangeth a cloth of our Ladies own making before the choir, and as many times 〈◊〉 a man beholdeth it he hath 400. years of pardon, etc. 10 They that visit the church of Saint Paul without the walls ha●… 48000. years of pardon. Item on Childer●…asse day 2. 4000 years of pardon. Item on the vias of Saint Martin when the church was hallowed 14000. years of pardon, and as many quarins, and the third part of all sins released. Those that visit the church of Saint Lau●…ence, at the high altar have 18000. 3. years of pardon and as many quarins. And who goeth thither every wednesday he delivered a soul out of purgatory, & himself quite of all ●…nes. In the church Sanct●…crucis that is of holy cross is given an hundred thousand years of pardon and as 4. many quarins, and every Sunday a soul out of Purgatory, and the third part of all sins released. To them that visit the church of 5 S. Mary Maior, is granted, at the high Altar 14000. years of pardon, & as many quarins: And at the altar on the right hand 19000. years of pardon. And Pope Nicolas the 4. & S. Gregory each of them granted thereto 10000 years of pardon. And from the Ascension of our Lord unto Christmas, ye have there 14000. years of pardon, and as many quarins, and the third part of all sins released. To them that visit the church of S. Sebastian is granted 6 forgiveness of sins and all penance. At the high Altar is given 2800. years of pardon, and at the first Altar in the Church, 2400. There is a vault where lie buried 49. Pope's that were Martyrs: whoso cometh first into that place delivereth 8. souls out of Purgatory of such as he most desireth, and as much pardon thereto, that all the world cannot number nor reckon. And every Sunday you deliver there a soul out of purgatory. In that vault standeth a pit in which Peter and Paul were hid 250 years, he that putteth his head into that pit and taketh it out again, is clean of all sins. To that place siue Popes each of them granted a thousand years of pardon, and as many karins. And so the grace that is at S. Sebastian's is grounded that it cannot be taken away. To those that 7 visit the Church of S. john Laterane, Pope Silvester gave as many years of pardon, as it reigned drops of water the day that he hallowed the same Church. And that time it rained so sore, that no man had seen a greater rain before that day. And when he had granted this, he doubted whether he had so much power. Then a voice came from heaven, and said, Pope Sylvester, thou haste power enough to give that pardon. And God granted this much thereto, that if a man had made a vow to jerusalem, and lacked good to do his Pilgrimage, if he go from S. Peter's Church to S. john Lateranes, he shallbe absolved from that promise. And any time that a man cometh to Saint john Lateranes, he is quite of all sins, and of all penance, with that that he be penitent for his sins. Blessed is the mother that beareth the child that bareth Mass on Saturdays at Saint john Lateranes. For he delivered all them that he desired out of Purgatory to the number of 77. souls. Item on the tower of the Church standeth a double cross, that was made of the sword wherewith Saint john was beheaded, and every time a man beholdeth that cross he hath 14000. years Pardon. At the high altar a man may have remission of all sins, and of all penance, and innumerable pardon more than he needeth for himself. There is a grave wherein Saint john laid himself, he that putteth therein his head he hath an hundred thousand years of pardon, and as many karins. These indulgences with many such like (which for brevity sake I omit) my Author saith are written in a Marble stone before the Choir door etc. Besides these seven, there are many inferior Churches whereunto great indulgences have been granted by the Popes. There are named in the aforesaid Book 26. Churches, wherein is granted, to them that visit any of them, 1000 years pardon, and in some 3000, in others 5000. some, wherein promise is made of release from a third part of sins, and in some from all sins. Here is a Church of Saint Gregory, in which whosoever is buried, he shall never be damned. Thus (saith my Author) may a man have at Rome great pardon and soul health, blessed been the people and in good time borne that receiveth these graces and well keepeth them etc. 11. Hereby it appeareth that the Pope causeth the inhabitants of the earth to worship the beast with seven heads, that is, seven hills: that with the city of Rome (which we have proved to be the whore of Babylon) the inhabitants of the earth have committed spiritual fornication, and that with the cup of her fornications they have been infatuated and made drunk. And that the Pope hath caused men upon pain of death to worship the image of the 3. beast which he hath animated and put life into, it is easy to prove, whether you understand it literally or mystically. For literally, as they have put life and motion into images and made them to speak in the sight of men: so have they suffered none to live that would not participate with them in their idolatry which they call worshipping of images. Mystically the image signifieth either the Pope's court, or Empire renewed, or both: the one resembling the authority and power, the other bearing the name and representing the dignity of the old Empire. Of the Pope's court at Rome, and of his Legates and Officers abroad there is no question to be made, but that none are suffered to live which worship not them. And it is true also of the Empire. But by worshipping the image of the beast, we do not understand obedience to the Emperor in his lawful decrees: but the obedience performed unto him as he is an image of the persecuting Emperors, inspired by the Pope, and serving as his minister to establish and propagate the Romish religion. In this sense as he who obeyeth him worshippeth the image of the beast, and is in the same predicament with those that receive the mark of the beast, Apoc. 14. 9: So he that obeyeth him not is put to death; and dying in this quarrel is in the same happy state with Apoc. 14, 13. 15. 2. those which refuse to receive the mark of the beast. CHAP. 9 ¶ Of those things which Antichrist was and is to suffer. 1. WE have heard what Antichrist was to do to others: now let us consider what the holy Ghost foretelleth shall be done unto him. There is mention made Apoc. 17. 12. of the Apoc. 17. 12. etc. ten horns, that is the rulers of the ten provinces subject to the Empire in the West; who although in the Apostles time had not received kingdom or sovereign authority, but were deputies only under the Emperor: yet after the decay of the Empire in the west, they together with Antichrist divide the Roman Empire among them, reigning by sovereign authority, he in Rome and part of Italy, they in the other provinces, Of these ten horns it is said, that they for a time should give their power and strength verse 13. to the beast, meaning Antichrist: and that in his quarrel they shall fight against Christ the lamb in his members. But the v. 14. blood of Martyrs being the seed of the Church, and the truth prevailing when it is most oppugned: Christ by the constancy of his Martyrs and preaching of his word overcometh. For though in respect of the manner of his resistance he seemeth a meek lamb: yet he shall be sure to overcome, because he is the king of kings and Lord of Lords; being able by weak and foolish things (as they are esteemed in the world) to overcome the wise and strong. And howsoever those few in comparison that stood with him were condemned for heretics and schismatics, yet are they the called, chosen, and faithful servants of the Lord. Whereas contrariwise the general multitudes (whereof the catholic apostasy consisteth) are the slaves of Antichrist, and subject to the whore of Babylon. For the waters whereon she sitteth, are peoples and multitudes, nations v. 15. and tongues. But when as our Saviour Christ shall discover Antichrist, and by the ministry of the word, as it were the breath of his mouth, waste and consume him: then shall the ten kings, which before had joined with him, set themselves against him: and those which before had committed fornication with the v. 2. whore of Babylon, shall hate her and make her desolate and naked, v. 16. and shall eat her flesh and shall burn her with fire. And that this decay of the Antichristian state doth follow upon the preaching of the gospel, it appeareth Apoc. 14. 6. 7. 8. where it is said that upon the preaching of the everlasting Gospel, an angel saith, It is fallen, it is fallen, Babylon that great city: for she gave to all nations to drink the wine of the wrath of her fornication. v. 17. For until this time that Christ discover Antichrist and in some measure consume him with the spirit of his mouth, the ten kings are given over of God to support with one consent the beast and purple harlot; whom, after Antichrist is discovered, they shall hate and oppugn. 2 But let us come to the application. For even as from this place I proved before that Antichrist is already come▪ so may I now from hence conclude that the Pope is that Antichrist. That Antichrist is come, it is as certain as that the provinces of the Empire are not ruled by deputies of the Emperor, but by sovereign princes, who have together with Antichrist divided the Empire among them. And that the Pope is that Antichrist it is as certain. For he it is, who, as well as the kings, hath risen by the decay of the Empire in the west: he it is, and no other, to whom these kings have with one consent given their strength and power, submitting themselves unto him as his vassals, swearing to maintain and support him, fight his battles and drawing their sword at his beck. And being made drunk with the cup of his fornications they fought against the lamb, and persecuted those servants of Christ whom Antichrist condemneth as heretics and schismatics: who notwithstanding are in truth the called, chosen, & faithful; though few and despised in the world. When as contrariwise the universality of people whereon the whore of Babylon sitteth, and whereof the adulterous church of Rome consisteth, are but the branded slaves of Antichrist. But howsoever these kings, whiles they were besotted and given over of God in his just judgement that they should submit themselves to the Antichrist of Rome, did seek by all means to support him: yet when Christ had discovered him to be Antichrist, and by the preaching of his word as it were the spirit of his mouth began to waste & consume him, and more and more since the times of Luther to abate the opinion which men had conceived of him; then these princes, not all, but some of them, began to revolt from Antichrist, and to hate the Antichristian whore See chap. 2. §. 11. of Babylon the city and church of Rome, and as much as in them lieth have left her desolate and naked: and the rest in God's good time shall accomplish his will. For this prophecy concerning that which Antichrist was to suffer, is as yet fulfilled but in part. And still there remaineth to be fulfilled the final destruction of Rome the seat of Antichrist, before the end of the world, soretold Apoc. 18. and the final overthrow of Antichrist at the glorious appearing of Christ at his second coming, prophesied 2. Thess. 2. 8. Apoc. 19 20. Seeing therefore Antichrist the great enemy of Christ and his church is to be overthrown by these three means, by the powerful ministry of the word, by the puissant strength and power of Christian princes, by the glorious coming of Christ to judgement; all faithful ministers are to be stirred up seriously and earnestly to oppose themselves against Antichrist, that by their ministry as it were the spirit of Christ's mouth, he may be more and more wasted and consumed. All true Christian princes are to be excited not only to hate the whore of Babylon, but also according to the prophecy of the holy ghost to make her desolate and naked, to eat her flesh and burn her with fire, & to do to her children as she hath done to the servants of Christ. And finally all sound Christians are to be exhorted, earnestly Apoc. 18. 6. and continually to pray that the Lord jesus would not only consume Antichrist, giving success to the ministery of his servants: but also that he would hasten his second coming and destroy him at his glorious appearing. Even so Lord jesus, come quickly. And thus have I showed that the prophecies of Ap. 22. 17. 20. the holy ghost in the scriptures concerning Antichrist Conclus. do most fitly and properly agree to the Pope of Rome: whereupon I do necessarily conclude, that therefore the Pope of Rome is the grand Antichrist described in the scriptures. FINIS. THE SECOND BOOK maintaining that the Pope is Antichrist. The first Chapter, answering Bellarmine his first argument concerning the name Antichrist. Having in the former Book sufficiently proved by evident demonstration out of the word of God, that the Pope of Rome is Antichrist: it remaineth that we should maintain this our assertion against the arguments of the Papists. For as the force & evidence of our proofs may persuade us to embrace this truth; so the weakness and sophistry, which appeareth in the objections of our adversaries may confirm us in this persuasion. And the rather if we consider either the weight of this controversy itself, or their will and skill to maintain their part; or lastly the advantage which they seem to have in this controversy. For first the controversy itself is of such consequence, as that if our assertion be true, then is all Popery overthrown, and all controversies betwixt us and them easily decided: then are all Papists limbs of Antichrist, and all their doctrines peculiar to them, errors of Antichrist. And if you respect their will, you need not doubt, but that they, being wholly devoted unto the Pope, have done their best endeavour to free their head and Lord from all imputation of Antichristianisme. And for their skill, they being men of great learning and much reading, you may be well assured that they have scarcely omitted any thing, which may be said in so weighty a cause. And questionless, they have no small advantage in this controversy being to prove the negative part. For whereas we cannot prove the affirmative but by the concurrence of those manifold properties and marks which the holy Ghost hath assigned unto Antichrist: they on the other side have liberty to disprove the same, and to prove the negative, if they can but show plainly & evidently, that any one several and essential mark, ascribed unto Antichrist in the Scriptures, doth not agree to their Lord God the Pope. For if the Scriptures foretell us as touching the place, that Antichrist shall have his seat in Babylon, that is, Rome, which being situated on seven hills, had in the Apostles time under the Emperor, and since under the Pope, dominion over the Kings of the earth, and that in Rome, professing herself the Church of God, because it is said, that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God: as concerning the time, that he should sit in Rome, after the removing and taking away of the Emperors, whom he was to succeed in the government of Rome, as hath been showed out of these places, 2. Thes. 2. 7. 8. Apoc. 13. and 17. and in respect of his conditions and qualities, that he should be for opposition an adversary, although a disguised enemy; for pride and ambition, advancing himself above all that is called God: for his other vices, a man of sin in general, and more specially an horrible idolater: in regard of his effects, that he and his followers should be workers of signs and wonders, in the sight of men, that he should compel all sorts of men to receive the mark or name of the beast, or number of his name: and lastly, for that which he was to sister, that Christ shall consume him with the breath of his mouth, that is, the ministery of the Gospel; and that thereupon the ten horns which first assisted him, shall afterwards assault him: It followeth therefore, that unto such as we affirm to be Antichrist, all these notes are to be applied, (as we have applied them all to the Pope of Rome) whereas contrariwise the denial of any one essential property, is an argument sufficient to prove the negative. As for example, if any man will ●…ake upon him to prove, that the Turk is Antichrist, because some of the marks seem to fit him, he shall never be able to prove it, because all the properties do not agree unto him. For neither hath he his seat in Rome, neither doth he sit in the Church of God, neither is he a covert and disguised, but an open and professed enemy: neither may he be matched with the true Antichrist, either in advancing himself above all that is called God, or in idolatry, or in lying signs and wonders, etc. And from any of these we may reason thus. Antichrist was to have his seat in Rome, which is mystical Babylon: the Turk hath not his seat there: therefore he is not Antichrist. Antichrist sitteth in the Church of God: the Turk doth no●…, etc. wherefore much more easy it were to prove the negative, if it were true, than the affirmative. If therefore the Papists having bend all their forces, and employed the uttermost of their skill, to prove that which were most easy to prove, if it were true, shall notwithstanding be found unable to produce any one sound and sufficient argument, to clear their Pope from Antichristianisme: have not we just cause to confirm ourselves in that truth, which before hath been demonstrated, viz. that the Pope is Antichrist? 2. Let us therefore consider their arguments, and conceits whereupon their arguments are grounded: not as they are propounded by the elder Papists, which lived in the days of our forefathers (for their conceits concerning Antichrist were mere dotages) but as they are delivered by the refiners of Popery the Jesuits, and namely by Bellarmine, whose books are as it were a shot whereunto many of them, as it seemeth, have contributed. Bellarmine therefore in his third book De pontifice Romano, reduceth all his arguments to nine heads. 1. Concerning the name Antichrist. 2. Concerning his person, whether he be but one man, or a state and succession of men. 3. Concerning the time of his coming, and death. 4. Of his proper name. 5. Of his nation & followers. 6 Of his seat. 7. Of his doctrine and manners. 8. Of his miracles. 9 Of his reign & battles. From all which he hopeth (although in vain) to prove, that the Pope is not Antichrist. 3. And first from the name he argueth thus: Antichrist is hostis & aemulus Christi, 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. The proposition which we not only grant, but also take to be the ground of some of our proofs, that he laboureth to prove, & in that proof spendeth almost the whole first chapter. But the àssumption, wherein is all the controversy betwixt us and them, that in a manner he See lib. 1. cap. 4. §. 1. taketh for granted. In both playing the part of a right sophister. For which of our writers ever denied, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth hostem et aemulum Christi? what though Musculus also saith, that Antichrist Loc. Comm. cap. de potestate Ministrorum. is he, who being an enemy unto Christ, professeth himself to be his vicar, and saith that the word may signify so much; yet he denieth not the former signification, but retaineth the same with this addition: That Antichrist is such as one as challengeth unto himself the office and authority of Christ himself, and being indeed an enemy, & a counter-Christ, professeth himself to be the Vicar or Vicegerent of Christ upon earth. And this may be proved by the signification of the name. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition, commonly signifieth three things; opposition, equality, substitution. Opposition, as in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: equality, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: substitution, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Preconsul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Propraetor or Legatus Praetoris; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the putting of one case for another: and in this sense the sacraments of the new Testament, substituted and ordained instead of the old, are called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them. And all these significations sometimes 1. Pet. 3. 21 are incident to one and the same word. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth sometimes, contrariae partis ducem, the chieftain of the contrary part: sometime propraetorem, that is, one who in the province hath the same authority which the Praetor hath in the city: sometimes also him qui est vice praetoris, as the Lieutenant or deputy. In like sort, all these significations may be applied to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and it in them all most fitly agreeth to the Pope. Who being indeed an enemy unto Christ, and challenging unto himself the office and authority of Christ, as if he were a counter-Christ, doth also profess himself to be the Vicar of Christ. 4. Yea, but saith Bellarmine, Antichrist cannot by any means signify the vicar of Christ: first because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifieth opposition. I answer, Vllo modo. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply signifieth for; & in composition, as many times it signifieth against, so sometimes also equal or like, & sometimes for or in- steed, as Greek writers & Lexicographers do teach, etc. Secondly, we must (saith he) understand the word as it is used in the Scriptures. But in the Scriptures it is used to signify an enemy of Christ, which we do confess: albeit his proves are ridiculous, all eadging, 2. Thes. 2. Mat. 24. where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not once used. Notwithstanding we accept his ground: that we are so to understand the word Antichrist, as it is used in the Scriptures. Now it is used in the epistles of john only, and there ascribed not to open and professed enemies, but to such as being enemies, notwithstanding professed the name of Christ, as the heretics of those times. Thirdly, all those authors (saith he) which have written of Antichrist, have under that name understood a notable false Christ, who shall affirm himself to be Christ If they mean that Antichrist shall be such a false Christ, as shall plainly and directly affirm himself to be Christ the only Messias, that affirmation agreeth not with that Antichrist whom the Scriptures describe. If they hold that although in words he profess himself a follower and servant of Christ, and yet indeed obtrudeth himself upon the Church, as if he were Christ, taking upon him the titles, attributes, offices and authority of Christ, which in effect is as much as if he should say; I am Christ (Christ being a name of office) we also confess so much, and withal profess, that the name Antichrist in this signification, most fitly agreeth unto the Pope. Fourthly, he allegeth Henry Stephen: but neither he nor any approved Author denieth, but that Antichristus may signify him, who being an enemy of Christ, professeth himself to be his vicar. And therefore all these four arguments are frivolous: for although Antichrist do signify an enemy to Christ, yet that doth not hinder but that it may signify him which is the Vicar of Christ; because he which in profession is the vicar of Christ, may indeed be the enemy of Christ. 2. Because the composition of the word importeth so much. 3, Because the beast which figureth Antichrist, is said to have two horns like the Lamb: for horn in the Scripture signifieth power, & the two horns his twofold sovereign power: whosoever therefore challengeth this twofold power, as the Vicegerent of Christ he hath two horns like the lamb: and the same person, as he is the Vicar of Christ in profession, so is he also that Antichrist, which is resembled by the two horned beast. The Scriptures therefore describe Antichrist, both as an enemy of Christ, and as the Vicar of Christ: an enemy indeed, and Vicar in profession. 5. And so much of his proposition, which we hold to be most true, that Antichrist according to the signification of the word, is host is & aemulus Christi, but withal we add, that the word may signify also such an adversary as obtrudeth himself unto the Church, as a Prochristus, that is, as a vicar of Christ. Let us therefore come to his assumption, & consider how he proveth that the Pope is not hostis & aemulus Christi, An enemy, & one that seeketh to match himself with Christ Forsooth, because the Pope confesseth himself to be the servant of Christ, and subject unto him in all things: neither doth he by any means say, that he is Christ, nor make himself equal unto him. As if he should say, he that professeth himself to be the servant of Christ, is not an enemy of Christ, and he that doth not call himself Christ, nor make himself equal unto him, he is not aemulus Christi. As touching the former, I answer, that unless the Pope did confess himself to be the servant of Christ, he could not be such an adversary as Antichrist is described to be in the Scriptures, that is, a covert and disguised enemy, who under the name and profession of Christ, oppugneth Christ and his truth. And what though he profess himself to be the servant of Christ, doth it therefore follow, that he is not an enemy to Christ? Surely no more than it followeth, he is servus servorum Dei indeed, because he calleth himself so. Deceivers, such as Antichrist is, pretend The servant of God's scr●…ts. good names: false Prophets, such as Antichrist is, are Wolves in Sheep skins: neither are any enemies so pernicious or dangerous, as those which make semblance of friendship. And that the Pope is aemulus Christi, that is, an adversary opposed unto Christ in emulation of like honour, we have proved heretofore at large, showing how in many things he matcheth himself with Christ, and in somethings advanceth himself above him. So that the former part of his speech doth not prove his assumption, as being inconsequent, the latter needeth proof, as being untrue. And yet this is all that he bringeth to prove, that the Pope is not hostis & aemulus Christi. But the untruth of this assumption, we have heretofore demonstrated at large, when as we concluded thus: He that is such an adversary as is described in the Scriptures, opposed unto Christ in emulation of like honour, he is Antichrist as the Papists confess: But the Pope is such an adversary as is described in the Scriptures, opposed unto Christ in emulation of like honour, as we then proved at large: therefore the Pope is Antichrist. Lib. 1. cap. 4. et. 5. The second Chapter: maintaining that Antichrist is not one definite and singular person. 1. THe second argument which Bellarmine useth, to prove, that the Pope is not Antichrist, is drawn from the person of Antichrist, namely, that Antichrist is one certain man, whereas the Popes have been many. His reason is thus framed: Antichrist is but one singular person. The Pope (meaning the order or succession of Popes) is not one singular person. Therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. To the proposition I answer, that as the Pope is one, so is Antichrist. The Pope is one person not in number and nature, as one certain and singular man, but one at once by law and institution, though successively so many as have enjoyed the Papacy. For even as the Papists when they say, that the Pope hath been the head of the Church and Vicar of Christ these 1500. years, do not mean See lib. 1. cap. 1. 〈◊〉. 4. any one Pope, but the order and succession: so we when we say, that the Pope hath been Antichrist almost these thousand years, we mean not any one Pope only, but the whole row or rabble of them since the year 607. And thus Antichrist, that is, the head of the Antichristian body, which was revealed after the taking away of the Roman Empire, & is to continue after a sort, until the end of the world, is one person: one I say at once ordinarily, but continued in a succession of many. The proposition thus denied by us, Bellarmine laboureth to confirm by authority of the Scriptures, and testimonies of the Fathers. Out of the Scriptures he produceth five testimonies. The first out of the Gospel of john, chapter 5. verse 43. I am john. 5. 43. come in my Father's name, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him will you receive. In which words Bellarmine understandeth Christ to speak of Antichrist, as of one singular person: And that he would prove by testimonies of the Fathers, and four reasons. But Bellarmine and the rest of the Papists, which make this collection out of this place, either ignorantly mistake, or wilfully deprave this text. For first, whereas our Saviour Christ speaketh indefinitely, of any false teacher which should come unto them in his own name, that is, not sent of God, they expound him, as if he had spoken definitely of one singular Antichrist. Secondly, whereas Christ speaketh not only indefinitely, but also conditionally, If another come, they expound him, as if in a simple and proper axiom or proposition he had prophesied of the coming of Antichrist: as if he had said, that other counterfeit Messias, that is to say, that singular Antichrist, shall come in his own name, and him you will receive. And thirdly, whereas Christ speaketh of those jews to whom he speaketh, they understand him to speak of those which shallbe in the end of the world. But let us consider his proofs. The Fathers, saith he, do testify that these words are spoken, de uno Antichristo, of one Antichrist. First I answer, that although divers of the Fathers expound these words of Antichrist, yet none of them hath that word uno, one: and therefore the jesuits collection is absurd. The Fathers understand this place of Antichrist, therefore Antichrist is one singular person. For the Fathers also understand that place Mat. 24. 24. of Antichrist, where our Saviour Christ speaketh in the plural number, of false Christ's, and false Prophets which should arise; and confer that place with this. And therefore they may seem to understand this speech of our Saviour, as if he had said: If another come Mat. 24. 5. 24. in his own name (as many indeed shall come) such will you receive. And sure it is, that the jews have received more than one of such as have come in their own name. And secondly I answer, that the Fathers had no reason to restrain these words unto Antichrist alone, as though Christ had prophesied of the jews receiving of Antichrist for their Messias, seeing his speech is neither simple nor definite, but conditional and indefinite. Whereby our Saviour Christ would show the untoward disposition of the jews, who as they rejected him who was sent of God, so they would be ready to receive any other that should come in his own name, not sent of God. And so Nonnus in his Paraphrase upon this place, expoundeth these words. Ei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But if any other come, etc. And lastly, if these answers will not suffice, let the adversary conclude his argument drawn from the authority of the fathers in a Syllogism, and when he hath so done, let him prove the proposition, which must be this: whatsoever those fathers writ concerning Antichrist is true: and then the assumption, which is to this effect, but this those fathers writ that Christ speaketh those words, de uno Antichristo, of one singular Antichrist, & then (which will never be) I will yield to the conclusion. 2. But omitting his testimonies, let us come to those arguments which he draweth out of the text, to prove that Christ in these words speaketh of one singular Antichrist. First saith he, Christ opposeth unto himself another man, that is, person to person, as appeareth by these words, I, another, etc. His reason is thus to be framed, where these two words, I, and another, are opposed one to the other, we are to understand that as I signifieth one singular person, so also another: but in this place, I, and another are opposed: therefore etc. I answer, where the other is taken definitely for that other, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is used john 18. 16. and 20. 2. 3. 4. there the proposition may be true. But where it is used indefinitely, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, another, in this place, it is most false: for in such speeches, to a certain and definite person, is opposed an indefinite and uncertain. As for example job. 31. 8. What I sow●…, let another reap, meaning any other. 1 Cor. 3. 10. I have laid the foundation & another buildeth thereon, but let every one take heed how he buildeth thereon. Such examples are ordinary. As if I should say, this argument I call a childish reason, another would call it a dotage, and so I let it pass. His second reason is this: Whom the jews shall receive for their Messias, he is but one particular man: Antichrist shall be received of the jews for their Messias, as Christ here saith: therefore Antichrist is but one singular man. Answer. Christ doth not here foretell that Antichrist shallbe received of the jews for their Mesias. For first, his speech is conditional, therefore not a prophecy. Neither doth he foretell what they were to do, but showeth them what in respect of their present disposition they were ready to do, if any false teacher should obtrude himself unto them. Secondly, it is indefinite, and therefore not to be restrained to a certain person. Thirdly, he doth not say, that they shall receive another for their Messias coming in his own name, but only that they shall receive him. Fourthly, those jews to whom & of whom our Saviour speaketh, were not to be alive at the coming of the great Antichrist, according to the opinion of the Papists themselves, therefore our Saviour speaketh not of the jews receiving of Antichrist, & much less of Antichrist as one particular person. Thirdly (saith he) all false prophets come in the name of another, not in their own name. But Christ here speaketh of one that should come in his own name, therefore he speaketh not of false prophets. He might as well have concluded against the Scriptures, that Antichrist is not a false prophet. For false prophets, saith Bellarmine, come not in their own name, Antichrist cometh in his own name: therefore if Bellarmine's argument be good, Antichrist is not a false Prophet. But I answer, that Antichrist and all other false Prophets may be said to come both in their own name, and also in the name of God. In their own name because they are not sent of God, in which sense our Saviour Christ here speaketh, I am come, saith he, in my father's name, sent from the bosom of my father who hath sealed and sent me to this work of mediation, and you receive me not: If another shall come in his own name, not sent from God, or as Lyra expoundeth those words, in nomine suo, in his own name, that is, not having the aforesaid testimonies from God, whereby to warrant his calling from him, such will you receive. They are said also to come in the name of God and of Christ, because they pretend (although falsely) a calling and commission from God. jerem. 14. 14. 15. Mat. 24. 5. For whereas Bellarmine expoundeth these words thus, in his own name, that is, shall not acknowledge any God, but advance himself above all that is called God, and assigneth such a coming to the expected Messias of the jews, it is absurd. For the jews expect a Messias to be sent them from God. And therefore if any shall take upon him to be their Messias, and be received of them, he will without doubt profess himself to be sent of God. And such a one may be said to come in his own name, because he is not sent of God, and in God's name, because he pretendeth a calling and commission from him. Fourthly (saith he) if Christ had spoken of false Prophets, whereof many were to come, he would not have said, if another come, but many come: but the second is false, therefore the first. I answer, if Christ had spoken simply and definitely, one other shall come, there had been some show of reason in the argumentation of the adversary. But seeing he doth not so speak as Bellarmine dreameth; but conditionally and indefinitely, if another shall come, there is not so much as any show of reason in this argument. 3. The second place which Bellarmine produceth, is 2. Thes. 2. 3. 8. Where the Apostle entreating of Antichrist, speaketh of one certain and particular person, as appeareth by the Greek article, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the man of sin, the son of perdition, the outlaw. His reason is thus to be framed: Unto whatsoever the Greek article is prefixed, it is signified to be one certain and singular thing or person: unto the Antichrist that man of sin, the son of perdition, the outlaw, the Greek article is profixed: therefore the Antichrist is but one certain and singular person. The proposition he proveth by the authority of Epiphanius, who saith that the Greek articles restrain the signification to one certain thing, so Haeresi 9 q●… est S maritanrum. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth man in general, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one singular man. And therefore Bellarmine marveleth greatly that none of us who would seem to have skill in the tongues hath observed so much. But it were more to be marveled that Bellarmine should in this weighty cause affirm that which he knoweth to be false, but that he hath Epiphanius upon whom to the father this untruth; and yet Epiphanius doth not say that the addition of the article doth always restrain the signification to one certain and singular thing, but that it signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the discretion or difference of the name. Howbeit that is not perpetual: For many times the article is added for ornament only and fullness of speech, when as in respect of the sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is redundant or superstitious. And here of there be more examples than there be leaves even in the new testament. And therefore both in the same and like sentences the article sometimes is used, sometimes omitted without any alteration of the sense. As Lu. 4. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But in Matthew 4. 4. where the same speech is recorded, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And again where the article is used for difference sake, it doth not always point out one certain and singular thing, but only when it is used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for a demonstrative particle, as john 1. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, behold the Lamb of God. john, 4. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; is not this that Christ? For more usually it is used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, for difference, when as it serveth not to signify one special, but to distinguish the whole kind. In which sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is all one, as Philosophers say. As Mark 2. 27. the Sabbath was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the man, not the man for the Sabbath. john. 2, 25. he needed not that any should bear witness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the man (meaning any man) for himself knew what was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the man. So Num. 19 11. (which is the law that Epiphanius misalledgeth) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: he that toucheth (that is, whosoever toucheth) the dead body (that is, any dead body) of any man, he shallbe unclean seven days. Whereas Epiphanius therefore allegeth it thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: If any man touch the dead, he remaineth unclean until the evening, and he shall be washed with water, and shall be cleansed: and from the force of the article (which is not in the text as he allegeth it, if there be not a fault in the print) proveth that by the dead is to be meant not any dead man, but only Christ: it is evident that his memory failed him. For the law which pronounceth a man unclean until the evening for touching a dead body, is understood of the dead bodies of beasts: but that which speaketh of the Levit. 11. dead body of a man, pronounceth him unclean seven days, and is (as even now you heard) understood of the dead body of any man whatsoever. And the reason of this law is, first because a dead man is a spectacle both of our sin, and of God's curse for the same: and secondly, because the Lord would by the detestation of the bodily death teach the Israelites to abhor the spiritual death of the soul in sin. And there fore Epiphanius not unworthily reproveth the hypocrisy of the Samaritans, who under pretence of this law, abhorred the dead bodies of men, when as themselves were dead in sin. So when we say, the Pope, the Emperor, the king, the priest, the minister, the eye, the hand, we mean not one particular, but the whole kind, as 1. Pet. 2. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, honour the king, not this king only, but any whosoever is king. 1. Tim. 3. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it behoou●…th therefore the Bishop (not this or that Bishop, but every one that hath that calling) to be without reproof. Mat. 6. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The light of the body is the eye. See 1. Cor. 12. 15. 16. Mat. 12. 34. etc. So when we say, the good man or the wicked man, we mean either generally all, or indefinitely any that be such, Mat. 1●…. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. The good man out of the good treasure of the heart, bringeth forth the goodthings; and the evil man, etc. 4. Sometimes again the article is used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to signify that which is most notable in that kind, and therefore most worthily (or as we say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) deserveth that name. And of this use is Epiphanius his rule to be understood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Where the article is added unto some definite and notable thing, there is always confirmation by the article, namely, that the word is not to be understood indefinitely or indifferently of any: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but without the article it is to be taken of any one indefinitely. Which latter part of the rule, if it be true, proveth that the speech of our Saviour, john. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if any other come is indefinite. But neither doth the article used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, always point out a certain and singular thing, though sometimes it do. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a Christians mouth signifieth the true God only, as Epiphanius saith. So when we say, the Apostle meaning Paul, the Poet meaning among the Greeks' Homer, among the Latins Virgil; the Orator, Demosthenes or Tully; the wiseman, Solomon. But when we say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is another of Epiphanius his examples) and mean thereby not indifferently any king but by an Emphasis that Prince to whom we are subject, we do not always nor for the most part understand one certain king, but all or any to whom the sovereignty of our country doth appertain, whether he be king or Queen. As when we say, the king supreme governor of the church, no time prescribeth against the king, the king's highway, the Prince's laws, etc. In like manner when we say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is Epiphanius his third example) or as the Apostle more distinctly speaketh, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the man of God: For although by this Emphasis not any man is meant but the minister of 2. Tim. 3. 17. God, yet it signifieth not one certain minister, but any one of that function called thereunto of God. And in this sense is the Pope called the Antichrist: & the Antichrist in the same sense is called the man of sin, the son of perdition, the outlaw. But this proveth not, that therefore the Antichrist is but one certain and singular man. For even as the devil, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the unclean spirit, although there Luk. 11. 24 be many wicked ones is called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the evil, and yet there be many devils, and as the Bishop of Rome since the ti me of Boniface the third, is called the Pope (whereas before, the name Pope was attributed to other Bishops) and yet there have been many Popes: so although all heretics deserve to be called Antichrists; all profane men, men of sin; all reprobates, sons of perdition; all sons of Belial, 1. joh. 2. 18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or outlaws: yet not withstanding the Pope of Rome since the time of Boniface the third, deserveth to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antichrist, the man of sin, the son of perdition, the outlaw. Which as it doth not prove that the Pope signifieth but one singular person, so See Lib. 1. c. 6. neither doth it evince that the Antichrist signifieth one certain man. For look what they can say, of the Antichrist in this case; the same may be said of the Pope. 5. The third place is like to the second, and therefore a short answer may serve. 1. john 2. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, You have heard that the Antichrist cometh, and even now there are many Antichrists: where the article is prefixed before Antichrist so properly called; but the name of Antichrist generally taken is uttered without an article, which most plainly showeth that Antichrist properly taken is but one man, but generally taken it signifieth all heretics. As if he had said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth but one certain man, because the article is prefixed. The Antichrist so properly called is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore the Antichrist so properly called, is but one certain man. The prosyllogism or proof of the proposition I have already proved to be most false, when as I showed that whereas there are four uses of the article at the least, Bellarmine's observation holdeth only in one, and that the least usual: namely, when the article is used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, for a demonstrative particle. And that the article added to a word doth not always signify one certain and singular thing, I will show by some other examples, which will sit nearer the Papists. In 2. Thes. 2. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that hindereth, is expounded by the fathers, and acknowledged by the Papists, to signify the Emperor 2. Thes. 2. 7 of Rome, not any one particular, but the state and succession of Emperors. Again Mat. 16. 18. where there is not only the article, but also the pronounce demonstrative, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon this rock, the Papists would have understood by that rock, which P●…ter confessed, which is Christ, or faith in him; not only Peter himself, but also (although most falsely) the whole succession of Popes. And therefore by their own doctrine, the article doth not always, no not when it is joined with a demonstrative particle, signify one certain and particular thing or person. Thirdly, in the place before alleged, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the man of sin, the son of perdition, is understood by some to signify not only the head of the Antichristian 2. Thes. 2. 3 body, but the whole multitude of those who join with Antichrist. Augustine reciteth this opinion, and is so far from misliking it, that Bellarmine allegeth it as Augustine's. Neither are we to think this interpretation to be dissonant from the manner of speech used in the Scriptures: seeing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the woman, Apoc. 12. 6. signifieth the Church of Christ; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the harlot, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the woman Apoc. 17. 1. 18. the city & Church of Antichrist. And that I may come to the proposition itself, and omit other examples, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes signifieth the Antichristian body or company of Antichristian heretics. 6. For better proof whereof let us consider the acceptation of the word: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Antichrist in the place alleged, and elsewhere 1. joh. 2. 18 in the Epistles of john, in which only it is used, and not elsewhere in the scriptures. In the place which Bellarmine citeth, th'apostle seemeth to reason thus. When the Antichrist is come, it is the last hour. Now Antichrists are come; therefore now is the last hour. 1. joh. 2. 28 Where either the Antichrist and Antichrists signify the same, or else there be four terms in the Apostles argument, which Bellarmine dareth not avouch: And afterwards v. 22. he plainly showeth, that every one that denieth jesus to be the Christ (as many Antichrists 1. joh. 4. 3. 4 or heretics did, of which he spoke verse 18.) is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Antichrist. In the same Epistle Chapter. 4. he biddeth them try the spirits, that is, their teachers, because many false prophets were come into the world, and giveth them this note whereby to try them: Every spirit (saith he) which confesseth jesus Christ to be come in the flesh, is of God, and every spirit which doth not confess that jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you heard was to come, and even now 2. john. 7. already is in the world. Likewise in the second Epistle: Many dec●…iuers are come into the world which d●… not confess that jesus Christ is come in the flesh, this is the deceiver and the Antichrist. By which testimonies it is evident, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth not only signify the head of the Antichristian body (which is not one singular man, but is continued in a succession of many) but also sometimes any heretic that oppugneth the natures or offices of Christ: and sometimes the whole body or company of heretics opposed unto Christ. For john 1. joh. 2. 22. plainly affirmeth that those many heretics and deceivers of his time, are the Antichrist. And whereas Paul prophesieth of Antichrist that he should come into the world, and should be destroyed at the second coming of Christ, john affirmeth that Antichrist, of whom they had heard that he should come, was then already come into the world. From which places I argue thus. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antichrist in the Epistles of john, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the man of sin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the outlaw, in the Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians do signify one certain and singular man, as the Papists affirm; than it will follow necessarily, that one and the same man, who was come into the world in Saint john's time, shall be in the world at the second coming of Christ: for john saith, that the Antichrist was come in his time, and Paul saith that the outlaw shall be consumed with the spirit of Christ's mouth, and destroyed at his glorious appearing. But the latter is incredible, for since the time of Saint john there are already 1500. years expired, and therefore the former (which is the assertion of the Papists) is absurd. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore signifieth sometimes the whole body of Heretics from the ascension of Christ, until his second coming: sometimes any heretics which are limbs of that body: sometimes the grand antichrist, who is the head of that body, & is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antichrist. Wherefore in respect of those heretics and limbs of Antichrist in the Apostles times; Antichrist is then said to have entered, and as it were, to have set his foot into the world. And accordingly the Apostle Paul saith, 2. Thes. 2. 7 that even in his time the mystery of iniquity, that is, Antichristianisme was working (namely by those which belonged to the body of Antichrist) although covertly and underhand, until the head of that body was revealed as he was, after the Empire in the West was dissolved, and the Emperor which hindered was done out of the way; according to the prophecy of the Apostle, 2. Thessalonians. 2. 7, 8. And thus you see what a slender argument this is taken from the article, although it be used as one of the principal demonstrations generally of all the Papists, that writ of this argument, but more especially of Bellarmine, who thinking it too good to go for one argument, hath divided it into two. 7 His fourth testimony is taken out of Daniel, chap. 7. 11. & 12. Where Antichrist is called a King, and not a Kingdom, who of the ten Kings which he shall find in the world, shall take away three, and shall make the other seven subject to himself. But I answer, that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist at all, but of Antiochus Epiphanes, and therefore this allegation is impertinent. For the learned of our times have made it evident, that the four kingdoms whereof Daniel speaketh, were ended before the incarnation of Christ: and that the fourth kingdom which many have taken to be the monarchy of the Romans, was the kingdom of the Seleucidae and Lagidae in Syria and Egypt, so far forth as the people of jewrie was subject thereunto, and is therefore described as the most terrible of all the four, because it was most trouble some to the jews. And that the ten horns were ten Kings of Syria and Egypt, which successively tyrannised over the people of the jews; Antiochus Epiphanes being the tenth and the last of those Kings which tyrannised over jewrie. But because in outrageous cruelty and cursed hostility, not only against the people, but also against the religion of the jews, he surpassed all that went before him; of him therefore Daniel speaketh so plainly and distinctly, that he hath seemed to some rather to write an History of him, than a prophesy; as shall hereafter more fully be showed, when as Chap. 16. we shall also manifestly declare that this which Bellarmine addeth concerning Antichrists killing of three Kings, and subduing of the other seven, is but a dream, which is indeed so far from all probability of truth, as that it cannot be verified of that party whom Daniel describeth. Daniel describeth him as the tenth: Bellarmine maketh him the eleventh, as if it were a beast of eleven horns. Daniel speaketh of ten Kings, which successively ruled over the jews: Bellarmine maketh him speak of ten, who together with the eleventh, should be at one time in the world. Of those ten Daniel saith, that three were plucked up before the tenth, & as it may seem by his means, but of the other six, either all or the most were dead before he was borne: Bellarmine maketh him to kill three and subdue the other seven, which indeed lived not in his time, as shall be showed hereafter out of the eleventh of Daniel, where the succession of these ten Kings, and the affairs of the tenth, who can be no other but Antiochus Epiphanes, are particularly and fully described. This argument drawn from the misconstruing of Daniel, Bellarmine although he knew it to be nothing worth, yet he was content to make a flourish with it, because he had some of the Fathers to father it upon. Afterwards he cometh nearer to the purpose, and saith, that Caluin, as some of the Fathers before him, to wit, Cyprian and Jerome, affirmeth, and so doth Bellarmine himself else where, that Daniel speaketh of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was a type of Antichrist. Therefore leaving his former hold, he reasoneth thus: Such as is the type or figure, such is the thing figured: Antiochus the type was but one singular person, therefore Antichrist that is figured is but one. The proposition is to be understood of the proportion and likeness only in those things, in respect whereof the type is a figure, and not generally in all things. As for example, the Highpriest was a type or figure of Christ, but therefore it doth not follow that there was but one Highpriest, because Christ is one. The Papists hold that Melchisedec, who was but one, was a type of their Mass Priests, which are many. josuah, Dakid and Solomon, were types of Christ, but therefore not like unto him in all things. So Antiochur may not unfitly be said to have been a type of Antichrist; because as Pharaoh was a type of other tyrants which oppressed the Church of God: so he in falsehood deceit, pride, idolatry, cruelty, and persecuting of the Church of God, resembled Antichrist the man of sin, which is an enemy, and is listed up about all that is called God, or that is worshipped. In which respects Antiochus was so fit a type of Antichrist, that R. Levi Gerson alleged by Bellarmine in the end of the 12. chap. apply whatsoever is spoken of him Dan. 7. & 11. to the Pope of Rome. If therefore you understand the proposition generally, it is false: if particularly, the whole argumentation is a fallation. 8. His fift testimony is Apoc. 13. & 17. For these places are to be understood of Antichrist, as Irenaeus teacheth, and as it is plain by the likeness of the words in Daniel and john, etc. His reason is thus framed, If Daniel spoke of one King, then also john: but the former is true, therefore the later. The proposition, wherein there is indeed no coherence, he proveth by the similitude of their words: First, because both make mention of ten Kings, which shallbe in the earth when Antichrist shall come. It is true that both make mention of ten horns, but with such difference as that otherwise there is no likeness. Antiochus in Daniel, by whom Bellarmine would have us to understand Antichrist, is the last of the ten, & not one besides the ten; otherwise the fourth beast, were a beast of eleven horns: Antichrist is one besides the ten horns in the Revelation, and of Bellarmine sometimes is called the eleventh. Bellarmine's Antichrist in Daniel is the little horn signifying indeed but one man, but the true Antichrist in the Revelation is called not an horn, but the beast, whereby not one man, but a state is signified. The ten horns in Daniel are so many kings which succeed one another, in the kingdom usurped over the jews, before the coming of the Messias: the ten horns in the Revelation are so many rulers over divers kingdoms, which receive their kingdom together, not only after the incarnation of Christion but also after the dissolution of the Roman Empire: So that in truth nothing is here alike, save that in both there is mention of ten horns. Secondly saith Bellarmine, both of them foretell that the kingdom of Antichrist shall continue three years and an half. But I answer, that neither of both assign that time to Antichrist. For first Daniel assigneth a time, and times, and parcel of time, that is, three years and ten days, to the persecution under Antiochus, whereby the public worship of God was for that time interrupted, viz. from the 15. day of the month Casleu in the 145. year of the kingdom of the Seleucidae See. Chap. 16. 1. Mac. 1. 57 unto the 25. of the month Casleu in the year 148. 1. Mac. 4. 52. But of this more hereafter. Neither doth john any where assign three years & an half to the reign of Antichrist: but to the beast with seven heads & ten horns, which signifieth the Roman state either generally as it is opposed unto Christ, or particularly as it was governed by the sixth head, that is, the emperors, he assigneth fortytwo Apoc. 11. 2. 7. and 13. 1 5. months, which are not literally to be understood. Now Antichrist is not the beast with seven heads, but one head of the seven, & is described under the second beast as our adversaries also confess, which in plain terms is called another beast. For how can he be that beast, if he be another? Apoc. 13. 11. And of this also, I shall have better occasion to speak more fully hereafter. Lastly, he flieth to the authority of the fathers as his last refuge; but neither do these fathers expressly say, that Antichrist shallbe See. Chap. 8. but one man: neither if they did, can any sound argument be drawn from their testimonies, unless Bellarmine be able to prove, that whatsoever these fathers have written concerning Antichrist, is true. And again divers of the Fathers, as Irenaeus, Origen, chrysostom, Jerome, Ruffinus, Primasius, Augustine, expounding that place Math 24. 24. which speaketh of more than one, as spoken of Antichrist, they could not understand Antichrist to be but one. Yea but the Fathers say, that Antichrist shall be a most choice instrument of the Devil, that in him shall dwell all the fullness of devilish malice bodily, even as in the man Christ dwelleth the fullness of the divinity corporally. But although this allegation were true (as I will not thereof dispute,) yet is it impertinent: for the Pope (meaning the whole succession of Antichristian Popes) may be a notable instrument of the devil, etc. and yet hereof it followeth not that there hath been but one Pope: As touching the other assertion of Antichrists reign three years and a Chap. 8. half, we are hereafter to entreat. 9 Now that Antichrist is not one singular man, but a whole state and succession of men, it may appear by these arguments. First by conference of 2. Thes. 2. with the Epistles of john; for john plainly 1. joh. 4 3. 2. john. 7. 1. joh. 2. 18 saith, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Antichrist, of whom they had hard that he should come, was in his time. And of whom had they heard it, but of Paul in the 2. Thes 2. where in like sort the Apostle saith, that even in his time the mystery of iniquity, that is, Antichristianisme was working: noting that Antichrist in some of his members was already come, although he were not revealed, until that which hindered was taken out of the way. Now as Paul and john do both testify, that the Antichrist was in their time; so Paul also showeth that Antichrist shall remain unto the second coming of Christ, 2. Thes. 2. 8. for although he should be wasted and consumed before by the spirit of Christ's mouth (that is, the ministry of the word) yet he should not be utterly destroyed until the second coming of Christ. From hence therefore we reason thus: If Antichrist were in the Apostles time, and was to remain until the second coming of Christ; then Antichrist is not one singular man, but a succession of men; unless they will say, that one and the same man may live upon the earth from the Apostles time until the coming of Christ, of which time there be already above 1500. years expired. But Antichrist was in the Apostles times, and is to continue until the second coming of Christ, as the two Apostles Paul and john do plainly testify, therefore Antichrist is not one singular man. 10. Of this syllogism Bellarmine cannot deny either the proposition, or the assumption. Only he distinguisheth of the former part of the assumption: viz. That Antichrist in the Apostles time was come indeed, but not in his own person, but only in his forerunners. And this he would prove; first, by a similitude, which he might have known from Plato to be a most slippery argument. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Christ came in the beginning of the world not in his own person, but in his forerunners the patriarchs and Prophets; so Antichrist came in the Apostles time not in his own person, but in his forerunners, the heretics & persecutors of the church. In which similitude there is no proportion, unless that which is in question betaken for granted, namely that Antichrist is but one particular person, as Christ is. For if Antichrist be a succession of heretics, than might he be said to come in the first of the rank; although the chief of that order, which principally is called Antichrist, was not yet come. And secondly, the protasis or proposition of this similitude is untrue. For although Christ might be said to be come from the beginning in respect both of the truth of the promise, and also of the efficacy of his merits, which is extended to all the faithful from the beginning: yet we never read, neither can it truly be said that he came in the patriarchs and Prophets: especially seeing the holy Ghost maketh a kind of opposition betwixt Heb. 1. 1. Mat. 21. 37 Gal. 4. 4. Gods sending of them, and the coming of Christ, who was not sent before the fullness of time came. Neither are the Prophets or patriarchs any where called the forerunners of Christ: For forerunners go a little before, as john Baptist did, who therefore is worthily called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the forerunner. If any man object that as Christ 1. Pet. 3. 19 spoke in the Prophets; so Antichrist in the heretics: I answer, that this latter is true not of Antichrist, but of the devil, who is a lying spirit in the mouths of all false Prophets. Thirdly, the reddition is contradictory to that which the Apostle john delivereth. For he saith plainly that the Antichrist with the article prefixed, and that Antichrist whom they heard was to come, was already entered into the world, 1. john. 4. 3. 2. john. 7. and thence proveth that therefore it is the last hour, because Antichrist was to come in the last hour, 1. john. 2. 18. So that in this similitude nothing is sound, no proportion in the whole, no truth in the parts. 11. Wherefore by a new supply of arguments, he laboureth to make good this exposition. And as touching the place in Paul, he argueth first from the authority of the fathers & interpreters, whereof some understand by the mystery of iniquity, the persecution under Nero: others the heretics of those times which secretly seduced many. The former had no reason to call the open persecution of Nero a mystery: who also although he were an enemy, yet belonged not to the body of Antichrist, who is a disguised enemy and a pretended Christian. The latter exposition we do embrace. For we hold Antichrist to be the whole body of heretics in the last age of the world, who under the name and profession of Christ advance themselves against Christ, first secretly, as in the Apostles times; afterwards more openly, when that which hindered, was taken out of the way. Of this body as every member severally and all jointly is Antichrist (and therefore john calleth the heretics of his time Antichrists, and of them all saith that they are the Antichrist:) so especially the head of this body, which we have proved to be the Papacy, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called Antichrist. Wherefore although Antichrist was after a sort come, and the mystery of iniquity wrought in the Apostles time, yet Antichrist was not revealed until the head of this body appeared, that is, until the Pope became Antichrist, who since the year of the Lord 606. hath showed himself in his colours; first by usurping supreme authority over the universal Church, & afterwards by claiming sovereignty over kings and Emperors, as we have heretofore showed Seeing therefore the heretics of whom the fathers speak, did belong to the body of Antichrist, it cannot be denied but that Antichrist, when they were in the world, was come in some of his members, and had as it were set his foot into the Church. 12. Secondly from our own confession he would seem to drive us to great absurdity. For (saith he) if Antichrist were come in the Apostles times, and if Antichrist hath his seat in Rome, than it will follow that Peter & Paul were the true Antichrists, & Nero or Simon Magus the true Christ. For there were no other Bishops of Rome then, but Peter and Paul, with whom Nero and Simon Magus contended. I answer, that it cannot be proved out of the Scripture, or by any sound argument that Peter and Paul were Bishops of Rome: and although they were, it would not follow upon our assertion, that therefore they were Antichrists, and much less that Nero or Simon Magus was Christ. For when we say that Antichrist was come in the Apostles time, we speak of the body of Antichrist with S. john. Whom we say that Antichrist hath his seat in Rome, we speak of the head of this body, who especially is called Antichrist: whom we do with Paul acknowledge not to have been revealed, until that which hindered was taken out of the way, that is, until the Roman Empire in the West was dissolved: but afterwards by degrees he was advanced in the Papacy, above all that is called God; sitting in the temple of God, as if he were God, that is, ruling and reigning in the Church, as if he were a God upon earth. And surely if the head of the Antichristian body was to be revealed not long after the dissolution of the Roman Empire in the West, and was about the same time with the rulers of the Provinces, to attain unto his kingdom, as hath been showed; and lastly, if he shall continue in the world after he is revealed, until the second coming of Christ: than it followeth necessarily that even this head of the Antichristian body, cannot be any one singular man, but is continued by a succession of many from the time of his revelation, until the end of the world: of which time there is almost a thousand years expired. But both in this argument, and in the former, Bellarmine sophistically beggeth the question. For in his arguments there is no consequence, unless this be taken for granted, that Antichrist is but one man. Antichrist came in the Heretics in the Apostles time, therefore he came not in his own person. A good argument, if Antichrist were but one man, which is the question. If Antichrist were in the Apostles time, and if Antichrist must sit at Rome, than he that was then Bishop of Rome, was Antichrist; a good argument if Antichrist were but one man, which is the question. 13. Now whereas S. john saith, that Antichrist in his time was come, Bellarmine feigneth him to speak of Antichrist, as he saith, Our Saviour spoke of Elias Mat. 17. 11. Elias indeed shall come (namely in his own person) but I say unto you, Elias is already come in suo simili, in his like, that is, john Baptist. So S. john speaketh of Antichrist, that he was indeed to come in his own person, but now he was come in his type. You see to what silly shifts this worthy champion of the Pope is driven. For first he fathereth upon Christ that jewish fable, which with the jews the Papists hold against Christ himself. For whereas Malachi had prophesied of the coming of Elias before the day of the Malac. 4. 5 Lord, meaning the first coming of Christ: our Saviour Christ plainly avoucheth Mat. 11. 14. that john Baptist was that Elias, who according to the Prophecy of Malachi was to come. Now john Baptist was called Elias, because he came in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers, etc. as the Angel also applieth that prophesy, Luk. 1. 17. But suppose that Christ had spoken of Elias Malac. 4. 6. according to Bellarmine's conceit; yet how doth it follow that Luke. 1. 17. therefore john speaketh of Antichrist after the same manner? No more than it followeth, that David should long after his death be sent again to govern the people of God: because it was prophesied by Ezechiel, that the Lord would raise up a Pastor for his people, even David his servant, etc. But as by the name of David in Ezechiel Eze. 34. 23 24. & 37. 35. is meant not David himself, but Christ of whom David was a type: so by the name of Elias in Malachi, is not meant Elias himself, jere. 30. 9 but john Baptist, who resembled Elias in spirit and power in reforming the Church of God. 14. Our second argument is this: That which in the Prophecies of the Scriptures, especially in the 7. and 11. of Daniel, and in Apoc. the 13. and 17. is described under the name and figure of a beast, is not one singular thing or person, but a whole state or succession: Antichrist is described in the Apocatypse 13. under the name and figure of a Beast, therefore Antichrist is not one singular person, but a whole state and succession. The proposition is proved by induction of particular examples. As in the 7. of Daniel, by the Lion is figured the Kingdom of the Assyrians and Babylonians: by the Bear the Medes and Persians: by the Leopard the Greeks' and Macedonians: by the beast with ten horns the Seleucidae and Lagidae, and so Chapt. 8. In the 13. of the Apocalypse, there are two Beasts described, the former signifying the state of the Roman Emperors: the second signifying the state of Antichrist. Bellarmine answereth, that Daniel as sometimes by the beasts he signifieth whole kingdoms; so sometimes also particular persons. As in the eight Chapter, by the Ram ●…he understandeth Darius the last King of the Persians: by the Goat, Alexander the great. In which answer the upright dealing of Bellarmine with the Scriptures appeareth. For in the 20. verse of the 8. Chapter, where that vision is expounded, Dan. 8. 20. the Angel's words are these: The Ram which thou sawest, having two horns are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Kings of the Medes and Persians. And the Goat is the King of javan or Grecia (meaning as before the Kings or Kingly estate, as appeareth plainly by the words that follow, and not as Bellarmine saith, Alexander) and the great horn between his eyes is the first King, namely Alexander, which being broken, four other stand up in the steed thereof. As Daniel therefore by several beasts Dan. 8. 22. meaneth not so many particular men, but whole states and orders of men; and as john in the 13. of the Apocalypse, by the former beasts meaneth not any one Emperor, but the whole state and succession of Emperors at the least: so the holy Ghost in the same Chapter by the second beast describing Antichrist, meaneth not any one particular Apo. 13. 11 person, but the whole state and succession of Antichristian Popes, to whom (as heretofore hath been showed) that description wholly agreeth. And whereas Bellarmine addeth, that Paul when he entreateth of Antichrist, speaketh not of any one of the four beasts in Daniel, but of the little horn mentioned in the 7. of Daniel, vers. 8 I answer, that the Apostle speaketh neither of the one nor of the other; and therefore the former part of Bellarmine's speech is vain, for no man saith so; and the latter is false. For the little horn is not Antichrist, but Antiochus Epiphanes, who lived above 200. years before the incarnation of Christ: who although he were but one man, might not unfitly be called a type of Antichrist, who is a state or succession of men. 15. Our third argument is taken from that Apostasy, which the Apostle foretelleth 2. Thes. 2. For where he speaketh of a defection (whereof Antichrist is the head) without addition, we understand a 2. Thes. 2. 3. general defection of the visible Church, which as it began to work in the Apostles time; so was it to increase until the revelation of Antichrist, and to continue more or less until his destruction. This Apostasy because it cannot be the work of one man, or of a few 2. Thes. 2. 7. years, evidently proveth that Antichrist is not one singular man, but rather a state and succession of men. To this Bellarmine for want of one good answer, maketh many. First (saith he) by that Apostasy we may very well (nay he saith rectissimè) understand Antichrist himself, as divers of the fathers teach; and what will he infer thereupon? that therefore Antichrist is but one man? Nay 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 (who according to this interpretation is signified by Apostasy) doth not signify one man, but the whole body and company of those that do revolt, that is, the whole body and kingdom of Antichrist, which we have proved to be the Apostatical Church of Rome. And so Augustine whom Bellarmine allegeth in the very same place which he citeth, reading in the concrete, nisi venerit refuga primum, unless the Apostate first come, and expounding what is meant by De civit. Dei. lib. 20. cap. 19 the temple, not the temple at jerusalem, but rather the Church of God, because the Apostle would not call the temple of the devil, the temple of God, propoundeth the opinion of some which he doth not mislike, unde nonnulli non ipsum principem, etc. Whereupon some understand in this place not the Prince himself, but his whole body as it were, that is, the company of men pertaining unto him together with their Prince, to be Antichrist: and they think that it might more rightly be said in Latin as it is in the Greek, that he sitteth (non in templo dei, sed in templum dei) not in the Temple of God, but as the Temple of God, as though he were the Temple of God which is the Church. Which as hath been showed, notably sitteth the Pope and Church of Rome. And here we are by the way to note, whereas Bellarmine saith that Antichrist shall be such a notable Apostate, as that he may be called the Apostasy itself, that seeing none can be an Apostate which hath not been a Christian: by this assertion therefore of Bellarmine, Antichrist shall not be a jew, but a backsliding and revolted Christian. 16. Secondly (he saith) by Apostasy we may understand a revolt from the Roman Empire, as many of the Latin fathers do expound. To omit the dissension of the fathers, which proveth that their exposition can be no good rule of interpreting the Scriptures, we do confess that before the manifest revelation of Antichrist, there was to go, no●… only a defection from the faith, but also a revolt from the Roman Empire. But as the revolting from earthly kingdoms is never in the Scriptures termed Apostasy: so is it not here signified; but as the word elsewhere is used, and by the most and best writers here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. expounded, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth a falling away from God, a defection or departure from the true faith, as heretofore I have showed. Augustme saith, quem refugam vocat, utique a domino Deo, whom he calleth a Lib. 20. cap. 19 §. 2. runagate, namely, from the Lord God. Neither can it be denied but that this Apostasy is that which afterward the Apostle calleth the mystery of iniquity, which was working in and by the heretics of those times, whom also Bellarmine calleth the forerunners of Antichrist, because they perverted the faith, and therefore the defection caused by Antichrist is an Apostasy from the faith, according to the prophecies of the Apostle, that in these latter times divers should make an Apostasy 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. Tim. 4. 4. from the faith, and should turn away their hearing from the truth, and shallbe turned unto fables. 17. Thirdly, although we should grant (saith he) that by Apostasy is to be understood a defection or revolt from the true faith and religion of Christ, yet it is not necessary that it should be an Apostasy of many years. For it may be that the Apostle speaketh of one great Apostasy which shallbe only in that most short time of Antichrists reign, that is, of three years and a half. But this bare guess of Bellarmine ought not to be of so great weight with us, as the plain speech of the Apostle compared with the event. And therefore it is but vain to tell us what might be, seeing we have seen the contrary to be, which the Apostle foretold should be. For as the Apostle told us that there should be an Apostasy: so he saith, that the mystery of iniquity whereby many were seduced, did work already even in his time, and insinuateth that it should work until the full revelation of Antichrist. And the event hath showed how by degrees this Apostasy hath been wrought even from the primitive Church, until it came to that height wherein it continued until Antichrist began to be acknowledged. And surely as this general Apostasy could not grow at once, but by degrees: so can it not be abolished at once, but by degrees; and therefore was not like to be an Apostasy of three years and an half only. Neither is it credible that by one man the greatest part, not only of Christians, but also of the jews should be seduced in three years and an half: seeing Christ in the like space of time could not, as he was a man and minister of the circumcision, convert many of the jews; notwithstanding that his doctrine was more effectual, and his miracles more admirable than those of Antichrist can be; yea the Apostlès & some other of the disciples, who for so long time scarce went out of jewry, were able to prevail but with a few of the jews in coparison of those which rejected their doctrine: And shall we think that Antichrist, who (as the Papists hold) shall be but one man, shall in three years & an half, seduce the remnant of the jews, and all the visible Church of God dispersed into so many parts of the world? And whereas he allegeth Augustine as a favourer of this guess, therein he abuseth the authority of that learned father, to seduce the ignorant, who only delivereth the judgement of others concerning the mystery of iniquity, & that to this effect. That the mystery of iniquity worketh in De civit. Dei. lib. 20. cap. 19 evil men in the Church and counterfeit Christians, when as they revolt from the truth, and that unto this mystery belongeth the revolting of those of whom S. john speaketh, They went out from us, but 1. joh. 2. 19 were not of us, etc. And that this mystery should still work, that is, that unsound men in the Church should more and more revolt until they make a sufficient number for Antichrist. But there is never a word of this defection caused either by one man, or in so short a time, but rather the contrary, as hath been showed. 18. Fourthly he answereth, that although it should be granted that this Apostasy is of many ages (which he saith cannot well be denied, seeing th'apostle saith it began to work in his time) yet it is not necessary that it should appertain to one body under one head, neither that it appertaineth to the kingdom of Antichrist, but rather is a disposition thereunto, happening in divers dominions upon (undry occasions, etc. But this fourth answer is overthrown by the first: wherein this Apostasy was made so proper to Antichrist, as that by it Bellarmine thought we might most fitly understand Antichrist himself, or rather as we showed the whole body and kingdom of Antichrist. And further we have showed heretofore that the whole body of Apostates and heretics professing the name of Christ, is Antichrist, and after a more special manner the head of this body & Apostasy. And therefore it followeth, that all of this Apostasy professing the name of Christ, belong to this body and kingdom of Antichrist. And whereas he saith, that this Apostasy is only a disposition so the kingdom of Antichrist, etc. I answer that all the degrees of this Apostasy going before the revelation of Antichrist, were a disposition not to the being, but to the revealing of Antichrist. For in the Apostasy Antichrist was as john plainly showeth, neither could he be revealed unless first he were Whereupon Theodoret saith, Defectionem appellat Antichristi praesentiam, he calleth Apostasy the presence or coming of Antichrist. But is it not very likely think you that there hath been a disposition or preparation already of more than 1500. years in most parts of the world, for the reign of one man three years and an half? 19 Fiftly and lastly, although we should grant (saith he) that a general Apostasy from the faith having now continued many years, is the kingdom of Antichrist: yet it would not follow that therefore the Pope is Antichrist. For it is not yet decided who have made this defection, they or we. And i●… were more easy to proou●… that they have made this defection, for they have revolted from that Church and religion whereof their forefathers were, which we have not done, etc. In the four former answers Bellarmine turned back upon us, hoping thereby to repel the force of our argument, but those being spent, in this he turneth his back upon us & betaketh himself to his feet: and leaving the defence of the question in hand, runneth to his chief hold. For whereas we prove that Antichrist is not one man, contrary to their assertion, by this argument among others, because that general Apostasy of the visible Church continuing for many ages, whereof Antichrist is the head, cannot be the work of one man or of a few years: Bellarmine answereth thus in effect, that although your argument be very good to prove that Antichrist is not one man; yet notwithstanding here of it followeth not, that the Pope is Antichrist. Why, never any of us used this argument: Antichrist is not one man, therefore the Pope is Antichrist. But in this assertion of ours, we answer your chief demonstration whereby you would prove that the Pope is not Antichrist, and where in especially you please yourselves, reasoning as hath been hard, after this manner: Antichrist is but one man, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. And after you have proved this by many worshipful demonstrations, and stoutly denied our contrary arguments: now in the end you make this cowards brag: Although this should be granted which you say to prove that Antichrist is not one man, yet it doth not follow that the Pope is Antichrist. 20. But let us pursue the jesuite in his flight. Although this should be granted, saith he, etc. Yet it followeth not that therefore the Pope is Antichrist. For the question yet is, who hath made this Apostasy, we or you. Well then, let us join in this issue. If the Apostasy be on our side, let us be thought to belong to Antichrist; if this Apostasy be in the Church of Rome, whereof the Pope is head; then let it be acknowledged, that the Pope is the head of this Apostasy, and consequently Antichrist. But you (saith the jesuite) have revoltd from the Church and religion of your forefathers, that is, from the Church of Rome and Latin religion. And therefore when you read, unless there come arevolt, etc. it is a wonder that you do not apply that prophesy to yourselves. The Apostasy whereof the Apostle speaketh, is not a separation from the Church of Rome that now is, nor a forsaking of Romish or Popish religion: but a revolting from God, a departure from the true faith and religion of Christ, unto Antichristianisme and idolatry. We in forsaking the Church of Rome, have come out of Babylon Apoc. 18. 4. according to God's commandment, and in revolting from the Pope have returned to God: and therefore this Apostasy toucheth not us. But you, say I to the Papists, have revolted from the true faith and religion of Christ unto Antichristianisme and Idolatry: as besides the infinite particulars wherein your Apostasy doth consist, may briefly appear by these notes. First, the Apostle speaking of the same Apostasy in another place, hath these words. The spirit speaketh plaincly, that in the latter times some shall make an Apostasy from the faith, attending to erroneous spirits and doctrines of 1. Tim. 4. 1. devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy and having their own conscience seared. Now who these are that make this Apostasy, the Apostle further describeth by specifying two of those doctrines of devils, as certain notes whereby to know them. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain●… from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving, etc. But as I have showed heretofore these notes touch not us, and properly agree to the Papists, therefore Lib. 1. Chap. 4. 3. this Apostasy is among them. secondly, this Apostasy is among those who are fallen from the true religion and worship of God, into idolatry and superstition. For the Apostatical Church is the Idolatrous Church signified by the whore of Babylon, the mother of fornications. But the Church of Room is strangely addicted to idolatry and superstition, and for the same deserveth to be called the whore of Babylon; where as we through the mercy of God are free from idolatry, and therefore the Apostásie is with them and not with us. For the Apostasy is of them that are made drunk with the cup of the whore of Babylous fornications, as the Papists are, and we are not, who have come out of Babylon. thirdly, the Apostasy is of those that receive the name and mark of the beast as the Papists do, and not of those that refuse it as we do. The fourth note or touchstone as it were, to try who have made this Apostasy, i●… the word of God: For that is the true faith and the true religion which is contained and prescribed in the written word of God. Now our desire is, that the Scriptures may be acknowledged the only rule of faith and manners: unto the Scriptures we appeal in all controversies, and desire to be judged by them: unto the reading of the Scriptúres we exhort our people, that they may be further edified and confirmed in that truth which we do teach and profess. The Papists contrariwise not daring to stand to the Scriptures, sly to their unwritten verities, traditions, decretals, doctrines and authorities of men both beside and against the Scriptures: and in a word, that the prophecy of the Apostle foretelling this Apostasy, might be verified in them, they have asserted their hearing from the 2. Tim. 4. 4. truth, and are convertd unto fables. They cannot abide to hear that the Scripture should be the only rule of faith and manners: they cannot endure to see any of their people to read the Scriptures, and therefore desire to keep it from them in an unknown language. The foundation of their truth is the authority of their Church, and in the Church, of their Pope, who, they say, cannot err. But if the Pope teach doctrines of Devils, and speak lies in hippocras (as the Apostle hath prophesied especially of them) then is there in that Church little soundness of truth, that is built upon so unsound a foundation. Thus therefore I reason. The head of the general Apostasy is Antichrist: The Pope is the head of the general or catholic Apostasiei therefore he is Antichrist. 21. To the three former arguments, a fourth may be added. The seven heads of that beast which signifieth the Roman state, are not so many persons, but so many heads or states of government, whereby the common wealth of the Romans, hath been at diverse times governed: the sixth head was the state of emperors: the seventh Antichrist, as the Papists confess: the eight (which also is one of the seven) the state of Emperors renewed. Whereby it evidently appeareth, Rhem. in Apoc. 17. Bellarmi. not only that Antichrist is not one man, but also that the Pope (who is the seventh head) is Antichrist. CHAP. 3. Concerning the time of Antichrist his coming. 1. TO withdraw our minds from beholding Antichrist in the See of Rome, and to make us look for the expected Messias of the jews that never shall come, the Papists labour by might and main to persuade us that Antichrist is not yet come. For even as the learned of the jews, when Christ was among them, contrary to their one persuasion, for worldly respects refused the true Messias, and made the people expect another which never shall be: So the learned among the Papists having Antichrist among them, for worldly respects cannot endure that he should be acknowledged; but teach the people that he is not yet come, and describe unto them such an Antichrist as themselves may well know shall never come, as by the grace of God shall appear in the particulars. Now as touching the time of Antichristes coming, Bellarmine first reciteth divers false and erroneous opinions as heo calleth them: and afterward setteth down six solemn demonstrations to prove that he is not yet come. In the former he spendeth a goodlong chapter, reckoning up divers opinions both of the fathers in former ages, and also of hetetiques as ●…he calleth them; in latter times, mingling the truth with errors, that the credit of both might be alike. As touching the fathers, because he taketh it for granted, (which is the question) that Antichrist is not to come before the end of the world, which we deny according to the Scriptures: 1. joh. 2. 18 2. john. 7. 2. Thes. 2. 7 he would make their opinion concerning the approaching of Antichrist, which they held according to the Prophecies of the Scripture compared with the event, of no better credit than their conceit of Christ's approaching unto judgement, grounded not so much upon the Scriptures, as upon their own conjecture. For to omit their conjectures concerning Christ's coming confuted by experience, what can Bellarmine answer to the sound argument either of S. Jerome or Gregory, concerning the coming of Antichrist, confirmed by experience, alleged by Bellarmine himself. Jerome applying the prophesy of Paul Epist. ad Geront. de Monogamia. 2. Thes. 2. 6. 7. 8. that Antichrist should appear, when he that hindereth (meaning the Roman Emperor) was taken out of the way, to his time, wherein not only the imperial seat had been removed from Rome (which was the first degree of taking out of the way that which hindered) but also Rome itself in distress, being taken of the Goths, and the Empire in decay: Quitenebat (saith he) de medio fit, & non intelligimus Anticbristum appropinquare? He which did hold, is taken out of the way; and do we not understand that Antichrist doth approach? And likewise Gregory, Omnia quae praedicta sunt, fiunt: Rex superbia propè est. All things which were foretold do come to pass: the King Lib. 4. epi. 38. of pride is at hand. Which arguments alleged also by us, Bellarmine because he could not answer, he thought to discredit by reckoning them among erroneous conceits. 2. But let us come to his heretics: Who although they all agree in this, that Antichrist is come, and that it is the Pope: yet saith Bellarmine, they are divided into six opinions. The first opinion, viz. of the Samosatenians in Hungary and Transyluania, is not worth the mentioning, being of such heretics as deny the Trinity, and also the divinity of Christ, with whom though we have as little to do as the Papists, saving that some of our men have sound confuted their heresies, whiles the Papists held their peace: yet he numbereth our opinion with theirs, as Christ was numbered among the wicked; that by this mixture of truth with falsehood, he might discredit the truth. As for the rest, it is easy to show, that all Protestants almost that have written in this argument, and namely those whom Bellarmine allegeth, do agree in the substance concerning the coming of Antichrist: And that there is no such difference among them, as Bellarmine would bear us in hand. For concerning this matter, this is the received opinion of our Churches. When with john in his Epistles we speak of Antichrist, meaning the whole body of Heretics and Antichrists, we hold with john that even in the Apostles times Antichrist had as it were set his foot in the Church, and that from that time the mystery of iniquity, that is, Antichristianisme, did more and more work, until the head of this body the man of sin was revealed: Which with Paul we hold to have been done, after that which hindered was removed out of the way. But when we speak of the head of this body, who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called the Antichrist, figured by the second beast, Apoc. 13. of whom also the Apostle entreateth 2. Thes. 2. the constant opinion of the learned is this: that of the revealing or manifest appearing of Antichrist, there were two principal degrees. The first about the year 607. when Boniface the third obtained the supremacy over the universal See lib. 1. cap. 3. Church. The second after the year 1000 when he claimed and usurped both swords, that is, a sovereign and universal authority, not only ecclesiastical over the Clergy, but also temporal over Kings and Emperors. Unto which second sovereignty they had long aspired, but never attained, until the time of Gregory the seventh. We hold then, that Antichrist was come and showed himself in Boniface the third: and that after this his birth as it were, he grew by degrees, until he came to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or full growth in Gregory the seventh: in whose time and in all ages since, the Pope hath been by some acknowledged to be that Antichrist. 3. Now as touching his coming or birth, which is the chief matter in question, all agree. Illyricus and the other writers 2. of the Centuries, as Bellarmine confesseth, hold, that about the year 606. Antichrist was borne, when Phocas granted to the Bishop of Rome, that he should be called the head of the whole Church. Of the same judgement is Chytraeus. For although he 3. confess, that the smoke of false doctrine, ascending out of the In Apoc. 9 bottomless pit, began sooner to obscure and darken the truth: yet he saith, that in the year 607, Boniface the third was by Phocas ordained the Angel of the bottomless pit, meaning thereby Antichrist, when he received from him the title of ecumenical Bishop. Luther perceiving that the Papacy consisteth of 4. the two swords, teacheth that there is a twofold coming of De supput. annorum Mundi. Antichrist: the first with the spiritual sword after the year 600. when Phocas gave him the Antichristian title: the latter, with the temporal sword, after the year 1000 Bullinger doth not say, as Bellarmine falsely chargeth him, that Antichrist first 5. appeared Anno 763. for he above all others most plainly and In Apoc. 13. distinctly hath delivered that truth which we do hold. Pontisex Romanus (saith he) initium quidem dominij jecit sub Phocá: sub regibus Francorum fundavit regnum: ampliavit autem sub. Henricis et Fridericis: confirmavit demum sub sequentibus aliquot regibus: regnat nostro seculo ac praecedentibus aliquot. The Pope of Rome laid the beginning of his dominion under Phocas: under the French Kings he founded his kingdom: under the Henry's and frederick's he enlarged it: under some other Kings which followed he confirmed it: bereigneth in our and some former ages. Musculus, whom he nameth in the sixth place, doth not say, that Antichrist 6. came about the year 1200: but by the tyranny of the Popes, and usurped dominion over the Church, by their shameless simony, by their excessive riot, and devilish pride, by their abominable lusts and uncleanness, he concludeth that the Church of Rome is Babylon, and the seat of Antichtist: and addeth that Bernard was of the same mind. Who seemeth to have signified that Antichrist was then come, and that only it remained that the man of sin should be revealed (that is, acknowledged and detected, as Musculus understandeth him) which discovery of Antichrist, saith he, hath followed in our age. And thus you see a notable consent of all our writers whom he allegeth in the main point, concerning the time of the coming of Antichrist. 4. Now let us see what he objecteth against this received truth. Concerning the time of his coming with the spiritual sword, he objecteth that Phocas did not give the title of universal to the Pope, but called him the head of the Churches, as justinian before him had done, and also the council of Chalcedon: And therefore no reason, why the coming of Antichrist should be placed in the time of Phocas. As touching the title, good authors affirm, that he received from Phocas both the title of the head of the Church, and also of universal or ecumenical Bishop. And no doubt he sought for, and by suit obtained that which john of Constantinople had before claimed. Neither is there any 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. And although titles of honour and pre-eminence were sometimes given to the Church of Rome, as the chief or head of the Churches, the mystery of iniquity working before the revelation thereof in the Papacy: yet before this grant of Phocas, which was obtained with much ado and contention, 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 (which after this grant, it more and more practised) but in respect of order and dignity: And that for this cause especially, because Rome whereof he was Bishop, was the chief city, as it is specified in the council of Chalcedon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and in the council of Constantinople, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And for the same cause was the Patriarch of Constantinople sometimes * Concil. Chalced. matched with him, sometimes ‖ Tempore Ma●…itii. preferred above him: because Constantinople (which they called new Rome) was become the imperial seat. Yea and the Bishops of Ravenna, because their city was the chief in the exarchate of Ravenna, whereunto Rome was for a time subject, strove with the Bishop of Rome in the time of the exarchs for superiority. Seeing therefore that now the Pope of Rome had with great contention and ambition obtained the supremacy and sovereignty over the universal church; and now entitled himself the head of the universal Church (a title peculiar unto Christ) the head I say, not only in respect of excellency and dignity, as a chief member of the Church (as he had been in former times by some acknowledged, because he was the Bishop of the chief city; but also in respect of authority and jurisdiction, as being the prince and supreme governor of the Church universal: we do therefore worthily call this sovereign dominion challenged over the universal Church, the first revelation or open coming of Antichrist. 5. Concerning the coming of Antichrist with the temporal sword after the year 1000 he objecteth, that from the 700. year the Pope had received temporal dominion, & that about the year 715. he excommunicated the Greek Emperor. etc. But Bellarmine knoweth well enough that we speak not so much of the Pope's temporal dominion over those parts which they call the patrimony of Saint Peter; but of that which they call and challenge to themselves, Utriusque potestatis temporalis & spiritualis Monarchiam, The Monarchy of both powers, temporal and spiritual. I answer therefore, that the Pope indeed had a temporal dominion before, but not general: and that he had long endeavoured to get the superiority over the Emperors, but never so fully attained unto it, as in the times of Gregory the seventh, and afterwards. For Gregory the seventh, as Aventinus saith, Primus imperium pontificium condidit, etc. First founded the Papal Annal. B●…cm. lib. 5. Empire, which his successors (saith he, reckoning unto his own times) for these 450. years, in spite of the world, and maugre the Emperors, have so held, that they have brought all in heaven and hell into subjection. From this time forward the Emperor is nothing but a bare title, without substance, etc. And thus have I answered whatsoever is in his third Chapter, pertinent to the matter in hand, omitting (as my manner is) his other wranglings, as being either altogether impertinent, or merely personal. The 4. Chapter: maintaining against Bellarmine his first demonstration, that Antichrist is come. 1. TO prove that Antichrist is not yet come, and consequently that the Pope is not Antichrist, he bringeth six slender conjectures from six signs, which, as shall be showed, are neither proper nor necessary. And these by a strange kind of Logic, he calleth forsooth six demonstrations. For so have I read of some troubled with melancholy, who have thought every Straw or small Reed in their hands, to have been so many Spears. We must know (saith he) that the holy Ghost in the Scriptures, hath given us six certain signs of the coming of Antichrist. Whereof two go before, viz. the preaching of the Gospel throughout the whole world: and the desolation of the Roman Empire. Two accompany Antichrist, to wit, the preaching of Enoch and Elias: and the most grievous persecution of the church, insomuch that the public service of God must wholly cease. Two come after, namely the ru●…e of Antichrist after three years and a half: and the end of the world. Of which signs, none (saith he) is yet fulfilled. We hold the contrary, namely, that all those signs, which the holy Ghost hath given concerning the coming of Antichrist, are fulfilled: and that those which are not yet fulfilled, are none of those signs which the holy Ghost hath assigned. For I will not stand now to tell you how fitly he maketh the death of Antichrist, and the end of the world, which according to Bellarmine's conceit followeth after his death, to be two signs of his coming. 2. The first sign which goeth before the coming of Antichrist, is the Preaching of the Gospel throughout the world. From whence he reasoneth thus: If the Gospel hath not as yet been preached throughout the world, then is not Antichrist as yet come: But the Gospel hath not as yet been preached throughout the world, therefore Antichrist is not yet come. But in this argument nothing is sound: no necessity of consequence in the proposition, nor truth in the assumption. The proposition, notwithstanding he would prove, because our Saviour Christ maketh this universal preaching of the Gospel a forerunner of Antichrist, Mat. 24. 14. This Gospel of the kingdom shallbe preached in all the world, for atesti●…onie to all nations. But our Saviour Christ doth not say that the Gospel shall be preached throughout the world before the coming of Antichrist, but before the end, as it followeth in the very same verse; and then the end shall come. Whereby we are to understand either the destruction of Jerusalem, which is most like, or the end and consummation of the world, as Bellarmine expoundeth it. And therefore unless he take it for granted, that the coming of Antichrist shall not be before the very end of the world, which we do constantly deny, as being the matter in question betwixt us, there is not so much as any show of reason in this allegation, being understood according to his own exposition, which also is false. Neither is it the purpose of our Saviour Christ to signify unto his Disciples the time of Antichrists coming, but by way of answer to the question propounded by his Disciples verse 3. to show them when jerusalem should be destroyed, as also to give them some signs of his coming, and of the end of the world. But because the former part of this Chapter is divershe abused by the Papists in this matter concerning Antichrist, I think it needful by way of a short analysis to give you the true meaning thereof; that by one labour all their cavils may be refuted. 3. Whereas therefore our Saviour Christ had foretold his Disciples the utter desolation of jerusalem, and destruction of the temple: they being persuaded that the temple and city of jerusalem should not have an end before the end of the world, demand therefore of our Saviour Christ when should be the end of both. Tell us (say they vers. 3.) when these things shallbe: that is, when the temple shall be destroyed, & what shallbe the sign of thy coming▪ & of the end of the world. Which question having two parts, receiveth an answer to both. To the former, concerning the destruction of jerusalem, from the 4. vers. to the 23. To the latter, concerning the coming of Christ, and the end of the world, from thence to the 42. As touching the former: our Saviour prophesieth, first of the calamities and troubles which should go before the destruction of jerusalem unto the 15. verse. And secondly of the destruction itself, and the grievousness thereof, unto the 23. The troubles and calamities which were the forerunners of the destruction of jerusalem, were either temporal or spiritual. The temporal either public and common; or peculiar to the disciples of Christ among the jews. The public, wars, and rumours of wars, famine, pestilence, earthquakes, which were but the beginning, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of sorrows in the land of jewry, being about to be delivered of her inhabitants, verse. 6. 7. 8. The peculiar troubles to the Christians, persecution and hatred for Christ's sake; and the effects thereof in the unsound, falling away, and betraying and hating one another, verse 9 10. The spiritual, in the teacher's spirits of error and heresy, verse 5. 11. In the heaters, seduction by false Prophets and falling away, verse 11. 12. Now unto this prophesy are admixed both admonitions and consolations. Admonitions, that they should take heed of false Prophets, verse 4. that they should not be troubled or dismayed with rumours of wars, verse 6. Consolations grounded upon a twofold promise, first of salvation to those, who, notwithstanding these temptations, shall persevere to the end, verse 13. Secondly, of the success of their Ministry, that before the desolation of jerusalem, the Gospel should be 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 before 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 of Christ should be established: therefore he addeth, that upon the planting of his church by their ministry should the end and destruction of jerusalem come. And these were the calamities which went before the destruction of jerusalem. The destruction itself is described partly by the efficient, foretold by Daniel chap. 9 27. that is to say, the Roman armies besieging jerusalem Luke. 21. 20. which because they were idolaters are called Sic Augustine. ad Hesychium et Chrysost. homil. 49. in Mat. oper. imperfect. abominable, and because of the desolation which they were to bring upon jerusalem are called desolators, and by a metonymy, Mat. 24. 15. the abomination of desolation, and by a Synecdeche Dan. 9 27. abominable wings (that is armies) bringing desolation: partly by the grievousness of the destruction verse 21. To this prophecy also he admixeth counsel and consolation. Counsel, that they which shallbe in jewry provide for their selves by flight, verse 16. 17. 18. in respect whereof he both pitieth the women and such as give suck, and biddeth them pray that their flight be not in winter, nor on the Sabbath day, verse. 19 20. His consolation is, that for the elects sake the time of the siege shallbe shortened: for otherwise none of the jews could escape, as chrysostom also expoundeth, verse. 22. This exposition is plainly confirmed by conference of this Chapter of Matthew with Luke. 21. where the same question being propounded, verse. 7. concerning the end of jerusalem alone, receiveth an answer peculiar to the destruction of jerusalem, unto the 25. verse. And whereas Mat. 24. 15. Christ useth these words, when you shall see the abomination of desolation which in Daniel is called the abominable wings bringing desolation, standing in the holy place, this in Luke is thus expounded, When you see jerusalem Luk. 21 20 besieged with armies (which Daniel foretold should bring desolation upon it) then understand that the desolation thereof is near, and therefore he adviseth them which shall be in jewry to fly so soon as jerusalem shall be besieged, etc. Because there shall be great affliction in those days, namely in jewry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and jerusalem, as Luke restraineth it. For there shallbe great distress Luk. 21. 23 24. in the land, and wrath in this people, and they shall fall on the edge of the sword, and shallbe carried away captive into all nations, Luk. 22. 25 and jerusalem shallbe trodden under foot of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, and then shallbe the end of the world, the signs whereof be addeth in the next words. 4. By this analysis of the text & conference with Luke, it evidently appeareth that all these predictions from the 6. ver. to the 23. in Mat. & in the 21. of Luke from the 7. vers. to the 29. concern the destruction of jerusalem, which happened within forty years after this prophecy was delivered. Neither may we think that our saviour Christ would intermingle the prophecies concerning the destruction of jerusalem and the end of the world, thereby to nourish the aforesaid 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. For even afterward ver. 34. where seemeth the greatest mixture, our Saviour Christ speaketh distinctly. For whereas our Saviour had spoken first of the end of jerusalem, and then of the end of the world severally, & had given signs of both, whereby they might know the approaching of either, as by the budding of the fig three they gather summer to be near, he defineth the time of the one, & the other he leaveth indefinite: Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, until all those things (saith he, pointing as it seemeth towards jerusalem as he sat in the mount Olivet) be fulfilled. And as touching the end of the world, he noteth both the certainty thereof, & the uncertainty of the time: of the former he saith, Heaven & earth shall pass away (& that with a noise, as Peter saith) but my words shall not pass away, howbeit of that day & hour (namely, wherein the son 2. Pet. 3. 10 of man shall come, and wherein the heavens shall pass away) none knoweth, no not the Angels of heaven, but the father only. Whatsoever the Papists therefore allege out of the former part of the Chapter, as favouring any of their fancies concerning Antichrist, as namely the preaching of the Gospel before the coming of Antichrist, the abomination of desolation, & the most grievous tribulation in the time of Antichrist, etc. may easily be answered. 5 But if these prophecies be compared with the history and event, we shall find this truth to be more evident, seeing all these predictions had their complement at or before the destruction of jerusalem. For (to omit the rest) the Apostle testifieth Colos. 1. 6. 23. Rom. 1. 8. &. 10. 18. that the Gospel was in his time preached in all the world; and therefore before the desolation Euseb. lib. 3 of jerusalem, which happened about two year after his death. From whence also evidently appeareth, how false Bellarmine's assumption is, as being contradictory both to the prophecy of Christ in this place, as also to the testimony of the Apostle testifying the fulfilling thereof in his time, according to the commission given to the Apostles, that they should go into all the world and teach all nations, Mat. 28. 19 Mar. 16. 15. which was accordingly performed, Mar. 16 20. And thus Homil. in Mat. 24. chrysostom also expoundeth this place, that before the end, that is, the destruction of jerusalem, the Gospel was to be preached throughout the world, and proveth by the same testimonies of Paul, that this prophecy was fulfilled before the taking of jerusalem. But if it seem incredible unto any that the Gospel should be preached throughout the world in so short a time: he must consider, first, that by the whole world is not to be understood every small corner and unknown part of the world: but by a Synecdoche, the greatest part of the world then known and inhabited, as Luke 2. 1. And by all nations, not all and every nation, but all sorts, that is, both jews and Gentiles. For both here and elsewhere there seemeth to be an opposition made betwixt the whole world and the land of jewry: betwixt all nations and the jews. For whereas before the Church was contained in jewry, & the word preached to the jews, our Saviour showeth that before the desolation of jerusalem, the Gospel should be preached commonly in all parts of the world, & not only in jewry; & indifferently to all other nations, & not peculiarly to the jews. Secondly, he is to consider, both the multitude of the preachers & dispersers of the Gospel, and also the infinite power of God's spirit, and miraculous efficacy of his word preached in that it could in so short a time spread itself so far as it did. Thirdly a distinction is to be made betwixt preaching the Gospel and receiving it: For it was preached in all the world, but not received every where. And that our Saviour signifieth where he saith, it should be preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations, to leave those which embrace it not, without excuse. If then the preaching of the Gospel throughout the world be not made by Christ our Saviour a sign of Antichrists coming, and yet notwithstanding it be most true, that according to the prophecy of Christ, the Gospel was preached in all the world before the desolation of jerusalem: what show of reason is there in this demonstration? And this is all that I think worth the answering in his fourth Chapter. 6. For to what purpose should I tell you of his argument, which notwithstanding he saith it was now no time to prove, to wit, that before the coming of Antichrist the Gospel should be preached throughout the world, because the cruel persecution of Antichrist should hinder all public exercises of trus religion: & therefore was to be preached generally throughout the world either before the time of Antichrist, or not at all: which we shall in part find time to answer in his fourth demonstration. In the mean time we answer first, that the grievous tribulation, before which our Saviour saith the Gospel was to be preached in all the world, is not the persecution under Antichrist, but the affliction of the jews at and before the destruction of jerusalem by the Romans, as I have manifestly proved. And secondly, that if the general preaching of the Gospel were made a sign of Antichrists coming, as it is not, but of the end; yet is it not necessary that it should be preached generally throughout the world at one time: for it might suffice that in one age it were preached to one nation; and in another age, to another people. And therefore although during the persecution of Antichrist the Gospel were not preached generally and at once to all nations, yet in that time it might be preached to some nations, where it had not formerly been preached, and therefore might be preached to all nations before the destruction of Antichrist, though it were not before his coming. Or to what end should I spend any 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? Or what account should we make of his objections, wherein he allegeth that the Gospel hath not as yet been preached throughout the world, seeing our Saviour who cannot he hath prophesied, and the Apostle by the same spirit of truth hath testified, that before the destruction of jerusalem, the Gospel of the kingdom was preached in all the world. And therefore the Papists in this point, whiles they study to contradict us, are not afraid to give the lie to our Saviour Christ. Neither are his cavillations, whereby he indevouteth to avoid & elude those testimonies of Scripture, which do testify that the Gospel was in the Apostles times preached in all the world, worth the mentioning. For whereas Paul saith, No doubt their sound went out through all the earth, & their words into the ends Rom. 10. 1●… of the world: Bellarmine cavilleth that the Apostle useth the time past, instead of the future, as if he had said, no doubt their sound shall go through all the earth. 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, could not be ignorant thereof. And again, whereas the same Apostle saith, that the Gospel in his time was in all the world, and addeth that Col. 1. 6. it did bring forth fruit even as it did among the Colossians: Bellarmine answereth that the Apostle would not say that it was actually, but virtually, as they say, in all the world. But how could it bring forth fruit, unless it were actually? and beside, the Apostle in the same Chapter saith, the Gospel had been preached 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod agit, est non solum actu primo, sed etiam actu secundo. Col. 1. 23. to every creature under heaven, which is a more large speech than this prophesy of our Saviour, Mat. 24. 14. To conclude, if by the end in that place is to be understood the end of the world, as Bellarmine will needs have it contrary to the text, yet the Gospel before the and might be preached throughout the world, and yet not before the coming of Antichrist. If by the end is to be understood the end of jerusalem, as I have manifestly proved; then according to our saviours prophesy, the Gospel was preached in all the world, in the Apostles times. But that the general preaching of the Gospel should be a sign of Antichrists coming, the Scripture hath never a word. The 5. Chapter: maintaining against Bellarmine his second demonstration, that Antichrist is already come. 1. THe second sign going before Antichrist is, as Bellarmine saith, he utter desolation of the Roman Empire. From whence this demonstration is raised. If the Roman Empire be not yet utterly destroyed, then is not yet Antichrist come for: the utter desolation of the Roman Empire is a certain sign going before his coming: But the Roman Empire is not yet utterly destroyed: therefore Antichrist is not yet come. We confess that before antichrist could be revealed by exercising a sovereign dominion in Rome, it was necessary that the Emperor, so far forth as he hindered this revelation of Antichrist, should be taken out of the way: But 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, that we do utterly dony. He that hindered was taken out of the way, partly when the imperial seat was removed from Rome to Constantinople, and that to this end (as they have set down in the donation of Constantine) that the City of Rome might be left to the Pope: but especially when as after the division of the Empire into two parts, the Empire in the West (which properly was the Empire of Rome) was dissolved, and lay void for many years: All which was accomplished before Boniface 3. attained to the Antichristian title. Neither doth the reviving of the Western Empire in Charlemagne, after it had been void 325. years, hinder the revelation or dominion of Antichrist; but rather proveth that Antichrist was then come. For this new Empire, erected by the Pope's means, it is the image of the beast (that is, of the old Empire) which Antichrist Apoc. 13. the second beast causeth to be made, & putteth life thereinto. It is the beast whereon the whore of Babylon sitteth, & therefore is so far from hindering Antichrist, that it supporteth him. This beast which was an imperial state, but is not indeed, though in title it be, as being but an image of the old Empire, is said to be the eight head of the beast, & yet one of the seven: whereas Antichrist Apo. 17. by the confession of papists is the seventh. Wherefore although the old Empire in the West (which hindered) was done out of the way, and indeed dissolved before the revelation of Antichrist; yet even with and under Antichrist, there was to be an imperial state in name and title, which is the beast whereon the whore of Babylon sitteth, as I have heretofore proved. Lib. 1. cap. 3. §. 3. 2. But let us come to his arguments. The first whereof is this. If before Antichrists coming the Roman Empire is to be divided into ten kings, whereof none shallbe called king of the Romans; then is not Antichrist yet come, for yet there is a king of the Romans: but the first is true, therefore the last. The proposition he taketh for granted, although it cannot be denied but that upon the desolation of the empire in the West, it was divided among ten kings at the least; who although they had the provinces of the Empire, yet none of them was called the king of the Romans. The proposition therefore is false, and the reason may be returned upon our adversary. For seeing these ten kings had not received their kingly power in the Apostles time, but were to receive it either after the beast (which is Antichrist,) as some read; or with the Apo. 17. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. beast as others: it is evident therefore, that when the ten rulers of the provinces had received authority as kings, than Antichrist was come. But many hundred years since, the rulers of the provinces ceased to be deputies under the Emperor, & obtained power as sovereign kings, dividing among them the western Empire, therefore many hundred years since was Antichrist come. The assumption he proveth out of Daniel chap. 2. Where (saith he) is described the succession of the chief kingdoms unto the end of the world by a certain image, the golden head whereof signifieth the kingdom of the Assyrians; the Breast of silver, the kingdom of the Persians; the Belly of Brass, the kingdom of the Grecians; the Legs of Iron, the kingdom of the Romans divided into two parts, etc. And in the 7. chap. the same kingdoms are signified: the last which hath ten horns being the kingdom of the Romans. Now (saith he) as the two Legs have ten toes Subtiliss. which are not legs, & as the ten horns are not the beast: so the Roman Empire shall be divided into ten kings, whereof none is the king of the Romans. 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 Antichtist, which goeth before the end of the world. But howsoever the common opinion hath been, that the fourth kingdom mentioned in those chapters is the Roman Empire; yet by the learned, especially of these latter times, it hath been most clearly proved, that by it is understood that kingdom of the Seleucida & Lagidae, which tyrannised over the people of jewry. For the Seleucida who were Kings of Syria, and the Lagidae who were Kings of Egypt, were the two legs of the image, & were also the fourth beast: the ten kings of these two kingdoms, which successively Chap. 16. usurped dominion over the jews, were the ten horns of the beast; which being most true as hereafter also shallbe showed, it appeareth evidently, that this whole argumentation is impertinent. But suppose that Daniel had spoken in those places of the Roman Empire, yet would not that follow which Bellarmine would infer thereof. For by the beast is signified the kingdom itself, and by the horns the several kings, who although they be not the kingdom itself signified by the beast, no more than the horns are the beast, yet are they so many kings of that kingdom, which is signified by the beast. As for example: Seleucus, Antiochus, and the rest of the ten kings signified by the ten horns, and as Bellarmine speaketh, by the ten toes, though they were not the kingdom of Syria & Egypt itself; yet were they kings of that kingdom, and therefore this argument of Bellarmine is very frivolous. 3. His second proof is out of Apocal. 17. Where john describeth a beast with seven heads and ten horns, upon which beast a certain woman sitteth, which he expoundeth to be the great city sitting on seven hills, that is to say, Rome. The seven heads as they signify seven hills, so also seven kings, by which number (saith he) all the Roman Emperors are understood: the ten horns are ten kings, which shall reign together. 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 among them, that they shall utterly destroy it. Here Bellarmine, as you see, confesseth, that Rome is the whore of Babylon, and consequently the seat of Antichrist, and not Rome under the old Emperors, but Rome after the dissolution of the Empire. And that the ten horns are so many kings, among whom the Roman Empire should be divided, and that these ten Kings were to receive their kingdom together; and consequently that these are not the same ten horns whereof Daniel speaketh, which reigned successively, Dan. 11. And whereas Bellarmine saith, the 7. heads signify all the Emperors, it is untrue. For the holy Ghost nameth seven, because they were seven indeed, and therefore numbereth them. Five are fallen, the sixth is, and the seventh is not yet come. But all this is beside the present purpose. How then doth he prove, that before Antichrist cometh, the Roman Empire shall be so utterly destroyed, as that not the name of a Roman Emperor or king of the Romans should remain? because the Empire shall be divided among ten kings, which are not Roman kings. But that proveth not that the name shall not remain: for he that is none of those ten kings, may have the name of the Emperor or king of the Romans, as namely the beast which was, and is not, though it be, which is the eight head, and is one of the seven, that is to say, the Emperor erected by the Pope. And why may none of these be called the king of the Romans? First forsooth, because they shall hate Rome, and make her desolate●… 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. Secondly, because they shall so divide among them the Roman Empire, as that they shall utterly destroy it. Where you see by a circular disputation, the question brought to prove his argument, & yet experience showeth, that although the Empire is dissolved, and also divided among the beast (that is Antichrist) & ten kings, there doth notwithstanding remain the name and title of the Emperor or king of the Romans. And so much now shall suffice to have spoken of that place, from whence I have heretofore proved, both that antichrist is already come, & that the Pope is antichrist. 4. His third proof is out of 2. Thes. 2. And now what hindereth you know, that he may be revealed in due time, only he which holdeth must hold, until he be done out of the way, and then that wicked man shallbe revealed. That this is to be understood of the Roman Empire, he not only affirmeth, but also confirmeth by the testimonies of divers of the Fathers, the which we are so far from denying, that from hence, as one especial argument, we prove the Pope to be Antichrist. But neither the Apostle nor any of the Fathers (excepting Lactantius, whose Prophecy in this point the Papists themselves do think to be erroneous) doth 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; which Bellarmine should have proved. For otherwise that the Empire was indeed dissolved before the revelation of Antichrist, the holy Ghost prophesied, the event hath proved, and we do willingly confess: Qu●… tenebat, de med●… fit, Ad Gerontid de Monogamia. (saith Jerome in his time) & non intelligimus Antichristum appropinquare? He which held, is taken away, and do we not understand that Antichrist is at hand? Yea but (saith Bellarmine) the Roman Empire is not yet utterly destroyed, and therefore Antichrist is not yet come. Neither is it necessary: it is sufficient, that he which hindered the revelation of Antichrist, wa●… done out of the way, which was done first by removing the Imperial seat from Rome, which was to be the seat of Antichrist, as hath been proved: secondly, by the dissolution of the Empire in the West. As for the Empire renewed by the Pope, that hindereth not Antichrist, but rather furthereth, as hath been showed; and therefore there is no necessity that it should be taken away. Neither is there now an Emperor of the Romans indeed, but only in title, without the thing itself, as enjoying neither the city of Rome itself, nor yet the Provinces. And therefore either unskilfully or sophistically are these Emperors, which have no imperial authority either in the city or the provinces, compared with those ancient Emperors, who although they had the Empire, wanted Rome itself. 5. And hereby appeareth the error of our adversaries, who think that Antichrist cometh not before the utter desolation of the Roman Empire: whereas neither of the Apostles Paul or john do say so, but rather the contrary, as hath been showed. For to omit the rest before alleged, john saith, Apoc. 13. That one head of the beast, meaning the state of the emperors, had indeed ●…ceiued deadly woun●…, both in respect of Rome the head city, and of the Emperors in the West, but was cured, therefore not utterly destroyed: and cured by the Pope, both in respect of the city, and in regard of the Emperor. And therefore the Pope is Antichrist, as some of our writers infer, because this wound was to be cured by the second beast, which figureth Antichrist. And Ambrose saith upon 2. Thes. 2. That Antichrist shall restore liberty to the Romans, but in his own name. Bellarmine answereth, That he readeth no where in john, that the beast, which signifieth the Roman Empire, was to be cured by antichrist. Yea but this 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 unto it. For by this renewing of the Empire, Bellarmine elsewhere De translat. imperij. lib. 1. c. 4. professeth, that the Roman Empire was restored to the same estate, wherein it was before Augustulus. But what hath Bellarmine read in john? Forsooth, That one of the heads of the beast should die, and shortly after rise again by the help of the devil; which the Ancient expound of Antichrist, who shall feign himself to be dead, and by devilish art rise again, that so by resembling the true death and resurrection of Christ, he might seduce many. First, it is evident that the former beast figureth not Antichrist, but the Roman state, and that under the Roman Emperors especially. Secondly, it is not said, that one of the heads did feign itself dead, and by the help of the devil did rise again (which needed not, if the death were sergeant) but that one of the heads had received a deadly wound, & was cured again. The head was the state of the Emperors, to wit, the sixth head, which received a deadly wound in Augustulus, after whom the Empire in the West lay void 325. years. But this head was cured after a sort in Charlemagne & his successou●…s, in whom there was an image of the former Emperors erected by the Pope. And therefore this state of emperors renewed in Charlemagne and his successors, is said to be the eight head of the beast, & yet is one of the seven. So that the sixth head which before was wounded to death, was cured, & after a sort repaired in them. This in substance is confessed by Bellarmine himself in this chapped. where understanding by the two legs of the image §. quod 〈◊〉 in Daniel, the Western and Eastern Empire, he saith, That the Western, which was the one leg, failed, namely, in Augustulus, and was after erected in Charlemagne, and that (as else-wheré he boasteth) by the Pope. Now whereas Bellarmine laboureth to prove, that this head which was wounded to death and revived again, is not Charles the great, he showeth himself ridiculous in fight with his own shadow. For by the head is not meant any one man, but the state and succession of Emperors, which was interrupted and cut off in Augustulus, & renewed in Charles the great, and his successors. And that which is added concerning the universality either of worship, or of rule, is not spoken of the head which was revived, but of the beast, which was to Apoc. 13. 7. 8. have one of his seven heads wounded to death & cured again. The sixth Chapter: answering his third demonstration, concerning Enoch and Elias. 1. NOw we are to come to those signs, which in Bellarmine's conceit are to accompany Antichrist, the former whereof is the coming of Enoch and Elias in the flesh, to oppose themselves against Antichrist, and to convert the jews. From whence Bellarmine reasoneth thus. If Enoch and Elias be not yet come again in the flesh, than Antichrist is not yet come: But Enoch and Elias are not yet come again in the flesh; and therefore Antichrist is not yet come. To the proposition I answer; first, that if Enoch and Elias were to come in their own persons before the second coming of Christ, as some of the Ancient have thought, and that to oppose themselves against Antichrist, as the Papists dream: yet it followeth not that therefore Antichrist should not be come before their coming. It is sufficient that they come before his overthrow, and the second coming of Christ. And therefore if they were indeed to come, their coming might yet be expected, notwithstanding the truth of our assertion, that Antichrist is already come. But if Enoch and Elias be not to come again in their own persons before the end of the world, to fight against Antichrist, what force of argument is there in this worthy demonstration? This therefore Bellarmine maketh the question, which he goeth about to prove. First, by testimonies of Scripture. Secondly, by consent of the fathers. Thirdly, by reason. 2. There be four Scriptures (saith Bellarmine) to prove that Enoch and Elias in their own persons shall come against Antichrist. Howbeit this is a manifest untruth; for no place of Scripture speaketh of Enoch his return. The first Malach. 4. 5. Behold I will send unto you Elias the Prophet, before the great and fearful day of the Lord come, and he shall turn the hearts of the fathers unto the children, and the hearts of the children unto their fathers. This place maketh no mention of Enoch, but only of Elias: and by Elias is meant not Elias the Thesbite, but john the Baptist: who (as the Luke. 1. 17. Angel applying to him this prophecy saith) should go before the Lord jesus in the spirit and power of Elias, that he may turn the hearts of the fathers unto the children, etc. And our saviour Christ Mat. 11. 14 most plainly affirmeth, that john Baptist is that Elias who was to come, and if you will receive (saith he) that is, if you will give credit to my speech, this is that Elias who was to come: And addeth, he that hath ears to hear, let him hear. Which showeth that the Papists neither have hearts to believe Christ, nor ears to hear him: but have open both hearts to receive and ears to hear the fables of the jews: who as they yet look for their Messias, so they look also for Elias to be his forerunner. For as Jerome writeth upon this place of Malachy, the jews and judaizing heretics think that before their Messias, 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 in Ieromes judgement it is but the opinion of a judaizing heretic to expect the coming again of Elias in his own person. Yea but (saith Bellarmine) this place cannot be understood of john Baptist, but of Elias only. For Malachy speaketh of the second coming of Christ which shallbe unto judgement: For so he saith, before the great & terrible day of the Lord come; for his first coming is not called great and terrible, but the acceptable time & day of salvation. Whereupon it is also added, lest when I come, I strike the earth with a curse. But Christ in his first coming came not to judge, but to be judged. 3. Answ. Bellarmine must give us leave to believe the Angel Luke. 1. 17 Mat. 11. 14 Math. 17. of God, and our Saviour Christ, rather than himself, who is not afraid, as it seemeth, to give the lie to the spirit of God speaking in both. Neither can he prove that Malachi speaketh of the second coming of Christ: for therein the Papists err worse than the jews. For both the text itself, & also the application thereof by the Angel and our Saviour Christ, do prove, that Elias was to come before the first coming of Christ, which is great to the godly, and terrible to the wicked And therefore in the beginning of the third Chapter, the Prophet speaking most plainly of the first coming of Christ, before which the Lord promiseth to send his messenger, that is, john Baptist, to prepare the way before Mat. 11. 10. Mark. 1. 2. him, signifieth, that this coming is great and fearful, verse 2. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall endure when he appeareth? for he is like a purging fire, and like Pullers' Soap, and he shall sit down to try and fine the silver. Of the same coming he speaketh in the beginning of the fourth Chapter. Behold the day cometh that shall burn as an Oven, etc. showing how terrible it shall be to the wicked. But unto you that fear my name (saith the Lord, verse 2.) shall the sun of righteousness arise, and health shall be under his wings, etc. And before this great day cometh, he promiseth them to send them Elias, that is, john Baptist, to whom our Saviour apply the prophesy of Malachi, both Chapter 3. 1. and Chapter 4. 5. In like sort, john Baptist himself describeth the first coming of Christ as terrible in respect of the wicked. Now (saith he) is the Axe laid to the root of the trees, etc. Math. 3. 10. and verse 11. and 12. He that cometh after me is mightier than I: he will Baptize you with the holy Ghost and with fire, which hath his Fan in his hand, (using the like similitude that Malachi did) and will purge his Floor, and gather his Wheat into his Garner, but will burn up the Chaff with unquenchable fire. simeon also saith of our Saviour, that he was appointed both for the fall of the wicked, and Luke. 2. 34. rising of the godly. And elsewhere he is called a stumbling stone, and a Rock of offence, upon which stone, whosoever falleth, Rom. 9 33. he shall be broken in pieces: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall all Mat. 21. 44. to grind him. If notwithstanding all this which hath been alleged, any man shall think the first coming of the Lord, not so fitly to be called terrible: I further answer, 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 Psal. 130. 4 of reverence, or filial fear. And whereas it is added, that Elias should be sent to convert the people, Lest when I come (saith the Lord) I should strike the earth with a curse: the meaning is, that the Lord would send his messenger to prepare the way before him, that some of the people at the least, might be ready to receive our Saviour Christ, lest if all should reject him, he should be provoked to strike the land: for at his second coming, he shall without peradventure strike the earth. And in this exposition of Malachi besides others, Arias Montanus the most learned writer among the Papists, doth wholly agree with In Malach. us; expounding this prophesy of john Baptist, whom he calleth another Elias, and of the first coming of Christ. Thus therefore I answer: First that Malachi speaketh not of Enoch, but of Elias only: and secondly, of Elias his coming, not with Antichrist, but before Christ: thirdly, & that before the first coming of Christ: four and consequently, not of Elias literally, but of john Baptist, who came in the spirit and power of Elias. 4. The second place is, Ecclesiastic. 48. 10. & 44. 16. In the former place it is said of Elias, That he was appointed to reprove in due season, and to pacify the anger of the Lords judgement proceeding to furis, and to turn the hearts of the fathers unto the children, and to set up the Tribes of jacob. In the latter it is said of Enoch, as Bellarmine readeth, That he pleased God, and was translated into Paradise, that he might give pe●…ance unto the Gentiles. First I answer to both places, that although this book of the son of Sirach be very commendable; yet it is not of Canonical authority, being but a human writing, as appeareth not only by the former place alleged, but also by that erroneous conceit concerning Samuel, chapter 46. 23. Secondly, in neither place is it said, that either of them should come to oppose themselves against Antichrist; that from hence their return into the world, should be made a sign of the coming of Antichrist. But as touching the former place, severally I answer with I ansenius one of the best writers among the Papists (howsoever Bellarmine wondereth at him▪ that he should consent with us in the truth, being a Popish Bishop) that although the ancient writers have thought that Elias was to come again, yet it cannot be evinced out of this place. For we may say that Ecclesiasticus did write this according to the received opinion of his time, grounded (as they thought) upon the words of Malachi, that Elias was truly to come in his own person before the Messias: when as that was not to be fulfilled in his own person, but in him that was to come in the spirit and power of Elias. True indeed it is, that not only the author of that book, as it seemeth, but the jews in general, understanding the words of Malachi literally, did expect that Elias in his own person should return before the coming of the Messias. But our Saviour Christ reformeth this error, applying the Prophecy to john Baptist. And secondly I answer, that if Bellarmine will argue out of Ecclesiasticus, according to his meaning, he must prove that Elias was to come in his own person, before the first coming of the Messias, of which Malachi speaketh, and before which this author as all the rest of the jews, do hold that Elias was to come: And therefore the Papists might aswell with the jews, look for their Messias, as for Elias. Now as touching the other place, it is 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 these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccl. 〈◊〉. 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Enoch pleased the Lord God, and was translated for an example of repentance ●…o 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 Enoch did. But will Bellarmine hence conclude, that therefore Enoch is to come again in the flesh, to oppose himself to Antichrist? 5. The third place is, Math. 17. 11. Elias indeed shall come, and shall restore all things. Which words, saith Bellarmine, are plainly to be understood, not of john, but of the true Elias. For john was already come, and had finished his course, and yet the Lord saith in the future, Elias shall come. I answer, that by the Evangelist Mark, who speaketh in the present tense, Elias 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 all things, but I tell you that Elias is already come, and they have done unto him what they listed, as it is written of him, meaning Mark. 9 12 13. john Baptist. As if he had said. The Prophecy indeed concerning Mat. 17. 13 Elias is true, but I tell you it is already fulfilled. For as he saith in another place; john Baptist is that Elias who was to come, than which, what could be spoken more plainly? Bellarmine answereth, That john Baptist was the promised Mat. 11. 14 Elias, not literally, but allegor●…eally. So we affirm also, and further add, that Elias was not promised literally. For our Saviour Christ plainly affirmeth, that john Baptist is that Elias which was promised. And both he and the Angel understand that Prophecy of Malachi chapter 4. 5. not literally of Elias the Thesbi●…e, but allegorically of john Baptist, who was, as it were, another Elias. Yea but the Disciples, faith Bellarmine, who had seen the transsiguration, when they asked Christ, what is that which the Scribes say, that Elias must first come, speak of the same Elias, whom they had seen with Christ in the Mount: and therefore Christ making answer to them, that Elias indeed shall come, speaketh of the same Elias. It followeth not: for the Disciples speak according to the erroneous opinion of the Scribes, who understanding Malachi literally, thought that Elias was to come in his own person, and thereupon (as it is thought) inferred, that Christ was not the true Messias, because Elias came not before him. But Christ answereth them according to the true meaning of Malachi, applying his prophecy to john Baptist, who is figuratively called Elias. Yea but it cannot truly be said that john Baptist restored all things: for to restore all things, is to call all the jews and heretics, and perhaps some of the seduced Catholics to the true faith, as Bellarmine objecteth. This is indeed the Popish conceit, that Enoch and Elias shall preach against Antichrist 1260. days, at the end whereof they shallbe put to death by Antichrist, and after three days and an half, shall rise again. Within a month after their death, Antichrist shallbe destroyed in mount Olivet: and 45. days after that, Christ shall come to judgement. In the mean time so effectual shall be the preaching of Enoch and Elias, that they shall restore all things, that is, they shall call all the jews and heretics, and perhaps the seduced Catholics. But how doth this agree with the prophecies of our Saviour Christ, concerning the want of faith at his coming, and the uncertainty of the time of his appearing? As touching the former he saith, the son of man when he cometh, shall he find faith upon the earth? And as Luk. 18. 8. touching the other, he hath foretold that the end of the world shall be sudden and unlooked for, even as it was in the days of Noah and Lot. But if this conceit of the Papists be Mat. 24. 39 Luk. 17. 26 18. true, there shall be more true believers at the end of the world, than ever had been at one time before: and the day of Christ's coming, after the revelation of Antichrist, but especially after his death, shallbe precisely known, & accordingly looked for. Now whereas he saith, that john did not restore all things, which (as Christ saith) Elias should do: I answer, that Christ speaketh according to their understanding, and therefore that john Baptist did restore all things in that sense that Elias was, according to their conceit, to restore all things. But by restitution in this place, we are to understand the reformation of the people and Church of the jews (to whom the messenger and forerunner is promised, & not to heretics and seduced catholics) wherein john Baptist was another Elias. Neither is this restitution ascribed to the Baptist, as though it had been perfected by him, but because he began that, which Christ was to bring to perfection. So that john Baptist may truly be said to have made this restitution Inchoatiuè. 6. The fourth place is: Apoc. 11. 3. I will give to my two witnesses●… and they shall prophecy 1260. days. Which words he affirmeth (but without all reason) are to be understood of Enoch and Elias, who are not once mentioned in all that chapter. Neither can those two witnesses signify Enoch & Elias: because they are to be killed by the beast, and their bodies shall lie dead in the streets of the great City three days and an half. For Enoch and Elias they were taken up into heaven: where in soul at the least they enjoy the glorious presence of God. For otherwise their estate were worse then of the rest of the faithful departed: and so their translation should rather have bi●… a punishment then a blessing or prerogative unto them: without question therefore their souls at the least are in heaven. But whether they be there in soul alone, or in soul & body, there may be some question: but if they be there in body, it cannot be that their body is mortal (as the Papists would have it) & subject to death. For how can corruption inherit incorruption? or how can it be truly said, that Enoch was translated that he should not see death, if notwithstanding his translation, 1. Cor. 15. 50. he shall suffer death? If therefore their bodies be in heaven, undoubtedly they were in the translation changed, and by that change became immortal, as the bodies of them shall, who shallbe alive upon the earth at the second coming of Christ. If their 1. Cor. 15. 51. 53. 1. Thes. 4. souls alone be in heaven▪ their bodies being dissolved and returned into dust, then either they must come in their own bodies, or in others. If in others, then must we hold the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or flitting of souls into divers bodies: if in their own, then shall they not only rise before the resurrection, but also after their resurrection die again. All which absurdities plainly show, that the Popish opinion concerning the coming of Enoch and Elias, is a mere fable, whereby men are kept in security, that they should not with vigilancy wait for the coming of Christ, because as yet forsooth, Enoch and Elias are not returned. The two witnesses therefore cannot signify Elias and Enoch. But if I should add, that Bellarmine cannot prove that this place entreateth of Antichrist, but rather of the beast with 7. heads arising out of the sea, that is, the Roman state either generally, or especially under the Emperors, as may be gathered by comparing verse 2. and 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. 7. Unto these testimonies of Scripture, he addeth the consent of the fathers, who hold that Enoch & Elias shall in their own persons come in the time of antichrist. And to this purpose he nameth many, but yet among all the ancient which he citeth, only Gregory is alleged to the purpose, who in his morals expounding the words of Lib. 14. c. 12. Bildad the Suhite as spoken of Antichrist, testifieth, that in his time Enoch and Elias shall come, which is as true, as that Bildad spoke of Antichrist. Of the rest, some speak of the return of Elias only, and that to convert the jews (without mention of his resisting Antichrist) being deceived by the corrupt translation of the 72. who in Malachy 4. v. 5. read Elias the Theibite, and thereby gave occasion to the readers to expound those words of Elias literally: whereas in the Hebrew, & also in other translations we read Elias the Prophet, which may truly be applied to john, who was a Prophet; & by the testimony of our saviour. Christ, more than a Prophet. Mat. 11. 9 Others, who besides Elias mention the coming of another, agree not among themselves. Victorinus refuting the opinion of in Apoc. 11 some who thought the two witnesses to be Elias & Eliz●…us, or Elias & Moses, saith, all our Ancestors by tradition have delivered that it is Elias and jeremy. Hilary refelling those which thought the two witnesses to be Elias & Enoch, or Elias and jeremy, contendeth that they must be Moses and Elias. Hippolytus to Enoch & in Mat. con. 20. Elias, addeth john the Divine, who (as he saith) shall come with them before the coming of Christ. All which opinions of the fathers give us a sufficient proof, into what uncertainties men are carried, when they will be wise above that which is written. For seeing the holy Ghost hath not named these two witnesses, it is hard especially for them, who lived (as themselves thought) before the fulfilling of this prophecy, to define whether by these two witnesses is not meant a sufficient, though a small number of God's witnesses, whom ●…he shall raise to testify his truth even in the hottest persecution of the beast; or if they be two and no more, to determine particularly and by name, who they are. 8. Unto these testimonies in the last place he addeth a reason, to make up this demonstration, which may thus be concluded. If Enoch & Elias were taken up before their death, & yet ●…iue in mortal bodies wherein once they shall die; then shall they come in the time of Antichrist to set themselves against him: But Enoch and Elias being taken up before death do yet live in mortal●… bodies, wherein they are once to die; therefore they shall come in the time of Antichrist to set themselves against him. The proposition is unnecessary, and the assumption untrue. For though we should grant that they yet live in mortal bodies, and that their death is yet deferred: yet how doth this follow, that they live to resist Antichrist and to be slain of him? Yea but saith Bell armine, there can n●…ne other reason be given. Of 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 the jews. But the assumption also is false. For it is untrue that they live in mortal bodies, or that they shall ever die. For where I beseech you do they live in mortal bodies, in the earthly Paradise, or in the heavenly? In the earthly say the Papists; but that was defaced either at or before the flood: so that although the place remain, yet no Paradise remaineth, as Bellarmine else where confesseth. And if they were Lib. 1. de Sanctor. beatitud. C. 3 living in the earthly Paradise, how is it said, they were taken up, as it is plainly said of Elias, that he was taken up into heaven? Or what privilege or reward have they above others, if all this 2. Kin. 2. 12 while they have wanted Gods glorious presence which others enjoy, and hereafter are to be slain of Antichrist? Or how was Enoch translated that he should not see death, if notwithstanding his translation, he must die the death? If in the celestial Paradise, that is the third heaven as Paul speaketh, it may first be 2. Cor. 12. doubted, whether they be there in body: because it may be thought that Christ was the first that in body ascended into heaven: or if their bodies ●…o there, we must hold that in the translation they were changed into immortal and incorruptible bodies, as theirs shall, who shall be found living upon the earth as the second coming of Christ, and shallbe rapt up into the air. 1. Cor. 15. 51. For this I say with Paul, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 1. Thes. 4. 17. 9 But will you see under one view, how far this slender 1. Cor. 15. 50. conjecture taken from the coming of Enoch and Elias, is from being a demonstrative proof. First, he cannot prove necessarily that they are yet in their bodies. Secondly, if they be in their bodies, he cannot prove that their bodies are mortal. Thirdly, if their bodies be mortal, it is not necessary that they should return into the world and die, because at the end of the world they might be changed with the rest that then shallbe living, as some also have thought. Fourthly, if they should return into the justin. q. 85 ad orthodoxos. world and die, there is no necessity that they should come in the time of Antichrist. Fiftly, if it should be granted that they are to come against Antichrist, yet it would not follow that therefore Antichrist is not yet come: but this only would follow, that Antichrist is not yet destroyed, which we do not deny. And this was his third demonstration, whereby he proveth that Antichrist is not yet come, and consequently that the Pope is not Antichrist. To conclude therefore, must not this needs be a good cause, that by so learned a man is so stoutly proved? The 7. Chapter: answering his fourth demonstration, concerning the most grievous persecution under Antichrist. 1. THe second sign accompanying Antichrist, from whence Bellarmine draweth his fourth demonstration, is the most grievous & notorious persecution of the Church, in so much that the public service of God shall wholly cease. His demonstration is thus to be framed. When Antichrist is come there shallbe the most grievous and manifest persecution that ever was, insomuch that the public service of God shall wholly cease: But as yet there hath been no such persecution, neither hath the public service of God wholly ceased, therefore Antichrist is not yet come. Of his third argument, and consequently of the proposition and assumprion, there are three parts, which severally are to be considered, that the persecution under Antichrist is, 1. Most grievous. 2. Most manifest. 3. Such as shall cause all God's worship to cease. As touching the first, he reasoveth thus: Under Antichrist shallbe the most grievous persecution; as yet this most grievous persecution hath not been, especially under the Pope; therefore Antichrist is not yet come, neither is the Pope Antichrist. The proposition, namely, that the most grievous persecution is under Antichrist, he proveth by two testimonies. The first, Mat. 24. 21. And then shallbe great tribulation, such as hath not been since the beginning of the world, neither shallbe. The other, Apoc. 20. 7. Then shall Satan be let lose, namely, after the thousand years are expired. Answer. We doubt not but that the persecution under Antichrist was to be very grievous, because the holy Ghost testifieth so much Apoc. 17. 6. Where the whore of Babylon is said to be drunk with the blood of the Saints, and with the blood of the Martyrs of jesus. But his proofs are not to the purpose. For the place in Matthew, as heretofore hath been showed, and as appeareth by the text itself, is to be understood of the calamities, which at the destruction of jerusalem by the Romans, the jews sustained. For when you see (saith our Saulour Christ) the abomination Mat. 24. 15 of desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet standing in the holy place, that is, as Luke expoundeth, when you see jerusaelem Luk. 21. 20 compassed about with armies (which Daniel calleth the abominable Dan. 9 27. wings of desolation) then let those which are in jewry fly unto the mountains, etc. And his reason is, because then there Mat. 24. 2●… shallbe great affliction, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shallbe. Which Luke expresseth thus, for there shall be great distress in the Land, and wrath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Luk. 21. 23. 24. this people, and they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be carried captive into all nations, and jerusalem shall be trodden under f●…ote of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. 2. As touching the thousand years mentioned, Apoc. 20. After which Satan was to be loosed: although the expiration of them fall in Antichrists reign, yet we are not to begin his reign thereat, as appeareth plainly Apoc. 20. v. 4. Neither is that letting lose of Satan to be understood of the persecution only under Antichrist: for it is manifest by the text, that within those thousand years, many martyrs were put to death by Antichrist for refusing to receive his mark, and that the greatest part la▪ dead in Antichristian errors and superstition, verse. 4. & 5. and by the 8. verse, that Satan was let lose not only to stir up persecution against the faithful, but also and that principally to stir up universal wars betwixt the nations of the world, betwixt Gog and Magog, that is, as some expound, the Papists and Mahometans. Now I would gladly know of Bellarmine when these thousand years began, and when they expired: for hereof there be divers opinions, but I will touch the principal, 1. That these thousand years begin with the incarnation of Christ, and determine accordingly, when as Silvester the second had obtained the Papacy by the help of the devil: after whom followed in the Antichristian seat a succession of notable sorcerers. 2. That the thousand years begin about the 73. year of Christ: at which time the people of the jews being destroyed, and the Church of Christ of a particular became catholic & dispersed throughout all nations, the devil as it is in the end of the 12. Chap. seeketh by all means to overthrow the seed borne of the Church Apoc. 12. of the jews, that is, the Churches of Christ begotten unto God by the ministry of the Apostles and Disciples of Christ. Whereupon it is said Chap. 20. (where the former story, as some think is continued) the Angel! bindeth Satan for a thousand years, which end in the year 1073. which being expired, the devil is loosed, and Gregory 7. alias Hildebrand (a notable sorceress, and murderer, in whom Antichrist came to his full growth) was installed in the Papacy. Augustine beginneth this account much about De civit. Dei. Lib. 20 cap. 8. this time. 3. That these 1000 years take their beginning from the time of the revelation, which was about the year of our Lord, 96. and consequently ended about the year 1096. in which year those universal wars were raised for the recovery of jerusalem and the holy land out of the hand of the Sara●…s, which the holy Ghost here seemeth to speak of betwixt the nations of the earth. In this expedition there met at jerusalem 600000. footmen, and 100000. horsemen out of Christendom, besides eight or nine other expeditions afterwards, for the recovery forsooth of the holy-land. 4. Others begin this account at the beginning of Constantine's reign, which happened not long after the year 300. who being the first Christian Emperor, gave peace to the Church of God, and according to this account the thousand years expired about the year 1300. in which year the Turkish Empire began in Ottoman; and Pope Boniface the eight most insolently and Antichristianlie challenged, especially in that his year of jubilee, an universal dominion over the world, both spiritual and temporal. All which opinions being severally probable, it is more than probable, that those 1000 years are already expired: and consequently that Antichrist is already come. For as Bellarmine teacheth, the devil was to be loosed in the time of Antichrist, and the Text plainly showeth, that before the expiration of the thousand years, and losing of the devil, many were slain by Antichrist. So that the testimonies which he allegeth are against his purpose. For the great tribulation whereof Christ speaketh is already past, and the thousand years whereof john speaketh, already expired: and therefore if Bellarmine's allegations be to the purpose, than Antichrist is come. 3. But supposing his proposition to be thus far true, that the persecution of the church under Antichrist, shallbe very great and grievous (for that under him shallbe the greatest tribulation that ever was or shallbe, I dare not avouch, because our Saviour hath said, that the calamities of the jews at the destruction of jerusalem, were the greatest that ever were or shallbe to the end of the world:) let us come to his assumption, and consider whether there hath not been great and grievous persecution of the church, under the Pope. Bellarmine confesseth, that many of our religion have been put to death by them: but he maketh it a matter of nothing. First, because this persecution if it were so to be called, is not comparable with the persecutions under the Heathenish Emperors, and especially under Dioclesian, by whose authority 17000. Christians were slain in 〈◊〉 month. And secondly, because more of them have been slain by Protestants in France and Flanders within 10. or 15. years before Bellarmine read these controversies, which was Anno. 1577, than had been●… burnt of our men by the inquisitors in an hundred years: and thirdly, if there hath been any persecution in these latter times, the Catholics have suffered it rather than the Protestants. To which I answer, that I cannot tell whether the Papists in persecuting the faithful, have been more cruel and barbarous, or he in cloaking their cruelty, shameless. For to omit the spiritual calamities inflicted by the Pope, and fearful havoc of men's souls, wherein 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? omitting, I say, these spiritual calamities which are most grievous, and in respect whereof the tribulation of Christian people hath been more grievous under the Pope, then under any Heathenish tyrants, and to speak only of outward troubles: why are not the persecutions of the Protestants under the Pope, comparable with those in the Primitive church? For durance, they have been longer and more continual: for number, more slain in France alone under the name of Al●…igenses, Waldenses, & Hugonotes, for refusing the mark of the beast, than were slain in any one of the ten persecutions throughout the world: besides infinite more, as Saunders confesseth in other countries, Demonstrat. 34. on whom the Papists have practised most savage cruelty. The Duke of Alba in the Low-countries alone, caused within a very few years 36000. to be executed. Yea but in Dioclesian's time (saith Bellarmine) there were in one month 17000. Christians martyred. Yea but in France alone, say I, under Charles the ninth, within one month were slaughtered in the Massacre at Paris & Lions, & some other places, as some say, 40000 as others, above thirty thousand, that is to say, twice as many as in Dioclesian's month, without all order of law, but with most perfidious treachery, and barbarous cruelty. And this bloody Massacre applauded by the Pope and his Cardinals, was committed within five or six years before Bellarmine read these controversies concerning the Pope, that is to say, Anno. 1572. And yet this cruel Cardinal of the purpled harlot the church of Rome, which is imbrued, and as it were died red with the blood of the Saints and Martyrs of jesus, is not ashamed to say, that within 10. or 15. years there have been slain more Catholics in France and Flanders, then had been burnt by the inquisitors these 100▪ years. As touching the inquisitors, they can kill but all that they find of the religion, and that I am sure they spare not to do. Vergerius, who could 1. Bal. de act. Pontific. well tell, witnesseth, that within the space of 30. years, there were put to divers fearful deaths by the bloody Inquisition, a hundred & fifty thousand Christians. But we speak not only of those which have been burnt, or by other more exquisi●…e torments martyred by their means (although the number of them in all countries cannot be reckoned) but we speak also of those that have been in great multitudes by outrageous Massacres most butcherly murdered. 4. But what Catholics, I beseech you, have been put to death by protestants for their religion? Bellarmine answereth that many of them have died in the civil wars in France & Flanders. It may be that the Protestants in these civil wars undertaken for their own defence, that they might be free from such outrages, have slain in lawful battle many of the Papists, as contrariwise many of themselves have been slain. But what is this to the purpose? Thus many in the armies of Antiochus Epiphanes, the most cruel persecutor of the Church of the jews, were slain in jewrie in the time of the Macchabees, as well as they had slain many of the jews. But I say again, what Catholics (as they call them) have been put to death for religion? As for those few that have been executed among us, what one was put to death, that was not found guilty either of treason or rebellion, or some such capital crime? And yet the Papists report, and in Books do publish, that I cannot tell how many of them are martyred here in England for their religion. Neither are they ashamed to write, and in Rome to publish that some of them have been put into bears Ecclefi●… Anglic. Troph●…. Printed at Rome An. 1584. cum privileg. Gregor. 13 skins and baited with Dogs, which also they have set out in tables. But compare I beseech you with those many that were martyred in Queen Mary's five years, those few that have been executed in Queen Elizabeth's forty five years. Compare the causes, which make persecution in the agents and martyrdom in the patients. What one put to death of those which were burnt in Q. Mary's time for any crime, but only for religion, which they call heresy? what one of the Catholics, as they call them, in Q. Elizabeth's time executed, who was not found guilty of some capital crime? Compare the estate of Papists living among Protestants at this day, as namely in England, with the estate of Protestants living among Papists, as namely in Spain. Is any one suffered to live among them, that is but once suspected to be of our religion? Is not every such a one either privately murdered, or publicly brought to the stake? Among us who is not suffered to live, although he be known to be of the Romish religion? To live, did I say? Nay, God be merciful unto us that suffer them so to live as they do, to the encouragement and infection of others. I speak not only of ordinary Papists, and those that are at liberty, but of the ringleaders also that be in custody: whose life hath been more easy and pleasant, and maintenance more plentiful, then of the Let the Cas●…les of UUisbich, and Framingham be witness most students or ministers among us. Yea but there is cause (will they say) that we should deal worse with you, than you with us. Nothing less. They object to us only heresy, and that as truly as the jews did to Paul, which we do truly object unto them, and in regard thereof, might, nay should do to the children of Babylon, as they have done to us. But besides Apoc. 18. 6 many gross and capital heresies, which race the foundation, we truly object unto them, that their religion bringeth with it, treason against the Prince, and rebellion against God. Treason against the Prince, not only because of their confederacy with the chief enemies of our state, the Pope and Spaniard, in regard whereof those jesuits and Priests, which come among us from beyond-Seas, as also those which harbour them, are worthy of death: but also because more generally they holding the Pope's supremacy and authority to depose Princes, and withal, believing that the Pope in his definitive sentence cannot err: they cannot but approve the Bull of excommunication, wherein Pius the fift, (as much as was in him) deposed our Queen of famous memory, and absolved her subjects from all allegiance to her. Rebellion against God, because it persuadeth an Apostasy and falling away from God, into gross and palpable idolatry. Of which fault whosoever are found guilty, that is, to persuade others to idolatry, by the law of God they ought not be suffered to live, because they have persuaded an Apostasy from God, Deut. 13. All this notwithstanding, Deut. 13. 5. 8. 9 we deal too remissly with them, and they most barbarously with us. And yet forsooth, if there be, or hath been, any persecution in the Church in these latter times, the Catholics are they which suffer it, and not the Protestants. Alas poor Wolves, how cruelly they have been handled among the sheep of Christ! 5. But to proceed: As the persecution under Antichrist, saith Bellarmine, shall be most grievous; so shall it be most manifest. For thus he reasoneth: The persecution under Antichrist shall be most manifest: this under the Pope is not manifest; therefore this is not the persecution of Antichrist. The proposition is proved, because then all the wicked shall aperto mart, oppugn the whole church: and not only those that be Infidels and open sinners, but the hypocrites also and false brethren, shall then join themselves to Antichrist, and discovering themselves, openly assault the Church. And is not this well guessed think you, contrary to the word of truth, uttered by our Saviour Christ? For whereas our Saviour hath said, that the good and bad shall grow together like Wheat and tars, until the day of the great harvest: Bellarmine telleth us, that when Antichrist cometh, there shall such a separation be made, that there shall not an hypocrite be left in the Church: but all the wicked without exception, shall be together Omnes prorsus impios simul futuros in exercitu Antichristi. in Antichrists host; and shall openly oppugn the whole Church of the Saints. But such separation is not to be looked for, until Christ shall sever the Lambs from the Goats. And therefore if we must not believe that Antichrist is come, until such a separation be made: assuredly Christ will come upon us to judgement, whiles we look for Antichrist. Yea but Augustine saith, That now there be many false brethren in the De civit. Dei. lib. 20. c. 11. Church, At tunc erumpent omnes (inquit Augustinus) in apertam persecutionem ex latebris odiorum, But then all shall burst forth, saith Augustine, out of their covert hatred, into open persecution. If Augustine had said so, we might well have esteemed his speech to have been but a human conjecture, rather than a Prophecy divine. But Bellarmine without all shame falsifieth his words. For Augustine in that place speaking of those words, Apoc. 20. 7. Soluetur Satanas de custodia sua & exibit ad seducendas nationes, Satan shall be let lose out of his ward, and shall go forth to seduce the nations: Exibit autem dictum est (saith he) in apertam persecutionem, de latebris erumpet odiorum: Now it is said that he shall go forth, viz. into open persecution; he shall break forth of the coverts of hatred, speaking of the devil alone, and not of all the wicked. And thus was his proposition doughtily proved, being neverlesse according to his sense, repugnant to the Scriptures, which describe Antichrist, not as an open enemy, but as a secret; and decipher antichristianism, not as a professed hostility, but as a mystery of iniquity, as hath been showed. 6. Come we to his assumption, This manifest persecution hath not been, neither is, as yet, & why? First, because there are now so many false brethren in the church as never were more; speaking of the church of Rome, wherein it is hard indeed to find a true christian. But shall not Antichrist come whiles there are false brethren in the church? or rather shall we not think, that the Apostasy of false brethren in the church of Rome & pretended Christians, whereof Antichrist is the head, is a good argument of his coming? Secondly, because no man can tell when this persecution began. That, if it were true, doth not disprove the greatness of the persecution, but argue the length. Yea but under Nero, Domitian, & the rest of the persecuting Emperors, it was well known when the persecutions began, and when they ended. That happened because there was some intermission of those persecutions: but these persecutions under Antichrist they have no end, nor yet intermission, except it be when they have none to persecute. But how doth it appear that none know when these persecutions of Antichrist began? For soothe, because some of us say, that Antichrist came in the year 200. others in 606. others in 773, others in 1000, others in 1200. The vanity of which objection, which now like a twice-bo●…de Colewurt he setteth before us again, hath been showed before. For of these opinions, only two belong to us, and those not different. For we hold, that as the whole sovereignty and tyranny of the Pope consisteth in his two swords, which he did not attain at once, but by degrees: so we make two degrees of Antichrist his coming: first with the spiritual sword in the year 607. secondly, with the temporal, after the year 1000 which was more fully obtained then before, in Gregory the seventh: In whom, as hath been said, Antichrist was come to his full growth. Since which time, he hath been more and more revealed, and by some acknowledged. Upon which acknowledgement there hath followed separation from him, according to the commandment of God, and refusal of his mark: whereupon persecution hath ensued, and never hath ceased where any such have been found, where the Pope hath to do. Neither are we with Bellarmine ignorantly to confound the time of his coming, with the beginning of his persecution. For he began not to persecute, until men began to forsake him: and men did not forsake him until he was discovered what he was, and acknowledged: neither was he acknowledged, until he came to his full growth. 7. And thus the two first parts of this demonstration, concerning the persecution of Antichrist, how great and manifest it should be, are already answered, although in truth not worth the answering. The third part is concerning the public service of God and ceremonies of the church, which (he saith) in the time of Antichrist by reason of that grievous persecution shall wholly cease. His reason is thus framed. When Antichrist is come, the public service of God, and daily sacrifice of Christians (meaning the sacrifice of the Mass) shall cease: but as yet the public service of God, and daily sacrifice of Christians, hath not ceased; therefore as yet Antichrist is not come. To the proposition I answer, that Antichrist being an hypocrite and pretended Christian (as hath been proved) shall not abolish all worship of God, & much less at his first coming. For Bellarmine maketh this interruption of God's service, a fruit of his greatest persecution: his persecution (as I said) is a consequent of men's forsaking him; and that of his acknowledgement: and that, of his showing himself in his colours, when he was come to his full growth, whereunto he attained not at the first, but by degrees. But this proposition is proved, saith Bellarmine, out of Daniel. chap. 12. verse 11. From the time when the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, are days 1290. Where (saith he) Daniel speaketh of the time of Antichrist. For the exposition of this place, we need not with Bellarmine run to the Fathers, seeing by conference thereof with some other places in Daniel, whereunto it hath reference, it may most plainly be showed, who it is that taketh away this daily sacrifice, and what that sacrifice is. In the eight chapped. vers. 11. and chapt. 11. vers. 31. it is affirmed, that by Antiochus Epiphanes, and his armies, the daily worship of God should be taken away. When as therefore Daniel asked when there should be an end of these things? the Holy-ghost answereth, that from the time that the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the abomination of desolation placed, whereof he had spoken, chap. 11. 31. there should be 1290. days. For of the restitution of God's service, and delivery of the jews from the tyranny of Antiochus, there are foretold divers degrees at divers times, which agreeably to these Prophecies of Daniel, are noted in the histories of josephus, and of the Maccabees: for from the interruption of God's service, to the first restitution thereof by judas Macchabeus, were three years and ten days, namely from the 15. of the month Casteu, In memory hereof the Encaenia, that is, the feast of the dedication, john 10. 22. was celebrated on the 25. of Casteu. 1. Macca. 4. 59 in the 145. year of the Seleucida, 1. Maccab. 1. 57 unto the 25▪ of the month Casteu, in the year 148 1. Maccab. 4. 52. which term Daniel calleth, chap. 7. 25. a time, and times, and parcel of time. Unto the victory obtained by the Macchabees, whereby the forces of Antiochus were expelled out of jewry, and thereby the restitution before begun, established, were three years and a half, as josephus testifieth; which Daniel, cha. 12. 7. calleth a time & times, & half a time, unto the time that Antiochus being stricken with the hand of God, after his discomfiture and flight from Pers●…polis, promised to restore the religion of the jews, & what else they desired, were 1290. days; unto the time of his death 1335. And that these are Prophecies concerning Antiochus, I will hereafter show more at large. In the mean time to the present Chap. 16. objection I answer, that by the daily worship or sacrifice here mentioned, we are to understand, not the sacrifice of Christians to be taken away by Antichrist, but the daily sacrifice of the jews, which was interrupted and taken away by Antiochus Epiphanes. It was the custom of the jews (saith chrysostom) to offer a sacrifice to God every morning and evening, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which sacrifice was taken away by Antiochus: and the same is testified by josephus and the author of the first book of the Macchabees. 8. To this place of Daniel although nothing at all to his purpose, Bellarmine trusteth so much, that upon it as it were his groud-worke he buildeth three conclusions, as you shall hear after we have also considered of his assumption. The assumption he proveth by experience; as though it did testify that the public service of God had not been taken away under the Pope; 〈◊〉 the sacrifice of Christians ceased. But if by the public service of God he meaneth his true worship and service in spirit and truth: assuredly it hath been taken away in the Papacy, except will-worship, superstition, and Idolatry be the true worship of God. As touching Christian sacrifices; we acknowledge the sacrifice of praise, the sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart, the Heb. 13. 15 Psal. 51. 17 Rom. 12. 1. Heb. 13. 16. sacrifice of obedience wherein we offer ourselves, the sacrifice of alms whereby we offer our goods; these sacrifices, no Antichrist can wholly take away. As for the sacrifice of the mass, we hold it to be a mo●…strous abomination, wherein the holy sacrament of the Lords supper, is turned into an abominable Idol. Seeing therefore there is no soundness of truth either in the proposition or assumption, must we not needs think that the question in hand is sound concluded? And yet upon these grounds Bellarmine doth not only infer the question in hand, but two more also. From hence saith he, three things may be gathered. First, that Antichrist is not as yet come, becàuse the daily sacrifice yet continueth. He might as well have concluded with the jews that Christ is not yet come: for he was to abolish the daily sacrifice, Dan. 9 27. partly by his own sacrifice, unto which the shadows of the Law were to give place; and partly by the overthrow of the temple, in which and not elsewhere it was to be offered. His second conclusion is, that the Pope of Rome is not Antichrist, but rather an adversary unto him; seeing he doth adore and maintain this sacrifice, which Antichrist is to abolish. Nay rather by ordaining this propitiatory sacrifice, and erecting a new priesthood to offer the same, the Pope, showeth himself to be Antichrist. For by this Priesthood Christ is denied to be our only Priest: by this Sacrifice, his sacrifice on the Cross is supposed not to be sufficient: in this sacrifice the humanity of Christ (as hath been showed) is overthrown, and a God of bread set up in his room to be worshipped and adored. In this sacrifice Christ alter a sort is made inferior to every massmonger, who as they can make their creator by breathing out a few words (hoc est corpus meum) so when they have made him in their conceit, they offer him up to God, to be a sacrifice propitiatory both for the quick and the dead. His third conclusion is; that the heretics of this time above all others are forerunners of Antichrist, because they desire nothing more, than the overthrow of this sacrifice of the mass. Nay rather as appeareth by the former answer, they show themselves the limbs of Antichrist, who overthrowing the sacrament of the Lords supper (which we have reduced to the first institution) seek to uphold this mass and heap of all abominations and sacrilegious Idolatry. And how are all these things proved? forsooth because Daniel hath prophesied that Antiochus was to take away for a time the daily sacrifice of the jews; therefore Antichrist is not yet come, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist, therefore those that mislike the mass are forerunners of Antichrist. And so with these three conclusions, as it were so many ropes of sand, he knitteth up his fourth demonstration. Chapter. 8. Answering his fift demonstration concerning the term of Antichrists reign, viz. 3. years and a half. 1. THere remain two demonstrations (as he calleth them) proving that Antichrist is not yet come, taken from those signs which follow Antichrist, to wit, the death of Antichrist after three years & an half, and the end of the world. Where Bellarmine teacheth us not to look for Antichrist, until he be gone; not to expect his coming, until the world have an end. For if these be signs that Antichrist is not yet come (as Bellarmine maketh them) then may we argue now, and so may argue even until the end of the world: Until Antichrist be dead and the world have an end, Antichrist cometh not; but at yet (may we say now, and so may say until the end) Antichrist is not dead, neither as yet hath the world an end; therefore as yet Antichrist is not come. By this argument therefore you see, how fitly these two signs are made the ground of two demonstrations, that Antichrist is not yet come. Now as touching the former, Bellarmine reasoneth thus. The fift demonstration (viz. to prove that Antichrist is not yet come) is taken from the continuance of Antichrist. Antichrist shall not reign but three years and a half. But the Pope hath reigned spiritually in the Church above 1500. yeer●…s, neither can any be assigned that hath been taken for Antichrist, who hath reigned precisely three years and a half: The Pope therefore is not Antichrist. Wherefore Antichrist is not yet come. His reason is thus to be resolved. If neither the Pope be Antichrist, nor any other, who hitherto hath been taken for Antichrist; then is not Antichrist as yet come: But neither the Pope is Antichrist, nor any that hitherto hath been taken for Antichrist; therefore as yet Antichrist is not come. Where you see by a circular disputation, the jesuit for want of better arguments, bringeth the main question (namely whether the Pope be Antichrist) as an argument to prove, that Antichrist is not yet come, and consequently that the Pope is not Antichrist. The Pope is not Antichrist; why? because Antichrist is not yet come: and why is not Antichrist yet come? because the Pope is not Antichrist. He may as well go on, for there is no end in a circle: and why is not the Pope Antichrist? because Antichrist is not yet come: and why is not Antichrist yet come? because the Pope is not Antichrist. And thus Bellarmine, as you see, danceth in a round. 2. But to come to the purpose, how doth he prove, that neither the Pope is Antichrist, nor any other that hath been taken for Antichrist? by this syllogism: Antichrist shall reign but three years and a half precisely: but neither the Pope, nor any other that hath been taken for Antichrist, hath reigned three years and a half precisely: therefore neither the Pope is Antichrist, nor any other that as yet hath been taken for Antichrist. The assumption, which he might have proved by a truth, he chooseth to prove by a falsehood. For whereas he might have said and that truly, that the Pope hath reigned spiritually in the church above 900. years, and therefore above three years & a half; he saith, he hath reigned (meaning an universal reign over the whole Church, or else he proveth not his assumption) above 1500. which is untrue. For he could not obtain this universal reign, before the year 607. But all the controversy is concerning the proposition: For we do grant, that the Popes have reigned and tyrannised in the Church, almost a thousand years; and therefore above three years and a half. Let us therefore consider how he proveth, that Antichrist shall reign 3. years and a half precisely. He proveth it by divers prophecies of the Scriptures, & guesses of the fathers, which were no prophecies. And first he allegeth these places, Dan. 7. 25. and 12. 7. Apoc. 12. 14. Where we read (saith he) that the reign of Antichrist shall continus a time and times & half a time, that is, a year and two years and half a year; and so he saith, S. john expoundeth it, Apoc. 11. and 13. by 42. months, and 1260 days, I answer, that none of these places defineth the time, or term of Antichrists reign. Daniel speaketh not of the time of Antichrists reign, but of that time wherein the jews were to be afflicted, & the temple & service of God in jerusalem was to be profaned by Antiochus Epiphanes, which time the Angel diversly reckoneth, Chap. 16. as was in part showed in the last chapter, & shall hereafter be more fully declared. For of their deliverance from the tyranny of Antiochus, there are four degrees, obtained at 4. several times, all which seem to be noted by Daniel. The first, is the restitution of God's worship & renovation of the temple by judas Maccabeus. 1. Mac. 1. 57 From the profanation therefore, which was on the 15. of Casteu 1. Mac. 4. 52. in the year 145. unto this restitution made on the 25. of Casteu in the 148. year, were 3. years & 10. days, which Daniel calleth a▪ time & times & parcel of time, Dan. 7. 25. & as some think Dan 12. 7. The second degree was the victory of the jews against § De bello judaico lib. 1. Cap. 1. the forces of Antiochus Epiphanes, whereby they were expelled out of jewry & the testitution begun confirmed, which happened after 3. years and a half as josephus noteth, who also affirmeth that for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. joseph. de bell. long Antiochus had caused the daily sacrifice to cease, his words are these: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The term (as some think) Daniel Chapter. 12. verse 7. calleth a time and times 〈◊〉 ●…fe a time. The third degree, is the deadly sickness of Antiochus after his flight from Pers●…pons, at what time he promised all good things to the people of the jews. From the profanation to this Dan. 12. 11 time, Daniel reckoneth 1290. days: to his death which happened 45. days after, to wit, in the beginning of the year ●…49. he reckoneth 1335. days. Now whereas Bellarmine saith, that the term of antichrists reign shallbe 3. years & a half precisely, & saith that this term is expressed in the Apocalypse by 1260. days, and in Daniel by 1290. he seemed not to have been well advised: for 1290. are not 1260. nor 3. years and a half precisely: And therein he contradicteth himself, and maketh john in the same matter to be repugnant to Daniel. 3. As touching the places in the Apocalypse, it is hard to prove that the times mentioned in the 11. 12. and 13. chapters, be the same (which he must prove, or else by conference of these places he proveth nothing) and if they be the same (as indeed they are not) it will be as hard to define where we are to begin the account. But these two things may be affirmed. First, that all these times are not to be understood literally: And secondly, that none of them defineth the time of Antichrists reign. The 42. months in the 11. and 13. chapters signify the time of the persecution under the Roman Emperors either only or especially: for Chap. 11. v. 2. it is said that the Gentiles shall tread upon the holy city 42. months. But antichrist (as the Papists hold) shallbe the Prince of the jews and counterfeit Christians. And v. 7. it is said, that the beast which ariseth out of the deep (which being the same with that which is described chap. 13. 1. is the Roman state, especially as it was under the persecuting emperors) that this beast (I say) shall persecute the two witnesses of God, and their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great Cities whereby in the Apocalypse is meant Rome or the R. empire. And hereby also it appeareth that this term of 42. months mentioned in both places, is not literally to be understood. For the persecution under the Roman Emperors alone, endured so many Sabbaths of years, as there are months mentioned in those places, that is, 294. years, as Master Fox expoundeth it. Now if the other terms mentioned, chap. 11. and 12. of time and times and half a time, and of days 1260. be the same with the 42. months, as Bellarmine will needs have it; then by them is not signified Anchrists reign, neither are they to be understood literally, no more than the 42. months: but in the 11. chap. the time of the two witnesses preaching, during the time of the afore said persecution, and chap 12. the woman's, that is, the Churches living in the desert during the said time. Howbeit the speech of time and times and half a time may rather be understood (according to daniel's phrase) of three years and a half, wherein the Church of Vid. junium in Apo. 12. Christ which was at jerusalem, after it was admonished by a voice out of the sanctuary to departed, & accordingly removed to Pella, was sustained there. For in that place it is plain, that the holy Ghost speaketh not of Antichrist nor yet of the beast, but of the Serpent the devil, who seeketh the overthrow of the Church of Christ among the jews, & afterwards turneth his anger towards the rest of her seed, that is, the faithful among the Gentiles, and to that end standeth on the sea shore, from whence he raiseth the beast with seven heads, etc. 4. And further I add, that if these times mentioned in those places which Bellarmine allegeth, did signify the term of Antichrists 2 reign precisely, & were to be understood literally; them 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 Cap. 3. lib. 3. must needs grant, seeing he useth this as the chief argument against those which by 1260. days understand so many years. Again it is incredible, if not impossible, that so many & so great 3. things as they assign to Antichrist, should be effected & brought to pass in so short a time; as Hentenius a learned Papist doth confess, and as hath been showed heretofore. For this is an error depending In praesat. translat. Arcth●…. upon the former, concerning the person of Antichrist, & presupposing that Antichrist is but one man. And therefore when 4 we proved that Antichrist is not any one man alone, but a whole state and succession of men, we proved this by consequence, that his reign was not to continue only three years and a half. And again Antichrist, according to the conceit of the Papists, is to 5 reign before the preaching of the two witnesses, and as Bellarmine faith, is to continue 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 Antichrists reign be three years and a half precisely? Lastly 6 the Scriptures plainly testify, that the Antichrist which is to be destroyed at the second coming of Christ, was come even in the Apostles time, although he was not revealed by exercising openly a sovereign & universal dominion, until that which hindered, that is, the Roman Empire was taken out of the way. But after the Empire was once dissolved in the West, and the Emperor of the East had lost his right in Italy and Rome, that is, when that which hindered was taken out of the way, then according to the prophecy, 2. Thes. 2. 8. was Antichrist revealed, succeeding the Emperor in the government of Rome, and claiming an universal authority, first spiritual, over the whole Church in the year 607. & after temporal, over the whole world, & advancing himself above all that is called God: all which we have heretofore proved to have been done in the Papacy, above three years and a half ago, yea above so many hundred years ago; so that we shall not need to expect another Antichrist, who is to reign three years and a half. And thus you have heard not only Bellarmine's allegations answered, but also his assertion confuted. 5 Now let us see what Bellarmine can reply either against our assertion in general, or against the expositions of some protestants in particular. For whereas we generally affirm, notwithstanding his allegations aforesaid, that Antichrist hath already ruled in the Church almost a thousand years, Bellarmine besides the slender conjectures of divers of the fathers grounded on such prophecies of Scriptures as they could not understand, which are his first argument, he produceth six other reasons, no less easy to be answered. His second argument is, because the scriptures say that the time of the devils losing, and Antichrists reigning is brevissimum, very short, or most short: But how can that be true if Antichrist shall reign a thousand years or more? For that which he speaketh of 1260. years, is the private opinion of some of which shall be touched afterwards. I answer, that the Scriptures no where say that Antichrists reign, or that the time Apo. 17. 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apo. 12. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apo. 20 vers. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. of the devil loosed is Brevissimum, that is, most short, but only that it is short or small, which we do acknowledge. Let us then weigh his argument, which may be resolved into two syllogisms: the former, A thousand years or more is not a short time: Antichrists reign is a short time: therefore Antichrists reign is not a thousand years or more. First to the proposition I answer, that a thousand years unto the Lord (who speaketh in the Scriptures) is a short time. The Apostle Peter expressly saith, that a thousand years with the Lord 2. Pet. 3. 8. are but as one day. Yea, and the whole time from the ascension of Christ until his coming to judgement, is often noted in the Scriptures to be a short time, and in one place it is called the last hour. And likewise above 1500. years ago, it was promised, 1. joh. 2. 18 that the prophecies concerning the destruction of Antichrist, the second coming of Christ, & end of the world, should within a short time be fulfilled. To the assumption I answer, that although the time of Antichrists tyranny seem to belong to them that Apoc. 1. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ap. 22. 10. 12. 20. Heb. 10. 37 are exercised thereby; yet it is but short in comparison of that time which they shall reign with Christ, and is so called; Apoc. 17. 10. But yet nothing so short as Bellarmine imagineth. This therefore he proveth in the second Syllogism: The time of Satan loosed is very short: the term of Antichrists reign is the time of Satan loosed: therefore the term of Antichrists reign is very short. The proposition he proveth by two places in the Apocalypse, which affirm his time to be short, but yet nothing so short as the Papists imagine: for in the former place, Chap. 12. 12. he is said to have but a short time, before he persecuted the Church of Christ among the jews, which was above 1500. years ago. And in the latter place, Chap. 20. 3. it is said that he should be let lose for a small time: but this small time beginneth at the expiration of the thousand years wherein he had been bound, and continueth until the time that he shallbe cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, in the end of the world. Now the thousand years were expired many hundred years ago, as hath been showed. But although the time of Antichrists reign be called short, yet is it not so short as the time of Satan loosed: and therefore the assumption is false: For howsoever the thousand years expire in the time of Antichrists reign, yet we are not to begin the reign of Antichrist with the losing of Satan. For within the thousand years of Satan's imprisonment, Antichrist not only Apoc. 20. 4. was, but also persecuted those that refused his mark: and yet we are not to confound the time of his persecution, much less of his hottest persecution, with the time of his continuance. Now the time of the devil loosed, as the Papists teach, is the time of Antichrists most grievous persecution, which was a consequent of men's refusing his mark, & that a fruit of his discovery & acknowledgement: but he was not acknowledged until he came to his full growth, whereunto he attained not at the first. And it is to be thought that the heat of his persecution willbe slaked before his end, himself being consumed and wasted by the spirit of Christ's 2. Thes. 2. 8. mouth, & his See impoverished, if not overthrown by the kings of the earth, which before the end of the world, shall not only hate the whore of Babylon (the Pope's concubine) but also shall make her Apo. 17. 1●…. desolate & naked, & shall eat her flesh, & her they shall burn with fire. 6. Thirdly, he argueth from Math. 24. 21. mistaken by some of the fathers, that unless those days (meaning of Antichrists persecution) should be shortened, and consequently the persecution very short, no flesh could be saved: but how can it be very short if it shall continue a thousand years? I answer, first, that the tribulation there spoken of, is to be understood of the calamities of the jews in the siege of jerusalem, as I have manifestly proved: And secondly, that we are to distinguish betwixt the time of Antichrists continuance, and the time of his hottest persecution, which Bellarmine confoundeth; the latter notwithstanding being much shorter than the former. Fourthly (saith he) Christ preached only three years and a half, therefore decet etiam, it is also fit, that Antichrist be suffered to preach no longer. Answer, 1. In this argument Bellarmine presupposeth that Antichrist is but one man, as Christ is, which we have proved to be most false. 2. he taketh upon him to be the Lords counsellor, avouching that it is not fit that Antichrist should preachlonger then Christ did: he might have added that it was not fit, or to speak more fitly, not like that Antichrist in the same time should be able to prevail with more than Christ did, & much less to pervert almost the whole world in three years and a half; whereas Christ as he was man, could convert but a few of the jews, etc. 3. Although Christ in his own person preached but a few years; yet he being the eternal word and wisdom of his father, hath ever since the beginning spoken by the mouth of his Prophets & ministers, by whose ministery also as it were the breath of his mouth, he shall waste and consume Antichrist. 4. Neither can it be proved by any show of reason, that Antichrist is to preach just so many years, as Christ our Saviour did: Or that he shall in three years and an half subdue by force, I know not how many kingdoms, & convert by preaching, & gather to himself the remnant of the jews, and all counterfeit Christians, dispersed through so many nations, as a man cannot travel through in three years and a half: not to speak of his repairing jerusalem, & erecting the temple, and many good morrows, which by many poetical fictions the Papists assign to their devised Antichrist. His fift and sixth reasons are not worth the mentioning. For the time and times, and half a time, as hath been showed, belong not to Antchrists reign, and thereby we understand 3, years & a half, as also by the 7. times, Dan. 4. 19 in the 4. of Daniel, 7. years, according to the interpretation of the holy Ghost (expounding, as it seemeth) times by years. Dan. 11. 13. 7. In the last place he laboureth to take away the exceptions which some particular man, as namely, Chytraeus, Bullinger, & the authors of the Centuries, make against his former allegations out of Daniel & the Apocalypse, but scarcely toucheth any one of the 6 exceptions before mentioned. For whereas Chytraus answereth, §. 3. & 4. that the 42. months in the 11. and 13. of the Apoc. may not be understood literally for three years and a half, because it is contrary to experience: and besides the Apostle affirmeth that Antichrist shall continue until Christ's coming. Bellarmine replieth, that he beggeth the question. But I answer again as before, that experience showeth that the persecutions under the beast with 7 heads, continued longer than three years and a half: & when as john affirmeth that the Antichrist was come in his time, & Paul foretelleth, that he should after a sort continue (though at the last in a kind of consumption) unto the second coming of Christ, surely their meaning was, that he should continue above three years and a half. 2. He findeth fault with him & Bullinger, who thought that the holy ghost mentioning 42. months & 1260. days, by a certain time, meant an uncertain; replying that the number which is meant, is certain, when it consisteth of great & small numbers mixed. But they speak of the time, and he of the number, and therefore his reprehension is unjust. For although the holy ghost do mean no other number then 42, and 1260, yet by the certain time mentioned, that is, months & days, he meaneth an uncertain, which may be as some think 42. sabbaths of years, and 1260 years. And thirdly, whereas Illyricus, and the other authors of the Centuries by 1260. days, understand so many years; Bellarmine denieth that days are put for years any where in the scripture, and yet cannot deny, but that by 390. days in Ezechiel, is Ezec. 4. 5. 6 meant 390. years, and by 40. days so many years, a day for a year, as the holy ghost speaketh. And likewise Apoc. 2. 10. by ten Vid. jun. in Apoc. 2. days is meant 10. years, as some of the learned think. Indeed if any shall by 1260 days, understand (as Bellarmine doth) the just time of Antichrists reign, and withal expound them either by 1260. years, as Bellarmine chargeth some, or by three years and Cap. 3. a half, as the Papists do; they may be refuted by the reason before alleged, because after the revelation of Antichrist the special time of Christ's coming may according to this exposition be foretold, which notwithstanding shall not come by observation, but suddenly, neither shall precisely be foreknown, as being known only to the Lord. The 9 Chapter: answering his sixth demonstration concerning the end of the world. 1. THe sixth and last demonstration, to prove that Antichrist is not yet come, is taken from the end of the world. But because Bellarmine saw that this could not be made a sign of Antichrists coming without absurdity (for it is absurd thus to reason, the world hath not yet an end, therefore Antichrist is not yet come) therefore he changeth the question. For whereas he propounded this question to be concluded, that Antichrist is not yet come, he concludeth that he came not long since. So that for all this demonstration Antichrist may already be come, although perhaps not so long since, as some do imagine: But let us see how he proveth that he was not come long since. If Antichrist were come long since, then also the world long since should have had an end: but the world hath not yet an end, therefore Antichrist was not come long since. The proposition he proveth, because Antichrist cometh a very little while before the end of the world, and as it were immediately before the second coming of Christ But this whole demonstration may easily be refuted by this one distinction: for we must distinguish betwixt the coming of Antichrist and his death, betwixt his beginning and his end. Antichrist indeed is not utterly to be destroyed before the second coming of Christ: but this doth not prove that therefore he was not come long since. The Apostle Paul doth tell us that Antichrist is to be destroyed at the second coming of Christ: notwithstanding both he doth insinuate and john plainly professeth that the Antichrist which they had heard was to come in the last hour, was already come in his time: and thereupon inferreth that even than was the last hour or age of the world, which the holy ghost calleth an hour, that we should not think it long. 2. Now all the testimonies which Bellarmine allegeth, if they were to be understood of Antichrist (as indeed few of them are) do serve to prove, that the destruction of Antichrist shallbe in the end of the world, which we do freely confess. But of these places, as some make not for him so the rest are against him. The 7. of Daniel verse. 8. 9 26. Apoc. 20 4. Mat. 24. 14. are altogether impertinent. For Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist or the last judgement, but of Antiochus and God's judgements on the Seleucidae: john speaketh not of the coming of Antichrist o●… last judgement, but of the binding and losing of Satan, and seats of judgement erected for the faithful, as Augustine also expoundeth: Christ in that place of Mat. speaketh not a word of De civit. Dei. lib. 20. cap. 〈◊〉 Antichrists coming or of the end of the world, but of the preaching of the gospel before the destruction of jerusalem. The rest of the places make against him, & as he allegeth them, against the truth. For first Daniel 12. 12. Where Daniel (saith Bellarmine) after he had said that the kingdom of Antichrist should continue 1290. days, addeth, Blessed is he that expecteth and cometh to 1335. days. From whence the Papists would infer, that Antichrist having reigned three years & a half, should be destroyed forty five days before the day of judgement. This place as I have proved, is to be understood of Antiochus. But suppose it spoke of Antichrists reign, and end of the world, see what would follow thereof. First, that the reign of Antichrist is not three years and a half precisely, or 1260. days; but 1290. days. Secondly, that Antichrist shallbe destroyed before the end of the world, whereas Paid telleth us, that Christ shall destroy him at his appearing, 2. Thes. 2. 〈◊〉 and not 45. days before. Thirdly, than so soon as Antichrist is revealed, men shallbe able certainly and distinctly to foretell the very day of judgement, to wit, the 1335. after Antichrists coming, and 45. after his death: which Christ denieth Math. 24▪ 36. And lastly, if this were true, then after the coming, or at least after the death of Antichrist, all men would be in expectation of Christ's second coming. And therefore those days will not be (as Christ saith) like the days of Noah: neither will his Ma●…. 24. 37 38. 39 coming be sudden & unlooked for, as himself saith Mat. 24 if the very day of his coming be known before hand, & accordingly Mat 24. 44 1. Thes. 5. 2. 3. looked for. But let Christ be true, and all Papists liars. 3. 2. Mat. 24. 29 Shortly after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened, etc. In this chapter of Matthew our Saviour speaketh not at all of Antichrist until the 23. & 24. verse, which divers of the Fathers, yea and the Papists themselves understand as spoken of Antichrist. There shall arise false Christ's, and false Pr●…phets, and they shall work great signs & wonders, etc. From whence it appeareth, that Antichrist is not one only man, as Bellarmine saith, & that the signs of Christ's coming are to follow the tribulations under Antichrist, which we do confess. 3. 2. Thes. 2. 8. And then shall that outlaw be revealed, whom the Lord jesus shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, etc. Whence Bellarmine would prove that the second coming of Christ shall follow very shortly after the coming of Antichrist. But we must distinguish betwixt the first coming of Antichrist, and his revelation and acknowledgement. And it cannot be denied, but 〈◊〉 there is a great distance betwixt his revelation, and destruction. For he w●… to be revealed as the Apostle saith, when that which hindered was taken out of the way, which we have proved to have been done many hundred years since: and consequently that Antichrist appeared long since, howsoever he shall not utterly be destroyed until the second coming of Christ. And lastly, we are to distinguish betwixt Christ's consuming him with the spirit of his mouth, and his utter destroying him at his glorious appearance. There are therefore these degrees to be noted betwixt the first coming of Antichrist and his destruction. For after he is come, he showeth himself in his colours, and that by degrees, more & more advancing himself, until he come to his full pitch & height of his Antichristian pride. After he is come to his height, he is acknowledged, and that by degrees: after he is acknowledged, Christ consumeth him by the spirit of his mouth, that is, by the preaching of the everlasting gospel, Apo. 14. 6. 7. After which followeth the destruction of Babylon, that is, Rome, Apoc. 14. 8. effected and brought to pass by the Kings of the earth, who assisted the beast until Christ laid him open & consumed him with the breath of his mouth: & after that in the last place followeth the utter destruction of Antichrist at the second coming of Christ. 4. Lastly, 1. joh. 2. 18. Children, this is the last hour, and as you have heard that Antichrist co●…meth, etc. Where Bellarmine maketh the Apostle reason thus, We know Antichrist shall come in the end of the world, and now we see many petite Antichrists, as it were his forerunners: therefore we know that this is the last hour and age of the world. But if this reason of Bellarmine's framing were good, we might upon his former grounds conclude thus. At the fullness of time, Christ was to come: But ever since the beginning there have been Patriarches & Prophets, which Bellarmine calleth the forerunners of Christ; therefore the fullness of time hath been ever since the beginning. But whether shall we say that Bellarmine is so ignorant that he knoweth not how to make a syllogism, or so shameless as to make the Apostle argue sophistically. The Apostles reason is this, When the Antichrist cometh it is the last hour: Now (saith he) Antichrists are come, (meaning by Antichrists the same with the 〈◊〉. john. 4. 3. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 7. antichrist, which else where he affirmeth was then entered into the world, or else there are 4. termini four terms in th'Apostles argument) therefore now is the last hour. And if then were the hour of Antichrist his coming, what reason have the Papists to restrain his coming, until three years & a half before the end of the world? And thus, as you see, Bellarmine's allegations are either altogether impertinent, or else against himself. 4. But as I said before, suppose they all spoke of the day of judgement, & end of the world following upon Antichrist: yet none of them joineth the end of the world with his coming & birth, but with his death & destruction. And the like may be said of his allegation from the common consent of the fathers & confession of his adversaries, For our adversaries (saith he) confess, that Antichrist shall reign (we say he shall continue) unto the end of the world: & therefore sh●…rtly after his death shallbe the end of the world. Yea we further confess, that his destruction shall concur with the consummation of the world: for Christ at his coming shall destroy him▪ But this proveth not that his coming shallbe within three years & a half before the end of the world. For john saith, He was come in his time, & Paul saith, he should be revealed, when that which hindered was done out of the way, which was done many hundred years ago. Therefore though his end concur with the end of the world, yet there shall be a greater distance than Bellarmine imagineth, betwixt his coming and the end of the world. This Bellarmine foreseeing, perceived very well, that i●… this demonstration by itself alone, there is no force at all. And therefore he joineth it with the fift, of both which together he saith, an unanswerable demonstration may be made, to prove that Antichrist is not yet come, & that the Pope is not Antichrist. For, saith he, if presently after the death of Antichrist the world shall have an end, and Antichrist shall die, after he hath reigned but three years & a half; than it followeth, that Antichrist shall not appear nor begin ●…o reign till within 3. years & a half before the end of the world. But the Pope hath reigned longer than 3. years & an half, and yet the world continueth, therefore the Pope is not antichrist. The vanity of the former demonstration which is made the ground of the last, I have sufficiently showed before: & therefore that which is said of two ciphers in ciphering, the same may be said of these two demonstrations joined together, that nought to nought makes nought. For now I will not stand to tell you, how the three years and a half which in the former demonstration were 1260. days precisely, are now grown to 1335. days. For Antichrist shall not begin to reign, saith Bellarmine, until within three years and a half before the end, and yet from the beginning of his reign, until the end of the world, shall be 1335. days; so that in Bellermines precise account of half a year, 75. days, that is 10. weeks, and 5. days are nothing. Thus have we answered these six demonstrations, which we have showed to have been far from proving demonstratively, either that Antichrist is not yet come, or that the Pope is not Antichrist. Wherefore to conclude, if the Papists demonstrations in so weighty a cause, whereupon all Popery dependeth, be such trifling trumpery, as is scarce worth the answering, what shall we think be their ordinary arguments in other causes of less importance. And this was his third principal argument, wherein he hath spent seven whole chapters. The 10. Chapter: Concerning the name of Antichrist. 1. NOw followeth his fourth disputation concerning the name & mark of Antichrist. From the name he fetcheth this unanswerable argument, as he calleth it. If the Insolubile argumentum. name of Antichrist spoken of Apoc. 13. be yet unknown, then is not Antichrist as yet come; and consequently the Pope is not Antichrist: But Antichrists name spoken of Apoc. 13. is yet unknown: therefore Antichrist is not yet come, etc. Of this unanswerable argument, there is no part sound, as shall appear. The proposition he proveth, because when Antichrist is once come, his name shallbe c●…only known. Which he proveth first by a similitude: As Notissimum. Christ's name before his coming was unknown, although the Prophets had foretold many things concerning Christ, and Sibylla had prophesied that his name should contain 888. but after he was once come, all men know that his name is jesus: so although before Antichrists coming his name be unknown, yet after he is once come there will be no more question what his name is, then of the name of Christ, which all even Turks and jews and Pagans know to be jesus. Secondly, from a common adjunct of all prophecies, to be doubtful and obscure, until they be fulfilled, as Irenaeus teacheth and proveth, Lib. 4 Chap. 43. For answer, first I deny the proposition, and the Hypothesis whereupon it is grounded, & contrariwise affirm that the name of Antichrist, meaning the name which Antichrist shall impose upon men, spoken of Apoc. 13. might be unknown for a time, yea was to be unknown for a long time after his coming. For the name of Antichrist cannot be known as the name of Antichrist, until Antichrist himself be known and acknowledged. But Antichrist himself was not commonly to be known & acknowledged 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. First therefore the mystery of iniquity was to work secretly to the seducing of many: afterwards, Antichrist was to be revealed, first, by his manifest appearing and showing himself more plainly and openly; after by his acknowledgement: whereof also there are degrees; first by some particularly; secondly, by whole Churches generally; and yet never in this world to be acknowledged of those, that receive and retain his mark. Again, the name of Antichrist is a mystery, & Antichristianisme is a mystery of iniquity, In the whore of Babylon's forehead In Apoc. 17 5. is written a mystery. And so far is it from the understanding of all to tell the name of the beast, that the holy Ghost speaking of this name, saith, Here is wisdom, he that hath understanding, let him reckon the number of the beast, meaning the number of his name. Apoc. 13. 18. 2. In the similitude taken from Christ, there is no liken: howbeit Be●…armine taketh great felicity in comparing Christ with Antichrist. Christ as he was one particular man, so at the time of his circumcision a proper name was given unto him: Antichrist as he Luke. 2. 21. is not one particular person (as hath been proved) but a state, could not have a proper name given unto him. And accordingly it is said to be the name of the beast, which beast as hath been showed, signifieth not one particular man, but a whole state. Again, Christ coming to save, his name jesus the name of the Saviour was t●… be made known, that he might the rather be embraced: Antichrist coming to deceive & to destroy, was (according to his devilish policy) to conceal that name whereby he should be known to be Antichrist, lest being known he should be forsaken of all. And as touching S●…bylla, she did not only foretell that the name of Christ should contain the number 888. as indeed the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, jesus doth: but also setteth down certain Acrostiches, that is, verses, the first letters whereof contain this sentence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, jesus Christ the son of God the Saviour, which are also cited by Augustine. But of antichrist she speaketh nothing De civit. dei. lib. 18. Chap. 23. so plainly. Howbeit she plainly calleth Rome Babylon, as john doth and in the 8. book describing antichrist, as some think, she saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. that is: There shallbe a Prince with many heads (which is to be understood either by a metonymy for his triple crown, or by a Synecdoche for the succession of Popes) having a name near to Ponti, that is, Pontifex the Pope. But to return to my purpose. By this which hath been said, you plainly see that there is no similitude betwixt Christ and antichrist in this behalf, Christ having a proper name; but Antichrist having none, & withal you have heard reasons why Christ's name should be well known, whereas Antichrists was to be obscure and for a long time unknown, or at the least not acknowledged. 3 His other proof touching the obscurity of prophecies before they are fulfilled, proveth nothing for him, unless he add, that as before their fulfilling they are very obscure, so also after their fulfilling they are very plain: which after indeed he addeth in the end of the chapter, Siquidem omnia vaticin●…a (saith he) cum implet●… sunt, clarissima officiuntur, for all prophecies when th●…y are fulfilled become most clear. I answer, that although they become more clear after then before, yet many times they remain dark & obscure to very many. As appeareth in the prophecies of the scripture fulfilled in Christ, but not yet understood of the jews, nor acknowledged to have been verified in Christ. And even as the prophecies concerning Christ are by true Christians easily understood; howbeit to jews & infidels they remain dark & obscure, because the God of this world hath blinded their eyes, that they should not see the shining light of the Gospel: so also the prophecies concerning Antichrist, which already are fulfilled in the Papacy, howsoever many of them are plainly understood of the true professors; yet to the followers of Antichrist, whom God hath given over to strong illusions, that they may believe lies, they seem to be dark & obscure, and not as yet fulfilled. Notwithstanding the former part of his assertion we do embrace: that prophecies until they be fulfilled are (for the most part) dark and ambiguous, and herein with Bellarmine we approve Irenaeus his judgement. But hereupon we infer, that therefore the writings of the fathers, who living before the revelation of Antichrist, & expounding the prophecies concerning Antichrist, were most uncertain guesses (as Sed nec isti patres volverunt sententias illas suas, alio loco haberi, quam suspicionum & coniecturarum. Bellarmine. Lib. 5. Bellarmine even in this chapter confesseth) the prophecies being to them dark and ambiguous, which now since the fulfilling thereof have been more plain and perspicuous: & therefore that it is no arrogancy in us which see the event agreeing with the prophecy, to take upon us to expound divers prophecies concerning Antichrist, the true understanding whereof was hid from the fathers. For if God would have had them plainly known before their fulfilling, surely he would have made them known by those his servants th'apostles by whom they were delivered. And so Irenaeus saith, that he would not take upon him certainly to define what this name should be, Scientes (saith he) quoniam si operteret manifest praesenti tempore praeconari nomen eius, per ipsum utique editum fuisset, quiet Apocalypsin viderat, Knowing that if this name ought in these times to be published, it should no doubt have been declared by him, to whom the revelation was given. Likewise Andreas the Bishop of Caesarea, The exact account (saith he) and computation of the number, and likewise Apud. Aretham in Apocalpys. all other things which are written of Antichrist, opportunity of time and experience shall make manifest to them that are vigilant. For as some of the doctors say, if it were necessary that this name should manifestly be known before hand, it should have been revealed by john himself. 4. Now let us come to his assumption, where he affirmeth that Antichrists name is yet unknown. We confess that in the Church of Rome this name is either not known as of the ignorant, or not acknowledged as of the obstinate: But in the true Church of God, as Antichrist himself is known, so is this name acknowledged. But let us hear Bellarmine's disputation proving this assumption. Fatentur omnes (saith he in the beginning of the chapter) pertinere omninò ad Antichristum verba illa joannis, Apoc. 13. All men do confess that those words of john Apoc. 13. do wholly belong to Antichrist. And he shall make all both small and great, rich and Apoc. 13. 16. 17. 18. poor, free and bond, to receive from him a mark in their right hand or in their forehead; and that none should buy or sell, unless he have the mark or name of the beast or number of his name. Here is wisdom: he that hath understanding let him reckon the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666. Now▪ concerning this number saith he, there are many opinions. The first of those who think that by this number is signified the time of Antichrists coming, etc. But this opinion we do with Bellarmine reject, because it is called the number of his name, and not of the time; and also because Antichrist shall compel all sorts of men to take his name, and the number of his name; which cannot be understood of the time. Thirdly, because Irenaeus reporteth from those who had seen john face to face, that the name of the beast shall according to the computation of the Greeks' by letters which are in it, contain 666. The second opinion is of those who think Antichrists name to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which we will speak anon in his due place. The third opinion is of many Papists who think that his name shallbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thereby understanding an adversary, but that is not a name that he shall assume to himself, or impose upon others, but a name rather given him of his adversaries. Neither is it the name of the beast here spoken of. The fourth of Rupertus, who imagined that by this threefold number 666. is signified, the threefold prevarication of Satan: first in himself; secondly, in our first parents; thirdly in Antichrist. The fift of Beda, who supposeth that it is a number of perfection, which Antichrist shall challenge unto himself. But these three opinions Bellarmine re●…ecteth, and that worthily. For first, the holy Ghost saith it is the number of the name of the beast: and secondly, this name & number of it, Antichrist causeth men to take upon them. The sixth opinion, wherein he resteth as the most true, is theirs which confess their ignorance, and profess that this name is not yet known. 5. To these opinions many more might be added, but to make short work: the last of these opinions is Bellarmine's: the second is ours: therefore let us consider how he proveth his own opinion, and disproveth ours. That this name is unknown, Bellarmine would prove by the authority of Irenaeus, as if he should have said, This name was not certainly known in Irenaeus his time; therefore not in our time. I deny the consequence, Irenaeus lived before the fulfilling of this prophecy, as himself professeth & as the truth is: for he lived above 1400. Non ante mul'um temporis, pene sub nostro saeculo. Iren. Lib. 5. years ago: and as himself saith, the revelation was given to john but a little before his age. For it was given in the end of the first Century, and he lived in the second, and therefore it is more safe (saith he) to wait for the fulfilling of this prophecy, then before hand to determine any thing. For if the Lord would have had this name known in Irenaeus his time, he would have made it known by john himself, to whom the revelation was given. But as before the fulfilling of this prophecy, he saith, this name was very obscure; so he signifieth, that after the fulfilling it should be more plain. And therefore that which he could but guess at in his time, we may now define, time having revealed that truth, which until the prophecy was cleared by the event lay hid: otherwise it shall be lawful for men to reason from the authority of Irenaeus, as Bellarmine doth, even unto the end of the world. But may we then reason thus: this name was not known in Irenaeus his time, therefore it shall never be known? to what end was this prophecy given, if it shall never be understood? Whereas therefore he useth the arguments whereby Irenaeus proveth, that this name could not be known in his time, to prove that it cannot be known in our time, he is ridiculous. There are many names, saith Irenaeus, that have this number, therefore it is heard before hand to tell which is this name. Again, if in Irenaeus his time God would have this known, he would have revealed it by john. 3. It is dangerous to define before hand his name, for missing of his name we shall not know him when he cometh, and therefore shall be in the more danger to be decoived by him. All this we grant. But will Bellarmine needs be so ridiculous, as to conclude: In Irenaeus his time men were not able to tell which of those names that contain the number 666 is the name of the beast, therefore 1400. years after none shall be able to tell. God would not have it known in Irenaeus his time, therefore he will not have it known now. It was dangerous then before the fulfilling of the prephecie, to define what this name should be: therefore it is dangerous now, when the prophecy is expounded by the event, to apply the one to the other? And what doth he infer hereupon? Therefore no doubt the Protestants, who think the Pope to be Antichrist, shallbe deceived of the true Antichrist, when he cometh. But blessed be God that hath already revealed unto us the true Antichrist, that knowing him we might avoid him: whereas upon the Papists he hath sent strong illusions, that they may believe lies, because they loved not the truth that they might be saved, 2. Thes. 2. 11. 6. Again he proveth this name not to be known, because there is great controversy about it, what it should be. But by the same reason he may conclude that few points of religion are yet known, because there be few concerning which there is no controversy. Notwithstanding as in other controversies, the truth is known of those which are Orthodoxal, howsoever others will not acknowledge it: so I doubt not, but that the truth in this matter is known, although some cannot, and others will not, as yet see it. For seeing the hardest matter in this mystery is known, it is not to be thought that the easier is hid or unknown, especially seeing the knowledge of the one maketh the other evident. The chief thing here to be considered is, what this beast is. For if the beast be known, it will not be hard to tell what his name is, especially if the number of the name be 666. The beast, as appeareth by the whole context, is, as I have showed, the former beast, which without doubt figureth the Roman or Latin state. The name of this beast is Roman or Latin. If therefore this name in the learned tongues contain the number 666. and be such a name, as he to whom all other notes of Antichrist do agree, shall enforce men to take upon them; then without doubt this is the name where of the holy Ghost speaketh: but these properties agree to the name Latin or Roman. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Hebrew (signifying Roman) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, signifying Latin, and Romanus in Hebrew Characters, do contain the just number 666. and are beside such names as Antichrist compelleth all men to take upon them, as hath been showed heretofore. See. Lib. 1. Chap. 8. 7. But let us see what Bellarmine objecteth, against this truth. Of those many reasons which we do use, Bellarmine maketh choice of two, as being the easiest to answer, as his manner is; and against them he argueth, namely, the conjecture of Irenaeus, and the agreement of the number. But besides these, we produce three other arguments, as you have heard, which together with Lib. 1. c. 〈◊〉. these make the matter evident. It is true indeed that Irenaeus besides Latinus, produceth two other names, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and seemeth to prefer the latter of these before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But we build not upon Irenaeus his authority, but upon those reasons, whereon 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: the other, because it containeth 666: his words be these. But the name Lateinos also comprehendeth the number 666. et valde verisimile est, and it is very likely. For it is the name of that which most truly is called the kingdom. For they are the Latins that now reign. Which in effect is as much as if he had said, this name is very likely, because it is a name containing 666. and is the name of the former beast, spoken of Apoc. 13. 1. which figureth verissimum regnum, that kingdom which most truly is called a kingdom, that is the Latin or Roman state. Yea but this conjecture saith Bellarmine, which in Irenaeus his time was of some force, now it is nothing worth: for then the Latins bore the sway, now they do not. For Antichrist as he shall be Potentissimus Rex, 〈◊〉 most mighty king; so without doubt he shall seize upon the most mighty kingdoms. Whereas therefore the kingdom of the Latins was in those times most mighty, but now otherwise; there was some likelihood then, that he might by subduing them be called Latinuses, but now there is no such probability. I answer, the name whereof john speaketh is not the name of Antichrist properly the second beast, but the name of the former beast; which name of the former beast, Antichrist the second beast causeth men to take upon them. And so Latinus, is not the name of Antichrist properly, but of the beast, that is, the Latin or Roman state. Neither was it Irenaeus his meaning, that the name of the beast is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because Antichrist was to subdue the Latins, but because the Latins then had Verissimum regnum, the most true and sovereign kingdom: and therefore most truly were the beast described Apoc. 13. 7. If therefore the Latins then had the greatest kingdom, and were the beast whose authority the second beast, that is, Antichrist was to take upon him, Apoc. 13. 12. this conjecture that the name of the bea●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was probable before the prophecy was fulfilled, Apo. 13. 12 is now more than probable, the prophecy being verified in the event. And the decay or rather dissolution of the Latin or Roman Empire, before which Antichrist was not to be revealed, is so far from making this conjecture less probable, that it rather confirmeth it. Neither do we read in the Scriptures that Antichrist should be a most mighty King, or should seize upon the most mighty kingdoms: only this we read, that he should exercise the power of the former beast, which most fitly agreeth to the Pope. 2 As touching the agreement of the number 666. Bellarmine objecteth, first, that the number agreeth not with the names propounded: and secondly, although it did, yet it followeth not, that any of these is the name of the beast. That the number agreeth not he showeth, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if it be written with a simple jota as it ought to be, it wanteth five of that number. I answer, that the ancient Latins used to write and pronounce i long by ei diphthong; and the Grecians usually express i long by ei. And it is to be observed, that Irenaeus setting down these two names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as containing the number 666, taketh it for granted, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may so be written: whereas of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith, that it maketh that number, if it be written writhe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diphthong. Against the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Roman, he objecteth, that it is not masculine, unless the last letter signifying 400. be taken away. I answer that collective names in Hebrew are indifferently expressed in either gender. And suppose the name were feminine, yet that hindereth not, but that it may be the name here spoken of. For the Holy-ghost speaketh of the name of the beast, that is, the Roman state, which elsewhere is called the whore of Babylon, and foemina, a woman: And therefore well may the name be feminine. But although the number agreed (saith Bellarmine) yet i●… followeth not, that either Roman or Latin should be the name. First, because neither of them is his proper name, but common. Neither ought it, seeing it is the name of the beast, which signifieth a whole state. Secondly, because many other ●…es make this number: And therefore it followeth not that any of these is the name here spoken of, because they contain the number 666. For divers Authors have noted divers other names, as Hippolytus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which indeed maketh not that number, but rather proveth the author (alleging 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to be counterfeit; neither is it a Noun, and much less a name) Aretas, seven others, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which maketh not that number,) but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 barbarous) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Primasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rupertus and Haymo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Pic●…x. Unto these he addeth out of lying Lindanus, Martin Laver (for Luther) in Latin letters, taken (as they never were) for numbers, after the manner of the Greek: out of G●…ebrard Lithers name in Hebrew, viz Lultor: to which Bellarmine in his wisdom addeth, Dabid Chitreiu, for David Chytreus, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Saxon, to signify Luther: Which latter names show the Papists to be fraught with malice and void of judgement, forcing these men's names, as they might their own, to this purpose. But we answer, that although there are many names which contain 666. yet notwithstanding, 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. Consider therefore with what conscience Bellarmine would persuade us, that any of these may be the name here spoken of, as well as Latin or Roman: Seeing first, either of these is the name of the beast, whereas none of those is or can be. Secondly, seeing those are such names as Antichrist will not cause men to take upon them; whereas the Pope (whom we have proved to be Antichrist) enforceth either of these names upon men, suffering none to buy or sell, or to live among them, unless he profess himself to be a Roman or Latin in respect of his religion. And thirdly, whereas these names agree fitly to him, to whom all other marks of Antichrist agree, many of those do not; and those which do, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an evil guide, which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agreeth to the Pope, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. yet cannot be this name, for the reasons before alleged. And thus I hope this Gordian knot is untied, and this unanswerable argument answered by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The name of the beast is not yet known, therefore (saith he) Antichrist is not yet come. I answer, although the name were unknown, yet might Antichrist become. But now the name of the beast is known: how far then is Billarmine from proving by this argument, that Antichrist is not yet come? The 11. Chapter: Concerning the mark, which Antichrist shall impose upon men. 1. COncerning the mark of Antichrist, Bellarmnine reciteth three opinions, unto which he addeth a fourth of his own coining. The first of the Protestants, who teach that the mark of Antichrist is some ●…ne of obedience and conjunction with the Pope. The second opinion is of some Catholic Papists, who think this mark to be the letters of Antichrists name. The third of Hippolytus, and some others, who imagine that this mark of the beast is, not to use the sign of the cross, but rather to detest and 〈◊〉 it. The first opinion viz of the Protestants, he detesteth as r●…sh and ●…irde: The second of the Catholics, he rejecteth as false, which he signifieth when he saith, they were deceived. The third he would willingly embrace, because it seemeth to make against us; but the author is counterfeit, and his testimony falsified by Bellarmine. And although indeed he do reject it, as he might well, because it is absurd●… to feign a privative mark, as if the not using of some mark, were the mark whereof the Holy-ghost speaketh: yet he affirmeth, (such is his blind malice) that herein we are notable forerunners of Antichrist. In the fourth place he addeth his own conceit, that Antichrist shall invent a positive or real mark, which as yet is not known: whereby as he would overthrow all the former opinions, so especially he confuteth the last. From whence notwithstanding, as if it were true, he would feign infer that we are the forerunners of Antichrist. And this opinion he doth confute by two reasons. First, because the mark must be positive; and secondly, because it is as yet unknown. And this is the sum and effect of his whole eleventh Chapter. But what of all this? or whereunto doth all this discourse tend? You will say, to prove that the Pope is not Antichrist. He had indeed propounded that question to prove, but in this Chapter he concludeth nothing for the Pope. Only he telleth us, that there be three opinions concerning the mark, and to them he addeth a fourth of his own, and there an end. Other Papists when they handle this argument, reason thus: Antichrist shall compel men to take the mark of the beast; the Pope doth not compel men to take the mark of the beast. Therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. Which argument if he had used, and had also made good the assumption, he should have said something to the purpose. But Bellarmine concludeth no such matter, Nec enim a●…sus est, nec potuit. For well doth he know, that from this mark of the beast we conclude the affirmative, namely, that the Pope is Antichrist. 2. How then doth he argue? surely it is not easy to tell. For after the sophisters guise, he hideth his conclusion, that he may the more easily deceive. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Philosopher saith. But so far as I can gesle, either by resolving the discourse itself, or by conferring the same with the former chapter, whereunto he seemeth to refer us, he would seem to reason thus: If Antichrists mark be not yet known, then is not Antichrist yet come: But Antichrists mark is not yet known; therefore Antichrist is not yet come: and consequently the Pope is not Antichrist. The proposition he omitteth, and so taketh it for granted: although in truth there is no necessity of the consequence. For as we said before of his name, so now we say of his mark: that after Antichrist is come, his mark might be unknown, yea was for a time to be unknown. Otherwise he should not be able to enforce his mark upon many, few or none being so desperately wicked, as knowing his mark, to suffer themselves by the same to be branded to destruction; as all they are, who do receive and retain it. Apoc. 14. 9, 10. And further I add, that although this mark be known to very many of those who have the Mark of God: Apoc. 9 4. yet to them that are branded with this mark of the beast, and do retain the same, that is, who live and die Papists, it neither is, or shall be known, or at least not acknowledged of them during this life. And therefore no marvel though Bellarmine confess his ignorance in this behalf. 3. But let us see also how he proveth the assumption, viz. that the mark of the beast is not yet known. Forsooth by this reason: If neither that be the mark of the beast which the Protestants teach, nor yet that which the Catholics imagine (so many of them as take upon them to know what this mark is) th●… assuredly this mark is not yet known: But neither is that the mark which the Protestants speak of, nor yet that which the Catholics have supposed: Therefore this mark is not yet known. As for the Papists, we confess that either they know not, or at the least acknowledge not this mark, for if they did, the most of them would refuse to take it. Wherefore leaving them to Bellarmine's discretion, whether to be confuted or allowed; let us consider whether that be the mark, which the Protestants have supposed, or not. The heretics of this time (saith Bellarmine) teach that the character of Antichrist is some sign of obedience and conjunction with the Pope of Rome. But what this sign is, they do not express after the same manner. Bullinger understandeth by the mark the Chrism, wherewith young ones are anointed in 〈◊〉. 61. in Apoc. Chron. ta●…. 10. their confirmation. Bibliander saith, it is the profession of the Romish or Popish faith. Chytraeus to these addeth the oath of fidelity, which many are compelled to swear to the Pope: as also the priestly unction which is received in the head and the hand, impressing (as the Papists speak) Characterem indelebilem: Finally to fall down before Images, and the host, and to be present at Masses for the dead. Sed facile est (saith he) has nugas refutare. But it is easy to refute these toys. But before I come to answer his trifling cavillations, I think it needful first to refer the reader to the former book, See lib. 1. Chap. 8. §. 4. &. 5. where I showed what this mark is, and that this mark which is but one in substance, is diversly expressed and testified; and therefore that there is no opposition in the opinions of the Protestants, concerning this matter, all these notes, which they mention, belonging to the mark of the beast. And secondly, to deliver briefly the Popish conceit concerning this mark. For the Papists imagine that the character is a visible mark of Antichrists name, which the followers of Antichrist shall have imprinted in their foreheads, and carry as a sign in their hands, that it may be as it were their warrant to buy or sell: And so Bellarmine (to omit others) writeth also of the name and the number. The proper name of Antichrist (saith he) must be showed for a token of Chap. 10. lib. 3. de. pontiff. Rom. all that buy or sell. To which purpose he approveth the judgement of Rupertus, who saith, that Antichrists name is such a one as he shall glory in, Adeo ut jubeat inscribi in frontibus hominum, Insomuch that he shall cause it to be written in the foreheads of men. And again, the beast (whose number this is) shall command all merchants that they use this number for a sign or token in their contracts. But who could be so gross as to imagine that Princes and Magistrates, and men of all sorts, would ever suffer themselves to be branded as it were with Antichrists visible mark? or if that were Antichrists practise, who should not be able to discern him? Why, their ordinary gloss could tell them, that the mark is received in the forehead by confession, and in the right hand by operation, as we also hold. Antoninus also and Lyra teach that Character est determinatus modus vivendi secundum legem alicujus, quo à caeteris distinguuntur; A Character or mark is à certain manner of siving according to the law of any, whereby men are distinguished from others: which also agreeth with our judgement. Again, the Scriptures often times make mention of marks and seals, which cannot Ezec. 9 Apoc. 9 4. ●…t 7. 2. et. 2 17. 2. Tim. 2. 19 without absurdity be understood of visible marks. 4 Now let us see how easily this trifler is able according to his vain brag, to refute those toys of ours. His reasons are two: the former, because that which we deliver concerning the mark, agreeth not with the words of the text: which he showeth by four instances. First, because the text speaketh but of one character, we speak of many. We answer, that as of the Lamb, so of the beast also there is but one character in substance, although the same by divers means may be diversly expressed and testified; that is, subjection to the Pope as their head, and the acknowledgement of the See of Rome, and of the Pope's supremacy, etc. And this mark (to answer his second instance also,) is common to all, as being enforced upon all sorts of men without exception. Hear the words of their law; Subesse Romano pontifici, omni Extr. de maior. et obed. C. v●…a sancta. humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, & pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis: For every human creature to be subject to the Pope of Rome, we declare, affirm, determine, and proneunce, that it is altogether of the necessity of salvation. See more lib. 1. cap. 8. § 6. & 7. Thirdly, saith he, The scripture showeth this character to be such a one, as may indifferently be carried either in the right hand or in the forehead. But none of these marks which the Protestants mention are such. The Chrism is received in the forehead, and not in the hand, etc. The scripture saith thus, Apoc. 13. 16. And he causeth all, both small and great, etc. That he may give them a mark on their right hand, or else upon their foreheads. That is, by his usurped dominion and tyranny, he shall make all sorts of men subject unto him: and in testimony of their subjection, to receive his mark on the forehead by profession, or in the right hand by practice and operation. Of the carrying of this mark, and the carrying of it indifferently either on the forehead, or in the hand, the scripture speaketh not. The mark is subjection unto him, which (as hath been said) is diversly expressed and testified. Fourthly, the Scripture saith, that none in the kingdom of Antichrist, shall be suffered to buy or sell, unless he have this mark: but how many (saith he) are there within the dominion of the Pope, who having none of these marks, do buy and sell, as namely the jews? I answer, that Antichrist was to sit in the Church of God, and to tyrannize over Christians. Now of all those that profess the name of Christ, the Pope suffereth none where he hath to do, either to buy or sell, except he have his mark. See the Bull of Martin the fift, annexed to the council of Constance, where express and strait charge is given, that whosoever doth not live in subjection to the Pope, and communion with the Church of Rome (meaning such as Wicliffe and Husse) shall not be suffered See lib. 1. cap. 8. §. 7. to buy or sell, or to enjoy the comforts of human society. Whereas therefore the Pope permitteth that to the jews, which he will not permit to the professors of the Gospel of Christ: that, as it showeth his greater opposition ot the servants of Christ, then to the enemies of Christ the jews; so it bewrayeth him to be Antichrist. 5. His second reason is thus concluded. If all these things, which the Protestants mention, were used in the Catholic Church before the coming of Antichrist, than none of them belong to the mark of Antichrist, (for otherwise Antichrist should have learned them of the Church:) But all these things as namely Chrism and the rest, which the Protestants mention, were used in the Catholic Church before the year 607. that is, before the coming of Antichrist, according to the opinion of the Protestants: therefore none of these belong to the mark of the beast. First I answer to the proposition, that although these 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. For we doubt not to affirm that before the revelation of Antichrist there were many corruptions crept into the Church, both in Doctrine and in the worship of God (the mystery of iniquity more and more working, even from the Apostles times, unto the revelation of Antichrist) which corruptions Antichrist was to retain with increase. If therefore the seeds of Antichristianisme, which were sown before Antichrists appearing, were signs of his approaching; the same being as it were grown up, confirmed and increased, may without absurdity be said to belong to the mark of Antichrist already come. Especially if we consider the diversity in using of them since the revelation of Antichrist and before. For there was not in the Catholic church an universal subjection to the Pope as the head, until he by much ambition and contention obtained the supremacy, and was called the universal Bishop, and head of the universal Church, which he could never obtain until the year 607. Seeing then there was not an universal subjection to the Pope before that time, these things if they had been used at all, could not be used as signs thereof; as since they have: Neither were they imposed before and enjoined upon all by the laws of the Pope, as since they have: so that the cause of using them now, is not the example of the ancient Church, but the authority of the Pope's law, enjoining and commanding them. Therefore although these things had been used in the Church before the year 607, yet now they may appertain to the mark of the beast: And therefore the connexion of the proposition, is first to be denied. But now if these things were not used in the first 600. years, will not he then in confuting those toys, show himself a mere trifler? 6. But let us consider of the particulars. And first, that Chrism was used before the year 606. he proveth by the testimonies of Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine. I answer, that these Fathers speak of the anointing with Oil used in the Sacrament of 1. Chrism. Baptism, which also without warrant of the Scriptures is retained among the Papists. But of the chrism of salvation, which the Papists make the element of their counterfeit sacrament of confirmation, whereof there is no institution in the Scriptures, no word, no element, these Fathers speak not. The ceremony of imposition of hands, with prayer for the confirmation and strengthening of those, which before had been baptised, was indeed used in the primitive church: neither is it altogether misliked of us, although not much used among us, because it was so much abused by them. But this ceremony was done without unction or chrism: for further proof whereof see D. Fulke his answer to the Rhemists, Acts. 8. 17. And therefore notwithstanding that ancient practice of the Church, this Chrism used in confirmation, may belong to the mark of the beast. And the rather because the Papists make their confirmation with Chrism, not only a sacrament, but also a most necessary and Principal sacrament. So necessary as that they have set it down as a law, that no man is to be esteemed a Christian without it. Nunquam De consecrat. dist. 5. C. ut iciuni. erit Christianus nisi confirmatione episcopals fuerit Chrismatus. He shall never be a Christian, who is not confirmed with Chrism by a Bishop. So principal, as that they prefer it before Baptism, affirming that it is maiore veneratione venerandum, with greater veneration to be reverenced. Now if it be a privilege De consecrat. dist. 5. C. de. his vero. peculiar unto Christ the author and bestower of grace, to ordain Sacraments of grace; then must it needs be accounted a practice Antichristian, if any man shall take upon him to ordain a Sacrament, and not only to obtrude the same upon all as necessary to salvation, but also to prefer it before that excellent Sacrament of Baptism ordained by Christ himself. Therefore as the ordaining and enforcing of this Sacrament upon men is a note of Antichrist, so those which do not only receive it when they are young, but also retain it when they are old, remaining in the communion of the Church of Rome, may be said to have the mark of the beast. 7. Secondly, that to adhere to the Roman Church was a mark of a true Catholic before the year 606. he proveth by 2. Romanae ecclesie adhaercre. the authority of Augustine, Ambrose and Victor Vticensis. But we speak of the Church of Rome that now is, that is, the apostatical Church of Rome: he argueth of the ancient Church which was apostolical. Indeed whiles the Church of Rome did cleave unto Christ, so long might it be a note of a good Christian to cleave unto it, although these testimonies do scarce prove it: but after that Church became apostatical and adulterous, as appeareth by their fundamental heresies, and horrible Idolatries, and consequently of a faithful Church became an harlot, and of the Church of Christ the synagogue of Antichrist: it hath been the mark of an Antichristian to live in the communion of that Church. Besides this great difference betwixt the present and the ancient state of the Church of Rome, there is also great odds in the manner of adhering or cleaving thereto. Then, as 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. Then the Church of Rome was accounted but a part of the Catholic Church, and so a man might be a good Christian although he were not of the Church of Rome: now the Church of Rome alone must be accounted the Catholic Church; and consequently he that is not a member of that Church, must not be taken for a Catholic or true Christian. For when the Pope got the title of universal Bishop, or head of the universal Church, than the church whereof he was head, was accounted the only Catholic and universal Church. Hereunto agreeth that Gloss, Constat ecclesiam ideo esse unam, quia in universali ecclesia est unum caput suprem●…, Clementin. Lib. 5. ad nostrum in gloss. cui omnes de ecclesia obedire tenentur seil. Papae. It is evident that the Church is therefore one, because in the universal Church there is one supreme head, whom all that are of the Church are bound to obey. And agreeably thereunto saith a late writer, whose books were published at Venice in the year 1588. Non potest quis se Christianum fateri, qui curae Papae dicit se non subesse. No man may Rod. Cupers 127. num. 29. profess himself to be a Christian, who doth not confess himself to be subject to the Pope's cure or charge. And therefore in the conclusion of his book he professeth himself to be Mancipium S. R. E. The bond servant of the holy church of Rome, Non ignorans (he saith) haud possehaberese deum patrem, si sanctam universalem Romanam ecclesiam non habuerit matrem, knowing that a man cannot have God to be his father, unless he have the holy universal Church of Rome to be his mother. Seeing therefore the Church of Rome is become the whore of Babylon, as hath been proved, and the synagogue of Antichrist; & seeing the Pope compelleth all men to cleave to the church of Rome, suffering none to buy or sell, or to enjoy any benefits of human society, which profess not themselves to be members of the Church of Rome: it followeth that this cleaving to the Apostatical Church of Rome, or living in the communion thereof, belongeth to the mark of the beast. 8. Thirdly, as touching the oath of obedience and fealty 3. Iura●…ium obedientiae. made to the Pope of Rome, Bellarmine proveth that it was used in the time of Gregory the great, and therefore before the year 606. as appeareth in the Epistles of Gregory. I answer, that although Lib. 10. Epist. 31. before the year 606. the Bishops of Rome took more upon them, than became the ministers of Christ: yet Bellarmine is not able out of all antiquity to allege one example of such an oath of fealty and allegiance imposed by the Pope upon foreign Bishops, and much less upon Kings and Princes, as all Catholic Bishops, as they call them, Priests, graduates, Princes and potentates are compelled to swear unto the Pope of Rome. That one example, which, as it seemeth, is all that he can allege, of an oath taken not long before the year 606. is little to the purpose. For it 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 Church of Rome. For it is the oath of a certain Bishop who sweareth to renounce his former heresies, and to profess and maintain that faith and religion, which then the Bishop and Church of Rome did profess: which oath in effect is no otherwise to be understood, then if a minister among us, being reclaimed from Popery or some other heresy, should take an oath before a Bishop, that whiles he liveth, he will profess and maintain that religion which is now professed and established in the Church of England, and other reformed Churches; which is not to swear allegiance to them, but the like allegiance with them unto Christ. 9 Fourthly, the anointing of Priests, we confess to be as ancient as the Priesthood of Aaron, from whence they profess 4. unctio sacerdotalis. they have received this jewish ceremony; which together with the sacrifices, Priesthood and ceremonies of the law, are abrogated by the sacrifice & death of our Saviour Christ. And why then do they not as well retain circumcision, the sacrifices of Bulls and Goats, & other ceremonies of the Levitical Priesthood, that they might more plainly show themselves, whiles they seek to be the Apes of the jews, to be as indeed they are, according to the censure of Paul in the Epistle to the Galathians, Apostates from Christ. But as their priesthood itself is Antichristian, whereby the Levitical priesthood and many jewish ceremonies are retained, as though Christ had not put an end to them: whereby Christ is denied to be our only Priest: whereby Christ himself (as they say) is daily offered, to the disgrace of his own sacrifice, as though that once performed had not been sufficient: to the overthrow of his humane nature, which they hold to be in many places at once invisible and incircumscriptible, without quantity and dimension, and consequently no body; to the disparagement of his divine excellency, whiles every shaveling Priest taketh upon him by breathing out a few words after a magical manner to create his maker, and when he hath done to offer him as a sacrifice to the father, every sacrifice being inferior to the sacrificer: to the deifying of a piece of bread consecrated to most sacrilegious Idolatry: as I say, their priesthood itself is Antichristian, so their unction, whetherof Bishops on the head, or of Priests on the hand, undoubtedly belongeth to the mark of Antichrist. And although they were able to show some practice hereof in the Church before the year 606. yet this hindereth not, but that this Priestly Unction may belong to the mark, because as I said, some corruptions were before the revelation of Antichrist crept into the Church, which by him were to be retained with increase and maintained, as also because this ceremony is used not by authority of their example, but as received from Moses by the authority of the ceremonial law, as though it were not abrogated by Christ, and as imposed upon the Church by the law of the Pope: And lastly because it is a ceremony belonging to such a sacrificing Priesthood, as was not known in the primitive Church. But as I suppose they are not able to produce any sufficient testimony or authentic proof to declare the use of this ceremony in the primitive Church, which some of them impute to the rudeness, and unsettled estate of that time. For whereas he allegeth two testimonies of Nazianzene, both places are to be understood ●…ighius. figuratively, of consecration to the ministery. For as appeareth De sacra unctione C. cum venisset. by the testimony of Innocentius 3. this ceremony of anointing was not used in the Greek Church, whereof Nazianzene was, but rejected as jewish, until he imposed the same upon them, about the year 1200. 10. As touching the fift: Sacrifices of praise we offered for 5. Missa pro defunelis. those that died in the Lord; but no propitiatory sacrifices, such as their masses be, were offered for them. The oblations for the dead, whereof Augustine speaketh, prove not that mass, Lib. de hares. C. 53. See D. Fu●…ke. in Apoc. 14. 13. s. 5. contra. Rhem. were used as propitiatory sacrifices for the quick and the dead. Unless therefore he can prove that they had before the year 607. masses as superstitious and Idolatrous as since: the frequenting of Masses may now belong to the mark of the beast, which before did not. 11. Adoration of images and of the Eucharist, may most fitly be said to belong to the mark of the beast. For those 6. Adoratio imaginum et Eucharistiae. that are made drunk with the cup of the whore of Babylon's fornications, that is, which are besotted with the Idolatries of the Church of Rome, are the same with those that receive the mark of the beast: But the adoration of Images and of the Eucharist, is notorious Idolatry or spiritual fornication; and therefore those that are besotted with these Idolatries have received the mark of the beast. And as touching the worshipping of Images, it is most plainly forbidden and condemned in the Scriptures, and Counsels, and writings of the fathers, who lived in the first 600. years. The Wine of this fornication, wherewith all sorts have been made drunk, was first set abroach to the world in the second Council of Nice, about the year 789. For further proof whereof read B. jewel in his 14. article against M. Harding. And the like may be said of the adoration of the Eucharist, which is a consequent of the elevation of the sacrament and transubstantiation, neither of which were used or heard of in the first 600. years, as the same jewel proveth Artic. 75. 10. And Artic. 8. he showeth that the adoration of the sacrament cannot be warranted by any commandment of Christ, nor by any word or example of th'apostles or ancient fathers, but that it is a thing lately devised by Pope Honorius about the year 1226. But let us weigh his proofs. That Images were worshipped he proveth by the testimony of Jerome, who in the life of Paula, speaking of her zeal and devotion in visiting those places, where our Lord jesus had been conversant; he showeth how at length she cometh to the sepulchre and kisseth the stone, which the Angel had rolled away from the mouth of the sepulchre, and licked the place where Christ's body lay: and seeing that very Cross (as was supposed) whereon Christ was crucified, Prostrata ante crucem quasi pendentem Dominum cerneret adorabat, Falling down before the cross she worshipped the Lord, as if she had now seen him hanging on the Crosse. I answer that this practice was not common, but peculiar to her; and to her not usual, but only at that time, and in that place: neither did she worship the Cross (as the Papists do the images of that Cross, cult●… latriae with divine worship) but seeing the Cross whereon Christ was crucified, and being ravished with the memory of his death, she falling before that Cross, worshipped Christ. Now that the adoration of the Eucharist was also in use before the year 606. he proveth by the testimonies of Ambrose and Augustine. Ambrose his words are these, Itaque per scabellam terra intelligatur, per terram caro Lib. 3. de spiritu S. chap. 12. Christi, quam hody quoque in mysterijs adoramus, et quam Apostoli in Domino jesu, ut supra diximus, adorarunt. Therefore by the footstool let us understand the earth, and by the earth the flesh of Christ, which at this day also we adore in the mysteries, and which the Apostles adored in the Lord jesus, as we said before. But it is one thing to adore and honour Christ in his sacraments, as the ancient Christians and we do: and another thing to adore the sacrament, as if it were Christ himself, as the Papists do, deifiing a piece of bread, and adoring it with such a worship as indeed belongeth not (I say not to the man Christ, but) to the humanity of Christ, whereof alone and not of the deity the bread is a sacrament: For the bread is a sacrament of the body of Christ crucified, and the wine of his blould-shed. But if Bellarmine would have read but five or six lines further, he should have sound a better testimony against their adoration of Saints and images, than this was for the adoration of the sacrament. For Ambrose proving that the holy Ghost was to be adored, because he is adored that according to the flesh was borne of the holy Ghost: Ac ne quis h●…c derivet (saith he) ad Mariam virginem: Maria erat templum dei, non deus templi, et ideo solus ille adorandus qui operabatur in templo: And lest any should derive this to the virgin Mary: Mary was the Temple of God, not God of the Temple; and therefore he alone is to be adored who did work in the Temple. Augustine understanding In Psal. 98. by the footstool mentioned Psalm. 99 5. the flesh of Christ saith, Ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit. Nemo autem ●…arnem illam manducat nisi p●…us adoraverit: He gave his flesh itself to be eaten of us to salvation, but no man eateth that flesh unless he first have adored it. Where Augustine speaketh no more of the sacrament or of the bodily eating of the flesh, than Christ himself doth john 6. & therefore this allegation is impertinent; or if it were not, yet is it one thing to adore the flesh of Christ, and another thing to adore a piece of bread, which by the testimony of Christ john 6. and of Augustine, is proved not to be turned into the body of Christ, because both do signify, that the wicked do not eat the body of Christ. To conclude therefore, whereas Bellarmine argueth thus, These things were used before the year 606. therefore they belong not to the mark of the beast: the sum of my answer is this, that they were not used in the first 600. years: and again, if they had been used then, yet they may belong to the mark of the beast now, for the reasons before alleged. The 12. Chapter. Of the generation and nation of Antichrist. 1. THe jesuits fift disputation is concerning the generation and nation of Antichrist, whereof he shall come, and of which he shall especially be received. From whence as he vainly supposeth, is gathered a most evident demonstration, that the Pope is not Antichrist. For Antichrist shall be received of the jews for their Messias, and consequently he is to be a jew both by nation and religion: But none of the Popes since the year 607. hath boene received of the jews as their Messias; neither hath any one been a jew either in nation or religion: therefore the Pope is not Antichrist: or rather as he ought to conclude from the premises, therefore not any one of the Pope's is Antichrist. For in all this disputation Bellarmine presupposeth that to be true, which we have proved to be most false, that Antichrist is but one singular person, and accordingly reasoneth, as if we held that this or that Pope were the Antichrist. We holdeindeed that every Pope for his time, as he is the head of the catholic Apostasy, so is an Antichrist: but the Antichrist is the whole row and order of them from Boniface the third downward. If therefore Bellarmine argueth upon a false supposition, we are like to have but a simple demonstration of it. But let us examine his disputation. Before he proposeth his proposition, as the basis or ground of his demonstration, he dealeth with us as cunning 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 commend and set forth those that be not so bad. So he bringeth forth divers opinions concerning the generation of Antichrist, and first those that are false and absuide, as namely, that Antichrist should be borne of a virgin by the operation of the devil, as Christ was borne of a virgin, by the operation of the holy Ghost. Which opinion is propounded by the author of the treatise concerning Antichrist, falsely ascribed to Augustine. Secondly, that the devil himself is Antichrist, who shall fayne himself to have taken flesh of a virgin, at Christ truly did; which is the conceit of Hippolytus: upon whose counterfeit authority the Papists in other points concerning this controversy, do so much rely. thirdly, that Antichrist shall be a true man, but withal a Devil, by the incarnation of the Devil; even as Christ, who is God, by incarnation became man: which opinion (saith Bellarmine) Origen thought to be possible. These opinions show into what absurdities men do fall, when as they will needs be comparing Christ with Antichrist, as the Papists in many things do. Fourthly, that Nero who died above 1500. years ago should come again in his own person to be Antichrist. 2 But these wares are all so corrupt, that Bellarmine will not for his credit sake commend them unto us. And therefore he maketh a second show of such opinions as are more probable, viz. That Antichrist shall be borne in fornication and not in marriage, which is the opinion of Damascen and some others. And secondly, That be shallbe borne of the Tribe of Dan, which is the judgement of twelve of the Fathers, & other approved Authors among the Papists; and generally of all Papists almost besides Bellarmine himself. But although these opinions be, as he saith, very probable, & the latter commended by a whole jury of ancient writers, yet because they cannot be proved out of the scriptures, he will not put them into our hands, as though he meant to warrant them. So that now we must needs think that we shall be well dealt withal, and that no corrupt or counterfeit stusse shall be commended unto us, but that which is currant and warrantable by the word of God. But what say you Bellarmine, cannot this opinion that Antichrist shall be of the Tribe of Dan, be proved out of the scripture? what say you then to those three places of scripture, which are to this purpose usually alleged in the Church of Rome? the first Gen. 49. 17. Dan shall be a serpent in the way, etc. The second, jer. 8. 16. The neighing of his horses was heard from Dan. The third, Apoc. 7. where 12000. of every Tribe being sealed to salvation, the Tribe of Dan is leftout, because Antichrist was to come of that Tribe. To the first of these places Bellarmine answereth with us, that the prophetical blessing of jacob, was verified in Samson, who was of the Tribe of Dan: & that jacob meaning in these words to bless Dan, his meaning cannot without absurdity be perverted to the signification of a curse. And I add, that they might with as good reason allege that Antichrist shall be of the Tribe of Benjamin, of whom it is said, verse 27. that he shall ravine as a Wolf. jeremy undoubtedly speaketh not of Antichrist, nor yet as Bellarmine saith, of the Tribe of Dan, but of Nabuchadonosor, who was to come by the coast or country called Dan, to destroy jerusalem, as Jerome rightly expoundeth. Why Dan is omitted in Apoc. 7. it is not well known saith Bellarmine, especially seeing Ephraim also which was one of the greatest Tribes is left out. But here Bellarmine doth praevaricari, and by trifling betray the truth. For it is not true that Ephraim is left out: for seeing Manasses is mentioned Verse 6. we must needs by the Tribe of joseph mentioned Verse 8. understand the Tribe of Ephraim nevertheless, this may truly be said, that there are other causes of this omission, then that which is alleged concerning Antichrist. For else we may say as well, that Antichrist should come of the Tribe of Simeon, because he is not mentioned in the blessing of Moses. Deut. 33. The truth is, that where the holy Ghost numbereth the 12. Tribes, and mentioneth Levi, which for the most part is not As Apoc. 17. reckoned among the 12. Tribes, because it was scattered among them all; some one of the other Tribes is left out, otherwise, where 12. are named, 13. should be reckoned. The mentioning therefore of Levi, is the cause why some one of the rest is not expressed, but either comprehended under an other that is mentioned, as Simeon under juda Deut. 33. Ephraim & Manasses being two several & great Tribes, under joseph. Deut. 27. 12. Ezec: 48. 32. are altogether omitted, as Dan. Apo. 7. Now Dan seemeth to be omitted, rather than any other, because that was the first Tribe which fell from God unto Idolatry: & for the same cause (as some think) the genealogy of that Tribe is omitted in the first book of the Chronicles. 3 These opinions therefore though countenanced with the authority of the Fathers, Bellarmine dareth not deliver as matters of truth, because they cannot be proved out of the scriptures. The which in truth is the cause why we reject all the fancies of the Papists concerning Antichrist, wherein they differ from us, because that although many of them were also the opinions of the ancient writers (who could but guess at the meaning of prophecies not then fulfilled) yet they cannot be proved out of the word of God, wherein Antichrist is sufficiently described. This liberty therefore which Bellarmine lawfully taketh unto himself in rejecting the testimonies of the Fathers in this point not warranted by the scriptures, must in equity also be granted unto us. For upon the same principle or ground which Bellarmine here setteth down, we reason against the Popish conceits after this manner: Those opinions concerning Antichrist which cannot be proved out of the scriptures, are not to be held as certain truths, or believed as matters of faith, although they have the testimony of the Fathers: But all the Popish conceits concerning Antichrist, are such as cannot be proved out of the scriptures: therefore none of the Popish conceits concerning Antichrist, are to be received for certain truths, though divers of them have the testimony of the Fathers. 4 Now let us hear in the third place what those things are which Bellarmine would have us to take upon his word for certain and sound in this point. There be two things saith he, most certain: one that Antichrist shall come for the jews especially, and shallbe received of them for their Messias. The other, that he shall be borne of the Nation of the jews, and shall be circumcised, and shall at the least for a time observe the Sabbath. On which two points the proposition of the syllogism before rehearsed doth consist, the which Bellarmine thought to set out as true, by setting by §. 1 it other opinions more absurd than it is. But although there be degrees of falsehood in all these opinions, yet all of them are false, as being grounded upon this false supposition, that Antichrist 1 is but one singular man. And secondly, by the same reason that moved Bellarmine to reject the former opinions, may 2 these also be rejected, namely, because they cannot be proved out of the scriptures; but contrariwise may be disproved thereby. For Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, that is, shall reign in the church of Christ, and shall be an Apostate, 3 and the head of the Apostasy, as Bellarmine confesseth, and therefore not the head of the jews (who cannot be said to make an Apostasy before they be called) but of backsliding Christians. Again, Antichrist is one of the seven heads of the beast mentioned Apoc. 17. that is, of the Roman state, having his 4 seat in Babylon, that is, in Rome, in the government whereof he succeed the Emperor: who, whiles he ruled in Rome, hindered the revelation of Antichrist, as it hath been showed heretofore out of Apoc. 17. 13. & 2. Thess. 2. All which do sufficiently prove, that Antichrist was not to be a jew, either by nation or religion, but a Latin or Roman, which name with the mark thereof, he causeth all sorts of men to take upon them. And lastly, for as much as the Papists themselves hold the calling of the jews: it would be known whether they shall revolt, after their calling from Christ to Antichrist, or whether they shall be called after the destruction of Antichrist, or during the time of Antichrists reign, which shallbe as they say, the term of three years & a half precisely, or 1260. days. But themselves deny that the jews shall revolt after their calling, or that they shallbe called in the time of Antichrists reign: & that they shallbe called after the destruction of Antichrist, which shall not be before the end of the world, it is absurd. 5 But let us see how he proveth these things which he saith are most certain & sure, & from whence he draweth his most evident demonstration. First that Antichrist shall be received of the jews for their Messias, he proveth by testimonies of scripture, by authority of Fathers, and by reason. Out of the scripture he produceth two testimonies, the former joh. 5. 43. which place I have heretofore freed from the corruptions of the papists, showing that our Saviour Christ doth not speak absolutely, Another shall come, but conditionally, If an other shall come, & therefore doth not foretell what they were afterwards to do, but telleth them what in respect of their present disposition they were ready to do, if an other should come in his own name unto them, not sent of God. 2. Neither doth he speak definitely of Antichrist, but indefinitely of any false teacher. 3. he speaketh of those jews, to whom he speaketh, who could not be the receivers of Antichrist, unless he were come above 1500. years ago. 6 His second testimony is 2. Thess. 2. 10 11. Because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved: therefore God shall send them the efficacy of error that they may believe lies, etc. Which words he understandeth of the jews, who because they received not Christ shall therefore be seduced by Antichrist. But the place is plain enough to them that will understand. The Apostle immediately before these words saith, that Antichrist shall prevail with them that perish, because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved: And immediately after these words, (Therefore God shall send them the efficacy of error, that they may believe lies) he addeth, that all might be judged or condemned that have not believed the truth, but have taken pleasure in unrighteousness. In which words the Apostle doth not go about to define of what Nation or people Antichrist shallbe received: but having described Antichrist as by other arguments, so in the last place by this effect of seducing, now he describeth the followers of Antichrist, who shall be seduced of him not by their nation, but by their condition before God. And withal cleareth the justice of God in giving them over to be seduced to their destruction. The followers of Antichrist are described by their condition before God, that they are reprobates, or such as perish, according to that, Math. 24. 24. that it is impossible that the elect should finally be seduced by him: which is set down, not so much to be a note whereby to discern Antichrist: as to signify the estate of those that follow him, whom before he had described, that they are such as perish, and that worthily. For as I said, in the next words he cleareth the justice of God, after this manner: On such as have not received the love of the truth that they might be saved, nor believed the same, but have delighted in unrighteousness, the Lord sendeth justly the efficacy of error, that they may believe lies, that they may all be condemned: But the followers of Antichrist are such as have not received the love of the truth, that they might be saved, nor believed the same, but have delighted in unrighteousness: therefore the Lord justly sendeth upon them strong illusions, that they may believe lies, that all such as believe not the truth, but delight in unrighteousness, may be condemned. This is the discourse of the Apostle, concerning the followers of Antichrist, which cannot with any show of reason be restrained to the jews, unless it may be said that they alone are such as perish; that they alone have not received the love of the truth that they might be saved; that they alone have not believed the truth, etc. for he saith, that all might be condemned, etc. For it is certain, that as Antichrist, which in this chapter is described, is not the head of the jews, but of counterfeit Christians: so the jews (as they are jews) are not the followers of Antichrist here described. Antichrist is the head of the apostasy or revolt from Christ, and consequently the head of Apostate Christians. 1. Tim. 4. 1. Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, that is, shall rule and reign over the Church of Christ. Antichrist was to sit in Babylon, that is, Rome, and therein was to succeed the Emperors: who whiles they ruled in Rome, hindered the revelation and dominion of Antichrist. All which points as they do fit the Pope, so they do prove that the Papists be the followers of Antichrist, and have received the name and mark of the beast. And hereof there can be no doubt, if this description also agree unto them, as most evidently it doth. For seeing they are the Apostate Christians described, 1. Tim. 4 1. 3. certain it is, that they have not received the love of the truth, that they may be saved. That strong illusion is sent upon them that they might believe lies, etc. it appeareth plainly in their written vanities, which they call unwritten verities, in their legends, portuises, and festivals fraught full of incredible lies, in their ridiculous dotages & devout superstitions, wherein they plainly show themselves to be besotted and made drunk with the whore of Babylon's cup of fornications, and to be given over to believe untruths. That they will not believe the truth, appeareth by their manifold gross errors, from which they will not be reclaimed And that they delight in iniquity appeareth by their doting upon the doctrine & religion of Antichrist, which as there it is opposed to the truth, so before is called the mystery of iniquity. This description therefore of the followers of Antichrist, aught to be an admonition for all Ver. 12. Ver. 7. Papists to renounce that religion of Rome, if they would not be in the number of them that perish: & a caveat for all Christians, who professing the true religion, have no true love thereof, but are ready to accept & embrace the religion of Rome, lest this heavy judgement of the Lord fall upon them, that because they have not received the love of the truth to their salvation, the Lord send upon them strong illusion, that they believe lies unto their destruction. 7. Yea, but (saith he) this place cannot be understood of Christians, but of the jews: for he saith, that Antichrist shallbe sent to them who would not receive Christ, which is true of the jews, but untrue of Christians. The Apostle speaketh of those that receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved, which may be verified of unsound Christians (as the Rhemists themselves on this place do grant) that is, of all those who content themselves with a bare profession of the faith, having neither a true faith, nor yet a sound love of the truth. A sound Christian doth not only profess the name of Christ, but also hath some good understanding & knowledge of the truth, and withal an assent thereto, in which two, namely knowledge & assent, consisteth the historical, or dogmatical faith: & not only a knowledge & assent (for so much the devils have) but also a love & liking of the truth; & not only that (for even hypocrites & temporary believers may attain to a love & liking of the truth for some temporary respects) but also a special application of the promises of the Gospel unto himself, & particular apprehension of Christ his merits, whereby he is received of the believer to justification & salvation. Now the Papists are such as profess Christ, but indeed receive him not, nor yet the love of his truth that they might be saved. And therefore this place is verified of them. For doth any man I beseech you, receive Christ or believe in him, who doth not believe that Christ is his Redeemer & Saviour? But if thou be a Papist, thou must not believe that Christ is thy Redeemer & Saviour; thou must sing Magnificat, but thou mayst not say with Mary, that thy soul rejoiceth in God thy Saviour: nor with Paul, that Christ hath loved thee, or given himself for thee. Gal. 2. 20. Must thou believe that Christ is thy Saviour & redeemer? then must thou believe that thou art redeemed by Christ, and shalt be saved by him. Must thou believe that thou hast redemption by Christ? then must thou also believe that by him thou hast remission of sins. Ephe. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. But this to believe without special and extraordinary revelation, is damnable presumption saith the Papist. Therefore they profess Christ, but they receive him not. Nay, they are so far from receiving Christ by a lustifying faith, that they might be saved, that they have not so much as the historical faith, which consisteth in knowledge of the truth & assent thereto. For the most of them have no knowledge, pleasing themselves in their implicit faith: under which name gross & palpable ignorace is commended in the laity of the church of Rome. And the rest assent not to the truth, but set themselves against it. So that whereas all the faith which they profess themselves to have, is but that faith which is also in the devils, yet they have not even that little which they do profess. But the Apostle (saith Bellarmine) speaketh in the pretertense, which have not received the love of the truth, etc. not in the future: therefore this speech cannot be understood of any other but those who before the Apostle wrote this, had refused to believe the preaching of Christ & his Apostles, that is to say, the jews. Answ. The Apostle speaking both of the sin of the Antichristians, and of their punishment, which presupposeth their sin going before, he expresseth their sin in the pretertense, which is to be referred not to the time of the Apostles writing, but to the time of their punishment. Antichrist shallbe received of those that perish. But why shall they perish? because they have not received the love of the truth, etc. But this appeareth more plainly, ver. 12. God shall send them strong illusions to believe lies, that all may be condemned, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that have not believed, that is, that shall not have believed the truth, Qui non crediderint veritati, but have delighted, that is, but shall have delighted in iniquity, Sed acquieverint in iniustitia. Confer with this place Mar. 16. 16. Go preach the Gospel saith our Saviour Christ, to every creature, baptizing them (as it is in Matthew 28. 19) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, H●… that hath Qui crediderit & bap tizatus sue●…it etc. believed and hath been baptized shall be saved; that is, shall have believed, and shall have been baptized, but he that hath not believed, that is, shall not have believed, shall be condemned. Otherwise, if Bellarmine will needs urge the pretertense, as though the Apostle meant that Antichrist should be received only of those who before that time had rejected the truth, he must with all hold, that Antichrist shall be received in the end of the world of those who died above 1500. years since. 8 To these testimonies of scripture he addeth the authority of divers Fathers, who supposed that Antichrist was to be received of the jews, and accordingly expound the place alleged out of 2. Thess. 2. 10. 11. Ans. So they held that Antichrist should come of the Tribe of Dan, & accordingly expounded some places of scripture, which no man now unless he will be too ridiculous, can understand of Antichrist. Therefore as Bellarmine in that point answered a whole dozen of Fathers, so may I answer here with as good reason, that although this opinion might seem probable to the Fathers in their time, living before the revelation of Antichrist, yet now there is no probability in it, seeing it cannot only not be proved out of the scripture, but as you heard, is confuted both by the scripture and the event. 9 Let us therefore in the third place consider his reason: Antichrist shall without doubt join himself first and chief to those who are ready to receive him: But the jews are ready to receive him, not the Christians nor the Gentiles, therefore Antichrist first and principally shall join himself to the jews. First to the proposition I answer, that Antichrist shall join himself not to any whatsoever, but to those in the Church that are ready to receive him. For as Cyprian truly noteth, They be the servants of Epist. 1. lib. 1. God whom the devil troubleth, and they are Christians whom Antichrist impugneth, Neque enim quaerit illos, quos iam subegit, aut gestit evertere quos iam suos fecit. For he seeketh not those whom he hath already subdued, or desireth to overthrow those whom he hath already made his own, the enemy & adversary of the church: whom he hath estranged and kept forth of the Church, them he neglecteth and passeth by as captives and overcome: those he assaulteth, in whom he perceiveth Christ to dwell. If therefore Antichrist be led by the spirit of Satan, than no doubt he shall pass by both jews & Insidels, & set himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2. Thess. 2. 4. that is, both in the Church of God, and against it, that the unsound he may seduce, and the sound he may persecute. The assumption standeth on two parts. 1. affirmative, that the jews are ready to receive Antichrist. 2. negative, that the Christians and Gentiles are not ready to receive him. The former he proveth, because the jews do yet look for their Messias, who shall be a temporal King, such a one as Antichrist shall be. But this reason is built on false suppositions. First, that Antichrist shall be one particular man, which we have proved to be false. Secondly, that Antichrist shall profess himself to be the Messias of the jews, which as it hath been disproved out of the scriptures, so can it not with any colour of reason be proved out of the same. For as hath been showed, Antichrist is the head of the Catholic Apostasy or Apostate Christians, sitting in Babylon, that is, Rome, professing herself the church of God, being one of the seven heads of the Roman state, succeeding the ●…mperours in the government of Rome, etc. Thirdly, as Antichrist shall not be such a one as the expected Messias of the jews: so there is no necessity that there should such a one come to the jews, as they expect. The second part also of his assumption is false. For although sound and constant Christians be not ready to receive Antichrist, but always have been ready to resist him even unto the death: yet unsound and backsliding Christians, who embrace not the love of the truth that they might be saved, either are as ready to receive Antichrist, as they are apt and prone to decline from the truth (a searefull caveat to those which wax weary of the Gospel) or already have revolted from Christ to Antichrist, & have received the mark of the beast. Yea, but Christians saith he, do not expect Antichrist, as the jews do. The jews look for him with joy, as for their Messias, but the Christians with fear. I answer, as true Christians look not at all for the expected Messias of the jews to be Antichrist, but acknowledge him that is come: so Papists, but that they cannot see the wood for trees, might in stead of looking for Antichrist, look upon him. 10 The second thing which Bellarmine delivereth concerning Antichrist for a certain truth, is, That Antichrist shall be a jew both by Nation and Religion; that is, he shall be a jew borne, he shall be circumcised, he shall be an observer of the jews Sabbath, and other jewish ceremonies. But how is this certain truth proved? forsooth from the premises. For the jews will not receive one for their Messias, that is not a jew borne, nor circumcised. Nay, it is not to be doubted, but that as the jews look for their Messias out of the family of David; so he will feign himself to be of the Tribe of David, although indeed he be of the Tribe of Dan. But this Popish conceit, built upon their own vain imaginations, needeth no answer. For seeing I have overthrown their former assertion, whereupon this is grounded; therefore this building of itself falleth to the ground, Whosoever (saith he) shall be received of the jews for their Messias, he shall be a jew borne, and circumcised, but Antichrist shall be received of the jews for their Messias: as hath been proved, therefore Antichrist shall be a jew borne, etc. The proposition is not altogether true, for the Herodians received Herod for Epiphan. lib. 1. de haeresi judaeor. 7. their Messias, and thence had their name. But I will not stand upon that. The assumption I have already disproved, showing that Antichrist was not to be received of the jews for their Messias, and therefore there is no validity in this argument. In the next place therefore for want either of reason, or authority of scripture, he underproppeth this tottering wall with testimonies of Fathers; but such as either himself before hath rejected, or else in this question may by the same reason be little regarded. The twelve Fathers (saith he) which affirmed that Antichrist shall be of the Tribe of Dan, do therefore hold that he should be a jew borne. But himself hath told us, that we are not to believe them, because their opinion cannot be proved out of the scriptures: and therefore by the same reason, neither they, nor the rest are to be believed in this point, which hath no ground in the word of God. And thus his most evident demonstration is come to nothing. For although the jews receive not the Pope for their Messias, but rather esteem of him as of an other Pharaoh, and withal apply unto him all that is spoken either of Antichrist, as the Papists say, or of the type of Antichrist R. Ieu●… Gerson. Antiochus, as we say, Dan. 7. & 11. this hindereth not, but that the Pope may be Antichrist. Yea, this may be some inducement to persuade us, that if those things which be spoken of Antichrist, or his type, may in the judgement of the jews, who are no parties, be applied properly to the Pope: that then the Pope is that Antichrist, that in Daniel is figured, and in other places of scripture not unlike to that figure described. Chap. 13. Of the seat or See of Antichrist. 1 Our adversaries sixth disputation is, concerning the seat or See of Antichrist, concluded in this syllogism. Antichrist shall sit at jerusalem, and not at Rome: the Pope sitteth at Rome, & not at jerusalem: therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. The proposition, concerning which all the controversy is, is first proved by testimonies of scriptures, & afterwards defended against our objections. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or proof standeth on three testimonies of scripture. The first Apoc. 11. 8. where john saith, that Enoch & Elias shallbe slain of Antichrist in jerusalem. And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great City, which is called spiritual Sodom or Egypt, where our Lord also was crucified. But what if john speaketh neither of Antichrist, nor of Enoch & Elias, nor of jerusalem? that he speaketh not of Antichrist, it may be doubted. For verse 7. he saith, that the beast which ascendeth out of the deep (which seemeth to be the former beast described in the beginning of Chap. 13.) shall kill the two witnesses. And verse 2. it is said that the court of the Temple should be given to the Gentiles, and that they should tread upon the holy City 42. months, which is the time allotted to the persecution of the beast with seven heads, Apoc. 13. 5. Besides, the Papists teach, that Antichrist shall be the Prince 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. And that Enoch and Elias be not here spoken of, it hath been showed before: & thirdly, that the holy Ghost doth not mean jerusalem, I have heretofore proved. But suppose that S. john did speak both of Antichrist, as it Chap. 6. Lib. 1. ca●… 2. § 17. seemeth he doth not, and also of jerusalem, which I am sure he doth not: yet notwithstanding, this 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. Whereas therefore Bellarmine argueth thus, Where the two witnesses are put to death, there is the seat of Antichrist, at jerusalem the two witnesses are put to death, therefore at jerusalem is the seat of Antichrist: I answer first to the proposition, that it being generally understood, is false: if particularly, than Bellarmine's argumentation is not a syllogism, but a paralogism. And to the assumption I answer negatively, & that answer I have heretofore made good, proving that not jerusalem is here meant, but civitas Romana (the City and Empire of Rome) which every where in the Apocalypse, is called the great City, wherein, and by authority whereof, our Lord was crucified. See the first book, chap. 2. § 16. 17. 2 His second testimony is, Apoc. 7. 16. whereunto I have answered before in the second chapter of the first book, §. 18. But as from that place he would prove that Rome is not the seat of Antichrist, so by another argument which he addeth, he proveth that it is jerusalem. For saith he, If Antichrist be a jew, and profess himself to be the Messias and King of the jews, than no doubt he will sit in jerusalem: but the former of these I have disproved in the former chapter, and therefore further answer needeth not. Yea, but four of the Fathers avouch that Antichrist shall sit at jerusalem. Although they did, yet Bellarmine hath taught us that we are not bound to believe them, unless their assertion can be proved out of the scriptures. And yet of these four Fathers which he allegeth, Lactantius speaketh not of Antichrist. Hierome and Theodoret, where they deliver Hierony●…. ad Algas. 9 11. Theodoret. in 2. Thess. 2. & Epitome. 1. Anselm. their own judgement, do not affirm that he shall sit in the Temple at jerusalem, but in the Churches of Christ. 3 His third testimony is 2. Thess. 2. 4. In so much that he sitteth in the Temple of God. Of which words there be many expositions saith Bellarmine: some by the Temple of God understand the minds of the faithful, in which Antichrist shall sit after he hath seduced them: which interpretation agreeth fitly to the Pope, who only sitteth as it were a God in the minds of men, prescribing laws to bind the conscience, and that with guilt of mortal sin, as they speak. Others expound these words of 2 Antichrist and his whole people, who is therefore said to sit in templum August. de civit. Dei, because Antichrist shall profess himself with his people, to be the true church of God: which also most fitly agreeth to Dei lib. 20. cap. 19 the Pope and church of Rome, which 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. Others by the temple, understand the churches 3 of the Christians, which Antichrist shall make subject to himself. Chrysost. etc. The which as we proved it to be the most true exposition, so doth it properly agree to the Pope of Rome. Others by the temple 4 of God, understand the temple of God at jerusalem, wherein Antichrist shall sit, and this (saith Bellarmine) is the more common, more probabte, and more literal opinion. I doubt not but that it is an opinion more plausible to the Papists, who care not what they hold concerning Antichrist, so that it agree not to the Pope. But of these three things which Bellarmine avoucheth in commendation of this conceit, two are false, and the third is to no purpose. For neither is this exposition more common among the ancient Fathers, than that other, which by the temple understandeth the churches of the Christians: which heretofore we have showed to have been the judgement of Theodoret, Li. 1. ca 4 § 15. Jerome, chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, etc. And although it were the more common exposition, yet that would not prove it to be more true, for truth goeth not by voices, neither is to be weighed by multitude of suffrages, but by weight of reason. Neither is it more probable: for if the temple shall never be re-edified, as hath been showed, then is there no probability that Antichrist should sit in it. Neither were that material, though it were more literal, unless the literal were usual. For in all the Epistles by the temple of God is meant the Church: and there is an usual metonymy betwixt the words which signify either the assembly, or the place of the assembly. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth the place, is often used for 1. Cor. 3. 16. 17. 2. Cor. 6. 16 Ephe. 2. 21. Apoc. 3. 12. the assembly or church: and Ecclesia that is church, is often used for the place. Neither can the temple erected by Antichrist be truly called the temple of God. Yea but (saith Bellarmine) in the scripture of the new testament, by the temple of God are never understood the churches, that is to say, the temples of Christians. The more absurd is he to understand this place of a material temple, contrary to the usual acceptation of the word in the writings of the Apostles. The Apostle therefore by temple, meaneth not a material temple of wood and stone, but a spiritual temple compact of living stones: and by sitting in the temple, not a corporal gesture, for Antichrist is to sit there as God, that is, he is to rule and reign in the church of God, as if he were a god upon earth. But of this whole matter, see more in the first book, chapped. 2. § 13. & 14. & 15. 4 Now let us come to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or disproof of our assertion, who hold that Antichrist shall sit not at jerusalem but at Rome, and in Rome professing herself the church of God. First by a fond cavillation, wherein he greatly pleaseth himself, he seeketh to drive us to an absurdity. For (saith he) if Antichrist shall sit in the Church of God, and if the Pope be Antichrist, than the church wherein the Pope sitteth is the true church: and consequently the Protestants and all others that be not of that church, are out of the church, etc. This cavil is to be resolved into three syllogisms. 1. Antichrist sitteth in the Church of Christ, The Pope of Rome is Antichrist, therefore saith Bellarmine, the Pope sitteth in the true church of Christ. But he might as well conclude thus: He that professeth the name of Christ is a Christian: the Papist, the Anabaptist, the Familist, etc. professeth the name of Christ, therefore the Papist, the Anabaptist, the Familist is a true Christian. But hath not Bellarmine learned so much Logic as not to foist into the conclusion, that which is not contained in the premises? the word true is not contained in the premises, and therefore sophistically thrust into the conclusion. For Antichrist may sit in the church, although not in the true Church. Generally the Church of Christ signifieth the company of Christians, that is, of those that profess the name of Christ. But as of Christians, some are only in title and profession, some indeed & in truth: so of Churches, some are only in title and profession Churches of Christ, others are his true Churches. Now Antichrist he was to be an Apostata, and the head of the Catholic apostasy: therefore the church whereof Antichrist is the head, although it be in title and profession a church of Christ, as being a company of them that are christened, and profess the name of Christ: yet it is but an apostatical church; a church which of a faithful City is become an harlot; and of the true Church of God, the whore of Babylon. But may not this absurdity rather be returned upon the Papists, who by the templeof God 2. Thess. 2. 4. understand that temple which Antichrist shall build at jerusalem? Antichrist shall sit in the temple of God, saith the Apostle, Antichrist shall sit in that temple which himself shall build at jerusalem saith the Papist, therefore that temple which he shall build at jerusalem shall be indeed the temple of God. Whereas in truth according to their own conceits, it were rather to be called the temple of the devil. If any man object that it might after a sort be called the temple of God, because the temple of God did stand there, and because Antichrist will pretend to make it to the honour of God, whereunto the former temple was erected: I answer by the like reason the church of Rome may be called the church of God, because once it was a true church, and still is in title & profession the church ofChrist: although in truth it be but little more the church of Christ, than Antichrists imaginary temple at jerusalem would be the temple of God. 5 His second syllogism which is inferred upon the former is this. If the Pope sit in the true Church of God than the church of Rome is the only true Church (for the Church of Christ is one as Christ is one): but the Pope sitteth in the true church of God, as was proved in the former syllogism, therefore the church of Rome is the only true church of Christ First, I answer to the proof of his proposition. The Catholic & invisible Church of Christ is one sheepfold under one shepherd Christ: but particular & visible churches are more than one, as the church of Corinth, the church of Rome, the seven churches in the Apocalypse, and all the Churches of the Gentiles mentioned Rom. 16. 4. and therefore the church of Rome, although it were a true visible church, yet were it but a particular church, and therefore not the only true church. But now the church of Rome is not a true visible church of Christ, but the whore of Babylon, an adulterous, and Idolatrous, and Apostatical church, which once was Rome, as Petrarch saith, now Babylon; once Bethel, now Bethaven: once the Church of Christ, now the synagogue of Antichrist, as hath been proved. And therefore there being no truth either in the proposition, or the assumption, I answer the proposition by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, although the Pope did sit in the true church, yet it followeth not that therefore the church of Rome is the only true Church: and the assumption by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but the Pope doth not sit in the true church, and therefore there is no show of reason in this cavil. 6 His third syllogism is inferred upon the second: If the Church of Rome be the only true Church, than those which are not members of this Church, whereof the Pope is head, as namely the Protestants, are out of the Church. But now (say I) the church of Rome is so far from being the only true church, as that it is that Babylon, Apoc. 18. 4. from which we are commanded to separate, if we will be saved: there being no salvation in that Church for those that receive and retain the mark of the beast, Apoc. 14. 9 therefore this also is a fond and sophistical cavil. Notwithstanding, as the adulterous and apostatical state of Israel under jeroboam and Achab, so 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 some sacraments and profession of the name of the Lord, and also of some relics and remainder, as it were the glean of the invisible Church. In Israel, although an Apostatical and Idolatrous state, the sacrament of circumcision was retained: so in the church of Rome, the sacrament of baptism. The church of Israel professed jehovah to be their God, although they worshipped him Idolatrously: so the church of Rome professeth the name of Christ, but exceedeth Israel in Idolatry. In Israel even under Achab the Lord had reserved 7000. who never bowed their knee to Baal: and so we doubt not, but that in the corruptest times of Popery, the Lord hath reserved some who have not received the mark of the beast. And as the church of Sardis was still called the church of Christ, although grievously fallen from Christ, because they still professed the name of Christ, and retained no doubt the Sacrament of Baptism, and had among them some few names that had not defiled themselves: so I confess with Caluin, that the church of Rome may be called a church of Christ, both in respect of some vestigia and outward notes of a visible church, as administration of Baptism, and profession of the name of Christ, and some secret relics of the invisible church, which have not bowed their knees to Apo. 20. 4 Baal. But that which is said to the church of Sardis, may most justly be avowed to the church of Rome. Thou hast a name that thou livest, but indeed art dead: thou professest Apoc. 3. 1. thyself to be the church of Christ, but art the synagogue of Antichrist: thou art called the church of Rome, which once was famous for her saith, but art the whore of Babylon, the Apo. 3. 4. mother of all the fornications, and abominations in the christian world. 7 Hear Bellarmine objecteth two things: If there remain in the church of Rome but ruins and relics of a true church, than the church may be ruinated, and the truth hath lied, who saith, that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it. Ans. The Catholic and invisible church of Christ, which is the whole company of the elect, can never fail: But visible and particular churches which consist of hypocrites many times and unsound christians (which are in the visible church, but are not of the invisible) as the greater part, may fail and fall away, although not one sound christian that 1. joh. 2. 19 is of the invisible church doth fall away. As the lamentable experience of the church of Israel severed from juda, the examples of Corinth, Ephesus, and many other famous Churches, which were planted by the Apostles. Again saith Bellarmine: If the Church be ruinated, and the ruins remain in Popery, than the Papists have the Church, although decayed and ruinated, but the Protestants have no Church; not entire, for the entire Church is ruinated: not ruinated or decayed, for the ruins are among the Papists. What have they then? a new building, which because it is new, is none of Christ's, and therefore who seethe not, that it is safer to live in the church decayed, then in no church at all? But in this cavil there is not so much as any show of reason, unless he take that for granted, (which we do most confidently deny, and they are never able to prove) that the church of Rome not only is the true church of Christ, but also the only true church. For otherwise the church of Rome may fall, and yet the Catholic church of Christ may stand, yea, shall stand, maugre the force of Antichrist, and malice of Satan himself. And as for the church of the Protestants, it is no new building, as Antichrist vaunteth, but is a part of the Catholic church of Christ, reform and renewed according to the word of God, and the example of the primitive church: even as the Church of juda under josias, was no new building, but the old frame, as it was under David, renewed and reform according to the law of God. 8 The exceptions which he taketh against our arguments, concluding that Rome is the seat of Antichrist, I have for the Lib. 1. cap. 2. most part taken away before. It shall suffice therefore now, to answer those which before were not touched. That Rome is the seat of Antichrist we prove, because it is mystical Babylon, situated on seven hills, & having dominion over the Kings of the earth, etc. Bellarmine among other answers before refuted, saith, that by mystical Babylon we are to understand Rome Heathenish, not Rome christened, because S. john speaketh of that Rome which had dominion over the kings of the earth, and which is said to be drunk with the blood of the Saints and Martyrs of jesu. I answer, that although these notes agreed not to Popish Rome, yet we might understand the Apostle thus, that that city which then had dominion over the Kings of the earth, & then persecuted the Saints, is called Babylon: because it was to be the seat or See of Antichrist. But now 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, as before hath been showed. 9 Again, whereas we prove that Antichrist shall sit in the church of God because the Apostle saith, he shall sit in the Temple of God, and withal affirm that this cannot be understood of the Temple of jerusalem, which now is utterly destroyed, & is no more to be re-edified, as Daniel testifieth chap. 9 verse 27. he answereth that Daniel would say something that he doth not say: either that the Temple should not be re-edified until a little before the end of the world. But Daniel doth not say until a little before the end: but as their own translation readeth, Vsque ad consummationem & finem perseverabit desolatio, the desolation shall continue until the consummation and end: or as Jerome saith, Vsque ad finem mundi, unto the end of the world: or as other, Vsque ad consummationem eamque praecisam. As it is said of Michael, 2. Sam. 6. 23. that she had no child until the day of her death. And of joseph, that he knew not Mary until she had brought forth her first begotten son, Math. l. 24. & of Christ, that he will be with the faithful until the end of the world, Mat. 28. 20. Not that Michael at her death, or a little before had children: not that joseph ever knew Mary: nor that Christ will ever forsake the faithful: So that this word until in the scriptures signifieth rather perpetuity than cessation before the time, which seemeth thereby to be limited. Whereas therefore Daniel saith that the temple should lie desolate until the end & consummation of the world, it is as much as if he had said, that it should never be re-edified. Or if that were not daniel's meaning, them he must say, that although the temple should be built again, yet as it was desolate before it be built, so afterward the abomination of desolation, that is, Antichrist or his Image, should remain in it to the end. Yea but the Primitive Church believed that the temple should never be built again, and held this assertion of the Papists as a jewish fable. And as touching the abomination of desolation, it hath been showed that our Saviour Christ by a metonymy understandeth Luk. 21. 20. and Mat. 24. 15. thereby the armies of the Romans, who in respect of their paganism were abominable, and in regard of their effect desolations, such as brought upon jerusalem the final destruction and desolation. Daniel saith per alam detestationum desolantem by a synecdoche for per legiones etc. as Esay 8. 8. Or lastly, this must be daniel's meaning, that the temple shall never perfectly be re-edified, but that the re-edifying is to be begun, and that in the temple so begun Antichrist shall sit. Thus shamefully the wilful patrons of error, stick not to draw the scripture to their fancies, not caring to conform their judgement to the scripture. Daniel in that place speaketh not a word of Antichrist, nor yet of Antiochus his type, but of the utter desolation and final destruction of jerusalem by the Romans: and of this desolation, according to their own translation, he saith, that it should continue to the end and consummation: that is, (saith Bellarmine) the temple shall never perfectly be built again, but yet it shall be built again, and in it being so built, Antichrist shall sit. How built? is it like that Antichrist, who shall according to their conceit be the most mighty Prince and Monarch in the world, that he I say, will suffer that temple which he chooseth for his chief seat, to be unbuilt: or that so great and so proud a monarch will sit in a temple without a roof or unsinished, professing the same also to be his principal seat? Why but Christ saith, the destruction of the temple should be such as that one stone should not be left upon another; and Daniel saith according to their own translation, that this desolation of the temple should continue to the end. How then can his meaning be, that it should be reedisied either in whole or in part? The stories also of the church do testify, that as Daniel Socrat. li. 3 c. 20. and our Saviour Christ had foretold the final destruction and desolation of jerusalem: so when julian the Apostate, desiring Theodoret li. 3. ca 20. Sozom. li. 5 cap. vlt. to convince the preaching of our Saviour of untruth, endeavoured by the jews to re-edify the temple: the Lord to verify his word, would not suffer it to be built either in whole, or in part: but by a fearful earthquake overthrew the foundations, by fire from heaven burned the tools of the workmen, by wind and tempest scattered the lime and mortar, and by fire proceeding out of the earth burned the workmen as they digged. jerusalem & the temple were types of the church of Christ. Therefore when as by the preaching of the Gospel to all nations the church of Christ was planted among the Gentiles, the city and temple were to have an end as our Saviour hath prophesied, Math. 24. 14. then shall be the end, to wit, of the city and temple of jerusalem: which being once overthrown by the legions of the Romans, should according to daniel's prophesy remain desolate until the end of the world: or as our Saviour foretold in other words, that jerusalem should be trodden Luk. 21. 24. under foot of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. 10 Lastly, whereas Theodorus Bibliander proveth by the testimony of Gregory the great, that Antichrist was to sit in the church, & to exercise an universal dominion over the same, because Gregory saith that john of Constantinople challenging the title Lib. 4. Epist. 38. of universal Bishop, therein was the forerunner of Antichrist: and secondly, because he saith that an army of Priests were prepared for Antichrist, thereby signifying that he should be a prince of Priests: Bellarmine answereth, that the contrary is to be inferred upon Gregory his words. For the forerunner must not be equal to him, whose forerunner he is, but less and inferior. If therefore john of Constantinople, who was the forerunner of Antichrist, challenged the title of universal Bishop, Antichrist himself shall challenge greater matters, and shall advance himself above all that is called God. But I reply, that although the pride and ambition of john of Constantinople was very great and Antichristian: yet it was not to be compared with the incredible insolency and pride of the Antichrist of Rome. john of Constantinople sought a superiority over all other Bishops, but challenged not that height of authority and foveraigntie which the Popes since have usurped, not only over Bishops and Ecclesiastical persons, but also over the Kings and Monarchies of the earth. Neither hath the Antichristian pride of the Pope rested here, but as I have showed heretofore, in some things he matcheth himself Li. 1. cap. 5. with Christ, in some things he advanceth himself above him, and above all that is called God. To the second Bellarmine answereth, that it was not Gregory's meaning, that Priests as they are Priests, belong to the army of Antichrist, but as they are proud. But hence it followeth not saith he, Antichristum fore principem sacerdotum, sed fore principem superborum, that Antichrist shall be the prince of Priests, but that he shall be the prince of proud men: 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? It followeth therefore upon our arguments, notwithstanding all his cavils, that Antichrist was to have his chief seat in Rome, and in Rome professing herself the church of God, but being indeed the whore of Babylon. Chap. 14. Concerning the doctrine of Antichrist. Our adversaries seventh disputation is concerning 1 the doctrine of Antichrist. For whereas it is certain, saith Bellarmine, that there are four principal doctrines of Antichrist, none whereof is taught by the Pope; therefore it followeth necessarily, that the Pope is not Antichrist. I answer, that there are more doctrines of Antichrist that false prophet than four, among which those two doctrines of devils which are mentioned by the Apostle, 1. Tim. 4. as notes of that Catholic Apostasy, whereof Antichrist is the head, are to be numbered, forbidding marriage, and commanding abstinence from meats. But yet not all these four are the doctrines of Antichrist, and those which be, do not unfitly agree to the Pope: as shall appear in the particulars, which we are to examine in order. For from these four doctrines Bellarmine fetcheth four arguments. The first, Antichrist shall deny jesus to be Christ, and consequently shall oppugn all the ordinances of our Sautour, as Baptism, confirmation, etc. and shall teach that circumcision, the Sabbath, and other ceremonies of the old law are not yet ceased: But the Pope doth not deny jesus to be Christ, nor bring in circumcision instead of Baptism, nor the Saboth in stead of the lords day, &c: therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. The proposition, and so also 〈◊〉 assumption ●…ath two parts, the former concerning the denial of Christ itself, the second concerning the consequents thereof. Of the former, I have sufficiently spoken heretofore: proving 〈◊〉 ●…ntly 〈◊〉 that as Antichrist was to deny Christ, so Li. 1. ca 4. § 6 7. 8. the Pope do●… no●… in deed only, but in word also and doctrine, although not openly directly & expressly (for Antichrist was not to be an open and professed enemy), yet covertly, indirectly, and by consequent. And of such denying of Christ, Bellarmine himself in this chapter understandeth john to speak in the place by him alleged for the proof of his proposition. 1. joh. 2. 22. 2. But ●…iuing that this exp●…ion will not clear me Pope 〈◊〉 Antichristn ●…me he 〈◊〉 ●…th that. Ancichrist is to 〈◊〉 Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 openly, and 〈◊〉 all means. Which bold assur●…ion I have her●…of 〈◊〉 ●…fficiently disproved, when I proved that Antichristianism is as the Apos●…●…eth it, a mystery of iniquities; an●… that Antichrist is 〈◊〉 ●…and disguised em●…; who under the name and profession of ●…tianitie denieth, yea oppugneth Christ and his truth. Bu●… 〈◊〉 ●…s weigh his reasons. The first whereof hath all his w●… 〈◊〉 such assertions as we have before proved to 〈◊〉 then vanity itself: and it is thus concluded. He that 〈◊〉 be in nation and religion a jew, and shall be received of the jews f●… their Me●… shall ●…ugne Christ, and teach that our Christ is not the Me●… But Antichrist shall be in nation and re●… 〈◊〉 and shall be received of the jews for their Messias 〈◊〉 befor●…●…th been showed; therefore he shall oppugn Christ openly, etc. I 〈◊〉 ●…ere first to the proposition and assumption jointly, that the●…e is no necessity nor yet likelihood that there should come to the jews such a one as they expect; and yet Bellarmine every where taketh this for granted. But the assumption I have proved heretofore to be a new fable, and therefore further answer is superfluous. Chap. 12. 3 The second argument is gathered out of 1. john. 2. 22. Who is a liar, but he that denieth jesus to be Christ, and this is Antichrist. For all heretics (saith he) are called Antichrists, which any way deny jesus to be Christ. Therefore the true antichrist himself shall simply & by all means deny jesus to be Christ And this is proved, because by the heretics the devil is said to work the mystery of iniquity, because they deny Christ covertly, but the coming of Antichrist is called a revelation, because he shall openly deny Christ I answer first, that john in that place speaketh neither of the body of Antichrist in general (as elsewhere in his Epistles the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used) nor of the head of that body in particular, who is most worthily called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antichrist; but of some other members of that body, that is to say, of those Antichrists or heretics of that time, as Cerinthus and others, which denied the divinity of Christ; and denying the son, did consequently also deny the Father, for he is the Father of the Son, as appeareth plainly by that which followeth in the text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This is that Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son. Secondly, the difference betwixt the petite Antichrists & the grand Antichrist, is not in respect of the covert and open denial of Christ; or if there be a difference to be made in this behalf, it is in this, that divers heretics and petite Antichrists, such as Simon Magus & some others, have denied jesus to be Christ more plain●…y and directly, which the grand Antichrist according to his greater cunning and efficacy of deceit (coming as the Apostle saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all deceiveableness of iniquity 2. Thess. 2. 10. ) was to deny more cunningly and covertly. But the difference is both in respect of the Apostasy & opposition against Christ, and also in regard of the ambition and advancing of themselves. The Apostasy and opposition may be considered either in respect of the parts and points wherein it consisteth, or in respect of the parties which make it. In both respects the Apostasy & opposition of the petite Antichrists is but particular, that is, of few men in few things: but the Apostasy and opposition of the grand Antichrist is more eatholike and general, that is, in the most parts of Christianity, and of the greatest part of Christendom. Likewise, the ambition of petite Antichrists is to seek pre-eminence with Diotrephes in particular 3. john. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. churches, and over some other men: But the grand Antichrist claimeth an universal sovereignty over all men, and a double Monarchy over all the world: and not contented to advance himself above all other men, even Kings and Emperors, and that by many degrees; but in many things also matcheth himself with Christ the King of Kings, & in some things advanceth himself above him. Yea, but this difference betwixt the small Antichrists & the great Antichrist is proved, because by the small Antichrists or heretics, Satan is said to work the mystery of iniquity, whereas the coming of Antichrist is called a revelation. The mystery of iniquity 2. Thess. 2. 7. is Antichristianisme, or that Antichristian Apostasy from Christ mentioned Ver. 3. which is therefore called a mystery of iniquity, because it being a devilish opposition unto Christ, is cunningly cloaked under the profession of Christ. This mystery as it was a working in the Apostles time in the heretics & petite Antichrists by degrees: so was it more fully wrought & accomplished in Antichrist himself, the head of the catholic Apostasy: under whom it deserveth so much the more to be called the mystery of iniquity, as it masketh under more glorious shows and vizards of outward profession, and shroudeth itself under the name and title of the catholic and only true visible church. The mystery therefore of iniquity, which in the former part of this Antithesis is appropriated unto heretics, doth indeed most truly belong to Antichrist himself; and therefore if it be called a mystery because it is a covert and cunning denial of Christ, then under the grand Antichrist Christ shall be most cunningly denied, when he is most gloriously professed. Now Antichrist is said to be revealed, when the head of the Antichristian body is manifested, and of this revelation there be degrees; the first his showing of himself in his colours, by challenging & usurping an universal supremacy & sovereignty over all the world; and secondly his acknowledgement after he was come to his full growth, of which we have heretofore spoken. It appeareth therefore that Antichrist was not to deny Christ plainly and openly; and consequently, that the first part of his proposition (whereupon the latter is inferred) is false. 4 The latter part of his proposition is, that Antichrist shall abolish all the ordinances of Christ, & in stead of them, bring in the ceremonies of the jews, as circumcision in stead of baptism, & the jewish Sabbath in stead of the Lords day. But how is this proved? because he shall openly deny Christ, and shall in nation and religion be a Iew. But as both these assertions have been proved false: so are we to think of this which is inferred upon them. For seeing he was to be a disguising hypocrite, and his religion a mystery of iniquity: it cannot be thought that he sitting in the Temple of God; and professing the name of Christ, should abolish all his ordinances; but rather that he would deprive & corrupt them, and take away the right use thereof, by devilish doctrines, by superstitious Idolatries, by mixture of jewish and Heathenish ceremonies. But both the parts of his proposition he seeketh further to prove by testimonies of Fathers, and by reason. The testimonies of the Fathers in this question deserve no further credit, than as they conspire with the prophecies of scripture, and agree with the event. But let us examine them severally. First Hillary is alleged as though he testified, that whereas the Arrians affirmed that Christ is not the son of God by nature, but only by adoption: the Antichrist shall teach that he is not so much as the adoptive son of God. But if you read the place, Lib. 6 de trinit. fol. 102. you shall find that Hillary apply the speech of john, 1, Epist. 2. 22. to those heretics who professing Christ to be their Saviour, but denying him to be the natural son of God, & consequently denying him to be Christ, affirmed that he is the adoptive son of God: & therefore inferreth out of that place of john, that they cannot avoid, but that they are Antichrist. Wherefore the Antichrist, of whom Hillary speaketh; confesseth the name of Christ; De consummate. mund●…. neither doth he deny him openly & directly, but indirectly & by consequent. The next authority of Hippolytus is counterfeit, and the testimony here alleged as currant, (that the mark of Antichrist shall be nego baptismum, nego signum crucis, I deny baptism, I deny the sign of the Cross) heretofore hath been rejected by Bellarmine himself, and refuted as false. Chap. 11. Where he hath taught that there is but one mark of the beast, and that not a privative (as this is) but a positive mark, which is not yet known. Thirdly, he allegeth Augustine, as though he affirmed De civit. Dei lib. 20 c. 8. that Antichrist should suffer none to be baptized. Yet Augustine speaketh not of Antichrist, but of the devil, and affirmeth, that even then when the devil shall be loosed, many shall be added to the church: and that the devil himself being loosed, shall not be able to hinder Baptism, but surely so valiant shall be both the parents for the baptizing of their children, and also those which shall then first believe, that they shall over come that strong one being unbound. The speech of Jerome on the 11. of Daniel, if it deserve credit, it must be taken either as a prophesy itself, or else a true exposition of daniel's prophesy. Verse. 21. 22. But Jerome was no Prophet. And daniel's speech undoubtedly is to be understood of Antiochus Epiphanes, to whom this exposition (if it were good) should literally agree. But Antiochus did not rise of the jews, neither did he feign himself to be the Prince of the covenant. And for further answer, and better understanding of the place, read Polan. on Polan. in Daniel. cap. 11. ver. 21. 22. in 2. Thess. 2. Daniel 11. If Sedulius affirm as Bellarmine citeth him, that Antichrist shall restore all the ceremonies of the jews, his speech is incredible, for many of them cannot be observed but in the Temple, which shall never be re-edified. If he speak of many, it may be verified of the Pope, and of some other heretics, who notwithstanding have not openly denied Christ. Gregory in the same place which Bellarmine allegeth, doth affirm Lib. 11. Epist. 3. that Antichrist shall have in reverence not only the Sabbath day, but also the Lords day; which cannot stand with such an open denial of Christ as Bellarmine imagineth. His words be these. Qui veniens diem Sabbati atq dominicum ab omni faciet opere custoderi, Who when he cometh (speaking of Antichrist) shall cause the Sabbath day, and the Lords day, to be kept from all work. And of this there may better reason be given, then of the other, because (as hath been proved) Antichrist was to be a pretended Christian. 5 These were his authorities: now let us weigh his reason, which is thus concluded. In whose time the public service of God, and divine sacrifices shall cease by reason of the vehement persecution, he shall openly deny Christ, and shall abolish all his ordinances, and in stead of them, bring in jewish ceremonies: But in Antichrists time, by reason of the vehement persecution, the public service of God, and divine sacrifices shall cease; therefore, etc. I answer by distinction: If by the service of God he mean the true worship of God, the proposition is untrue. For in the Papacy the true public worship of God, by reason of the vehemency of persecution hath ceased, and yet the Pope doth not openly deny Christ and abolish his ordinances, although he do vilely deprive them, and mingle them not only with jewish, but also Heathenish ceremonies. If by the public service, and divine sacrifices he meaneth generally any service of God, although superstitious, any sacrifices although idolatrous (such as is the sacrifice, of the Mass) than the assumption is false: for such superstitions and will-worshippes' do best beseem Antichrist. But of this argument concerning the persecution of Antichrist, we have spoken before, chap. 7. 6 This may suffice for answer to his proposition and the proofs thereof. Whereas therefore he assumeth, that the Pope doth not deny Christ, etc. I answer: if he meaneth a direct denial in open profession, that the Pope may be Antichrist, although he do not so deny Christ: If he meaneth a denial of Christ in deed and in truth, although covertly, indirectly, and by consequent, I have heretofore proved that he doth so deny Christ, not only in word and doctrine, as he is a false Prophet, but also in deed and fact, as he is a man of sin, denying him in his life, and as he is an adversary, not only denying, but also oppugning Christ and his truth. See the first Book. chap. 4. §. 6. 7. 8. 7 The second doctrine of Antichrist saith Bellarmine, is to affirm himself to be the true Christ From whence he gathereth his second argument. Antichrist shall affirm himself to be Christ. The Pope doth not affirm himself to be Christ, therefore the Pope i●… not Antichrist. That Antichrist being hostis & amulus Christi, (that is, an enemy of Christ opposed unto him, in emulation of like honour) shall indeed challenge unto himself those offices, prerogatives and authority which properly belong to Christ (which in effect is as much as if he should say, I am Christ) we deny not: and withal avouch that the Pope of Rome doth so affirm himself to be Christ. But that Antichrist shall openly and in so many words expressly affirm that he is the Christ or Messias of the world, that we deny to be agreeable to that Antichrist, who is described in the word of God. For Antichrist was to be a dissembling hypocrite, as hath been proved, and his religion is a mystery of iniquity cloaked under the profession of Christianity. Neither could he seduce so many Christians, if he should plainly and openly profess himself to be the true Christ. But let us see how Bellarmine proveth that Antichrist shall openly and expressly name himself Christ. Forsooth out of Ioh 5. 43. If an other come in his own name, him will you receive: Where saith he, our Lord seemeth of purpose to have added these words (in his own name) foreseeing that the Lutherans and Caluinists would say, that Antichrist shall not come in his own name, but in the name of Christ as being his Vicar. But I have heretofore proved, that Christ in this place doth not speak absolutely an other shall come, but conditionally, if an other shall come, nor definitely of Antichrist, but indefinitely of any false Prophet that should come in his own name, not sent of God. Neither doth it follow, that if Antichrist shall come in his own name, that therefore he will profess himself to be Christ. For all false Prophets come in their own name, because they are not sent of God, and yet the most of them have not professed themselves to be Christ. And it is plain that our Saviour Christ in this place maketh an opposition betwixt himself and every false Prophet in this respect, that he came unto them in the name of his Father, that is, not taking upon himself this honour to be our Prophet and Priest, without authority and commission from God, but sent from the bosom of his Father, and yet was not received of the jews: but if an other, meaning any other false Prophet, should come unto them not in the name of the Father, but in his own name, that is, having no commission or authority from God, such a one should be embraced of them. And further we are to consider, that Christ professing himself to be the Messias, seemeth to deny that he came in his own name, (for he signifieth that false Prophets come in their own name, but he came in the name of the Father) therefore to come in his own name, signifieth to come of himself, without any calling or commission from God: And therefore our adversaries cannot with any show of reason conclude out of this place, that Antichrist shall profess himself to be Christ. And yet this is all the proof which he can bring out of the scriptures. Yea, but though the scriptures teach no such matter, Yet some of the Fathers affirm, that Antichrist shall profess himself to be Christ: yea, but Bellarmine hath told us, that we are not to give credit to such conjectures of theirs as have no ground in the word of God. For how could they, being no Prophets, certainly foretell such things of Antichrist without book, that is to say, without warrant of the scriptures. And whereas he addeth, that these Fathers affirm, that he shall be received of the jews for their Messias, and therefore shall profess himself to be the Messias, I answer, that in like sort a dozen of them affirmed that Antichrist should come of the Tribe of Dan, whereof notwithstanding there is no probability. 8 To the proposition therefore I answer, that Antichrist was not plainly and openly to profess himself to be Christ, but to challenge the office and authority of Christ, which is in effect although indirectly & by consequent, as much as if he said I am Christ To the assumption I answer, that although the Pope doth not plainly & directly say, I am Christ, but forbeareth the name of Christ, as Caesar did the name of a King: yet notwithstanding, in that he challengeth the office & authority of Christ, it is as much in deed and in truth, although indirectly and by consequent, as if he made himself Christ, Christ being a name of office. For certainly whosoever professeth himself to be the foundation, the head, the husband, & Lord, etc. of the universal church, he maketh himself Christ, although he do abstain from the name. For who is the head and Lord, etc. of the universal church, but Christ? who hath authority to ordain sacraments, to prescribe laws to the conscience, to deliver doctrines and articles of faith as necessary to salvation, to forgive the sins of the quick and the dead? who is the Prince of Priests, the great Priest after the order of Melchizedec, the Pastor of Pastors, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, by whom Kings and Emperors do reign, who hath authority to command the Angels, to bestow the kingdom of heaven on whom he pleaseth. Finally, unto whom is all power given in heaven and in earth, but only to Christ? But the Pope doth challenge all this to himself, and much more, as hath been showed. He forsooth is the foundation, the head, husband and Lord of the universal Lib. 1. cap. 5. Church, etc. And to conclude, if you respect his nature, Atquè ac Christus Deus est ens secundae intentionis, compositum ex Deo & homine, As well as Christ he is God, an essence of the second intention, compounded of God and man: if his office, unctione Christus est, he is by annointment Christ, having the very same office which Christ had when he was upon the earth. And therefore Bellarm. de pontiff. Rom. lib. 5. cap. 4. if this be a property of Antichrist to leave unto our Saviour the name and title of Christ, & to take to himself the dignity, office, and authority of Christ: it cannot be avoided but that the Pope is Antichrist. 9 The third doctrine of Antichrist (saith Bellarmine) is this: He shall affirm himself to be God, and will require that he may be worshipped as God. From whence he reasoneth thus: Antichrist will affirm that he is God, and will be worshipped for God: The Pope of Rome doth not affirm himself to be God, neither would be worshipped as God, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. The proposition is proved out of 2. Thess. 2. 4. So that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as though he were God. Answ. The meaning of the Apostles words is thus much, that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, as God, that is, he shall rule and reign in the church of God, as if he were a God upon earth, showing himself not so much by words as by deeds, that he is a God. Or as the vulgar Latin edition and English translation of the Rhemists do read, tanquam sit Deus; as though he were God. And thus chrysostom, Theophylact, and Oecumenius, expound this place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (saith chrysostom) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he saith showing himself, he said not, saying, but endeavouring to show, for he shall work great works, and shall show forth wonderful signs: and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 showing, as Beza observeth, is answerable to the Hebrew Moreh, faciens se apparere, prae se ferens, or as we say, taking upon him as if he were a God. It is not therefore necessary that Antichrist should in word plainly & openly profess himself to be God: it is sufficient, if in deed and behaviour he taketh upon him as if he were 〈◊〉 God. As for example, if he shallbe content to be acknowledged, saluted and called God. If he shall cause, nay if he shall but willingly suffer himself to be worshipped as God, if he shall challenge unto himself those titles, attributes, and works which are proper & peculiar to the Lord. But Bellarmine perceiving that this place in this sense may fitly be applied to the pope: therefore he contendeth that it is not sufficient that Antichrist should indeed show himself to be God (as the Pope doth) but that he shall openly name himself God: and that he shall usurp, not only some authority of God (as the Pope doth) but also the very name of God. And that he saith is proved out of these words of the Apostle, 2. Thess. 2. in so much that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself tanquam sit Deus, as though he were God. Where saith he Paul doth not only affirm that Antichrist shall sit in the temple, (for we also sit in temples, and yet are no Antichrists) but also expoundeth his manner of sitting, namely that he shall sit as God: to whom alone a temple is properly erected. And this hesaith is more clearly set down in the Greek text: for it is not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he is God. But in this cavil are contained divers errors: 1. by temple, which as we have proved, signifieth the church of God, he understandeth a material temple, which should be built at jerusalem. 2. by sitting in the temple, which signifieth his reigning in the church, he understandeth the corporal gesture of sitting in that material temple. 3. by his sitting in the temple of God as God, which signifieth his ruling over the church as if he were God, he understandeth thus much, that the material temple should be erected and consecrated to his honour, as if he were God. As though that temple which should be erected to his honour, as if he and no other were the true God, were called of the Apostle the temple of God: or as though he pretending himself to be the Messias of the jews sent from God, would not also pretend the building of that temple to the honour of God. 4. Whereas he saith that the Greek text hath not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is plain that the text hath both. In so much that he sitteth in the temple of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God, showing himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he is God. Now Antichrist may sit in the temple of God as God, and by his deeds and demeanour bear the world in hand that he is a God upon earth, and yet not profess himself openly and plainly to be God. 10 And in this sense (to come to his assumption) doth this place properly agree to the Pope of Rome, who sitteth in the temple of God as God, that is, ruleth in the church of God as if he were a God upon earth: and in his behaviour and course of life, taketh upon him as if he were a God and so would be reputed of others. For first in their own law the Pope is not Dist. 96. c. satis evidenter. obscurely called God. The Canonists call him Dominun Deum nostrum Papam, Our Lord God the Pope. But for further proof of this point, I refer you to the former book, chap. 5 §. 6. etc. where I entreated of the Antichristian pride of the Pope. To which former testimonies I will add one practice of the Pope in his great year of jubilee, when as in solemn procession he is carried in a seat of gold upon noble men's shoulders (his god of bread being carried before him upon an backeney as his attendant) and at length cometh to the gates of Paradise which he beateth open with a golden hammer, at which time he is worshipped of all sorts present as a God, from whom they expect indulgence, remission of sins and eternal life, according to his large promises made to all those which shall come to Rome to celebrate the jubiley. In a word, he is numen quoddam visibilem quendam Deum pre●…se ferens, a certain divine majesty showing himself to be a certain visible God. The premises therefore considered, together with my allegations in the place before named, this argument may be returned upon our adversary after this manner: whosoever sitteth Lib. 1. ca 5 §. 6. 7. in the temple of God as God, that is, ruleth and reigneth over the church as if he were a God upon earth, and declareth himself either by word or deed that he is God: for example, if he shall challenge unto himself those titles, attributes and works which are proper unto God, and shall be willing to be saluted, acknowledged and adored as God, he undoubtedly is Antichrist. But the Pope of Rome ruleth over the church as if he were a God upon earth, and declareth himself both by word and deed that he is God, challenging unto himself those titles, attributes and works which are peculiar unto the Lord, etc. as hath been proved, therefore the Pope is Antichrist: yea but the Pope saith Bellarmine, doth not declare himself to be God, for he acknowledgeth himself to be the servant of the Lord. He might as well conclude that the Pope never calleth himself regem regunterrae, 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 gods servants. Neither doth his verbal profession oversway his real practice. But he should have remembered that the second beast which is Antichrist, Apoc. 13. 11. as he speaketh like the dragon belching out blasphemies against God: so he hath two horns like the lamb, & as a dissembling hypocrite imitateth in some things the humility of Christ. And therefore that the Pope could not be such an Antichrist as is described in the scriptures, unless he were an hypocrite, who doth by open profession pretend himself to be the servant of God, when as in truth he advanceth himself against him. And yet this is all that our adversary allegeth to prove his assumption, that the Pope doth not show himself to be God. 11 The fourth and last doctrine saith the jesuite is this, he shall not only affirm that he is God, but that he only is God, and shall oppugn all other Gods both true and false, and shall suffer no Idols. But this absurd conceit of the papists, is not only repugnant unto the truth, but also contradictory to their own doctrines concerning Antichrist. For is it 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? Again, the Antichristian seat is figured by the whore of Babylon, which because of her own idolatry is called a whore, and because she infecteth all nations that adhere unto her with her idolatries Apoc. 17. 2. 5. and superstitions, she is said to make them drunk with the cup of her fornications, and also to be the mother of all the fornications, that is, idolatries of the earth. Yea, & the Papists themselves expound Deut. 11. 38. where Antiochus Epiphanes is described as an Idolater, as properly spoken of Antichrist. And do not themselves teach that Antichrist shall profess himself to be the Messias of the jews, and consequently that he is sent and anointed of God? Now if he shall profess himself sent from God, shall we think that he will say there is no God besides himself? Or if he being but a mortal man, shall say there is no God besides himself, may we not well think that either they will hiss at him as a fool, or stone him to death as a blasphemer? Nay, do not themselves teach that he shall be in religion a jew, an observer of the Sabbath, and other jewish ceremonies? And do they not allege Jerome to prove, that Antichrist shall feign himself to be the chief of the covenant, and a In Dan. 11 chief maintainer of the law and testament of God? And are not his two horns like the Lamb expounded by some approved In Apo. 13 Authors among them, of the two testaments which he shall seem to profess? 12 But let us see how this wise conceit is proved: Forsooth by testimonies of the scriptures and the Fathers. Out of the scripture he allegeth two places, the former 2. Thess. 2. 4. Who is extolled above all that is called God, or worshipped. As if he should say, Antichrist shall be advanced above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, therefore he shall avouch that he alone is God, and will suffer no other God either true or false to be worshipped beside himself. I deny the consequence. For first Antichrist may advance himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, and yet suffer, yea require them to be worshipped. jupiter was supposed among the Heathen to advance himself above all other Gods, and yet suffered them to be worshipped as Gods. Antichrist the second beast, advanceth himself above the Image of the Apoc. 13. former beast, which is the Empire renewed, whereon he sitteth as the rider death upon a beast, and yet requireth the same to be worshipped. The Pope advanceth himself above Angels, Apoc. 17. Kings, and Princes, who are called Gods; above the Saints, the Host, the Cross, and whatsoever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the church of Rome, and yet requireth them all to be worshipped. Secondly, Antichrist may advance himself above or against all that is called God, or is worshipped, and yet not profess himself to be the only God. For so Antiochus Epiphanes advanced himself against every God, yea, against the God of Gods, Dan. 11. 36. and yet he was never so mad as to profess himself the only God. Thirdly, seeing Antichristianisme is not open Atheism, but a mystery of iniquity; & Antichrist is described in the scriptures as an hypocrite & pretended Christian: we may be assured that although in deed & in truth he shall advance himself against God, & against Christ our Saviour, & list up himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; yet he shall profess himself to be the servant of Christ, and a worshipper of God. Fourthly, the words of the text do not ascribe to Antichrist so great an extolling of himself as the jesuit imagineth. For first he is called a man of sin, & son of perdition, & therefore we are to conceive of such an advancement of himself, as is incident to a mortal & wretched man. Secondly, he is said to extol himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped. By all that is called God, we are 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, we are the rather to understand this place, because afterwards it is said, that the Roman Empire hindered Antichrists advancing or revealing himself. And by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to understand any thing which is worshipped as God, or wherein God is worshipped: Such in the Church of Rome are the Host, the Cross, the Saints, & their Images & relics. Above all which a man may advance himself (as the Pope doth) and yet may acknowledge some other God besides himself. Thirdly, 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 the height of Antichrist his pride and advancing of himself, is noted in the words following, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in so much that he shall sit in the temple of God as God. Whosoever therefore being but a mortal man, shall advance himself above all that is called God & worshipped, insomuch that he shall sit in the temple of God as God, that is, ruleth in the church of Christ as if he were a God upon earth, he is to be deemed Antichrist (that is aemulus Christi, one that would feign be equal to Christ) although he neither profess himself to be the only God, who only is to be worshipped, neither yet abolish all other worship of God both true and false. And if in this sense this place do properly agree to the Pope, as indeed it doth, then can it not be avoided but that he is Antichrist. 13 The second testimony which he allegeth to prove this fond conceit is Dan. 11. 37. neither shall he care for any of the Gods, but shall rise against all. I answer, Daniel in this place speaketh not of Antichrist, and he of whom he speaketh was an Idolater, and therefore this allegation is altogether impertinent. As touching the first, it is evident that Daniel from the 21. verse of that chapter to the end, doth most plainly & properly describe Antiochus Epiphanes. For howsoever in this place Bellarmine would prove by the authority of Jerome, that these words are to be understood of Antichrist, & not of Antiochus: yet in another place when part of this verse is objected Li. 3. ca 21 by some protestants as sitting the Pope, he telleth us plainly that Daniel speaketh ad literam●…, literally of Antiochus, who was a figure of Antichrist. Secondly, he of whom Daniel speaketh was an Idolater, and establisher of Idolatry. So far was he from professing himself to be the only true God, or suffering none to be worshipped beside himself. For if he speak of Antiochus Epiphanes, (as most certainly he doth) it may easily be proved both by History of the Maccabees, and by other stories, that he was both an Idolater himself, and an inforcer of Idolatry upon others. See I. Maccab. 1. 50. 2. Mac. cab. 6. 2. etc. Polybius also testifieth that in sacrifices & honouring the Grecian Gods, he surpassed other Kings which went before him, Apud Athenaeum. as might appear by the Olympiaeum at Athens, and the Images about the altar at Delos. This Jerome also avoucheth, and Bellarmine confesseth. But of whomsoever Daniel speaketh, he doth plainly describe him in the next verse to be an Idolater. Ver. 38. And it is a world to see what silly shifts the jesuit maketh to avoid this truth. For first he readeth the words thus: And he shall honour the God Maozim in his place: Secondly, he omitteth the words following (the God which his fathers knew not, he shall honour with gold, etc. which most plainly specify his Idolatry who is here described) and busieth himself wholly in giving a false interpretation to the god Maozim. The God Maozim saith he, signifieth either Antichrist himself, and then the meaning is he shall honour himself, that is, cause himself to be worshipped: or else it signifieth the devil whom Antichrist being a sorcerer shall worship in secret, which interpretation he preferreth before the other. And therefore this place doth not prove that he which is here described shallbe an Idolater. 14 I answer first, 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 is 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. And if the God Maozim signify any but the true God, and if also the words are so to be read as Bellarmine readeth them: And he shall honour the God Maozim, and the God whom his fathers knew not, he shall worship with gold and silver, etc. then by these words the Idolatry is increased. For first it is said, that he shall worship the God Maozim according to Bellarmine's reading, whereby is not meant as he saith the true God, nay he saith to make Christ the God Maozim, Li. 3. ca 21 it is intolerable blasphemy, O therefore first in these words is signified an Idolater: and secondly it is added, that the God also which his fathers knew not he shall worship, where again his Idolatry is most plainly noted. 2. But indeed Bellarmine's interpretation is merely false, and that which he inferreth thereupon, altogether absurd. The God Mahuzzim signifieth the God of fortitudes, that is, the most mighty or almighty God, which title as it is proper to the Lord, as jeremy calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jehovah, my jere. 16. 19 strength and fortitude: And likewise David, Psal. 31. 5. so may it not be ascribed to any other. And therefore it is a senseless imagination, that Daniel by the God of fortitudes would signify either Antichrist himself, a wicked and wretched man, or the father of Antichrist the Devil. And further, as touching the former interpretation, it seemeth to be absurd, that when Daniel according to his reading saith, he shall worship the God Maozim, his meaning should be, that Antichrist should worship himself, as though he that worshippeth, and he that is worshipped were one and the same. And then in like sort in the latter clause, by the God which he shall worship, which his fathers knew not, we must absurdly understand himself. For whereas he cavilleth at the word worship, and saith, we must read glofie, as though daniel's meaning were, that Antichrist should glorify himself, and cause himself to be worshipped: it is certain that the vulgar Latin (which he preferreth before the Hebrew, and which by the Council of Trent he is bound to stand to) hath venerabitur, shall worship. & himself both in the second clause of the verse, he readeth according to the vulgar colet, shall worship: and in his second interpretation, which he saith is the better, he doth so read and understand the word. His first interpretation therefore, that the God Maozim should signify Antichrist himself, is sottish and absurd. 15 Let us therefore consider whether the second which he preferreth before the other, be any better. In the second place saith he, it may be said, which pleaseth me better, that Antichrist shall be a Magician or sorcerer, (such as very many Popes of Rome have been) and that according to the manner of other Magicians, he shall in secret worship the Devil, (as divers of the Popes have done homage unto him) by whose help he shall work wonders, and that he is called the God Maozim. Answ. Whereas Bellarmine preferreth this exposition before others, it seemeth he hath forgotten the question which he took upon him to defend, namely, that Antichrist shall not be an Idolater. For if he shall be a worshipper of the devil, and also of a God whom his fathers knew not, I hope by this exposition he shall be proved an Idolater. But let us see what he further allegeth to prove this exposition, which although it be false (for Daniel here neither speaketh of Antichrist, nor yet of the Devil) yet it maketh against himself. Forsooth Maozim as he supposeth is not the name of God, but of a certain strong and secret place, in which shall be the chief treasures of Antichrist, and wherein he shall worship the devil. For it followeth in Daniel, that he shall fortify Maozim with a strange God whom he knew, and surely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mahoz signifieth as well fortitude as a tower or place of munition. His meaning then is, that the devil is here called the God Maozim, because Antichrist shall worship him in a certain tower, which if it were true, he should rather be called the God Maoz, but Daniel speaketh in the plural number, the God of fortitudes or munitions, signifying according to the Hebrew phrase, the most mighty and strong God, Deum summiroboris, as Tremellius readeth. And whereas he saith it followeth, that he shall fortify Maozim with a strange God, whom he hath known, I answer, that there is no such matter in the original text, which word for word is thus: And he shall do to the munitions of Mahuzzim with a strange God, that is, he shall commit the munitions of Mahuzzim, that is, jerusalem and the cities of jewry to a strange God. Yea, but faith Bellarmine, one of these interpretations (either that Antichrist is the God Maozim, or if he be any other (for he dare not now say it is the devil) he shall not be worshipped of Antichrist, but secretly and in a most hidden place) one saith he, of these interpretations must be good, or else there will be a repugnancy in daniel's words. For if he care for no God, how shall he publicly worship Idols? yea, rather if he care for no God, how shall he worship any privately? For it is more like that he which is an Atheist, and careth for no God indeed, will in Machiavellian policy worship some God publicly, although privately he careth for none. And it more fitteth the disposition of Antichrist to be secretly an Atheist, and openly an Idolater, than contrariwise although Bellarmine here doth hold the contrary. 16 But now perhaps you expect, that having freed this place of Daniel from Bellarmine's corruptions and depravations, I should open unto you the true meaning thereof, and show how this prophesy was fulfilled in Antiochus, who in many things was a type of Antichrist. And the King saith the Angel, Verse. 36. (or this King Hamelec, that is, Antiochus Epiphanes, of whom I have all this while entreated, namely, from the 21. Verse) he shall do what he will, his will shall be to him for a law; wherein he might seem to be a lively figure of the Pope, of whom it is said, Sic volo, sic jubeo, slat pro ratione voluntas: And again, judiciumque est pro lege suum. And this was the ground of all his actions, wilfully following in all things his own will. Then more particularly the Angel describeth his actions, both in respect of religion and policy. His actions tending to irreligion (of which only we are now to speak) are first summarily comprised, Verse. 36. and afterward more fully expressed. The sum is this, that he should alter and abrogate all the religions of the Syrians, as well the false religions of the Idolaters, as the true religion of the jews. The abrogation of all the religions of the Syrians, is here called the magnifying himself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above or against every god, whose worships he did put down. The profanation of the jewish religion ordained by the true God, the God of Gods, is here signified by speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great & swelling 1. Mac. 1. 43. 46. 2. Mac. 6. 2. words against him, which we are to understand of his blasphemous edicts to abolish the whole religion of God: both which we see performed by Antiochus Epiphanes. 1. Macab. 1. 43. 46. etc. The same things are again repeated, Verse. 37. & 38. First, as touching the gods and religions of the Syrians in general, whether true or false, he saith Verse 37. that unto the Gods of his fathers he shall not attend, neither will he listen to the desires of women: that is, as some expound, his wives, who entreated the continuance of those religions whereunto themselves were addicted: so that neither the reverence of his fathers, nor the love of his wives could stay him from following his own will in abrogating their religions, neither will be regard any of the Gods, viz. of the Syrians, because he will magnify himself against all, in abrogating the religions of them all, whether true or false. And more particularly concerning the true religion of the true God, he saith Ver. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 (verse. 39) he shall commit the munitions of Mahuzzim, that is, of the Almighty unto a strange God, that is, he shall deal so despitefully with the God of Israel, the Lord of Hosts, that having abrogated his worship and religion, he shall set up in the temple of God the Idol of jupiter Olympius to be worshipped (as it is recorded 2. Mac. 6.) who was a God whom his fathers knew not, that is, acknowledged Strabo geograph. lib. 16. not, nor worshipped. For the Syrians worshipped Apollo and Diana. And the munitions of Mahuzzim, that is, jerusalem and other cities of jewry, which had been as it were the munitions and cities of God, he committed them to the tuition of a strange God, namely, jupiter Olympius. The same prophesy in effect was before delivered, Dan. 7. 25. See Tremell. in Dan. 7. & 8. & 8. 11. by conference of which places with this in hand, it is manifest, that by the God Mahuzzim, is meant the true God. 17 This prophesy therefore being meant of Antiochus Epiphanes, & fulfilled in him, cannot properly belong to Antichrist or any other. Notwithstanding as in some other things, so in the premises Antiochus may not unfitly be thought to have been a type or figure of Antichrist. In so much that both the ancient Fathers have understood these prophecies of Antichrist, and many also of the late writers (besides the jews) have applied the same particularly to the Pope. For besides that it is most true of the Pope, that he doth what he will, seeing Legi non subiac●…t ulli. he is subject to no law, and no man may say to him, Sir why do you so? The rest also after a sort may be verified of him, that both he setteth himself against the Idols of the Gentiles, and also hath abrogated the true worship of God. And that in stead of Christ the Almighty God, he hath set up in his churches, besides many other Idols, the abominable Idol of the Mass, a God which his fathers the first Bishops of Rome knew not, which notwithstanding he honoureth with gold and silver, and precious stones, and hath committed the churches, cities, and countries of Christendom, to the tuition and patronage of divers Saints, who as they are indeed, so are they called by Paulus jonius a Popish Bishop, the tutelar Gods of the Papists. Hist. lib. 24. in fine. 18 And these were his testimonies of scripture. In the next place, for want of better proofs, he slayeth to the authority of the Fathers as his last refuge, as though they testified that Antichrist shall not be an Idolater, nor one that will suffer Idols. But I answer, that the Fathers do either speak of the Idols and Idolatry of the Gentiles only, and in that sense their speeches are verified in this behalf of the Pope, who neither honoureth nor suffereth the Idols of the Gentiles: or else if they speak of all Idols and Idolatry in general, when they say Idola seponet as Ireneus, or adidololatriam non admittet as Hippolytus, or idola odio habebit, as cyril, or adidololatriam non adducet ille, as chrysostom, they deserve such an Antichrist as in this behalf is better than the Pope. But indeed as the Pope is, so Antichrist in the scriptures is described to be an Idolater, as hath been showed. 19 Having thus doughtily proved this Popish conceit, the jesuit proceedeth to the disproof of our assertions & expositions of some places of scripture, and especially that of 2. Thess, 2. Our assertion concerning the doctrine of Antichrist, he saith is only built upon the scriptures falsely expounded by new glosses. In token whereof saith he, they allege not one Interpreter or Doctor for them. But this is a malicious slander, witness this place which he mentioneth 2. Thess. 2. where we 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. Our assertions concerning Antichrist, are grounded on the prophecies of scriptures expounded by the event, which is the best expóunder of prophecies. And with our assertions the opinions of the Fathers agree, where they are consonant to the scripture and the event. Contrariwise, the assertions of the Papists concerning Antichrist, as they are repugnant to the scriptures and the truth of the event: so are they wholly grounded either upon the uncertain (and many times misalledged) conjectures of the Fathers, who were no Prophets, and therefore being not able to foresee the event, did not many times understand the Prophecies: or else on the blind conceits of Popish writers, who being deceived with the efficacy of illusion, and made drunk with the whore Babylon's cup of fornications, were given over to believe lies. And whereas our writers expounding those words of the Apostle, 2. Thess. 2. 4. (who is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped) do apply the same unto the Pope upon very good and sufficient proofs, and from thence do plainly conclude the Pope to be Antichrist, (for evidence whereof, I refer the Reader to the 5. chapter of my former book.) He culleth out some straggling sentences out of some one of the unsoundest writers of our side, (as their manner is) which he may best hope to answer. As though we had no more, nor no better arguments to prove, that the Pope advanceth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, than these two: First, because he professeth himself to be the Vicar of Christ: And secondly, whereas Christ subjecteth himself willingly unto the scriptures, the Pope challengeth authority to dispense with the scripture. Howbeit the former of these two reasons he depraveth, and the latter he is not able to satisfy. For Illyricus his reason to prove that the Pope advanceth himself above all that is called God, is not because he maketh himself 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 Catalogue. test. pag. 3. allegeth as a second reason, is by Illyricus added as a proof: Whereunto Bellarmine is no otherwise able to answer, then by impudent and shameless denial, either that Christ subjecteth Contrary to Galat. 4. 4. Luke. 2. 51 himself to the law and word of God, or that the Pope taketh upon him to dispense with the scriptures, or that any Catholic (meaning Popish) writer hath said, that he may dispense with divine precepts; both which notwithstanding I have heretofore proved by many instances and most evident allegations. See the first book. chap. 5. §. 10. 11. 12. For that which he addeth of Christ's subjecting himself to the prophecies, 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. Chap. 15. Of the miracles of Antichrist. 1 We are now come to the eight main argument, which Bellarmine useth to prove that the Pope of Rome is not Antichrist; because forsooth those things which the holy Ghost in the scriptures hath foretold concerning the miracles of Antichrist, do not agree to the Pope & church of Rome. For concerning the miracles of Antichrist, the scriptures (saith he) mention three things. 1. that Antichrist shall work many miracles. 2. what manner of miracles they shall be. 3. there are recorded examples. Of all which points I have entreated heretofore, proving from Bellarmine his own grounds, that the Pope is Antichrist. And first that many signs and wonders should be wrought by Antichrist & his adherents, which Lib. 1. cap. 7. they call miracles, the scriptures testify, the event hath proved, and we do confess. And secondly, that all these signs & wonders, howsoever he and his followers do boast of them, and in respect thereof contemn the true professors: yet are as the Apostle saith, lying signs and wonders, both in respect of the end, which is to seduce and to confirm lies, & in respect of the substance, which is counterfeit. For whereas Bellarmine addeth that they are also called lying signs in respect of the efficient and author of them, which is the father of lies, according to whose power Antichrist was to come, who as some of the Fathers affirm, was to be a notable Magician or sorcerer. This seemeth to be somewhat far fetched, unless we will take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be masculine (as none doth). Notwithstanding, because the Apostle ascribeth the working of these miracles to the power of Satan, we will trace him in his own steps, not doubting to apply this note also to the Pope and church of Rome: seeing it cannot be doubted, but that as very many not only of their Clergy, but even of their Popes, have been notable Magicians and sorcerers: so also very many of the miracles in the church of Rome, have been the operations or illusions of the devil. As for their Clergy, who knoweth not, but that there have been few learned men among them, who have not been known, or at the least suspected, to be conjurers, and skilful (as some call it) of the black Art. But as touching the Popes, because it may seem incredible, that any known Magician or sorcerer should be advanced to the Apostolic See, as they call it: therefore it may be thought, that the sorcery & witchcraft of the most of them, who indeed were sorcerers, was hidden & unknown. Notwithstanding even in their own writers there are recorded as known Magicians & sorcerers above 20. Popes, divers wherofgave themselves wholly to the devil, that in them the prophesy of the Apostle might be fulfilled, viz. that they might come to the Papacy by the help of the devil, or as the Apostle speaketh, 2. Thess. 2. 9 that their coming might be according to the efficacy of Satan: And as this happened often, so especially about those times wherein Antichrist in the Papacy was in a manner come to his full growth, that is to say, in Syluestex 2. & Gregory 7. and all the Popes betwixt them, who were a sort of infamous sorcerers. And therefore if any miracles have been wrought by such Popes, (as Saunders braggeth of many signs & wonders wrought by Gregory 7.) we need not doubt, but that as themselves were Magicians Demonsir. 20. and sorcerers, so their signs and wonders were wrought by the power of the devil. 2 And thus Bellarmine through all the causes showeth the miracles of Antichrist, to be lying signs and wonders. But to what end I beseech you serveth all this discourse? Will Bellarmine conclude from hence that the Pope is not Antichrist, either because there are no miracles in the church of Rome, which was the first point, or because those miracles which they have, be not lying signs and wonders, which was the second? If this were his end, why then doth he not from this proposition as it were his groundwork, assume and conclude after this manner. By Antichrist and his adherents many signs and wonders shall be wrought (which they call miracles) as the scripture testifieth: By the Pope and his adherents many signs and wonders have not been wrought which they call miracles, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. But Bellarmine durst not reason thus, seeing the Papists brag of nothing more than of their signs and wonders, which they call miracles. And therefore from this ground I have heretofore inferred the contrary. For if it be a peculiar note of Antichrist and his adherents in these latter times to work many signs and wonders, which they call miracles: then can it not be avoided, but that the Pope of Rome is Antichrist, and the church of Rome the Synagogue of Antichrist, seeing they alone do brag of miracles. See the first book. chap. 7. §. 1. & 2. Secondly, why doth he not reason thus? By Antichrist and his followers, lying signs and wonders shallbe wrought: But by the Pope and church of Rome, there have been no lying signs and wonders wrought, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. Indeed this would Bellarmine have the simple reader gather from his words, and that is the drift of all that discourse. But this he could not assume and conclude, because his own conscience doth tell him that, which all the world knows, that their church is full of lying signs and wonders, which they call miracles. Therefore from Bellarmine's own ground I reason thus: If it be a peculiar note of Antichrist and his Synagogue in these latter times to work many lying signs and wonders, than it must be confessed, that the Pope is Antichrist, and the church of Rome the Synagogue of Antichrist, because among them are many lying signs and wonders: but the first is testified in the scriptures, and therefore the latter cannot be denied, seeing I have proved that the church of Rome is full of lying signs and wonders, which notwithstanding they call miracles. See the first Book. Chap. 7. §. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 3 It is plain therefore, that of those three things which Bellarmine observeth out of the scriptures concerning the miracles of Antichrist, the two first do fitly serve to prove the Pope Antichrist. Neither will the three examples of Antichrist his miracles which Bellarmine setteth down in the third place, disprove the same. For of these three examples, to wit, First that Antichrist, or at least his Ministers, shall make fire to come down from heaven in the sight of men. Secondly, that he shall put life into the Image of the beast, and cause it to speak. Thirdly, that he shall feign himself to die, and to rise again. The two first (which indeed belong to Antichrist) do fitly agree to the Pope (as hath been showed in the first book, chap. 7. from the 8. §. to the end of the chapter.) The third belongeth not to Antichrist. From whence notwithstanding, Bellarmine argueth thus. The third miracle of Antichrist (saith he) is, that he shall feign himself to die & to rise again, for which miracle especially the whole world almost shall admire him. But never did any Pope feign himself to die and rise again, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. I answer to the proposition, that no such miracle in the scripture is assigned unto Antichrist, but that it is a fond imagination of the Papists, which by some of them, and namely by Lib. 3. de pontiff. Rom. cap. 5 Bellarmine himself is propounded more fond, to wit, that Antichrist shall feign himself to die, and by the help of the devil shall rise again. For if his death be but counterfeit, he shall not need the devils help to raise him. Notwithstanding, they would ground this miracle upon those words, Apoc. 13. 3. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death, but his deadly wound was healed, and all the world wondered after the beast. I answer, that in these words the holy Ghost speaketh not of Antichrist, & that he of whom he speaketh, doth not saigne himself to die, and rise again. As touching the first of those two beasts described in this chapter, the former is not Antichrist, but the latter. The former which is described unto the 11. Verse, is the Roman Empire, especially under the persecuting Emperors, as hath been showed, every part of that description fitting the same. And that the latter beast signifieth Antichrist, it is in a manner confessed of all. Hear what Bellarmine saith in the beginning of his tenth chapter, speaking of the Lib. 3. de Pontif. Ro. ca 10. 16. 17. and 18. Verses of this 13. chapter of the Apocalypse, which are spoken concerning the second beast, Fatentur omneo (saith he) pertinere omnino ad Antichristum verba illa joannis Apoc. 13. & fuciet omnes pusillos cum magnis, etc. All men confess, that those words of john, Apoc. 13. And he shall make all both small and great, etc. do wholly appertain to Antichrist. And in this very chapter how doth Bellarmine prove, 1. that Antichrist shall work great signs, because it is said, verse 13. & fecit signa magna, and he wrought great signs. 2. that many of the signs of Antichrist shall be fantastical, and only in appearance, because it is said in the same verse, that he doth cause fire to descend in the sight of men. 3. that Antichrist shall cause fire to come down from heaven, and make the Image of the beast to speak, because it is so prophesied of Antichrist, verse 13. and 15. Now if this be confessed, that the latter beast is Antichrist, then can it not be truly affirmed, that the former beast is Antichrist, unless we may say, that the former and the latter are one and the same. But that cannot be truly said. For of the latter john saith, And I saw 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an other beast. verse. 11. If it be an other, then is it not the same, and the great difference in the descriptions of both, doth show that they are diverse beasts, The one arising out of the Sea, hath ten horns, the other arising out of the earth, hath two horns like the Lamb. The latter exerciseth the power of the former, and that in his sight, causeth men to worship the former beast, whose deadly wound was healed, maketh an Image to the former beast which had a deadly wound, & lived. verse 14. Therefore the second Vers. 12. beast which signifieth Antichrist, is not that beast which had the deadly wound and was cured thereof, nor yet the head which was so wounded. 4 Again (to come to that objection which Bellarmine maketh unto himself, and doth not satisfy) this miracle and the two first do not belong to one and the same subject: if therefore the two first concerning fire and the Image, belong to Antichrist, than this doth not; or if this do, than the other two do not: but all confess, that those two do belong to Antichrist, therefore this doth not. Hereunto Bellarmine would seem to answer, that the former beast signifieth either the Roman Empire, or the multitude of the wicked, and that one (that is to say the chief head thereof) which seemed to die and rise again, is Antichrist. For saith he, Antichrist shall be the chief and the last head of the wicked, as also of the Romans. The second beast signifieth either Antichrist himself, according to Rupertus, or the Ministers and Preachers of Antichrist, according to Richardus and Anselmus. And therefore these three miracles belong either to Antichrist alone, or to him and his Ministers. In which answer of Bellarmine, we see that proverbial speech verified, that Great it the truth, and it shall prevail. Seeing the force and evidence Esdr. 341. of truth hath expressed from him in this place a confession that overthroweth the popish concerning Antichrist, and manifestly proveth the Pope to be Antichrist. Namely, when he confesseth according to the true interpretation of the ancient Interpreters and Fathers of the Church, that the beast with seven heads is the Roman Empire, & that Antichrist is one of those seven heads: as also elsewhere he hath confessed that the whore of Babylon is the city of Rome. From hence therefore it followeth, that Antichrist shall be the head, Cap. 13. not of the jews, but of the Romans, that his chief seat or See shall be, not jerusalem, but Rome, that the name of the beast is Roman or Latin, that Antichrist is not one particular man, no more than the other six heads of the Roman Empire, but a state of government, as the Kings were one head, and the Consuls an other, and the Emperors but one head, and the Popes and Papacy but one head, and lastly, that the head of the beast or Roman Empire, which is Antichrist, can be no other but the Pope of Rome. For of these seven heads S. john saith, that in his time five of them were fallen, one was, & an other was not yet come. These five which were fallen, were the five first, viz. kings, consuls, Decenuiri, tribunes, & dictator's. The head that then was, out of question was the Emperors, who were the sixth head, the seventh (which is of the Popes) was not yet come: Which then of these seven heads doth signify Antichrist? surely none of the five first, for they were passed before S. john's time: nor the sixth, which is the state of Emperors, for that then was, and Antichrist was not yet come; and as the Papists confess, that was it which hindered the revelation In 2. Thess. 2. of Antichrist, and therefore was to be done out of the way before Antichrist could be revealed. It remaineth therefore that the seventh head (which is of the Popes) is Antichrist. For as touching the Imperial state renewed in the West, the holy Ghost plainly saith, that the beast which was, and is not, though it be, as being but the Image of the old Empire, is the eight, and is one of the seven: that is, in name and title it is the same with the sixth, as Images bear the names of those things which they do represent. If therefore Antichrist be one of the seven heads of the Roman state (as undoubtedly he is, and as our adversary here confesseth) then can it not be denied, but that the Pope, who is the seventh head, is Antichrist. 5 The other interpretation, that the beast with seven heads doth signify the whole multitude of the wicked, is senseless and absurd. For if the beast be the universal company of the wicked, what is the world, which verse. 3. is said to wonder after the beast? what are all the kindreds, tongues, nations which are made subject to the beast, verse. 7.? who are all those inhabitants of the earth that do worship him? doth not the holy Ghost plainly say, verse. 8. that they are those whose names are not written in the book of the Lamb; that is to say, the company of the wicked and reprobates? When as Bellarmine therefore saith, that this beast signifieth either the Roman Empire, or the whole company of the wicked, we may add, but it signifieth not the whole company of the wicked. It remaineth therefore that it signifieth the Roman state, whereof Antichrist is a head. But although Antichrist be one head of the seven, yet it followeth not, that the head which was as it were wounded to death, is Antichrist, but rather the estate of Emperors which then was. For albeit the b●…ast with seven heads doth signify the Roman state in general, yet in that place it seemeth to be described as it was subject to the sixth head. In the 17. chapter as it is renewed and subjecteth to the Antichristian state. For the beast (which he there speaketh of) which was, and is not though it be, was after to arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and being the eight in order, was in name one of the seven: on which beast as also upon those waters, that is, nations whereof the old Empire did arise, the whore of Babylon (whereby is meant the Antichristian state) sitteth, that is, ruleth and reigneth as a Queen. 6 And that it may appear that there is no necessity that we should understand this wound of Antichrist, let us consider what wounds the Roman state had received, and was cured thereof. First therefore by the death of julius Caesar, and the civil wars thereupon ensuing, the Roman Empire received as it were a deadly wound, & yet recovered it so again, as that in Augustus and some of his successors, it flourished more than ever before. And this some think to be the wound of the beast which was cured, whereof the holy Ghost here speaketh, describing the beast by that which was known to have been done in the Roman state. The second wound which the Roman Empire received, was at the death of Nero, in whom the stock of the Caesars ended: which being cut off, the succession of the Imperial Crown was uncertain, and by the uncertainty of succession the like desolation threatened to that Empire, which happened to the Grecian Monarchy after the death of Alexander the great; the Empire being left as a prey for the mightiest. Neither was this wound cured until Uespasian obtained the Empire. For after Nero, Sergius Galba seized upon the Empire, and enjoyed the same but seven months and seven days. And albeit to establish the succession, he had adopted Piso, yet was he murdered by Silvius Otho, who succeeded him, and Otho after three months and five days was slain by Uitellius, who also after eight months was deposed and put to an ignominious death by Uespasian: In whom the Empire which since the death of Nero had been incertum & vagum, as Suetonius saith, was established, and as it were cured of the former wound, which divers learned men think to be understood in this place. Others rather expound this deadly wound of the dissolution of the Empire in the West, Augustulu; being overcome by the Goths, and the Empire in the West lying void until Charles the great, in whom this wound was after a sort cured. Therefore although Antichrist be one of the heads of this beast, yet seeing he is but one of the seven, and the holy Ghost speaketh of this Empire especially, as it was ruled by the sixth head, that is to say, the Emperors; there is no necessity, nay, no probability that by the head which was wounded we should understand Antichrist, especially seeing Antichrist is afterwards described at large, and that by these notes among others, that he causeth men to worship the former beast, whose mortal wound was healed, verse. 13. and caused an Image to be made to the beast which had the deadly wound, verse. 14. which as appeareth also by the Image, was the Roman state under the Emperors; for thereof the Empire renewed is an Image. 7 But now suppose that Antichrist were this head which was wounded and cured as he is not, yet how doth it follow that therefore Antichrist shall feign himself to die and rise again, seeing he speaketh not of a particular man's death and resurrection, as the Papists imagine, but of the wounding and curing of a state signified by the head. Neither speaketh he of death and resurrection, but of wounding and curing: neither is the wound and the cure counterfeit and feigned, but the wound is truly inflicted and truly cured; such, as was both the wound of the Roman Empire, either at the murder of julius Caesar, or death of Nero, or vanquishing of Augustulus; and also the cure in Augustus, in Vespasian, and as Bellarminee elsewhere De translat. imperi●… lib. 1. cap. 4. saith, in Carolus Magnus. If therefore neither Antichrist be spoken of in this place, nor yet he who is spoken of, doth feign himself to die and rise again; how is it proved from these words, that Antichrist shall feign himself to die and rise again? Chap. 16. Of the kingdom and battles of Antichrist. COncerning the kingdom and battles of Antichrist, we read four things in the scriptures 1 saith Bellarmine. 1. that Antichrist arising from a most base estate, shall by fraud and deceit obtain the kingdom of the jews. 2. that he shall fight with three kings, to wit, of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia, and having overcome them, shall possess their kingdoms. 3. that he shall subdue seven other kings, and by that means shall become the Monarch of the whole world. 4. that with an innumerable army he shall persecute the Christians in the whole world: and that this is the battle of Gog and Magog. Of all which seeing none agreeth to the Pope, it followeth manifestly that he can by no means be called Antichrist. To these four points I will answer, first jointly to them all, and then severally to every one. For whereas Bellarmine saith, that these four things are read in the scriptures concerning the kingdom and battles of Antichrist, I answer, that not any one of these four is to be found in the scriptures, and therefore that this argument as it is the last, so of least force, and that his disputation standing now as it were on the tilt, he seemeth to draw of the lees. Notwithstanding the three first he would feign father upon Daniel, as though he in the 7. and 11. Chapters had prophesied such things concerning Antichrist. But I answer, that these prophecies had, and according to Daniel were to have their complement before the coming of the Messias, and therefore that the Papists may as well with the jews expect the coming of their Messias, as still to expect the fulfilling of these things in their imaginary Antichrist, the counterfeit Messias of the jews. Seeing as I said, these prophecies were to be fulfilled before the coming of Christ: and seeing the jews do still wait for their Messias, because with the Papists they will not acknowledge these prophecies (which were to have their complement before the coming of the Messias) to have been fulfilled before the incarnation of Christ. The occasion of which error of the Papists (whereat the jews also do stumble) hath been an erroneous interpretation of some of the Fathers, who understand whatsoever is spoken of the kingdom of the Seleucidae and Lagedae, that is, the kingdom of Syria and Egypt (so far forth as it tyrannised over the people of God the jews) figured by the two legs of the Image, chap. 2. and the fourth beast with ten horns, chap. 7. they understand (I say) as spoken of the Roman Monarchy. And consequently whatsoever is spoken of the little horn, chap. 7. 8. 11. whereby Antiochus Epiphanes is most plainly described, they expound it of Antichrist. 2 But the learned of our times have made it clear, although the Papists shut their eyes against the truth, that by the two legs of the Image, and by the fourth beast, is not to be understood the Roman Empire, and by the little horn not Antichrist properly, but Antiochus Epiphanes. For these things which are recorded of the two legs, chap. 2. and of the fourth beast, chap. 7. do not only sitly, but also properly and only agree to the kingdom of the Seleucidae and Lagedae. And those things which are written of the little horn, do wholly & properly belong to Antiochus Epiphanes, as the Papists themselves cannot deny. Porphyry that learned, though malicious enemy of Christianity, perceived daniel's prophesies in the 7. 8. 11. & 12. chapters, which the Papists understand of Antichrist, so fully and perfectly to agree to Antiochus Epiphanes, that he cavilled against the prophecies of Daniel; affirming that they were written not before hand of Daniel, but after the fulfilling of them by some one that lived in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. For so Jerome writeth of him: Country prophetam Danielem doudetimum librum scribit Porphyrius, notans eum ab ipso cuius Praefatione in Daniel. inscriptus est nomine esse compositum, sed à quodam qui temporibus Antiochi, qui appellatus est Epiphanes, fuerit in judaea, & non tam Danielem ventura dixisse, quam illum narrasse praeterita. And after, tanta enim dictorum fides fuit, ut propheta incredulis hominibus non videatur futura dixisse, sed narrasse praterita. So fully and plainly is Antiochus deciphred in the prophecy of Daniel, that the author of that book seemed to Porphyry, to have written a story of Antiochus Epiphanes, rather than a prophecy. 3 As for Antichrist, he is not once mentioned or meant in all the prophecy of Daniel the which I deliver, not as though I thought, that those things which the papists expound concerning Antichrist, could not for the most part be fitly applied to the Pope: for not only divers protestants arguing from the papists own grounds, have out of Daniel proved the Pope to be Antichrist: but also the jews, and namely R. Levi Gerson, whom Bellarmine citeth, chap. 12. expoundeth all those things in Daniel, chap. 7. and 11. which the papists understand of Antichrist, as spoken of the Pope of Rome, whom he calleth another Pharaoh. And most true it is, that excepting Antiochus Epiphanes, these prophecies do best fit the Pope of Rome. And therefore I willingly grant that, which both old and new writers have a●…med, that Antiochus Epiphanes may be said to have been a type of Antichrist. A type I say, not in all and every particular▪ (as though whatsoever can be said of Antiochus, the like may be said of Antichrist) but in some principal matters, in respect whereof he is a type. Solomon the King of peace, David the kingly Prophet, the high priests, which by offering sacrifices made atonement for their brethren, josuae the deliverer of the people, were types of Christ. And yet it were a ridiculous, if not a blasphemous course, to apply to Christ whatsoever is recorded of Solomon, David, the high Priests, or josuah. Neither is this without cause set down by the Schoolmen as a rule of Divinity, that theologia symbolica non est argumentutina. For those things which properly are spoken of Antiochus, cannot properly be understood of Antichrist, (if at all) but only allegorically, and allegories prove not: and that force which they seem to have in proving, is not to prove the same particular, but the like: for allegories are similitudes without notes of likeness. If therefore it were scarce a good argument in divinity, from a type or allegory to prove the like, because similia claudicant: then must it needs be a senseless argumentation from a similitude, to conclude not the like, but the same particular, seeing nullum fimile, est idem, no like is the self-same. The principal matters which are recorded of Antiochus are these: that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an enemy to God, and a persecuter of his church, an advancer of himself above or against every God; or as the Apostle speaketh, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ruled by no law, but his own will, having a mouth speaking Dan. 7. 8. presumptuous things, and such like: which as they are recorded of Antiochus, so are they by the Apostles applied to Antichrist, 2. Thess. 2. and do most fitly and properly agree to the Pope. But if we shall apply to Antichrist those things▪ which were proper to the person of Antiochus, and in respect whereof he was not a type of Antichrist, and from thence shall infer not the like, which were too much, for like things are not like in all things, but the same particular which was proper to his person, we shall be ridiculously absurd. As for example, if we shall say that Antichrist shall by craft attain, not to his kingdom, but to the same kingdom of Syria, because Antiochus did so: that Antichrist shall fight with the kings of Egypt, Libya & Aethiopia, because in Bellarmine's conceit Antiochus did so, and such like particulars; then may we by as good right affirm, that Antichrist shall immediately succeed in the kingdom of Syria his brother Seleucus Philopater, for that is expressly noted Dan: 11. 21. and in his place, etc. and consequently, that he shall be the son of Antiochus Magnus, that he shall be an hostage at Rome before he be king, as Epiphanes was: that he shall make three expeditions into Egypt, and in his return homeward every time shall he afflict the land of jury; especially in the second expedition, when being hindered by the ships of Chittim, joseph. antiq lib. 12. cap. 6. that is the Romans, he wreaked his malice upon the jews, chap. 11. 30. and all the rest of the particulars, which properly belong to the person of Antiochus, all which Daniel doth so fully and particularly describe, that he hath seemed to some which knew not with what spirit he did write, to have written a story rather than a prophecy of him. Chap. 7. 8. 11. 12. 4 But now let us examine severally the particular instances from whence Bellarmine would prove that the Pope is not Antichrist. From the first he argueth thus: Antichrist arising from most base estate (ex humilimo loco) shall by fraud & deceit obtain the kingdom of the jews. The Pope of Rome ariseth not from base estate, neither obtaineth the kingdom by fraud and deceit, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. The proposition is after his manner proved out of Dan. 11. 21. And in his place shall stand a vile person, and they shall not give unto him the honour of a king, but he shall come secretly, and obtain the kingdom by fraud. I answer first, that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist: and secondly, that this, proposition is not true of him of whom Daniel speaketh, and therefore that this allegation is both impertinent & untrue. That Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist, it shall appear out of Daniel himself. For Daniel speaketh of him that immediately in the kingdom of Syria succeeded Seleucus Philopater. For so he saith, in his place, who was described, vers. 20 shall stand up a vile person, meaning thereby Antiochus, who, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but properly as Polybius calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unto whom that which is cited out of the 21. verse, and all the rest of the chapter unto the end, doth wholly and properly agree. 5 For the better understanding of this place & the rest of Daniel, we are to know, that excepting one prophetical comfort of the resurrection, cha. 12. his whole prophecy is of those things which happened within less than 700. years, that is to say, from the taking of jerusalem by the Chaldeans, unto the final destruction thereof by the Romans: and his prophecy concerneth those kingdoms which should in the mean time be in the world. And those are either such terrestrial kingdoms unto whose tyranny the jews were subject before the coming of the Messias: or else the spiritual kingdom of Christ, (the Messias & king of the jews) before which all the former kingdoms were to have an end. Da. 2. 4. 〈◊〉. & 7. 11. &. 26 27. The time whereof, as also of the desolation of jerusalem, is foretold, cap. 9 25. 26. 27. according to which time this Messias and king, is by the wise men acknowledged to be born Mat. 2▪ and his kingdom by john Baptist the forerunner of Christ, was said to be at hand. Mat. 3. 2. and in like sort preached our Saviour Christ, Mat. 1. 15. & his apostles, Ma. 10. 7. Christ also a little before his death confessed that he was a king, and in his death his title was the king of the jews. After his death & resurrection he professeth that all power was given him in heaven and in earth, and thereupon ascendeth into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God: which is noted in Daniel, chap. 7. 13. that after Christ the son of man was come into the world, he went unto the ancient of days, and to him was given power, glory, and kingdom, that all people, nations and tongues should serve him. Of both these sorts of kingdoms Daniel entreateth, chap. 2. and 7. And as touching the terrestrial kingdoms which tyrannised over the jews before the coming of Christ in the flesh, they are noted to be four: the first of the Babylonians, the second of the Medes and Persians, the third of the Macedonians, the fourth of the Seleucidae and Lagidae. And of these four Daniel prophesieth, either jointly of all together, or severally of some of them. In the second & seventh chapters, of them all together, resembling them in the second chapter by an Image, the golden head whereof figureth the Babylonians, the breast and arms of silver the Medes and Persians, the belly and sides of brass, represent the Macedonians, his legs of iron, and his feet, part of iron, and part of clay, resemble the Seleucidae & Lagidae: and in the seventh chapter, the same four kingdoms are figured by 4. beasts, the Babylonians by a Lion, the Medes and Persians by a Bear, the Macedonians by a leopard, the Seleucidae and Lagidae, by the beast with ten horns. 6 Severally he prophesieth, either of the Babylonian Monarchy, or of the rest. His prophecies concerning the Babylonian Monarchy, which also were fulfilled in his time, are set down chap. 4. and 5. Of the three other, and especially of the last (because that especially was to afflict the people of the jews) he prophesieth again in the 8. and 11. chapters. In the 11. chapter, to omit the rest, the Angel promiseth, vers. 2. Dan. 11. 2. to declare the truth; that is, the true and proper sense & meaning of the aforesaid visions concerning the three kingdoms which yet remained, recorded chap. 2. 7. 8. And first as touching the kingdom of the Medes & Persians, he mentioneth but four Kings, because the rest did nothing memorable against juda, verse. 2. In the third verse he prophesieth of Alexander Verse. 3. the great, the mighty Monarch of the Grecians, and of the division of that Empire into sour principal parts, vers. 4. Verse. 4. which before was foretold, chap. 8. 22. Of which division Jerome writeth thus; Quo (sc. Alexandro) tricesimo secundo aetatis In Dan. 8. suae anno mortuo in babylon, surrexerunt pro eo quatuor duces eius, qui sibi imperium diviserunt. Aegyptum enim Ptolemeus Lagi filius tenuit, etc. Alexander being dead in Babylon, in the 32. year of his age, there arose in his stead four of his captains, who divided the Empire among them. For Ptolemy Lagides held Egypt. Philip who also is called Arideus, the brother of Alexander held Macedonia. Seleucus Nicanor, held Syria and Babylon, and all the kingdoms of the East. Antigonus ruled over Asia minor. These four kingdoms were by mutual conflicts reduced to two under Seleucus Nicanor, & Ptolemy Lagides, from whom did spring the kingdom of the Lagidae & kings of Egypt on the South: and of the Seleucidae or kings of Syria & Babylon in the North. These two used to contend for judaea, which lying in the midst betwixt them, became a prey to the conquerors, and was grievously afflicted by them. These two are the two legs and feet of the Image, chap. 2. and also the fourth beast with ten horns, chap. 7. for of these two kingdoms there are ten kings reckoned, which tyrannised over the people of the jews, especially the tenth horn; that is, Antiochus Epiphanes, who arose in the end of the kingdom of this beast, namely, over the jews, chap. 8. 23. For in his time the people of God were freed from the tyranny of the Seleucidae, by judas Macchabaeus. 7 These ten horns which successively tyrannised over jewry, are mentioned in order in this 11. chapter. First Ptolemy Lagides (the first horn) who is called verse. 5. the king of Verse. 5. joseph. antiq. lib. 12. cap. 1. the South, that is of Egypt, who shortly after he had gotten Egypt, invaded judea, and surprised the city of jerusalem on a Sabbath. Secondly, Seleucus Nicanor (the second horn) the mightiest of the Princes of Alexander, as he is described in the same fift verse. For although Ptolemy for a time held judaea, yet after it was agreed upon that Seleucus should have Syria and therein judaea. Him succeeded Antiochus Soter (the third horn) so called, because he expelled the Frenchmen out of Asia: whose son Antiochus Theos (the fourth horn) to confirm a league betwixt him and Ptolemy Philadelphus' King of Egypt, took in marriage Bernice, the daughter of Ptolemy Verse 6. Philadelphus, according to that prophecy of the two legs, consisting of iron and clay mingled together, that they should mingle themselves together in the seed of man, but they should not cleave together, even as iron cannot be mixed with clay, chap. 2. 43. for even so it followeth vers. 6. For howsoever they had combined themselves together by marriage, yet this conjunction held not, and they which had any hand in it shortly after died. For Antiochus Theos had a former wife yet living named Laodice, by whom he had Seleucus Callinicus, and Antiochus Hierax. This Laodice to revenge this despite, poisoned her husband Antiochus Theos: her son Seleucus Callinicus (the fift horn) slew Bernice, her child, and her train: and Ptolemy Philadelphus shortly after this marriage ended his life. But in his place, verse. 7. did arise his son Ptolemy Euergetes (the sixth Vers. 7. horn) proceeding from the same roots with Bernice (that is, her brother) who to avenge the death of his sister, made war with Seleucus Callinicus, and overcame him, and having caused himself to be crowned king of Syria, returned with much spoil, and many captives into Egypt; and Ver. 8. & 9 Polyb. li. 5. Appian. in Syria. joseph. l. contr. Appian. Vers. 10. being stronger than Seleucus Callinicus, he held the dominion of Syria for many years. But the sons of Seleucus Callinicus, to wit Seleucus Ceraunus, and Antiochus Magnus, raised war, verse. 5. 10. First Seleucus Ceraunus against Ptolemy Euergetes, and they both being dead about the same time, Antiochus Magnus against Ptolemy Philopater, the son of Euergetes. Of him (I mean Antiochus Magnus) the Angel prophesieth unto the 20. verse: to wit, of his battles first with Ptolemy Philopator, and those sometimes prosperous, whereby he recovered Syria, verse. 10. sometime adverse, whereby he lost the same again, vers. 11. 12. Whereupon Ptolemy being list up becometh the 7. horn, and killeth many of the jews, for which he shall not prosper, verse 12. After, of his battles and victories against Ptolemy Epiphanes son of Philopater, verse. 13. 14. 15. Of Vers. 13. 14. 15. Vers. 16. his afflicting the land thereby that is jewry, verse. 16. as being the eight hour: of his giving his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy Epiphanes to mingle the iron and the clay (according to the prophecy, chapter 2.) therein pretending peace and friendship, but intending by her his destruction, although in vain, she joining with her husband against her father, verse Vers. 17. 17. Of his expeditions into the Islands of Greece, and conquering them. Of his wars with the Romans', which brought shame upon him, they making him to sit down with dishonourable conditions, verse. 18. Of his ignominious Vers. 18. Vers. 19 end, namely in a Barbarian tumult for sacrilege, verse 19 In his place succeed his son Seleucus Philopater (the ninth horn) one who did pill and poll his subjects by great tributes and exactions, and sent to empty and exhaust the treasury and temple of jerusalem: and having set free his brother Antiochus Epiphanes, who was an hostage at Rome, and in stead of him sent his own son Demetrius, is shortly after poisoned by Heliodorus, suborned by Antiochus Epiphanes, vers. 20. Vers. 20. Ver. 21. 8 Now in his place (saith the Angel, vers. 21.) shall stand a vile person, etc. that is, in the kingdom of Syria, a vile person shall succeed Seleucus Philopator as the tenth horn, which cannot be understood properly of any other but of Antiochus Epiphanes, who in the rest of the chapped. to the end, is most fully & plainly described. For first he entreateth of his coming unto the kingdom: secondly of his affairs afterwards: and lastly of his end. Of his coming unto the kingdom he saith, that having no right of succession (for Demetrius was the heir) nor lawful election, by flattery & fraud attained to the kingdom, pretending himself (as Richard the third did) to be the tutor & protector of the young Prince Demetrius, and Administrator of the kingdom during the minority and absence of Demetrius, who had been sent in his stead as an hostage to Rome. Wherefore Daniel in this place speaketh not of Antichrist, unless we may say, that Antichrist was to be the immediate successor of Seleucus Philopater, which is ridiculous; yea, and Bellarmine himself confesseth elsewhere, that in this latter part of the chapter, Daniel speaketh of Antiochus literally, who was a figure of Antichrist. This place therefore doth not prove Lib. 3. cap. 21. Bellarmine's proposition, namely, that Antichrist arising from most base estate▪ should by fraud obtain the kingdom of the jews. Neither doth this proposition sit Antiochus, who is here described; neither is it agreeable to the description itself. For neither did Antiochus arise from most base estate, for he was son to Antiochus the great, and brother to Seleucus Philopater: Neither doth Daniel say so, but only that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a vile or despised person should succeed Seleucus Philopator; which is to be understood not in respect of his base estate and condition, but of his base manners and vile conditions, in regard whereof the holy Ghost calleth him, although a great King's son, vile and contemptible. And so is every wicked man, though mighty in the world, a vile and despised person in the eyes of the godly, Psal. 15. 4. The wicked man is vile in his eyes. And as Solomon saith: The wicked man is an abomination unto the righteous. Such an one was Haman in the eyes of Mardoche, and jehoram Pro. 21. 27. Hest. 3. 2. King. 3. 13. 14. the wicked king of Israel, in the eyes of Elizeus. So that it was not the base condition, but the vices and base conditions of Antiochus that made him vile, in respect where of Polybius calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So is Seleucus Philopater, verse. 20. in the vulgar translation called Uilissimus, because of his base polling of his people, and not because he did arise from base estate. Wherefore it is evident, that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist in this place, and that he of whom he speaketh, did not arise from most base estate, as Bellarmine would bear us in hand; unless it be a most base estate to be the son of a mighty King, who for his greatness was called Antiochus the great. 9 But will you see with one view the absurdity of this Popish argument. He proveth from this place, that Antichrist shall arise from most base estate, and shall by deceit obtain the kingdom of the jews. But (say I) Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist, but of Antiochus Epiphanes. Yea but Antiochus was a type of Antichrist. Be it that he was a type not only in some other things, but also in this particular: yet from hence we must infer not the self same particular which is proper to the person of Antiochus, but the like, and that by way of allegory only, which were but a sleight argument to prove so weighty a controversy in divinity. Whereas therefore he inferreth from hence not the like (viz. as Antiochus obtained his kingdom by fraud: so shall Antichrist obtain his) but the very same particular, (viz. as Antiochus obtained the kingdom of the jews, so shall Antichrist obtain the same kingdom of the jews) his argument is ridiculous: and yet this is not all the absurdity of this argument: for when as from the likeness of Antichrist to his type, he would prove that Antichrist shall arise from base estate, this assertion is not true, of the type itself. Yea but Jerome saith, that this place may better be understood of Antichrist, Qui consurgere habet de mo●…ica gente id est de populo judaeorum, etc. Who is to arise of a small nation, that is, the people of the jews, etc. and Daniel compareth Antichrist because of his base beginning to the little horn, chap. 7. I do not deny but that Antichristes beginning might be base; but yet neither can the testimony of Jerome, neither doth that allegation out of Daniel, prove it. For Ieromes testimony in this case, if it ought to be of weight with us, it must be taken either as a prophecy, or else as a sit exposition of daniel's prophecy, as I have said heretofore. But Jerome was no Prophet: neither doth he sitly expound Daniel, who speaketh plainly, not of Antichrist, but of the successor of Seleucus Philopator. And it is a wonder that Jerome one of the most learned of the Fathers, should in so easy a matter be overseen. For seeing he confesseth that the former part of the chapter is to be expounded of the Seleucidae, and that in the 20. verse is described Seleucus Philopator, for so he saith on those words (Et stabit in loco eius vilissimus) Seleucum dicit cognomento Philopatorem, filium magni Antiochi, he speaketh of Seleucus, surnamed Philopator, the son of Antiochus the great. It is therefore most plain, that when Daniel saith, and in his place shall stand a vile person; he speaketh of the next successor of Seleucus Philopator, meaning Antiochus; even as in the 20. verse after he had spoken of Antiochus Magnus, he saith, and in his place shall stand up a sender forth of an extortioner, meaning Seleucus. Neither doth Daniel say any where, that Anchrist, or he of whom he speaketh, shall arise of a small nation, meaning thereby the jews: that which he speaketh de modico populo, vers. 23. is to be understood properly as Jerome himself expoundeth it, according to the literal, that is, the proper sense, of the small company wherewith Antiochus surprised Egypt: neither can there be any such allegorical sense, as he seemeth to frame. Neither doth Daniel by the little horn mean any other but Antiochus Epiphanes, who may not unfitly in divers things be said to have been a type of Antichrist. For the terrible beast with ten horns, doth not signify the Roman state as the Papists would have it, but the kingdom of the Seleucidae and Lagidae: and by the ten horns, not the ten Kings whereof john speaketh, Apoc. 17. among whom the Roman Empire was to be divided; but ten of these Kings, viz. three Lagidae, and seven Seleucidae, which tyrannised or ruled over the people of God. The tenth, that is to say, the last of them that had dominion over judaea was, not Antichrist, but Antiochus Epiphanes, who in cruelty towards the people of God surpassed all that went before him. 10 Which I speak not as though this exposition did much hinder our assertion; for others which have held the same, have applied those things which are spoken of the little horn, unto the Pope. And surely if this fourth beast were the Roman state, and the horns the rulers thereof, and the tenth or last horn Antichrist: then is it hereby 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. But the truth is, that the description of the fourth beast doth not agree to the Romans, but to the kingdom of the Seleucidae. For this fourth beast was a kingdom which was to have an end before the coming of the Messias & his kingdom, chap. 7. vers. 11. 26. 27. So had the kingdom of the Seleucidae, so had not the Romans. 2. This fourth beast warred with the jews, tyrannised over them, and hindered their religion & worship of God at jerusalem, not only before the coming of Christ, but also before the purging of the temple, and restitution of religion by judas Macchabaeus, cha. 7. ver. 25. 26. 27. So did the Seleucidae, so did not the Romans. 3 Of the fourth beast there were but ten horns, that is Princes that ruled over judaea, which is most true of the Seleucidae & Lagidae; but of the Romans, after they had once obtained the dominion of jury, there were many more than ten that ruled over the holy land. If any say the Roman Empire is figured Apoc. 17. by a beast with ten horns, I answer, that the ten horns whereof john speaketh, Apo. 17. 12. are ten kings, among whom the Roman Empire was to be divided, who succeeded not one another in the same kingdom, but were rulers of so many several provinces or kingdoms at the same time: but these ten horns tyrannised over the same kingdom of the jews successively, as they are particularly described, chap. 11. And further, he that in Daniel is supposed by the Papists to be Antichrist, is one of the ten horns, but in john not. 4. that which is spoken in Daniel of the tenth horn, doth fitly & wholly agree to Antiochus Epiphanes, who was the tenth and last king of that kingdom, that ruled over judaea, but the same things cannot in like sort be applied to the tenth Prince of the Romans. 5. By conference of that which is written of the little horn, chap. 7. with those things which are more plainly recorded of Antiochus, chap. 8. 23. etc. and chap. 11. 21. etc. to the end of the chapter, it appeareth evidently, that he & no other is that little horn. For whereas Daniel in the 7. chap had described 3. kingdoms besides the Babylonian, which should tyrannize over the jews by three beasts: in the 8. chap. he figureth the same 3. kingdoms by 2. beasts. For the kingdom of the Medes & Persians which before was resembled by a Bear, is here signified by the Ram with 2. horns: the kingdom of the Macedonians & Seleucidae, which before were represented by two several beasts, are here figured by the Goat buck, containing them both; for both the Macedonians and Seleucid●… were javan, that is, the Greeks', Daniel. 8. 21. And as in the 7. chapter, the kingdom of the Macedonians was signified by a Leopard which had four heads: so here it is said, that after the great horn signifying Alexander the great was broken off, there grew four horns in stead thereof, meaning the four Princes among whom the Macedonian Monarchy was divided. The fourth kingdom figured chap. 7. by the beast with 10. horns, is here signified to be that kingdom which was chief erected by one of those four horns, namely Seleucus, that is, the kingdom of the Seleucidae: and from him, namely in the end of their kingdom over the jews, came forth a little horn, that is, the king with the impudent face, chap. 8. verse. 9 23. which is Antiochus Epiphanes, who was the tenth horn of the fourth beast. And in the eleventh chapter without figures of beasts the same three kingdoms are described, the same ten horns reckoned up, the same tenth horn more particularly deciphred. 6. The people pushed at and oppressed by these horns, is daniel's people, the people of the jews yet remaining and inhabiting in Tzeby, that is in jury and jerusalem, not only before the desolation of jerusalem, but also before the reformation under judas Macchabaeus. But Antichrist, if we will believe the Papists, shall be the counterfeit Messias of the jews, neither shall he afflict the jews, but by them the Christians, and that in the end of the world, etc. 7. The times of afflicting the people of God assigned to the little horn, do precisely agree to the persecution under Antiochus. But these times are diversly to be reckoned in respect either of the beginning, or the end of the account. For as touching the beginning, we reckon either from the defection and revolt of the people wrought by Menelaus the priest, in the year 142. the sixth month, and sixth day, unto the restitution of Religion, in the year 148. and 25. day of the ninth month, and this space is 2300. days, (that is 6. months, 3. years, 18. days) foretold Dan. 8. 14. or else we reckon from the pollution of the temple, and erection of the new altar, & abolishing of the daily sacrifice, to wit, in the 145. year of the Seleucidae, on the 15. of Casleu, diversly in respect of the end, viz. either to the restitution begun by judas Machabaeus, joseph. antiq lib. 12. cap 6. in the 25. of the same month Casleu, in the year 148. which space is called a time and times, and parcel of time, that is, three years and ten days: or if we read a time and times 1. Mac. 1. 57 and half a time, we may reckon unto the time of that victory which Macchabaeus and the jews had against the Armies 1. Mac. 14: 52. of Antiochus, whereby his instauration of Religion was secured and confirmed, and Antiochus his Armies were expelled Dan 7. 25. Dan. 127. De bello jud. lib. 1. cap. 1. out of jury, which as josephus noteth, was done after three years and six months: or if we reckon to the time that Antiochus having heard of these and some other overthrows of his Armies after his own discomfiture and slight from Persepolis, was stricken by the hand of God, and promised all good things to the jews, it is 1290. days; if Dan. 12. 11. 12. to his death, 1335. By all which considerations, it appeareth that Daniel by the fourth beast understandeth not the Roman Monarchy, but the kingdom of the Seleucidae, and Lagidae: nor by the tenth horn Antichrist properly, but Antiochus Epiphanes. 11 Thus much therefore may suffice to have spoken of his proposition: now let us briefly consider of the assumption. The Pope (saith he) ariseth not from base estate, neither by deceit obtaineth his kingdom. As touching the former I answer, that although it were false of Antiochus, yet is it true of the Pope, whether you consider the mean estate of the first Bishops of Rome, or the base birth and obscure parentage of divers Popes. For that which Bellarmine allegeth in commendation of the Primitive religion, and ancient church of Rome, is but a vain flourish, nothing appertaining to this purpose. 2. That the Pope hath not attained to his kingdom by fraud and deceit, Bellarmine had rather it should be taken for granted, then once called in question: and therefore cunningly passeth it over with silence. But if this were set down in the scriptures as a badge of Antichrist, to attain to his greatness by fraud & deceit, I would make it manifest, that never in any estate more deep policy, and devilish deceit hath been used then in the See of Rome, whereby they have obtained their supremacy, and maintained their sovereignty over the Christian world. Yea their whole religion of Popery and mystery of iniquity, seemeth to be nought else but a pack of policy devised by worldly men to deisie the Pope, and to enrich the popish clergy. For whereunto else I beseech you tended their Indulgences and Pardons, their jubelies, their doctrines of merits & supererogation, their purgatory, their trentals of Masses, and prayer for the dead, their pilgrimages and adoration of Saints, Images, and relics, their licences and dispensations, their thunderboults of excommunication, their oath of allegiance and fealty imposed on Princes and potentates, subjection to the Pope enforced upon all sorts, as absolutely necessary to salvation, their wilful depravations of scriptures, forgeries of Canons, counterfeit donations of Constantine and others, to prove the double supremacy of the Pope? Whereunto tended his often maintaining of quarrels among Christian Princes, his wars enjoined them for the recovery of the holy land, but that they being by these means weakened, might be the more easily subdued unto himself: his Croisades and promises of heaven, to all those that sight such battles as like him? Have not their clergy come to their riches, and the Pope to his greatness by these and such like means? But because the coming to his greatness by fraud and deceit, is not set down in the scriptures as a note of Antichrist, unless it be by way of type and allegory in Antiochus, I will therefore let it pass: only let me put you in mind that the prophecy of Peter in the former respects is performed in the Pope and clergy of Rome, who by feigned words make merchandise of men's souls through covetousness. And this was Bellarmine his first instance. 12 His second argument is thus to be framed. Antichrist shall war with three Kings, to wit of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia; and having overcome them, shall possess their kingdoms. But the Pope of Rome hath not warred at any time (he should say, shall not war, and that is more than he is able to prove) with the Kings of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia, neither having vanquished them, hath possessed their kingdoms, therefore the Pope of Rome is not Antichrist. And in this argument Belarmine doth so greatly please himself, that after an insulting manner he breaketh forth into these brags: Hoc autem maximè refellit insaniam haereticorum, etc. This especially refuteth the madness of heretics, who make the Pope Antichrist. For let them say if they can, when the Pope hath killed the Kings of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia, etc. What would this Thraso do think you, if he had any good argument against us, that thus insulteth upon a mere dotage? For where doth the scripture say, that Antichrist shall sight with the Kings of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia, and that having vanquished them, he shall possess their kingdoms? Forsooth in the 7. and 11. of Daniel. In the 7. chapter Daniel speaking of the ten horns of the fourth beast, he saith, verse. 8. I considered the horns, and lo the last horn came up, a little one among them, and three of the former horns were plucked up before it. And after, verse. 24. expounding the same words, he saith: And the ten horns are ten Kings of that kingdom, after whom shall arise the last (namely of the ten) diverse from the rest, and he shall abase three Kings. But this allegation is impertinent. For I have showed that this fourth beast is the kingdom of the Seleucidae and Lagidae; that the ten horns are those ten Kings of that kingdom which tyrannised or ruled over jewry; that the tenth or last of them that tyrannised over the jews, was Antiochus Epiphanes, who is therefore called little before his coming to the crown, because of his unlikeness to be King. First because he was the third and youngest son of Antiochus Magnus, his elder brother Seleucus having also a son called Demetrius. Secondly, because he was to be a perpetual hostage at Rome. For when as other hostages, which Antiochus the great gave to the Romans, were to be changed every third year, he was to be a perpetual hostage. And thirdly, because of his vile and base conditions. Now whereas it is said that three horns were to be plucked up before him, we are by those three horns to understand three kings, not of others, & those also divers kingdoms, as of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia; but three kings that successively had ruled before him in the same kingdom usurped over the jews, as being expressly called three former horns, viz. of the ten, verse 8. Yea but Antiochus was a type of Antichrist. It cannot be proved that he was a type in this point, or if he were a type in this, we may not infer the same particular as Bellarmine doth, for then those three kings mentioned in Daniel, must be revived again, that Antichrist may make them away: but the like might be inferred, viz. that as Antiochus Epiphanes to make himself a way to the kingdom, did make away his brother and two others that went before him: so it is not unlike, but that this should be an Antichristian practice. It is well known that Gregory the seventh, who resembled Antiochus in many things, to make himself a way to the Papacy, made away six of his predecessors by poison. And it is an ordinary practice among the Cardinals of Rome that aspire to the Papacy, now and then to minister an Italian Fig to their Popes: that you may not marvel that there have been nine Popes in the time of Queen Elizabeth's reign, of whom the three next predecessors of the present Pope Clement 8. were so suddenly plucked up before him, namely Urbanus 7. Gregory 14. and Innocent 9 that I suppose their names have been heard of few among us. 13 But the 11. of Daniel, perhaps will prove Bellarmine's assertion. That allegation will prove nothing but Bellarmine's wilful blindness. He saith that in the 11. chapter vers. 43. Daniel explaineth who those three Kings are. He shall stretch out his hand over countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape, and he shall pass through Libya and Aethiopia, as Bellarmine readeth, but according to the Hebrew, the Lubim and Cushim, that is, the Libyans and Aethiopians shall be in his passages or voyages. Whence Bellarmine inferreth, that Antichrist shall kill three kings, viz. of Egypt, Libya, and Aethiopia. Answer. 1. Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist but of Antiochus, as I have manifestly proved. 2. although Antiochus were granted to have been a type of Antichrist herein, yet the same particular which is proper to the person of Antiochus, may not be applied to Antichrist. For than we must dream that the world and the kingdoms thereof, must be brought again just to the same pass wherein they were when Antiochus reigned, and the same kings to be revived; but something like might be applied, that as Antiochus, in Bellarmine's conceit, suppressed three kings, so Antichrist should be a suppressor of kings, which is true of the Pope: who besides divers kings deposed by his means, hath also depressed four Emperors at the least, as Bellarmine himself confesseth. 3. Daniel in this place is so far from mentioning three kings slain by Antichrist according to Bellarmine's conceit, that he neither speaketh of Antichrist, nor of three kings, nor of the kill of any one king, but only of Antiochus his spoiling of Egypt, having in his company the Libyans and Aethiopians. Whether therefore this argument of Bellarmine doth reprove our madness, or rather prove his folly, let any indifferent arbiter be judge. Now if Jerome or any other of the Fathers have let fall any such thing, we are to esteem it as an excrement of theirs, which we are to pass by, rather than with the Cacovorae the Papists, to gather it up as Cacovora, avis quaedam est apud Indos, quae alterius avis asse●… cla est: cuius vescatur excrementis. Scalig. de subtle. fit food for their souls. 14 And the like answer we frame unto his third argument, which is not grounded upon the scriptures; but upon the bare conjectures of some of the Fathers. For where is there in all the scriptures any word of this which Bellarmine saith he readeth in the scriptures, that Antichrist shall subdue seven other kings, and by that means shall become the Monarch of the whole world? Forsooth Lactantius and Ireneus say so. But I never took their writings before to be the scriptures. Why then Jerome saith so upon Daniel 11. 24. where Daniel speaketh of Antiochus his dealings in Egypt, that he did that which his forefathers never did; Nullus judaeorum absque Antichristo in tot●… unquam or be regnavit. These be Bellarmine's scriptures. But where do the scriptures indeed say that Antichrist shall subdue seven of the ten Kings? Nay, the contrary may rather be gathered out of the scriptures. The ten horns whereof Daniel speaketh, were ten Kings which successively reigned over judaea, as hath been showed. And although Antiochus Epiphanes might help away three of his next predecessors, yet he could not hurt the other six (for there were but nine besides himself) which were all dead and gone before he came to years. Yea, but this opinion of the Fathers is plainly enough deduced out of Apoc. 17. 12. where we read, and the ten horns which thou sawest, are ten Kings; these have one mind, and they shall give their power and authority to the beast. No marvel though some of the Papists call the scripture a nose of wax, seeing they can frame and fashion it at their pleasure, and give unto it what sense they list. Doth john speak of Antichrist his either killing three, or subduing seven? Or doth john speak of the same ten horns whereof Daniel doth? Daniel speaketh of ten Kings which were to be dead and gone before the coming of the Messias: john speaketh of such as in his time had not yet attained to their kingdom. verse 12. Daniel speaketh of ten Kings of the Seleucidae and Lagidae which succeeded one an other. john, of ten Kings among whom the Roman Empire was to be divided, who also were to have their kingdom together with the beast. Daniel telleth us what the little horn which was one of the ten, should do to three of the other nine, without mention of the rest, john showeth what all the ten horns should do to Antichrist, which is none of the ten horns, but one of the heads of the beast. If therefore Bellarmine can prove from hence that these are the same ten horns spoken of in Daniel, and that Antichrist shall kill three of them, & subdue the other seven, he may hope to prove any thing, But what other scriptures hath he? forsooth chrysostom and cyril. For chrysostom on 2. Thess. 2. saith, that Antichrist shall be a Monarch, and shall succeed the Romans in the Monarchy, as the Romans succeeded the Greeks'; the Greeks' succeeded the Persians, and they the Assyrians. And Cyrill saith, that Antichrist shall obtain the Monarchy Catech. 15 which was the Romans. I answer, that for substance these Fathers held the truth. For what Monarch hath there been in the West these five or six hundred years, besides the Pope, who calleth himself King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, to whom all power is given in heaven and in earth, who hath as they say, the double Monarchy both of spiritual and temporal power; who forsooth is Lord of the whole earth, in so much that he taketh upon him authority to dispose of the new found world. And that he succeedeth the Emperors in the Alexand. 6. government of Rome, as it becometh Antichrist, who is the second beast, Apoc. 13. and the 7. head of the beast, Apoc. 17. whereof the Emperor was the sixth, I shall not need to prove. 15 There remaineth the fourth argument. Antichrist shall persecute with an innumerable army the Christians throughout the world, and this is the battle of God and Magog: but this agreeth not to the Pope, therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. I answer to the proposition, that no such thing can be proved out of the scripture. He allegeth Ezech. 38. & 39 & Apoc. 20. 7. 8. 9 10. But Ezechiel speaketh not of Antichrist, nor of the persecution of the Christian Church by him. But having foretold chapter 37. the restitution of the jews from the Babylonian captivity, and also prophesied of the coming of Christ; in those chapters he foretelleth of the afflictions and troubles which the people of the jews should sustain in the mean time, to wit, after their return out of captivity, before the coming of the Messias, and withal, denounceth the judgements of God against the Seleucidae, who were the kings of Syria and Asia minor, and their adherents, who should be the chief enemies of the church, and people of the jews after their return. For Gog signifieth Asia minor, having that name from Gyges the King thereof. Magog is Hierapolis the chief seat of Idolatry in Syria, built by the Scythians, and from them hath that name. So that by the land of Magog, we are to understand Syria, and by Gog, Asia minor. And the rest of the people's that Plin. lib. 5. cap. 23. are named in Ezechiel, were such as assisted the Seleucidae (who were the kings of Syria, and Asia minor) in their wars, either as their subjects, or as their friends, or as their mercenary soldiers. And for as much as the princes and people of Syria and Asia minor, were the most grievous enemies of the jews, by Ad Tremell. & jun. in Ezech. 38. & 39 whom they sustained the chiefest calamities after their return before the coming of Christ: therefore by an usual speech in the jewish language, the mortal and deadly enemies of the church, are called Gog and Magog. And in this sense john the Divine useth these names, Gog and Magog, to signify the enemies of the church, meaning not the same enemies whereof Ezechiel speaketh, but the like enemies of the Church, which should afflict the true Christians, as Gog and Magog afflicted the jews. Neither doth john in this place speak of the persecution of Antichrist properly, but of Satan (after he was loosed) his inciting the enemies of the Church to battle, and of God's judgements against them, signified by fire. And so much shall suffice to have answered to this argument. For after so long a Treatise I will not trouble the Reader with the ten several opinions which Bellarmine reciteth concerning Gog and Magog, neither yet with any further answer to his cavillations and exceptions against some of the arguments of divers Protestants, which he thought were more easy to answer: seeing in the former book I have sufficiently cleared those arguments whereby the Pope is more evidently proved to be Antichrist: neither is the controversy betwixt us, whether every argument that hath been produced by every one, doth necessarily conclude the Pope to be Antichrist. That discourse therefore being rather personal then real, I let it pass. Chap. 17. Being the conclusion of the whole Treatise. Having therefore both by sufficient arguments manifestly proved that the Pope is 1. Antichrist, and by evidence of truth maintained the same assertion against the arguments of the Papists: let us now consider in the last place, what conclusions may upon this doctrine be necessarily inferred for our further use. For first, if this be true, that the Pope is Antichrist, as I have proved; and the church of Rome that now is, Babylon the Synagogue of Antichrist: then all other controversies betwixt us and them, may be easily decided: their chief ground being the authority of their church, and of the See Apostolic. For than it is to be presumed, that those doctrines which are peculiar to the Pope and Church of Rome, are the errors of Antichrist; yea, and as the Apostle calleth 1. Tim. 4. 2. them, doctrines of devils. 2 If the Romish church be Antichristian, than our separation from it is warranted, yea, commanded by the word of God, and all returning to it forbidden. Apoc. 18. 4. Come out of her my people, least partaking with her in her sins, you partake also in her punishment. 3 If the Pope be Antichrist, than those that embrace that religion, and join themselves to that church, acknowledging the Pope to be their head, receive the mark of the beast. And those that do receive the beasts mark (especially after he is revealed) shall drink of the wine of God's wrath, and shall be punished with fire and brimstone before the holy Angels, and before the Lamb. Apoc 14. 9 This therefore must serve as a serious admonition, and necessary caveat both to reclaim all tractable Papists, and to confirm all wavering and unstaid Protestants. The former, as they tender their salvation, so to come out of Babylon: The latter, as they will avoid their endless confusion, to keep out of Babylon. For not only to retain the mark of the beast wilfully after he is discovered, but to revolt from the profession of the truth unto Antichristian religion: it also is a fearful sign of reprobation. For it is impossible that the elect should finally be seduced by Antichrist. Math. 24. 24. And the Apostle Paul observeth, that Antichrist shall effectually deceive them that perish with all deceitfulness of iniquity, because they have not received the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And therefore God shall send them strong delusions, that they should believe lies, that all they might be damned which believed not the truth, but delighted in unrighteousness. 2. Thess. 2. 10. 11. 12. Whereupon chrysostom also writing, hath these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Antichrist prevaileth with castaways or such as perish. And Jerome likewise, Ad Algasian quest. 11. They shall be seduced (saith he) by the lies of Antichrist, who are prepared unto perdition. But on the other side, those which renounce the Pope and church of Rome, and rise from the grave of Antichristianisme and Popery, and follow our Saviour Christ in the sincere profession of the truth, Blessed and holy are they for they having part in the first resurrection, shallbe freed from the second Apoc. 20. 6 death: And howsoever they are esteemed of the followers of Antichrist, as heretics & schismatics, which are to be persecuted with fire and faggot, yet are they happy in their life whiles they join with Christ against Antichrist, for such are called, elect and faithful, and redeemed out of the world; and they are also blessed in their death, dying in the quarrel of Christ Apoc. 17. 14. against Antichrist: for of those specially doth the holy Ghost speak, Apoc. 14. 13. Blessed are those that die in the Apoc. 14. 4. Lord, etc. 4 If the Pope be Antichrist, than those that are found to be resolute Antichristians, that is recusant Papists; but especially jesuits and Seminary Priests, which are sent to reconcile men unto the Pope and Church of Rome, that is, (as hath been proved) to set on them the mark of the beast, & consequently to brand them to destruction, and all such as seek to pervert & seduce others, ought not to be favoured or spared in a Christian common wealth. First, because they are limbs of Antichrist, and therefore by the commandment of God, we should do to them as they have done to us. Apoc. 18. 6. Secondly, because they are enemies to God, and traitors to Christian Princes. They are enemies to God, not only because themselves are Idolaters, and consequently such as hate God, Exod. 20. 5. but also because they labour to withdraw others from the true worship of God, unto superstition and idolatry, and therefore in no case ought to be spared, Deut. 13. 5. 8. They are traitors also to Christian Princes, being sworn vassals to the Pope their capital enemy. For he esteemeth all Christian Princes that do not acknowledge him to be their head, as schismatics or heretics. And as he useth (so oft as he dareth) to proceed Antonin. sum. part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 5. §. 11. against such four ways, viz. by excommunication, deposition, depriving them of their temporal goods & possessions, and raising war against them, so all Papists acknowledging the Pope's supremacy, do hold both that he hath authority so to proceed against Christian Princes, and also that in his definitive sentence he Antonin. sum. part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 5. §. 10 cannot err. And therforé if they put not in execution the sentence of their holy Father, it is not for want of treasonable will, and rebellious affection towards their Prince, but for lack of means and opportunity. As for example, when Pius 5. had sent his Bull of excommunication against our late Sovereign Cupers. pag. 182. num. 8. Queen of happy memory, therein deposing her from her crown, and absolving her subjects from their allegiance towards her, it is most certain, that whatsoever many hollow hearted Papists pretended, yet few of them did acknowledge her for their lawful Queen; and many of them thought it a meritorious work to take away her life. And surely if not their persons, then much less ought their Antichristian religion, the mystery of iniquity, be tolerated in the Church of Christ. For what fellowship can there be betwixt light and darkness? or what agreement can the Temple of God have 2. Cor. 6. with Idols? 5 If the Pope be Antichrist, and his Church Antichristian, then can there be no reconciliation betwixt us & the church of Rome, we being, as often hath been proved, the true church of God. For what agreement can there be betwixt Christ and Antichrist? Such neuters therefore show themselves to be n●…llifidians and politic Atheists, who would persuade men that both we and they are the true church of Christ, and that the difference betwixt us being in words rather than in substance, may easily be composed: but they might as well say that there is but a verbal difference betwixt the Gospel of Christ, and the doctrine of Antichrist. 6 Lastly, if the church of Rome, which because of her largeness, calleth herself the Catholic, that is to say, the universal church, be notwithstanding the Synagogue of Antichrist: What infinite thanks do we own to our good and gracious God, who hath not suffered us to be carried away with that Catholic Apostasy, as it were an universal deluge, but hath gathered us into the ark of his true church, making us with the rest of his true professors his peculiar people. It remaineth therefore, that seeing God hath been so gracious to us, we should not be unthankful to him, but rather should walk worthy our calling, as it becometh the children of the light, adorning the profession of the glorious Gospel of Christ, by a godly conversation; to the end that by the plentiful fruits of righteousness and true holiness, we may glorify God our heavenly Father, stop the mouths of our adversaries, and gather assurance unto our own souls, of our justification and salvation by jesus Christ our blessed Lord and Saviour; To whom with the Father and the holy spirit, be all praise and thanksgiving, both now and evermore. Amen. FINIS.