A treatise of Antichrist Conteyning the defence of Cardinall Bellarmines arguments, which inuincibly demonstrate, that the pope is not Antichrist. Against M. George Downam D. of Diuinity, who impugneth the same. By Michael Christopherson priest. The first part.

CARDINALL BELLARMINES THIRD BOOKE of the Pope .

THE FIRST CHAPTER . Wherin the disputation of Antichrist is propounded .

WEE haue demonstrated hitherto ( saith Bellarmine ) that the Pope succeedeth S. Peter in the chiefest Princedome of the whole Church . It remayneth that wee see , whether at any tyme the Pope hath fallen from this degree , for that our aduersaries contend , that hee is not at this time a true Bishop of Rome , whatsoeuer hee was before . And Nilus in the end of his booke against the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome , speaketh thus : But let that be the summe and head of my speach , that while the Pope keepeth in the Church a conuenient , heauenly , and of ancient tyme appoynted order , while hee holdeth and defendeth the heauenlie truth , & while he cleaueth to Christ , the chiefe and true Lord and head of the Church , I will easilie suffer him to be both the head of the Church , & the chiefest Priest , & the successor of Peter , or els if he will , of all the Apostles , that all obey him , and that whatsoeuer belongeth to his honour , be in nothing diminished : but if he be departed from the truth , & will not returne to it , he ought deseruedly to be accounted of , as one that is condemned and reiected .

But he should haue shewed , into what errours the Bishops of Rome are fallen , and when , and by whome they were condemned . For we know , that in the Generall Lateran Councell vnder Innocentius the third , and of Lyons vnder Gregory the tenth , and of Florence vnder Eugenius the fourth , the Greekes being conuicted of errour , returned to the Faith of the Latins , and afterward alway returned to their vomit againe , and were therefore most grieuouslie punished by God ; but we neuer read that the Latins came to the Faith of the Greekes . Neither can there any Ecclesiasticall iudgment be produced against the Latins , as wee bring many against the Greekes .

Now Caluin Lib. 4. cap. 7. § . 22. Let ( saith he ) all those things be true , which notwithstanding wee haue now wrested from them , that Peter was by the voice of Christ , appointed Head of the vniuersall Church , & that he left the honour giuen vnto him in the Roman Sea , that this was established by the authoritie of the auncient Church , & confirmed by long vse ▪ that the chiefest authoritie was alway due from all to the Bishop of Rome , and that he was the iudge of all causes and men , that he was subiect to the iudgement of none ; let them haue more also if they will : Yet I answere in one word , that nothing of this standeth in force , except the Church and Bishop be at Rome . And after § . 24. Let the Romanists vntie me this knott : I deny that their Pope is the Prince of Bishops , since that he is not a Bishop . And after . Let Rome in tymes past haue bin the Mother of all Churches : but since she began to become the seate of Antichrist , she left to be that which she was . And after § . 25. Wee seeme to some , backbyters and slanderers , when wee call the Bishop of Rome Antichrist , but they which thinke soe , vnderstand not that they accuse Paul of immodesty , after whome we speake , yea out of whose mouth we speake soe . And least any obiect , that we wrongfullie wrest Paules wordes against the Pope which perteine to another purpose , I will brieflie shew , that they cannot be vnderstood otherwise , then of the Popedome . So he .

The like teach al the heretikes of this tyme , & chieflie Luther in supput . temporum , & in assert . art. 28. & 36. and often in other places . Likewise the Magdeburgenses Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. colum. 434. & sequent . and in all the following Centuries cap. 4. 7. 10. Illyricus in lib. de primat . Dauid Chrytraus in cap. 9. & 13. Apoc. Likewise Wolsgangus Musculus in loc. commun. tit. de Ecclesia . Theodor. Beza in Com. 2. Thessal . 2. Theodor. Bibliander in Chron. tabul. 10. 11. 12. & 14. Henricus Pantaleon in Chron. Henricus Bullinger praesat . in suas homil. ad Apocal. And before all these Iohn Wicklisse art. 30. amongst those which are condemned in Concil. Constantiensi sess. 8. pronounced the Pope to be Antichrist .

Wherfore that this question may be diligentlie explicated , nine heads are to be treated of . First of the name it selfe of Antichrist . 2. Whether Antichrist be one man or a kind of men . 3. Of the tyme of his comming and death . 4. Of his proper name . 5. Of what nation he shal be borne , & by whome he shall chiefly be receaued . 6. Where he shall fixe his seate . 7. Of his doctrine and manners . 8. Of his miracles . 9. Of his kingdome and warres . For out of all these , it will most cleerely appeare , with what impudencie the heretikes make the Pope Antichrist : to which we will adde a Chapter , wherin we will proue , that the Pope is not onlie not Antichrist , but that hee hath in no sort left to be the Bishop and pastour of the whole Church , that nothing may remayne not solued of Caluins obiections .

For the first , some of our aduersaries teach , that the name of Antichrist doth properlie signifie the Vicar of Christ , and therefore that the Pope , who affirmeth himselfe to be Christs Vicar is Antichrist . So teacheth Wolfgangus Musculus in locis cap. de potest . Ministrorum , and he proueth it , because that word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 signifieth vice , whence 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; is vice-Christi , in Christs place , as 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 signifieth him who obtrudeth himselfe for Captaine , that is , who will be accompted the Captaynes Vicar . The Magdeburgenses cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. colum. 435. do teach , that the Pope is therefore the true Antichrist because he maketh himselfe the vicar of Christ .

But without doubt they are deceaued , or endeauour to deceaue , for the name of Antichrist cannot in any sort , signifie the Vicar of Christ , but only some that is contrary to Christ : and contrarie not howsoeuer , but in such sort , that he striueth with him for the seate & dignity of Christ , that is , who is aemulus Christi , at emulation with Christ , and would be accounted Christ , hauing cast him downe who is truly Christ .

That this is the signification of this name , it is proued three waies . First because among the Grecians the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 doth properlie signifie opposition , and because not onlie those things are said to be opposed , which are repugnant one to the other , but also those , which are of equall value , from thence it proceedeth , that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in composition , sometyme signifieth contrarietie , sometyme equiualence , as is manifest in the examples of all such names , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 signifieth an emulous in a combate , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 a contrary remedie , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 a contrarie speach , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 equiualent , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 equall to God , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is the thumme , because it is opposed against , and is equiualent to all the rest of the hand , and so of the rest . But a Vicar doth not signifie opposition , but subordination to another , and therefore it cannot be expressed by the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 .

Now that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 doth not signifie the Captaines Vicar , but ordinarily a contrarie Captaine , as 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is to make warre , and sometime him that is in the Captaines place , not as subiect to him , but as equall , as among the Latins , Propraetor or Proconsul doth not signifie the Vicar of the Pretor or Consul , but him that is in some Prouince , that which the Pretor or Consul is in the Citty : and in this Musculus was deceaued ; for because he read in Budaeus that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 doth signifie a Propretor , he thought that it doth signifie the Vicar of the Pretor , which is false .

Secondly the same is proued out of the Scripture : for although this name were of it selfe ambiguous , yet as it is taken in Scripture it is not doubtfull : and our question must not be of the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 absolutelie , but as it is taken in the Scriptures . Now in the Scriptures , Antichrist is said to be him who is extolled aboue all that is called God , 2. Thess. 2. which certainelie is not to be the Vicar , but the enemy of Christ . And 1. Ioan. 2. Antichrist is sayd to be him , who denieth Iesus to be Christ , that he may sell himselfe for Christ . and Matth. 24. Antichrist is said to affirme himselfe to be Christ , which certainily is not the part of a Vicar , but of an Emulous .

Thirdly out of all the Authors , who haue written of Antichrist , and out of the common sense of all Christians , who by Antichrist vnderstand a certaine notable false Christ . In which sort expoundeth also this word of the ancient Greeks S. Damascen lib. 4. de fide cap. 28. and after the same manner doth S. Hierome expound it of the Latins , who notwithstanding was also most skilfull in the Greeke tongue , quaest. 11. ad Algasiam .

Lastlie so also expoundeth it in his Thesaurus lingnae Graecae Henricus Stephaenus , who withstanding is one of the heretikes of Geneua . Hence we haue our first argument against our aduersaries . For since the name of Antichrist signifieth the enemy and emulous of Christ , and the Pope confesseth himself to be Christs seruant , and subiect to Christ in all thinges , and in no sort saith , that he is Christ , nor maketh himself equall to him , it is manifest , that he is not Antichrist .

M. Downams Answere confuted .

1. FIRST M. Downam telleth vs of two great aduantages that Bellarmine hath against him and all Protestants in this point . 1. In respect of his great learning & much reading . 2. In that he is to proue the negatiue part , so that it is inough for him , if he Bellarmins aduantages in this controuersy . can but shew plainelie and euidently , that any one seueral & essential mark ascribed vnto Antichrist in the Scriptures , doth not agree to the Pope . All which wee willinglie acknowledg , and from hence doe inferre M. Downams ignorance and impudency , that whereas it had bene inough for Bellarmine to haue disproued him in one point , it is not inough for him that he is disproued in all , as the Reader will easilie perceaue in perusing the particuler arguments . Likewise we acknowledg the controuersie to be of that importance and consequence , that it manifestlie conuinceth them to be the limmes of Antichrist The importance of this controuersy . who are in errour concerning this point : for this consequence doth not onlie touch vs , if we were in the wrong , as M. Downam seemeth to insinuate by only naming vs , but it concerneth them also as fullie , since that it is euident that none but heretikes can charge any , and much lesse the chiefe Pastour of Christs Church , with so foule an imputation . Now how true it is , that all heretikes are lymmes of Antichrist , I need not shew , since that it is graunted on both sides . And therfore it behooueth M. Downam and his fellows to haue as great a will to cleere themselues in this behalfe , as it doth vs , and so much the more also , because we are but the defendants , and they are the slanderous calumniators ; & likewise , for that some of their owne brethren do much condemne their insolencie and rash bouldnes in this assertion .

2. Now wheras he affirmeth , that the conceipts of the elder Papists who liued in the dares of our forefathers , concerning Antichrist , were meere dotages , he only sayth it , and therby discouereth his spitefull spirit , which prouoketh him to rayle without reason , and to slander against all truth . For the Catholikes of former dayes , held the very same , that we do now , though Bellarmin agreeth with the elder Catholikes . they explicated not themselues so fully , as Bellarmine and others do now . In which respect only these may in some sort be truly called the refiners of Popery , that is , the explicators and confirmers of Catholike doctrine against heretikes . But the reason of this difference betwixt the elder and later writers is euident , for in their dayes Heretikes were not so impudent as to vrge so palpable and grosse errors , as they are in our time : for otherwise Bellarmine sufficiently declareth the antiquity of his doctrine , by prouing whatsoeuer he sayth by the authority of the ancient Fathers . Now whether many haue contributed to Bellarmins bookes , or no , it is little to the purpose , though the truth is , as those know that are best acquainted with his studies , that they are all his owne labours . And that this may not seeme strange , M. Downam may easily informe himselfe , that diuers other of his order , that liued in the same time , and some in the same place , haue in diuers kindes written as large volumes , as Bellarmine hath in this . Wherof Salmeron , Tolet , Valentia , Molina , Suarez , Vasquez and others may serue for example . Well to come to the matter , M. Downam seemeth to allow of Bellarmines method and diuision , since that he obiecteth nothing against it , but commeth presently to his first argument .

3. In which to make a good beginning , he corrupteth Bellarmines argument , by altering both words and sense : for thus he setteth it down : Antichrist is hostis & aemulus Christi , Downam corrupteth Bellarmines argument . that is , such an enemy , as is opposed vnto Christ in emulation of like honour . The Pope is not an enemy , nor opposed vnto Christ in emulation of like honour , therfore the Pope is not Antichrist . Wheras Bellarmine endeauoureth to prooue nothing els in this Chapter , but that the name of Antichrist signifieth not the Vicar of Christ , but only some that is contrary to Christ , and contrary not howsoeuer , but in such sort , that he striueth with him for the seate and dignity of Christ , so that he would be accompted Christ , hauing cast him downe who is truly Christ : which is not to be opposed vnto Christ in emulation of like honour , but of the same and equall honour , which are far different matters . For who seeth not , that many things are like , which are not the same ? or rather speaking in rigour , that nothing is like , that is the same ? And so likewise of equalitie , there be manie things like , which are not equall . As for example , the vnitie of Christs seruants among themselues , is like to the vnion of Christ with his Father , but not the same , nor Ioan. 17. equall vnto it . And in this our question , who doubteth that the Vicar of Christ , as of any other , is like vnto him in honour , but yet he hath not in any sort the same or equall honour to that which Christ hath ; as not to explicate other differences , it is euident , that whosoeuer is Vicar to another , acknowledgeth dependancie of another , which the principall doth not . Now then the whole controuersy being about this sense of the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , whether it may signify not only an enemy or emulous of Christ , but also his Vicar or Vicegerent , no meruaile though Bellarmin wholy insisteth vpon the proofe thereof : and in this he sheweth not himselfe to be a sophister , but M. Downam proueth himselfe to be a calumniatour and a falsifier , as is manifest . But yet in some sort he seemeth to acknowledg and amend this fault by affirming that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in composition , commonlie signifieth three things , opposition , equalitie , substitution , by which as afterward he explicates himselfe , he vnderstandeth subordination , which indeed is that which Bellarmine denieth , and M. Downam proueth onlie by repeating the example of Musculus , & adding two others to it which he interpreteth after that manner , and saith in general , that Greeke writers and Lexicographers doe teach see , as 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 proconsul , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 proprator , or legatus praetoris , or , qui est vice praetoris , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 the putting of one case for another . And in this sense ( saith he ) the sacraments of the new Testament substituted and ordayned insteed of the old , are called the Downam repeateth his fellowes argument , omitting Bellarmines answere . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of them . But it is meruaile he saw not that , which Bellarmine had written against Musculus , who aleadged 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as M. Downam doth , and Bellarmine answered to them both , that it signifieth not the Vicegerent of a Captaine , but ordinarilie a contrarie captaine , as 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is to make warre against , and sometymes him that is in the Captaines place , not as subiect to him , but as equall , as among the Latins Propraetor , or Proconsul doth not signifie the Vicegerent of the Pretor or Consul , but him who is in some Prouince , that which the Pretor or the Consul is in the Citty . And in this was Musculus deceyued , for reading in Budaeus that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 signifieth Propraetor , he thought that it did signifie the Vicegerent of the Pretor , which is false . Thus far Bellarmine . By which M. Downam might haue vnderstood the cause of Musculus his error , whose authoritie , as it should seeme by that he citeth no other , he only followeth : and in the other examples , which he bringeth , there is the same reason , because one case is equiualent with the other , and the Sacraments of the new law are not onlie equall , but also of greater value , and withall opposite to those of the old law , with which they could not stand or be in vse , at the same tyme .

4. To Bellarmins second proofe out of Scripture M. Downam granteth the Conclusion , though he would faine wrangle How Antichrist is taken in the Scripture . about 2. Thess. 2. and Matth. 24. for that Antichrist is not named there , though he and all other graunt , that they are to be vnderstood of Antichrist , and consequentlie he shal be such as is there described . Likewise he would cauill about the place in S. Iohns Epistle , in which he saith the name 1. Iohn 2. of Antichrist is ascribed to such as being enemies , notwithstanding professed the name of Christ , as the heretikes of those tymes . Where he semeth to haue forgotten , what he and Bellarmine haue agreed Bellar. cap. 2. Dow. lib. 1. cap. 1. 3. vpon , that the name of Antichrist is taken either properlie or commonly , as also the name of Christ , and consequently as the members of Antichrist doe oppose themselues to the members of Christ , contending which of them are to haue that appellation ; so Antichrist properlie taken , shall striue with Christ whether of them is to be accounted trulie and properly Christ . And when S. Iohn speaketh of such enemies as professe the name of the true Christ , he meaneth only of Antichrists forerunners and members , which are only the members of Antichrist , and not properly Antichrist himself , who notwithstanding at the first , till he hath gotten credit & authority , will perhaps deale deceitfully , but afterwards will plainely oppose himself to Christ , as S. Matth. S. Paul & S. Iohn also doe teach in the place , which Bellarmine alleadgeth , in which S. Iohn speaketh of an open & professed enemy as is manifest . And M. Downam should haue answered to that place directly , and not haue run to others , and so bouldly affirmed , that S. Iohn speaketh only of hidden enemies , against the expresse place which he was to answere . To the third proofe , he only answereth , that if all Authours meane that Antichrist , shal be such a false Christ , as shall plainely and directly affirme himselfe to be Christ the only Messias , then their affirmation Downam reiecteth all authors agreeth not with that Antichrist , whome the Scriptures describe ; which is in effect to admit , that all those authors are against him , but that he vnderstandeth the Scripture better then they all : only he vouchsafeth to answere in particuler to his good friend Henricus Stephanus , saying , that neither he , nor any approued author denieth , but that Antichrist may signify him , who being an enemy of Christ , professeth himself to be his Vicar . Now you must suppose , that no Authors are approued whome M. Downam mislikes : and besides consider how any Author can take occasion to deny that which they neuer heard brought in question , and withall we are to note that ( may ) of M. Downams , which only importeth that the name of Antichrist may be applied to his members ; but now our question is , what is the proper signification of that word , as it is vnderstood of the chiefe Antichrist himselfe , and not of his members .

5. To the assumption , he answereth , graunting it in all , that the Pope confesseth of himselfe in word , but in deedes he saith , that the Pope in many things matcheth himself with Christ , and in some thinges aduanceth himselfe aboue him : which he saith , that he hath proued els where , which we are to examine in that place . Now it is sufficient for vs , that the Pope is See cap. 14. noe open enemy of Christ , as Antichrist shal be . For of this it followeth euidently , that the Pope is not the chiefe Antichrist , properly so called , which is all that Bellarmine intendeth to proue in this place .

THE SECOND CHAPTER . That Antichrist shal be a certaine determinate Man .

NOw concerning the second ( saith Bellarmine ) we agree with our Aduersaries in one thing , & differ in another . We agree in that , that as the name of Christ is taken in two sorts , somtime properly for one excellent & singular Christ , who is Iesus Nazarenus , somtime commonly , for all those who haue likenesse with Christ in being annointed , in which sort all Prophets , Kings , & Priests are called Christs , Psal. 104. Touch not my Christs : So also the name of Antichrist somtime is taken properly for one notable enemy of Christ , of whome there is mention 2. Thess. 2. Ioan. 5. and in other places , and somtime commonly for all who in any sort impugne Christ . For 1. Ioan. 2. we read , You haue heard that Antichrist commeth , and now many are become Antichrists . That is , yow haue heard that Antichrist shall come , and now thought that singular Antichrist be not yet come , yet many seducers are already come , who also may be called Antichristes .

But we disagree of Antichrist properly so called , whether he be one singular man . For all Catholikes thinke so , that Antichrist shal be one certaine man : but all the heretikes before alleadged teach , that Antichrist properly so called , is not any singular person , but a singular Throne , or Tyrannical Kingdome , and Apostolicall seate of them who gouerne the Church . The Magdeburgenses cent. 1. lib. 2. c. 4. col. 435. The Apostles teach ( say they ) that Antichrist shall not be only one person , but an whole kingdome , by false Doctors ruling in the temple of God , that is in the Church of God , in the great Citty , that is , in the Roman Citty , gotten by the worke , fraude , and deceipt of the Diuell . So they . The like are in others before alleadged . Their reasons are these .

First , S. Paul 2. Thess. 2. saith , that already , euen in his time Antichrist had begun to be in the world , the mystery of iniquity doth worke now . And notwithstanding he sayth in the same place , that Antichrist shal be slaine by Christ in the end of the world . From hence Beza concludeth thus vpon 2. Thess. 2. They are manifestly deceaued , whosoeuer thought , that this was to be vnderstood of one Man , vnlesse they giue me some one , who may remaine aliue from Paules tyme vntill the day of Iudgement . Soe also doth Caluin argue in the place which I cyted before . This reason is confirmed out of S. Iohn , who in the first Epistle and fourth Chapter saith : Euery spirit that dissolueth Iesus , is not of God , and this is Antichrist , of whome you haue heard that he commeth , and now he is in the world .

Beza's second reason is , because Daniel in his 7. Chapter by the particuler names of the beastes , a Beare , a Lion , and a Leopard , doth not vnderstand particuler Kings , but seuerall Kingdomes , one of which conteyneth many Kings : therfore after the same manner Paul . 2. Thess. 2. who doth wonderfullie agree with Daniel , by the man of sinne , and sonne of perdition , doth not vnderstand one particuler person , but as it were a certayne body of many Tyrants .

The 3. reason is Caluins vpon the 2. Chap. of first Epistle of S. Iohn , where he saith , that they doe dote , and willfullie erre , who belieue that Antichrist shall be one man , seeing that Paul 2. Thess. 2. hath written , that the Apostasy shall come , and that Antichrist shal be the head of it . For Apostasy is a certaine generall failing , or defection from the Faith , which indeed maketh one body . ●nd one Kingdome , & is not a matter of a few yeares , that it can be accomplished vnder one King .

For all this the truth is , that Antichrist shal be one particuler man , which is proued out of all the Scriptures & Fathers , who treat of Antichrist . The places of Scripture be fiue : the first is in the Ghospell of S. Iohn cap. 5. I came in the name of my Father , and you receaued me not : if another come in his owne name , him will you receaue . Musculus & Caluin in Marlor . in Comment. huius loci , will haue these words to be vnderstood of false Prophets in generall , and not of any one : but their exposition is repugnant to the ancient Fathers , and with the text it selfe . For that these wordes are spoken of Antichrist , do witnes S. Chrysostome , and S. Cyril vpon this place , S. Ambrose vpon the 2. Chap. of the 2. Epist. to the Thessalonians , S. Hierome in his Epistle to Algasia , the 11. question , S. Augustine in 29. Tract . vpon S. Iohn , S. Irenaeus in the 5. book against the herefies of Valentinus , Theodoretus in the Epitome of the diuine Decrees in the chap. of Antichrist .

Besides in this place , our Lord doth oppose to himself another man , that is person to person , not Kingdome to Kingdom , nor sect to sect , as it appeareth in those words , I , Another , In the name of my Father , In his owne name , Me , Hym. Wherfore as Christ was one particuler man , soe shall Antichrist be one particuler man .

Moreouer Christ saith in this place , that Antichrist shall be receaued for Messias by the Iewes , and it is certayne that the Iewes expect one certayne and particuler man . In like manner all false Prophets came in the name of another , and not in their owne name , Ierem. 14. The Prophets do falsely prophetize in my name , I sent them not &c. But heere our Lord speaketh of one certaine man , which shall come in his owne name , that is , who shall acknowledg no God at all , but shall extoll himselfe , as S. Paul saith , aboue all that is called God . Finally very many false Prophets were come before Christ , verie many also were to come afterward , therfore our Lord would not haue said , if another shall come , but , many do come , if he would haue spoken of false Prophets .

The second place is 2. Thess. 2. Vnles there come a reuolt first and the man of sinne be reuealed , the sonne of perdition &c. And a●●er : And then the wicked one shal be rauealed , whom our Lord Iesus shal kil with the spirit of his mouth . These words the Aduersaries themselues vnderstand of the true Antichrist , but the Apostle speaketh of a certaine determinate & particuler person , as appeareth by the Greeke articles 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and after 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . For as S. Epiphanius haeres. 9. which is of the Samaritans ; teacheth , the Greeke articles doe contract the signification to one certaine thing , soe that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 signifieth man in common , but 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 a particuler man . And surely it is marueile , that none of the Aduersaties , who notwithstanding do boast of skil in tongues , haue obserued this .

The third place is where we read thus , 1. Ioan 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , where he putteth the article before Antichrist , so properly called , & he pronounceth the name of Antichrist , commonly taken , without the article ; most plainly shewing that Antichrist properly taken is one certaine person , but Antichrist commonly so called is no certaine person , but in general all heretikes .

The fourth is Dan. 7. 11. & 12. Chapters , where he speaketh of Antichrist , as S. Hierome & Theodoretus vpon that place , Irenaeus lib. 5. August . lib. 20. de Ciuitate Dei cap. 23. yea Caluin , the Magdeburgenses , & Beza vbi supra do teach . And there Antichrist is not called one Kingdome , but one King , who often Kings which he shall find in the world , shall take three quite away & shal subiect vnto himselfe the other seauen Besides , Caluin saith , that litterallie Daniel speaketh of Antiochus Illustris , & allegoricallie of Antichrist , whom Antiochus figured which S. Cyprian teacheth in his booke of Exhortation to Martyrdome cap. 11. & S. Hierome vpon the 11. & 12. of Daniel . But Antiochus was a certaine & particuler person . Therfore Antichrist must be also one certaine person .

The fifth and last place is Apoc. 13. & . 17. where S. Irenaeus lib. 5. affirmeth , that Antichrist is spoken of , and it is plaine by reason of the likenesse of Daniels & S. Iohns words : for both of them make mention of ten Kings which shal be in the world when Antichrist shall come , and both of them foretell , that Antichristes Kingdome shall endure three yeares and a halfe &c. As therfore Daniel speaketh of one determinate King , so also doth S. Iohn in the Apocalyps .

The same is proued out of the Fathers , who with common consent doe teach of Antichrist : First , that he shal be a most chosen instrument of the Diuell , so that in him shall inhabite all fulnesse of the Diuels malice corporally , as in Christ being a man doth inhabite all plenitude of Diuinitie corporallie . Secondly that Antichrist shall not raigne more then three yeares and a halfe , and consequently they teach , that Antichrist shal be only one man . See S. Irenaeus lib. 5. towardes the end , Cyril of Ierusalem , Catechesi 15. S. Chrysostome in 2. Thess. 2. Theodoret in cap. 7. Dan. Lactant. in epit . diuin. Inst. cap. 11. S. Ambrose in cap. 21. Luc. S. Hierome in cap. 7. Dan. & q. 11. ad Algasians . S. Augustine lib. 20. de Ciuitate Dei , in many Chapters , and vpon the 9. Psalme . S. Gregory lib. 32. Moral . cap. 12. S. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 28. & S. Hyppolitus Martyr in his Oration of the Consumation , or end of the world .

To the first argument of Beza I answere , that in the Apostles tyme Antichrist did begin secretly to giue onsetts , not in his owne person , but in his forerunners . For as Christ began to come from the beginning of the world , in the Patriarches and Prophets , who went before him , and did signifie him , soe that the mysterie of piety may be said to haue begun to worke from the beginning of the world , and notwithstanding he came not in his owne person , vntill he tooke flesh of the B. Virgin : So Antichrist straight after the Ascension of Christ into Heauen began to come in his forerunners , & the mysterie of iniquitie began to work , to wit in the heretikes and I yrants which did persecute the Church , and chieflie in Symon Magus , who called himselfe Christ , and in Nero , who first began to impugne the Church ; and yet notwithstanding in his owne person he shall not come , but in the end of the world . Wherefore the spirituall persecution of Symon Magus , and the temporall of Nero , is called the mystery of iniquity , because they were signes & figures of Antichrists persecution .

That this is the true explication of the place of S. Paul , may be proued in two sortes . First by all the interpreters of that place : for all doe , by the mystery of iniquity which S. Paul mentioneth , vnderstand either Nero's persecution , as S. Ambrose , and S. Chrysostome vpon this place , and S. Hierom quaest. 11. ad Algasiam , or the Heretikes , who do deceaue secretly , as Theodoretus and Sedulius vpon this place , & S. Augustine lib. 20. de ciuitate Dei cap. 19.

Secondly by a reason taken from the aduersaries confession . For they say , that Antichrist properly is the seate of the Bishop of Rome . If therfore Antichrist so properly called was borne in the Apostles tyme , it doth follow that S. Peter & S. Paul were properlie called Antichrists , although secret , and that Nero or Symon Magus were the true Christ . For it is well knowne , that in the Apostles time , there were no other Bishops of Rome , but S. Peter & S. Paul . For Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. doth plainly affirme , that the Sea of Rome was founded by S. Peter and S. Paul , and that they were the first Bishops there , which all the auncient Fathers , which I cited before , doe also testifie . It is also well knowne that both Symon Magus and Nero did contend with S. Peter and S. Paul Wherfore if the Aduersaries mislike , that S. Peter and S. Paul were Antichrists , and Symon & Nero the true Christ , they are forced to confesse , that in the Apostles tyme Antichrist was not come in himselfe , but only in a certayne Type of his : by which meanes Beza's consequence with which he concluded , that Antichrist cannot be one man , vnles we could giue him one man who should liue from the Apostles tyme to the end of the world , is shewed to be ridiculous .

To confirme this I say , that S. Iohn doth speake in that manner , as our Lord speaketh of Elias , Matth. 17. Elias indeed shall come , and restore all things , and I say vnto you , that Elias is already come , and they did not know him : that is , Elias in his owne person shall come , but Elias in his like is come already , to wit , in S. Iohn Baptist .

To the second Argument . First it is denied , that alway Daniel by particular beasts , doth vnderstand seuerall Kingdomes : for by one beast he doth sometymes signify one Kingdome , as in the 7. Chap. where by the Lion he vnderstandeth the Kingdome of the Assyrians , by the Beare the Kingdome of the Persians , by the Leopard the Kingdome of the Grecians , by the other beast vnnamed the Kingdome of the Romans . Sometymes one King , as in the 8. Chap. where by the Ram he doth vnderstand Darius the last King of the Persians , by the Goate Alexander the Great .

Secondly I deny the consequence of his argument : for S. Paul by the man of sinne , doth not vnderstand any of the foure beasts described by Daniel , but he vnderstandeth that little horne , which as Daniel writeth preuailed against the ten hornes of the fourth beast , that is , that one King , who from a little beginning did so increase , that he subdued all the other Kings vnto him .

To the last Argument I answere many wayes , that it may be vnderstood how impudently Caluin wrote , that they do wilfully erre , who do not gather out of that argument of his , that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist .

First by the Apostasy in S. Paul , most rightly Antichrist himselfe may be vnderstood , for so with common consent do the Greeke Interpreters teach , S. Chrysostome , Theodoretus , Theophilactus , and Oecumenius , and besides S. Augustine lib. 20. de ciuit . Dei cap. 19. and Antichrist is called the Apostasy , both by the figure called Metonymia , because he shal be the cause , that many forsake God : and also by a certaine excellency , for he shal be such a notable Apostata , that he may be called the Apostasy it selfe .

Secondly by the Apostasy , may be taken the defection , or falling from the Roman Empire , as many of the Latins do expound , as S. Ambrose , Sedulius , and Primasius . For as in the Chapter following we will demonstrate that Antichrist shal not come , before the Roman Empire doth wholy perish .

Thirdly if we admit , that by the Apostasy is meant the defection or failing from the true Faith & religion of Christ ( as Caluin doth shew ) we are not driuen into any straits or difficulties . For it is not necessary , that S. Paul speaketh of the Apostasie of many ages , for he might speake of some very great and singular apostasy , which shall only be in that very short time , in which Antichrist shall raigne , and so S. Augustine in the place before cited , that is l. 20. de ciuit . Dei . cap. 19. writeth , that this place was vnderstood of many Ancients , who probablie did teach , that Antichrist appearing , all Heretikes or faygned Christians should wholy come to him , & by that meanes there would be at that tyme a very great Apostasy , such as neuer had bene before .

Fourthly , if we graunt to Caluin , that S. Paul speaketh of another Apostasy of many ages , yet he shall get nothing . For we may say that , that Apostasy doth not necessarily belong vnto one body & Kingdome of Antichrist , nor require one head , but that it is a disposition to Antichrists Kingdome , & that it is made in diuers places , vnder diuers Kings , and vpon diuers occasions , as now we see that Africa is failed , or reuolted to Mahomet , a great part of Asia to Nestorius and ●●●●●hes , and other Prouinces to other Sects .

Fiftly and lastly , if we should graunt to Caluin , that the generall Apostasy from the fayth , and which endureth now many yeares is Antichrists Kingdome , it would not straightway follow , that the Pope is Antichrist : for that question were to be handled , who hath failed or reuolted from the Faith or Religion of Christ , we or they ; that is , the Catholikes or the Lutherans ? Though they say , that we are those , which haue failed , notwithstanding they haue not yet proued it , nor hath it bene declared by any common Iudge . And truly we can farre more easily prooue , that the Lutherans are those , who haue failed , then they prooue , that the Catholikes haue failed . For that they haue failed from the Church , in which they were before , they themselues do not deny . For to let passe the rest , Erasmus Sarcerius vpon that of the 2. Thessal . 2. Then the wicked one shal be reuealed , doth plainely confesse , that almost all the predecessors of the Lutherans , and he also did sometimes obey the Bishop of Rome , therfore they haue fayled from the Church , and Religion of their predecessors . But that we haue failed from any Church , neither haue they demonstrated hitherto , neither will they euer be able to demonstrate . Wherfore when they read in S. Paul , Vnles the reuolt or Apostasy be come , and the wicked one reuealed &c. and thinke that they are departed from the Church , in which they were , and that we do perseuer alway in the same ordinances , it is meruaile , if at least they do not feare , least S. Paul spake of them .

Out of this second head , we haue the second argument , to prooue that the Pope is not Antichrist . For if Antichrist be only one person , and there haue bene and shall be many Popes , endued with the same dignity and power ; certainely Antichrist is to be sought els where , then in the Roman Sea .

M. Downams Answere confuted .

1. MAISTER Downam denieth , that Antichrist shall be one particuler person , and to Bellarmins first place of Scripture he answereth , that in that place of S. Iohn , Christ speaketh indefinitely of any false teacher , which should come to the Iewes Ioan. 5. in his owne name , that is not sent of God . Secondly he speaketh also conditionally , If another come . Thirdly he speaketh of those Iewes , to whom he speaketh , and not of those Iewes , which shal be in the end of the world . In which exposition of his , and especially in the first and third point , he is contrary to Bellarmine . Let vs see therfore , how he answereth to Bellarmines reasons . First to the Fathers he saith , that none of them hath that word vno , as though it were not sufficient , that they haue others equiualent , and yet S. Augustine lib. 2. contra Aduersar . legis cap. 12. expresly distinguisheth the chiefe Antichrist from others , in that he is vn●● maior ceteris , and they multi . And S. Hierom in Dan. 7. calleth him , vnum de hominibus . Secondly he sayth , that the Fathers vnderstand that place also of S. Matth. 24. v. 24. Matth. 24. where our Sauiour speaketh in the plurall number of Antichrist : as though the chiefe & proper Antichrist may not be one man , because there will be others like vnto him , though farre inferiour in malice . Wherfore when our Sauiour speaketh generally of all false Prophets , no doubt , he excludeth not the chiefest of them , but includeth him in the first place , so that whatsoeuer is common to all , doth most fitlie agree to him : and therfore it is noe meruaile though the Fathers take it , as spoken principally of him . But on the other side when our Sauiour maketh mention only of one , he is not to be vnderstood of all . And this is the difference betweene the Fathers exposition , and M. Downams , that they obserue the first and he the second , and therefore it is no meruaile though they do not agree . Neither is it against the Fathers , that the Iewes haue receaued more then one ; but it is against M. Downam , that they haue not receaued all that came : besides , that it is hard to shew , that so many of the Iewes receaued any one false Prophet , as those were that receaued the true Christ ; whereas our Sauiour plainly affirmeth , that they shall generally receaue him , of whom he speaketh . Wherfore thirdly , he telleth the Fathers roundly , that they had no reason to restraine those words Downam reiecteth the Fathers . vnto Antichrist alone , & against them all opposeth Nonius a Poet , in his paraphrase , who expoundeth it thus : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 &c. but if any other come : As though this Poets authority were equall to all the Fathers , or ( 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ) might not signify aliquu , or quidam , aswell as ●ll●● , or quis , some , or acertayne , aswell as any , especially in a Poet , who is sometime constrained to straine the sense , to make vp his verse . Lastly he addeth , if these answeres of his will not suffice , them yet he will not yield , except he see first proued , that whatsoeuer those Fathers wrote concerning Antichrist , is true . But I hope he will be better aduised , and thinke it sufficient , that whatsoeuer our Sauiour saith of Antichrist is true , and that in vnderstanding his meaning , we must rather belieue such learned men as haue the authority of the Fathers on their side , then those that trust only to their owne wits , hauing neither more learning nor iudgment , then the other . For I perswade my selfe , that M. Downam wil not preferre himselfe before Bellarmine in either .

2. To the first confirmation he answereth , that when alius is taken definitely , as Io. 18. 16. & 20. 2. 3. 4. then it is true ; but where it is vsed indefinitely , as Iob 31. 8. 1. Cor. 3. 10. and in this place , then it is not . And by his citing of the Greeke word in the first sense , with an article , and in the second without , it Downam mistaketh Bellarmine . should seeme , he would haue that to be the signe , in whether sense it is to be taken . But all this discourse proceedeth from want of vnderstanding Bellarmines confirmation ; for he goeth not about to proue , that our Saniour speaketh of the cheife and proper Antichrist , but this supposed , gathereth that he shall be one particuler man , for that he opposeth him as one person , to himselfe , who was one particuler person also . To which M. Downam answereth not , but onlie denieth the supposition , as though Bellarmine had gone about to proue that with this confirmation : neither doth that rule of the greeke article hould alway , especially in M. Downams sense and opinion , as we shall see a little after . To the second confirmation , he denieth , that Christ foretel foretelleth , that Antichrist shal be receaued of the Iewes for their Messias . First because his speach is conditionall , and onlie sheweth them , what in respect of their present disposition , they were ready to doe . As though this were not inough for Bellarmines confirmation : for it is certayne they would not haue receaued him as their Messias , if he were not a particuler man , which is all that Bellarmine intendeth to proue Now , besides in the Scripture , the word ( if ) somtime signifieth ( when ) which the Fathers iudge also ( If ) for ( when ) Esay . 4. 4. Ioan 14. 3. to be in this place . Secondly M. Downam saith , that the word alius , is indefinite . But that is onlie his owne interpretation against the Fathers . Thirdly he saith , that our Sauiour did not say , that they would receaue him for their Messias , but so he is to be vnderstood . For that they were to receaue him , as they were bound , and refused to receaue our Sauiour , for of this he speaketh . Fourthly he saith , that the Iewes , to whome , & of whome our Sauiour speaketh , shall not be aliue at the comming of the great Antichrist , according to the opinion of the Papists themselues . But M. Downam should haue remembred , that not a whole leafe before , he himselfe said , that Bellarmine , and the rest of the Papists vnderstand Christ to speake of those Iewes , which shal be in the end of the world . To the third Confirmation , first M. Downam saith , that it would proue Antichrist to be us false Prophet : which is true , if he speake of the infeour sort of false Prophets . After he giueth another exposition that he shall come vnsent of God , or as Lyra sayth , that he shall not haue testimonies from God , as Christ had : neither of which are contrary to Bellarmines exposition , but rather both included in it . But besides the negatiue , he shall also haue the affirmatine , as both our Sauiour & S. Paul saith , against whome M. Downams argument concludeth not , which is thus : The Iewes expect their Messias from God , and consequently , he shall professe himselfe to be sent from God ; for what knoweth M. Downam whether he will say , that he is their God himselfe , not sent by any other person , for that he will deny the Trinity : or though at the first he should deale otherwise , it is certaine , that at length , he will extoll himself aboue all Gods , as S. Paul saith , and consequently then he will professe himselfe to come in his owne name , for that he acknowledgeth no Superiour or equall in whose name he should come . To the fourth Confirmation he answereth , that because our Sauiour speaketh conditionally and indefinitelie , there is not so much as any shew of reason in it . But Bellarmine proued , that our Sauiour spake definitely of the chiefe and proper Antichrist , and though he speaketh conditionally , his confirmation is in force , for that hindereth not the particularity of him , whom he speaketh of .

3. About the second place , M. Downam taketh occasion to shew his skill in Greeke & maketh a large discourse , that many tymes , the greek article doth not signify a particuler thing , 2. Thess. 2. which both S. Epiphanius & Bellarmine knew aswel as himsel●e .

4. But when he commeth to that part of S. Epiphanius his obseruation which maketh to the purpose , he hath little When the Greek article signifieth a particuler thing . to say against either of them both . For S. Epiphanius his rule , as M. Downam interpreteth it , is this : Where the article is added vnto some definite and notable thing , there is alway confirmation by the article . which confirmation he will haue to be , that the word is not to be vnderstood indefinitly or indifferently of any . Which interpretation cannot stand with S. Epiphanius his wordes , which doe suppose , that there is no doubt , but that the word doth signify of it selfe , some definite , & notable thing , and yet the article is added to adde some other confirmation , which can be only the particularity , as Bellarmine concludeth . So that Epiphanius and Bellarmine agree very well , and Doctor Downam cannot otherwise answere Bellarmines argument , but by impugning S. Epiphanius his rule , which he doth by deniyng two of his examples , for the other was too euident ; and those two he first refuteth by our English phrases , in which we will easilie grant that M. Downam hath more skill then S. Epiphanius or Bellarmine , so that he will graunt vs . that they haue more skill then he in Greeke , out of which Bellarmines argument is drawen . Secondly he alleadgeth 2. Tim. 2. 17. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , the man of God , and Luke 11. 24. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , the vncleane spirit , but these are from the purpose since that neither place speaketh of the most eminent man of God , nor of the most eminent vncleane spirit , which is necessary for S. Epiphanius his rule , who only speaketh of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which M. Downam translateth not well in the positiue degree , and cannot deny the rule it selfe , which is confirmed by all the examples which he bringeth of Apostle , Poet , Orator , and Wiseman , and the same is euident of King , Man &c. when we only speake of the most eminent King , Man &c. as S. Paul doth here of the most eminent Antichrist . Now as for the second part of S. Epiphanius his rule , which M. Downam translateth thus ; but without the article , it is to be taken of any one indefinitly , that is indeterminately , we graunt it him , when it is the name of some definite and most notable thing , of which S. Epiphanius speaketh , but when it is only an Adiectiue , or a Pronowne , as 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is , then it is out of S. Epiphanius his rule , especially when by some other circumstances , it is sufficiently declared , that some particuler person or thing is meant , as it happeneth in our case .

5. Concerning the third place , it pleaseth M. Downam to be a little merry with Bellarmine , saying , that he thought the argument drawne from the article to good to goe for one , and so deuided it 1. Iohn 2. into two . And yet he knew well inough that Bellarmine did not draw his argument from the article , but from places of Scripture , or rather bringeth many places of Scripture , to make one argument . But in good earnest I meruaile , why M. Downam troubleth himselfe so much with an argument already answered in the former : for first he bringeth forth 2. Thess. 2. 7. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , he that hindereth , which signifieth the state and succession of the Roman Emperours . As though this did signify the most notable Emperour , which is necessary for to verify S. Ephiphanius his rule . After this , he alleadgeth Matth. 1. 16. 18. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 vpon this rock , by which he saith , the Papists vnderstand the whole succession of Popes , and yet there is not only the article , but also the pronowne demonstratiue . But M. Downam should haue considered , that the Papists do not otherwise vnderstand the place of the whole succession of Popes , then by a necessary consequence , that whatsoeuer is giuen to one Pope , is giuen to all , and so this speach being vsed to S. Peter , as Pope , is by consequence to be vnderstood and verifyed of all the rest . After this , he commeth back againe to 2. Thess. 2. 3. which he had handled so largely before , and saith , that some Downam mistaketh Bellarmine and S. Augustine . doe vnderstand the Man of Syn , of the whole multitude of those who toyne with Antichrist , and addeth , that Augustine reciteth this opinion , and is so far from misliking it , that Bellarmine alleadgeth it as Augustines . At which ouersight of his I much meruaile . For neither doe those Authors speake of the Man of sinne , but of the Apostasie or reuolt : nor doth Bellarmine attribute the opinion to S. Augustine , as M. Downam or any other may easily see , if it please them to looke vpon the place in this Chapter , § . XXIII . yet M. Downam goeth on with his examples of the Woman , and the Harlot out of the Apoc. 12. 6. and 17. 1. 18. by which are signified the Church of Christ , and the Cittie or Church of Antichrist . And yet he cannot choose but know , that first they signify those women , which were shewed to S. Iohn in the forme of particuler Women : and besides that which is signified by the women , is also as particuler , as the nature of those thinges doe permit , the Church of Christ in that tyme , of which S. Iohn speaketh , and the materiall Cittie of Rome , which is a particuler Cittie .

6. At length he commeth to the place which Bellarmine citeth , and he maketh the Apostle to reason thus : When the 1. Ioan. ● . Downam corrupteth the text of Scripture . Antichrist is come , it is the last houre , now Antichrists are come : therfore now is the last houre . Where I meruaile how he durst be so bould with the holy Scripture , as to change ( commeth ) into ( is come ) If he saith that S. Iohn might not haue 4. * * termini . termes in his argument , he should rather haue said , that S. Iohn did not argue at least in forme , but rather that he did vse a more briefe and compendious manner of reasoning , by putting downe two arguments , almost in two lines , as indeed he doth . For if M. Downam will needes bring it into forme , it is thus : When the great Antichrist commeth , it is the last houre . But now he commeth . Ergo &c. the minor which might seeme obscure he proueth thus : The great Antichrist is then said to come , when many are become Antichrists . But we see many such now . Ergo &c. And then he repeateth his former conclusion : Therefore it is the last houre . After this , M. Downam goeth to the 22. v. where S. Iohn saith : This is the Antichrist , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which denyeth the Father and the Sonne . Out of which there can no more be gathered , then that Antichrist shall deny both the Father and the Sonne : for S. Iohn speaketh not generallie of euery one , that denieth Iesus to 1. Iohn 4. 5. be Christ , as M. Downam affirmeth . Likewise Cap. 4. 5. S. Iohn only affirmeth , that it is the spirit of Antichrist to denie Christ , and that he was to come in himselfe , and was then in the world in his members : and the like he repeateth Epist. 2. v. 7. that all those which denied Christ to be come , were 2. Iohn 7. members of the chiefe Seducer and Antichrist , which was to come after , and teach that doctrine more then any of the former . The rest which M. Downam hath in this place , be the obiections which Bellarmine maketh , & solueth , as we shall see not long after .

7. To the fourth place M. Downam answereth , that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist at all , which he proueth by the authoritie of the learned of our times , but nameth not any : perhaps because Dan. 7. 11. & 12. he was ashamed to oppose them to those , which Cardinall Bellarmine cited , especially to his good Maisters Calwin . the Magdclurgenses , and Beza . Afterward he proueth the same Downam peruerteth Daniel egregiously . with reason , for that Daniel describeth him , whome M. Downam will haue to be Antiochus only as the tenth , and Cardinall Bellarmine maketh him the cleauenth , as if it were a beast of cleauen hornes : which trulie is a strange bouldnes in M. Downam , the words of Daniel being so cleere : for hauing said Cap. 7. v. 7. that the fourth beast had ten hornes , he forth with added ● . 8. Consideraham cornua , & ce●● cor●u aliud par●●ulum orium est de medio eorum &c. I did consider the hornes ( no doubt the ten , which he had said that the beast had ) and behould another little horne rose vp in the mydst of them , so that he distinguisheth it from the other ten by three notes . 1. calling it another . 2. a little one , no doubt in respect of the other ten : and 3. that it rose vp in the midst of them , signifying that they appeared before this : and that it was not the tenth may also be gathered , by that it arose in the midst , and not in the same place , as it should haue done , if it had signified one of the ten Kings of the Seleucida and Lagidae in Syria and Egipt , as M. Downam would haue it . Where we may also note that these 10. Kings were all of distinct Prouinces , and at one time , for otherwise this last horne could not haue risen in the midst of them . And againe v. 20. he that expounded the vision to Daniel saith thus ; Et de cornibus decem , quae habebat in capite , & de alio quod ortum fuerat &c. And of the ten hornes , which he had on his head , and of the other which arose &c. can any thing be more plaine , than that the other which arose was none of the ten ? But v. 24. more plainly , porrò cornua decem ipsius regni decem Reges erunt . & alius consurget post eos , & ipse potentior erit priorib●● , &c. Moreouer the ten hornes of his kingdome , shal be ten Kings , and another shall arise after them , & he shal be more potent than the former &c. Now what a strange man is M. Downam to say , that he is the tenth . And by this it is easy to gather how true his exposition is in the rest , as that those 10. Kings ruled succeffiuelie euer the Iewes , and that 6. for the most part were dead before the 10. was borne , of which we shall haue Chap. 16. occasion to speake hereafter . Now it is sufficient to note , that Bellarmine addeth that of the subuing seauen , out of the 12. 23. and 17. of the Apocalyps , togeather with the 7. of Daniel , for in all those places there is mention made of the 10. hornes , but with this difference , that in the 12. chap. of Apoc. 3. v. there be togeather with the 10. hornes , 7. heads , with 7. diadems , & in the 13. there be also 7. heades , & vpon the hornes 10. diadems ; of which difference in the diadems , that in the former place they be but 7. and in the latter ten , the reason is , for that Antichrist shall kill three Kinges , and so there shall only 7. remayne . But of this wee shall likewise haue occasion to speake more heereafter . Now therefore , let vs goe forward with M. Downam who saith , that if Antiochus be Chap. 16. spoken of , and Antichrist be by him figured , it followeth not , that Antichrist shal be a particuler man , as Antiochus was , for that the likenes doth not hould in all thinges , but only in those in respect whereof the type is a figure , as the high Priest of the Iewes was a figure of Christ , and yet they were many . Melchrsedeth was ( as Papistes say ) a figure of theyr Priestes , and yet was but one . Iosuah , Dauid & Salomon types of Christ , and yet not like him in all . As though Bellarmine said , that Antichrist shal be like Antiochus in all thinges , or in any other thing , then that which is set downe in the Scripture , and confirmed againe in the new Testament , & so vnderstood by the Fathers , as in his victories , and such other circumstances , that cannot agree to many , but only to one particuler man as Antiochus was , and Antichrist shal be .

8. To the 5. place M. Downam answereth , that S. Iohn & Daniel speake of diuers matters . For confirmation wherof he denieth againe the 11. horne in Daniel , adding this proofe , Apoc. 13. 17. that otherwise the 4. beast , were abeast of 11. hornes . To which it is easie to answere , that before that little horne arose , that beast is described with 10. hornes , and after he had but 7. left , for three of them were pulled vp by this little horne , and by See cap. 1● this all the difference he putteth betwixt the 10. Kinges in Daniel and S. Iohn is ouerthrowne . After he commeth to the tyme of the persecution of Antiochus & Antichrist , & for the former he graunteth , that it endured only from the 15. day of the moneth Casleu , in the 145. yeare of the Kingdome of the Seleucidae 1. Macah. 1. 57. vnto the 25. of the moneth Casleu , in the yeare 148. 1. Macab. 4. 52. which make 3. yeares and ten daies , which is all that Daniel assigned by a time , and times , and parcell of a tyme . Where he maketh bould with Daniel , changing halfe a tyme vnto a parcell of a tyme : for the Prophet saith plainly Downam corrupteth the text of Daniel Dan 7. 12. both cap. 7. v. 25. vsque ad tempus , & tempora , & di●●diunt temporis , and againe cap. 12. v. 7. he saith , that the Angell swore by him that lyueth for euer , quia in tempus & tempora , & dimidium temporis , and after he counteth it also by dayes , dies mille duceuts ●●naginta , and yet all this will not keep M. Downam from taking away so much as he thinketh necessary , for to make his interpretation good . But when he commeth to the Apocalyps , See cap. 8. there he will not haue the number to be litterallie vnderstood , because it made too much against him , who will haue Antichrists raigne to endure many hundred yeares , & not only 42. monethes , as S. Io. affirmeth cap. 13. v. 5. which cap. 12. v. 6. he counteth also by daies 12●0 . and v. 14. with the verie same wordes of Daniel , a tyme , and tymes , and halfe a tyme : and v 12. a little tyme , which is the short tyme he also speaketh of cap. 17. v. 10. Lastly he commeth to the Fathers , and it is strange to see how light he setteth by their authority , Downam reiecteth the Fathers . saying , that no sound argument can be drawen from it : and yet he would make a shift to seeme to say something , repeating that which he had said before , that the Fathers doe not expresly say , that he shal be but one , and then , that some of them doe expound Matth. 24. ( where our Sauiour speaketh in the plurall number ) of Antichrist . To both which I haue already answered , that the Fathers vse other wordes equiualent , and the place of S. Matth. is chiefly to be vnderstood of the chiefe and proper Antichrist . Finally he would faine shift of those two proprieties of Antichrist , which Cardinall Bellarmine aleadgeth out of the Fathers , in his proofe : and to the first , though faintly he affirmeth , that it might all be said of the whole succession of Popes ; but he saw himselfe how false that was & therfore he would haue willingly denyed the assertion of the Fathers , and yet he durst not aduenture vpon that neither , saying , that he will not thereof dispute . Where it is pittifull to see how poore M. Downam was met withall on euery side , and remained so perplexed , that he could not tell which way to turne himself . But when he commeth to the second proprietie , he saith , that he will take heed , how he commeth any more into such perplexity , and so he thinketh better to craue pardon for this tyme , and referre it till another meeting , See cap. ● . at which you shall heare what he will be able to say for himselfe . In the meane tyme , he will trie his cunning , whether it will serue him to reach Cardinall Bellarmine one little veny at the least , since he hath byn soundly thwaked & cudgelled by him , and at last made to run out of the battaile with a broken head ; and so he layeth downe his defensiue weapons , and betaketh himselfe to the offensiue , bringing the arguments which Bellarmine alleadgeth out of other Heretikes , as though they were his owne .

9. And yet he would faine seem to add something to the force of the first argument : and for this purpose he maketh a Conference betwixt Paul and Iohn , and in the margent citeth 3. places out of S. Iohns Epistles , & after putteth the argument 1. Iohn 4. 3. 2. Io. 7. 1. Io. 2. 18. in forme , but in substance addeth nothing at all , but rather weakeneth it much by a new interpretation of his owne , how our Sauiour shall kill Antichrist with the spirit of his mouth , that is ( saith he ) with the Ministrie of the word : & so it shall Downam weakneth his fellowes argument . not be necessarie to expect our Sauiours comming to kill him , for that M Downam , and his fellow Ministers of the Word , will take the matter vpon themselues , But then I aske M. Downam , how he knoweth that Antichrist shall continue to the end of the world , in which the force of the Argument consisteth ?

10. After this , he beginneth to reply to Cardinall Bellarmines answere , saying , that he cannot deny either the proposition or the assumption , & that he only distinguisheth of the former part of the assumption : which I cannot thinke that M. Downam said for any disgrace to the solution ; for if there be any fault in that kind of answering , it will redound to the disputer , who committeth a vice in arguing which is called Equiuocation , & the answerer that findeth it out , is worthie of commendation . But M. Downam goeth about to ouerthrow the distinction , with impugning first the explication , which Bellarmine vseth by the similitude of Christs comming , which it pleaseth M. Downam to call his first proofe , and to note out of Plato , that it is a most slippery argument . But neither Plato nor he will deny , but that it is a good kind of explication , which is all that Bellarmine vsed it for , as M. Downam might haue easily considered , seeing Bellarmine begin to proue in two sortes straight Downam taketh Bellarmines explication , & answere for his argument . after . But you must giue one , that hath an ill cause in hand leaue to seeke to help himselfe by all the trickes , and fetches he can inuent , for it was not without a further purpose , that M. Downam would needes haue Bellarmine proue , and not answere in this similitude , if you consider his wordes . In which similitude ( saith he ) there is no proportion , vnlesse that which is in question be taken for graunted , namely that Antichrist is but one particuler person , as Christ is . So that there is proportion in it , if Antichrist may be said to be a particuler person , which wil be alwaies lawful for Bellarmine , or any other defendant to affirme , till his Aduersary driue him from that assertion by some forcible argument , and likewise to explicate in what sense he saith so , by some example , which his Aduersaries themselues cannot deny . Wherfore M. Downam commeth to the protasis , or proposition of the similitude , and saith plainly , that it is vntrue : which he proueth first , for that the Holy Ghost maketh a kind of opposition betwixt Gods sending of the Prophets , and the comming of Christ . As though all kind of opposition did make that proposition vntrue , or rather some kind of opposition were not necessary to make it true , as of the figure , and that which is prefigured , the forerunner and he that is forerunner , the member & the head . Secondly for that the Prophets or Patriarches are not any where called the forerunners of Christ , but onely S. Iohn Baptist , for that he went a little before . So that M. Downam graunteth , that he who goeth a litle before , may well be Downams absurd folly . said to goe before , but he that goeth farre before , may not : which is a strang affirmation , except he meaneth to make it good by affirming , that S. Iohn Baptist did prepare Cgrists way , because he only liued in Christs tyme , and pointed him out with his finger , which I am sure M. Downam will not say , and consequentlie vpon better deliberation he will graunt , that Christ came in the Patriarches and Prophets aswell as in S. Iohn Baptist , since that they went before aswell as he , and prepared also the way for Christs comming : and there is asmuch opposition made betwixt S. Iohn Baptist and our Sauiour , as betwixt him and the Patriarches or Prophets . After this , he maketh an idle obiection of his owne , & answereth it as sleightly , both which I leaue also to himselfe to consider . Lastlie he commeth to the reddition or application , which he saith is contradictory to 1. Io. 4. 3. 2. Io. 7. who saith , that Antichrist with the article prefixed , and whome they heard was to come , was already come : which you heard Bellarmine graunt with a distinction , not in his owne person , but in his forerunners , and now M. Downam proueth it very substantially , by repeating the former argument for want of another , and so he standeth at a non plus , only he confirmeth it by the argument , which S. Iohn maketh 1. Io. 2. 18. which I haue put Nu. 6. downe & confuted in the answere to the third place of Scripture , whither I remit the Reader , not to weary him with so many idle repetitions of the same thing , as M. Downam maketh , which also I meane ( God willing ) to obserue hereafter .

11. To the first proofe of Bellarmines answere , he reiecteth the former interpretation of those 3. Fathers S. Ambrose , Downam reiecteth the Fathers . S. Chrysostome , and S. Hierome , by his owne absolute authority . For when he began to thinke how he might deceaue some of the simple sort , by making a shew that the Pope is Antichrist , he did put this downe for a chiefe Principle , that Antichrist should be no open , but a disguised enemy , and a pretended Christian : and this he wil defend against all the Fathers , yea against the Apostles , & Christ himselfe , though with this difference , that against the Fathers , who without all doubt , were the members of Christ , he opposeth himselfe manifestlie : but against Christ and his Apostles onlie couertlie , by false expositions of his owne head , with which he conuinceth , that he is only a member of that great Antichrist , and not the great Antichrist himselfe . But I hope well , that both M. Downam himselfe and all that follow him , or ioyne with him against those ancient Fathers the true members of Christ , will at length ioyne with them against those disguised enemies and pretended Christians , of which number , they themselues are for the present . And in the meane tyme , till they amend themselues , they must giue vs leaue to thinke with the holy Fathers , that both Antichrists members , as also himselfe haue bene , and shal be not only disguised , but also open enemies of Christ , as you see those holy Fathers affirme of Nero and the other of the Heretikes , who deceaue secretly , which both M. Downam , and we also Antichrists members sometimes open enemyes to Christ . admit . And yet we may note , that this secrecy of the Heretikes is not so great , but that many times it contayneth manifest opposition against Christ , as we see in Simon Magus , who named himselfe Christ , and in Montanus who would needes be the Holy Ghost . And if M. Downam had rather haue new examples he may remember George Dauid , and M. Hacke● with his two Prophets . But now I would aske M. Downam , what it maketh against Bellarmine , whether the members and forerunners of Antichrist be disguised or open enemies , so that it be graunted , that then there were some such , and yet the great Antichrist was not yet come , as M Downam himselfe confesseth , that the Antichrist 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was not reueled vntill 606. yeares after ; so that till then Antichrist was come only after a sort , that is ( as after he explicateth ) in some of his members , which is all that Belarmine pretended . But perhappes M Downam will say , that he knew well inough what he said when he only affirmed that Antichrist 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was not then reuealed , though be were come . But then I would aske him how he was otherwise come , then in the Heretikes his members , which is that which Bellarmine answereth . And if he can shew vs no other manner , then we may see how easie a matter it is to vnderstand , that Antichrist might be so said to be come in S. Pauls and S. Iohns tyme , and yet that the chiefe & proper Antichrist , or 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is not yet come in person , but shal be one man in the end of the world .

12. To the second proofe . First M. Downam answereth , that it cannot be proued out of Scripture , or by any sound argument , that Downam reiecteth all ancient writers . Pete● and Paul were Bishops of Rome . For you must vnerstand that the authority of S. Irenam , or of all ancient writers is of no force at all with M. Downam : and besid●s , he knoweth well inough , that S. Paul is said to haue byn in Rome in the Scripture , and S. Peter also , if he will stand to his owne exposition of the wold Babylon ; and supposing they were there , I hope he will as soone graunt them the Bishoprick , as any other . But to let this passe , M. Downam will be twyce aduised before he graunt , that the Bishop of Rome at that tyme ( whosoeuer he was ) was Antichrist , which is as much as Bellarmine would haue denied at this present , and M. Downam doth him that courtesy ; yea and to agre with him in the exposition of S. Paul and S. Iohn . For thus he writeth . When we say , that Antichrist was come in the Apostles tyme , we speake of the bodie of Antichrist with S. Iohn : when we say that Antichrist hath his seate in Rome , we speake of the head of this body : soe that now you see heer be distinct persons , part of which were come , and part not come in S. Iohns tyme . But M. Downam goeth about to deceaue the Reader by telling him a long tale of the Pope , without Downam speaketh from the purpose . any proofe , and from the purpose . But he must be put in mind to answer Cathegoricè , whether Antichrist , that S. Paul and S. Ihon saith was come in their tyme , were the same , that was to haue his seat in Rome or noe ? If he saith yes , then he must also graunt , that S. Peter and S. Paul , or whosoeuer had the seate at that tyme was Antichrist . If he will stick to his noe ; then it is playne , that there is no consequence in Beza● argument : Some manner of Antichrist was come in the Apostles tyme : Ergo no other , that shal be only one man can come after , vnlesse he were aliue at that tyme . Yet for all this M. Downam maketh the best shift he can , saying , that in Bellarmines argument there is no consequence , vulesthis be taken for granted , that Antichrist is but one man , which is the question ; & after he frameth arguments as it pleaseth him . But M. Downam should haue considered , that Bellarmine supposed not , that Antichrist was but one man , neither was it much materiall in this place , if we speake only of the chiefe and proper Antichrist , whome Bellarmine only affirmeth to be one : but he supposeth that which M. Downam and his Maister Beza put in their probation , if they will conclude any thing , that Antichrist of whom S. Iohn speaketh is the same , that is to haue his seat at Rome , for then it followeth very well , that he in person had his seate in Rome : in the Apostles tyme , & not only in the heretikes his members . For if this second were inough , it were not necessary , that he himselfe should bealiue at that tyme , and consequently he might well inough be shine at the end of the world , & yet be no very old man neither ; for that it is vncertaine , when he was to be borne . For certaine it is , that he needed not to be in S. Pauls and S. Iohns tyme , if they speake not of him in person , but onlie of some of his members , which for ought S. Paul and S. Iohn say , or M. Downam can proue , might be in the world before he himselfe came in person , not only manie an hundreth yeare , which M. Downam graunteth of 600. but also many thousands .

13. Lastly M. Downam commeth to Bellarmines answere to the confirmation , where first he censureth that tradition , which the Fathers gather commonly out of the Scripture , that Elias shall come in person , before the second comming Downam censureth the Fathers . of Christ , for a Iewish fable : and yet doth he not so much as goe about to proue with any argument , that it shall not be soe , but only confirmeth , that S. Iohn Baptist was called Elias , and giueth the reason why he was so called , in which there is no controuersy . And at least wise he might haue vouchsafed , to haue tould vs out of his high learning , what our Sauiour meant in that place which Bellarmine citeth , by saying , that Elias indeed shall come , for this cannot be vnderstood of S. Iohn Baptist , who as our Sauiour affirmeth in the same place , See Chap. 6. was alreadie come : wherfore till M. Downam bringeth some better proofes , I take it , any wise man will not only suppose as he giueth him leaue to do , but also hold for certaine , that Elias shall come in person , though he be said to haue come Elias shall come in person . in S. Iohn Baptist : for that he had a spirit like vnto his , & consequently that it is not necessary , that there shall come no other Antichrist in person , at the end of the world , because S. Iohn saith , that he was come in his tyme in some of his members , whose spirit was like his : for Bellarmine disputeth not now , but answereth by producing another place of Scripture like vnto that which is obiected , which cannot be denied to be a good manner of answering . But M. Downam bringeth forth a place of Scripture , where Dauid is promised to come after he was dead , and yet it is not vnderstood Ezech. 34. of King Dauid , but of Christ : and therfore neither is Elias to come againe . But M. Downam will easily see , if it pleaseth him to put this argument in forme ( in which he seemeth to take particuler delight ) that one may well answere him , nego consequentiam , and withall he may note , how that name Dauid is somtime taken properly , and sometime for a distinct person which is figured by the former , which is somewhat harder , then that the type should take the name of the chiefe and principall in that kind , which it figureth : and as it were noe good argument to say , Dauid shall come , therfore he is not come , for there be two to whome the name of Dauid agreeth ; so likewise the argument which we haue bene discussing all this while , concludeth not , since it is only thus : Antichrist is already come , therefore he shall not come in the end of the world , for that there be more then one Antichrist , and the chiefest is not come any otherwise yet then in his members .

14. Concerning Bezas second reason M. Downam addeth to the 7. of Damel also the 11. and besides the 13. and 17. Apoc. and saith that in all these places vnder the name & figure of a beast is not described one singular thing or person , but a whole state or succession , and in the assumption insteed of 2. Thess 2. he putteth down Apoc. 13. where he saith , Antichrist is described vnder the name & figure of a beast : then he proueth the proposition by induction out of the 7. & 8 of Daniel and Apoc. 13. so that he hath made a Downam cannot defend Beza . new argument of his owne , for that belike he could not saue his M. Beza from absurdities , if he should haue followed his Argument against Bellarmines answere , and yet he putteth downe Bellarmines answere , as though it had bene giuen to this new Argument , which he hath coyned himselfe . In Downam applieth Bellarmines answere to a wrong argument . Dan. 8. which he sheweth lesse vpright dealing then Bellarmine doth , with the Scriptures , by saying , that in the 8. Chap. of Daniel the Ram and the Goat signify but two seuerall Kinges , which M. Downam thinketh to be against the Scripture , for that in the 20. v. where the vision is expounded , there is in Hebrew , the word Kinges , in the plurall number , and for that afterward Daniel addeth of the Goat , that the great horne which was betwixt his eyes is the first King namely Alexander , and consequently the Goat , whose horne this was , could not be the same Alexander . For the first part of which obiection M. Downam must be content , that we attribute asmuch to S. Hierome both in skill in the Hebrew tongue , and in Scripture , as to himselfe , and S. Hierome translateth the Hebrew word in the singular number , Rex Medorum est , atque Persarum : so that either he thought that the plurall number was put for the singular , as it is vsuall in Scripture , or els in the Hebrew text in his tyme , it was also in the singular number : and the first reason hath the more probability in this place , for that Darius was in effect two Kings , since he had two Kingdoms , which is also signified by the two hornes , which the Ramme had . And this is so much the more plaine for that it is manifest , that he who was ouerthrowne by Alexander was no other then Darius one King , as we read in 1. Machab. 1. and Iustine lib. 11. and Plin. lib. 10. cap. 7. doe also testify . Now for the second part , M. Downam might easily see , that both the Goat , and the horne being called a King in the same 21. v. either doe both signify Alexander , or else if the one doe signify the King , and the other the Kingdome , he must giue vs some reason , why rather the former should be taken for the kingdome , then the latter , especially since we see in the same Chapter , that by the two hornes of the Ram , are signified his two Kingdomes ; and besides , it is well knowne that he who did conquer and ouercome the King of the Medes and Persians , was no other then Alexander , who is also called Hircus caprarum , after the Hebrew phrase , which signifieth a yong Goat ( as I might proue by many examples , but that I suppose M. Downam to be so cunning both in Scripture and Hebrew , that he will not contradict it for that he was not past 20. yeares ould when he began his Monarchie by his admirable victories , for which in the 5 verse he is said , to haue gone so swiftly , as though he had slowen in the ayre , and not touched the earth . By which meanes , the litle horne which he had betwixt his eyes , that is the Kingdome which he gouerned , came to be very great & strong in a short space & at his death was deuided into foure little ones , in respect of his great Monarchie , which contayned all those 4. After this M. Downam commeth to Bellarmines second answere , to which he graunteth , that S. Paul speaketh not of any of the 4. beastes , spoken of by Daniel , which in effect is to graunt , that Bezas consequence was nothing worth : and poore M. Downam had no other shift , but to say , that noe man said so , because he meant not to say so himselfe . And yet to set the better face on it , he denieth also that Antichrist is the little horne , as Bellarmine affirmeth . But he should haue considered that the other was that which was necessary , that the argument might stand in force , and that now Bellarmine is the defendant , and therfore it is not inough for M. Downam to deny what he saith , but he must also proue the contrary . Thus much for Bezas argument which as you see Bellarmine hath solued euen by M. Downams owne confession , and therfore he hath added otherplaces of Scripture , to hould it vp from falling , or rather he hath let Bezas argument fall , for that it was past recouery , and hath patched vp another of his owne . To which I answere that in all the places which he citeth , only in the 7. of Daniel , by the beastes be signified Kingdomes ; for in the 11. of Daniel there is not once any Beast named , and Apoc. 13. there be two Beastes , but the former signifyeth only one man Antichrist , & the latter his chiefe false Prophet , and Apoc. 17. the Beast signifieth the Diuel . All which M. Downam must not put me to proue now , till it be my turne , and then he shall see I shal be better stored both with arugments & authority than he is who bringeth neither . And as for the assumption , that in the 13. of Apoc. Antichrist is the second Beast , I haue already denied it ; for M. Downam was in some need of Scripture , & so he was inforced to vse one place , both in his proposition & assumption , and to thrust in other which made nothing to his purpose .

15. About the third obiection M. Downam had little to adde , only he explaneth what a substantiall ground they haue for the exposition of that word ( Apostasy ) which is no other , but because it pleaseth them to vnderstand it so . And to Bellarmines first answere , he saith : that it doth rather make against himselfe , then otherwise , for that he cannot inferr thence , that Antichrist is but one Man . As though he that answereth were to inferre any thing , and not only to shew , how his aduersary inferreth nothing . Wherfore M. Downam addeth , that rather the contrary is to be inferred : for if Apostasy be put by a Metonymie of the adiunct , for the subiect , or rather of the effect for the cause , that is for the parties which doe reuolt , then it followeth , that Antichrist signifieth the whole body and Kingdome of Antichrist . In which Downam mistaketh Bellarmine . reply of his , I can see no other reason but want of consideration of that which Bellarmine hath said : for the interpretation , which is giuen by him in his first answere of the word Apostasie is onely this , that Antichrist is called the Apostasie , for that he shal be the cause that many forsake God : so that not those which forsake God , but he that is the cause therof , is called the Apostasie . And so though those that forsake God be many , yet he that is the cause may be only one . If M. Downam hath any thing to reply against this , eyther he must shew , that the cause of the Apostasie , may not be called the Apostasie , or else , that one man may not be the cause that many forsake God , and not speake so confusedly and darkly as he doth , least he make Downam speaketh from the purpose . men thinke that he vseth that art , to seeme to say somthing , when he hath nothing to say indeed , which may be also suspected , by that which he addeth out of S. Augustine of an opinion which he misliketh not , and which Bellarmine alleadgeth in his third answere , as also of Antichrists sitting in the Church ; all which he knoweth well inough to make nothing to the force of this argument , nor to be against this first answere of Bellarmine , and therfore is but an idle addition for want of matter to the purpose . About the second reason , that Bellarmine giueth , why Antichrist may be called the Apostasy , M. Downam hath nothing to say against it , but Antichrist shal be an Apostata . only noteth , that seeing none can be an Apostata which hath not bene a Christian , Antichrist shal not be a Iew , but a back sliding and reuolted Christian : which if we take the name properly , as it signifieth one that falleth from Christ , is a probable argument , that Antichrist shal be baptized : but yet he may be a Iew , both by birth , as also by profession , as Iulian was a Gentile in profession , and yet a notable Apostata . But this name may also be vnderstood of those which fall from God , though they were no Christians . And in this sense it is more ample , and therfore more fit for Antichrist , who shall not only oppose himselfe to Christ , but also extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God . And this is all , that M. Downam replyeth to Bellarmines first answere , for he hath not soe much as gone about to proue , that Antichrist may not be vnderstood by the Apostasy , because he shal be the cause that many forsake God , or because he shal be a most notable Apostata ; nor that one man may not be called soe for these two reasons , which be only the points that could make against Bellarmines answere .

16. To the second answere M. Downam replieth first , that the dissention of the Fathers , proueth that their exposition can be noe good rule of interpreting the Scriptures . Which note I would he would applie to himselfe , and his fellow-Ministers : for no doubt The Protestants exposition of Scripture not much worth . he would find , that their expositions are not much worth , since they agree so little ; and if when the Fathers doe diuersly expound the same place , it is a signe , that it is not certaine which interpretation is to be followed , but that either may be admitted , so far as they swarue not from any point of Faith ; how much lesse certainty can we haue of M. Downam and his fellowes , who many tymes doe not only differ from all others , but also among themselues , and that in matters which belong to Faith , in which one houldeth against the other , and both against all the world besides ? After this M. Downam goeth about to prooue that the Apostasie cannot signifie the reuolt from the Roman Empire , because in other places of Scripture , it signifieth a falling away from God : and for that , afterward it is called the mystery of iniquitie , which was working in , and by the heretikes of those tymes , and because S. Augustine expoundeth it so . All which , as you see , doe only confirme the former exposition , but nothing impugne this latter , specially since M. Downam confesseth himselfe , that the defection from the Roman Empire was to goe before Antichrists comming , and so this exposition contayneth nothing against Faith , and consequentlie may be probablie defended , which is inough for to solue the argument , especially since it cannot be denied , but that the word may haue this signification ; and S. Pauls drift and context doth fauour this explication , for that he giueth reasons , why the comming of Christ was not to be thought so neere at hand , as some gaue out : which he doth more fullie , if we vnderstand it after this manner , especially since , as concerning Antichrist , he speaketh plainely inough after . As for the mysterie of iniquitie which M. Downam will needes haue to be all one with the Apostasie , or departure , it is manifest that they be two distinct thinges , for that S. Paul supposeth euidentlie v. 3. that the reuolt was not yet The apostasie and the Mystery of Iniquitie not all one . See cap. 14. 11. 3. come , and v. 7. he affirmeth plainely , that the mysterie of Iniquitie did worke then . For now ( saith he ) the mystery of Iniquity worketh , only that he which now houldeth , doe hould vntill he be taken out of the way , and then that wicked one shall be reuealed . In which words he seemeth to repeat that , which he had said before in other wordes , assigning plainlie the tyme of Antichrists comming , by the taking away of him , which houldeth , that is , the Roman Emperour ; and consequentlie it is verie probable , that he meant the reuolt from him before , by the Apostasie , which the latin Interpreter considering , did not retaine the Greeke worde Apostasia , which seemeth to be How far diuers expositions are to be admitted . more appropriated to the falling from God , but translated it Discessio , which may very well be applied to this other . Now it is no meruaile , that S. Augustin fauoureth the other exposition , which he taketh for the best , but yet he refuteth not this : & it is his rule , that when diuers expositions be conformable to Faith , they are all to be admitted , as Bellarmine admitteth Aug. lib. 12. Confess . cap. 31. them . But M. Downam will disprooue and disallow of what misliketh him , or hindereth his heresies , and this with his owne priuate , but yet most absolute authoritie , which he presumeth the holie Ghost hath giuen him in all such affaires . But the best is , that all men are as free from obligation to belieue him , as he and his fellowes are readie to take so much vpon them .

17. To the third Answere M. Downam replieth , that the euent hath shewed , that this generall reuolt hath byn made by little & little . Downams petitio principij To which ( to answere him in forme ) I denie his Antecedent for that it is the chiefe matter in controuersie , and therfore should not haue bene taken for the Antecedent , but for the Consequent . Next he saith , that as this reuolt did grow by degrees ; so it cannot be abolished at once , but by degrees , and therefore was notlike to be an Apostasy of three yeares , and a halfe only . To which I answere that if it did not grow by degrees , then it maie be abolished at once , and therfore is like inough to be an Apostasie of three yeares and a half only . Besides that , it is not necessarie , that it should be so long in abolishing , as it was in growing , especiallie when God himselfe taketh the matter in hand , and vseth his absolute power , as he will doe in this case , as S. Paul testifieth 2. Thess. 2. Thirdly he draweth an argument from the conuersion of the Iewes , whom he saith , neither our Sauiour as he was a man , and the Minister of Circumcision , nor the Apostles and other Disciples could for many yeares conuert , notwithstanding their doctrine and miracles were more effectuall and admirable , then those of Antichrist . Where first M. Downam is verie bould with our Sauiour , Christes knowledg & power , is not to be limitted by that which he did . though he speake of him only as man , limitting his knowledge and power to that only which he did : wheras the rule therof is farre different , except M. Downam doth also thinke , that he had not all perfect knowledge , and power from the beginning , which I will not charge him with all , vntill I heare him say so , for that I haue a better opinion of him , then that he will fall into so great folly or blasphemy . Wherfore I doubt not , but that he will easily see , that our Sauiour taught and wrought according to that which was set downe by the heauenly wisdome of his Eternall Father , who gaue to the Iewes such outward meanes , as were very sufficient in that kind to haue drawne them to acknowledg and receaue their true Messias ; but yet no doubt , could haue taught them more plainly , and not in Parables , as our Blessed Sauiour said , and did also to his Apostles , and likewise could haue wrought greater miracles , as well as the Apostles , and their successors , but he wrought those which were determyned to be wrought in that tyme , and which were foretould in the Scriptures , & denied flatly to work some other , as to giue them signes from Heauen , and to come downe from the Crosse . But besides these outward meanes , he vsed other inward , which are far more effectuall , and therfore I meruaile much , that M. Downam forgot them , for I will not suspect , that he was either so ignorant as not to know them , or so addicted to Pelagius as to deny them : and yet in these also he vsed such moderation as on the one side , the Iewes had no want of them , if they would not haue bene wanting themselues , and yet our Sauiour could haue giuen them far greater inward helpes then he did . Neither must M. Downam vrge his distinction too far of Christ as Man ; for either it will prooue too much , or nothing at all . For if he speake of the humanitie of Christ , considered in it selfe , and not as the instrument of his Diuinitie , then he could not doe any miracle at all of those which he actuallie did ; and therefore I alway suppose , that M. Downam speaketh not in this base and vnworthy sense , by which Christ is considered , not only as man , but also as if he were no more , nor no better then a pure man ; but if it be considered , as the instrument of his Diuinity , then his power extendeth it selfe so farre , as the power of God himselfe , though actually he putteth not all in execution , but only that which Gods eternall wisdome hath appointed . But now to M. Downams reply , I graunt the Antecedent , but deny the Consequent , cheifly , for that we haue sufficient ground to think so , though we could not vnderstand the reason of it : and besides , that very obstinacy of the Iewes doth giue a sufficient cause of this euent . For if , being assailed by such effectuall and wonderfull meanes : as the doctrine and miracles of Christ , his Apostles and Disciples were , notwithstanding it was forcible inough to keep them in their former synnes , and to draw them into farre greater ; what meruaile is it , that being destitute of such extraordinary helpes , and set vpon by Antichrist and his followers , who shall abound with all power and deceitfull meanes , and such especially as they expect ; that they yield vnto his doctrine , & take him with one accord to be the Messias , whom they haue so long expected . And as for the rest of the world that shall ioyne with him , it shall not come , especially at the first , so much for the liking of his doctrine , as for desire of liberty , coldenes of charity , and abounding in synne , which be the chaines by How Antichrist shall draw men to follow him . which men are drawen into errours , heresies , and infidelity , as both our Sauiour and S. Paul teach , and the experience of all ages , and particulerly of this of ours , doth manifestlie shew , which I could wish M. Downam and others of his mind to consider attentiuely , & they may perhaps come to know more plainely , the ground of their new ghospell , by this consideration duly weighed , then by all the bookes that they can read written , eyther for it , or against it . And besides M. Downam may consider what great ouerthrowes in Faith , temporall commodities and persecution will cause , of which he may also find store of examples in this our miserable Countrey , where no small multitudes ioyne with Protestants , only for these respects , as would easily appeare , if it would please his Maiesty to giue all men liberty to vse their conscience , and professe the Religion which they belieue in hart to be true . Lastly M. Downam taketh vp Bellarmine very short , for abusing the authority of S. Augustine : and yet with reading the place in Bellarmine he should haue seene , that Bellar . saith only , that S. Augustine writeth , that the place of S. Paul Downam mistaketh and abuseth Bellar . and other Authors . was so vnderstood by many ancient writers : so that in this M. Downam delt very hardlie with Bellarmine ; but after abuseth not only Bellarmine , but also those Ancient writers , and S. Augustine himselfe , by affirming , that they only speake of the mystery of Iniquity , teaching that it should still worke , that is , that vnsound men in the church shall more & more reuolt , vntill they make a sufficient number for Antichrist , but that there is neuer a word of this defection caused eyther by one man , or in so short a time , but rather the contrary . The cause of which rash assertion is his mistaking , for Bellarmine citeth those , which S. Augustine alleadgeth for the exposition of the word Discessio , or as he readeth it , Transsuga , by which he saith some vnderstand not ipsum Principem , the chiefe Antichrist himselfe , but his whole body , that is , the multitude of men which belong to him , togeather with the chiefe himselfe . By which it plainly appeareth that he speaketh of the defection caused by this Prince ; the tyme of whose raigne , is manifest in the Scripture it selfe .

18. To the 4. answere , M. Downam replieth ( hauing first made aparenthesis in Bell. name , as though he thought that the apostasy wherof the Apostle spake , were to endure many ages , though he could not chose but see , that he thought nothing lesse ) that this 4. answere is ouerthrown by the first . In which he is either very simple , or deceiptful : for it is plaine , that when one giueth diuers answeres to one argument , he is not bound to make them all agree togeather , but euery one by it selfe . After he saith that he hath shewed , that the whole body of Apostataes , and Heretikes professing the name of Christ , is Antichrist , about which I remit the Reader to that , which hath bene answered to what he hath said hitherto . Thirdly he answereth insteed of replying , that all degrees going before the reuelation of Antichrist , were a disposition not to the being , but to the reuealing of Antichrist : for ( as S. Iohn saith ) Antichrist was in the Apostasy neither could he be reuealed , vnles he first were . But to this Bellarmine answered long since , that Antichrist was not in the Apostles tyme in person , but only in his forerunners ; and the distinction of being , and reuealing is impertinent , euen in M. Downams owne opinion , if he speake Antichrists comming & reuelation all one . of the chiefe Antichrist in person , whome he will haue to haue bene reuealed so soone as he came , & so likewise were his forerunners also ; which is no meruaile , if we consider , that their comming is , when they begin to teach false doctrines , by which they are also necessarily knowne to be come , to all such as know those doctrines to be false : so that it is plaine , that their comming and their reuelation is all one , as the comming of the sunne & the light , by which it is reuealed . And the like is of any thing , that is necessarylie conioyned to some manifest token , by which it may be knowne , as heretikes and Apostataes are if they declare themselues for such by doctrine and workes , of which M. Downam may haue examples in his Maisters , Luther , Caluin , and the rest ; who were forthwith reuealed to be Heretikes , so soone as they began to teach new doctrines : only it may be , that they may for some space dissemble , and seeme to be Catholikes though in hart they be Heretikes . But this maketh nothing to the purpose , for all that tyme they are not come in the sight of men , but only in the sight of God ; and no man will deny , but that Antichrist may come in this sort before he begin to teach . But this is not the comming , which M. Downam talketh of , since he saith , that Antichrist was come in Symon Magus , and others who taught Heresies , and yet he will not haue him reucaled , till the chiefe Antichrist come also . After this , he citeth Theodoretus , who by Apostasy vnderstandeth Antichristes presence . As though Bellarmine had not admitted and answered that interpretation before . Lastlie he noteth for a thing verie vnlikelie , that the preparation for Antichrist should be 1500. yeares in making , & that he should continue only 3. yeares and a half . As though the preparation for our Blessed Sauiour had not bene as long , & the tyme of his preaching and working miracles as short . Besides that Antichrist was not to come till the Ghospell of Christ had bene preached ouer all the world ; & many partes fallen away from the Faith , which they had receaued , and the rest in great disposition , by reason of their corrupt customes to doe the same . All which could not be done in few yeares , as neither was Antichrist to be suffred to raigne any long tyme , least he should ouercome , euen the very chosen , if it were possible , and therfore our Sauiour was to destroy him in so short a space .

19. To the last answere he vaunteth , as though he had gotten a great aduantage , for that Bellarmine goeth so farre , as supposing all that which they would haue were true , yet Downam● vayne bragging . it maketh nothing against vs . And heere M. Downam braggeth of the goodnes of his argument , & yet straight way after he calleth it only an answere . But the poore man is deceaued in thinking that when one saith , transeat , because the argument is impertinent , that he doth it , because the argument is very good , wheras indeed it is only because it is nothing worth as M. Downam might easily haue seene in this of his , by the 4. precedent answeres . And there can no argument be more fully answered , then by shewing , that it may be answered many wayes , and in all opinions . And lastly , that though it were admitted , yet the cheife question remayneth as doubtfull as before . But M. Downam saith , that none of their side make this argument : Antichrist is not one man : Therefore , the Pope is Antichrist : which because he saith it , we will beleeue him : but then I must aske him , whether any of them make this argument or noe , The head of the generall Apostasie , which endureth many yeares is Antichrist : but the Pope is the head of this Apostasie . Ergo , the Pope is Antichrist : for this M. Downam himselfe setteth downe in the end of his discourse : and this is the argument which Bellarmine answereth by letting passe the proposition with a transeat though it be false , & denying the Assumption .

20. And so at last M. Downam is content to proue it , which he doth very worshipfully , by an argument that is called petitio principij , alleadging certaine points in controuersy , Downams petitio principij and supposing that we teach false in them all , as about Marriages & Fastings , though he know well inough that we allow the Sacr●ment of matrimony , & forbid none to marry , but such as of their owne accord haue bound themselues to the essate of continency : nor commaund any Fastinges , for that we thinke any creature of God vncleane or defiled , nor adore Images as Idols , or Gods ; nor refuse any part of Scripture , or admit any thing against Scripture , as he falsely affirmeth , but onlie deny Hereticall interpretations , and admit certaine and vndoubted Traditions , and Definitions , which agree with Scripture , and are both commended , and many tymes insinuated in Scripture , though not so plainely explicated , as other pointes of doctrine , which are held , aswell by Tradition , as by manyfest Scripture , expounded by the vniforme consent of holy Fathers . But it is strange how M. Downam slippeth ouer that which , Bellarmine vrgeth Downam dissembleth the difficultie . against him , which is , that they haue plainely apostated from our Church , euen by their owne confession , and that they cannot shew , that euer weapostated from any Church at al ; and consequently that there is farre more likelyhood , that they belong to the generall Apostasie , of which Antichrist is head , since it is plaine that in some sort they are Apostataes , then we , who in no sort can be proued to haue apostated at all .

21. Hitherto you haue seene , how M. Downam hath replyed against Bellarmine . Now you shall here one obiection of his owne in these wordes : To the 3. former arguments a fourth may be added : the 7. heads of that beast which signifieth the Roman estate , Apoc. 17. are not so many persons , but so many heades or States of gouerment , wherby the commonwealth of the Romans hath ben at diuers tymes gouerned : the sixt head was the state of Emperors : the 7. Antichrist , as the Papists confesse ( for which he citeth Rhem. in Apoc. 17. and Bellarmine : ) the eight ( which also is one of the 7. ) the state of the Emperours renewed . Wherby it euidently appeareth , not only that Antichrist is not one man , but also that the Pope ( who is the 7. head ) is Antichrist .

To which I answere , that all or the most part of this exposition is false , and especiallie that which appertayneth to the present purpose . For first he bringeth neither author nor reason to proue , that those 7. heades did signifie 7. states of gouernement in Rome ; and others as good authors as M. Downam doe expound it farre otherwise . Secondly , though we admit this exposition as probable , and that the head is Antichrist yet it followeth not , that he shal be any more then one man , for he may haue a different gouernement , which is to endure but only in his owne tyme , especially since in the same place he is said to staie a short tyme , and els where it is plainly explicated , that it shal be only three yeares and a halfe ; and so it appeareth not soe euidentlie , as M. Downam weeneth , that Antichrist or the 7. head shall not be one man , euen in his owne exposition , and much less that the Pope is Antichrist . For neither is he the 7. head , since the 6. still remayneth ; neither hath he endured a short tyme , as the 7 , head shall . And as for the 8. which M. Downam would make an head also ( for Downam addeth an head of his owne to the 7. of the beast . which he must be faine to lend him his owne head , for otherwise there wil be only 7. found in the Scripture ) it is manifest , that M. Downams interpretation is most foolish , for that he maketh the beast with 7. heades to haue 8. and himselfe to be one of them , and so to be also only one head , he being indeed no head at all , but a beast which hath 7. heads , and is said to be the 8. in number , not of heads , but of distinct rulers or gouernours ; for that he is distinct from all the other 7. which are called his heads , and yet is of them , as he whose instruments they haue bene , and whome he hath moued & incited to all manner of euill : which plainely discouereth M. Downams follie , in applying it to the Emperours , which now are . And so all his obiection is shewed to be friuolous , of which I shall haue occasion to speake heerafter , whither I remit the Reader for further proofes .

THE THIRD CHAPTER . Wherein it is shewed , that Antichrist is not yet come .

ABOVT the third ( saith Bellarmine ) concerning the tyme of Antichrists comming , there haue bene many false suspicions , & many errors , aswell of Catholikes , as of Heretikes ; but with this difference , that the Catholikes knowing , that Antichrist shall not come , but in the end of the world , which is the truth , they erred notwithstanding , in that they thought , that the end of the world had ben neerer , then indeed it was . But the Heretikes do erre , in that they think , that Antichrist shall come long before the end of the world , and that in verie deed he is alreadie come . Let vs therefore speake of both errors .

First all auncient Writers , considering the malice of their tymes , suspected that the tymes of Antichrist were at hand . So the Thessalonians in the Apostles tyme , did thinke that the daie of our Lord drew neere , whome the Apostle doth correct 2. Thess. 2. In like manner S. Cyprian lib. 3. ep. 1. Antichrist ( saith he ) drawing neere , prepareth soldiars for the battaile . And lib. 4. ep. 6. You must know ( saith he ) and belieue , and hould for certaine , that the day of oppression hath begun to be ouer our heades , and the end of the world , and tyme of Antichrist is approached . S. Hierome . ep. ad Ageruchiam de Monogamia : He which did hould , is in making out of the way , and doe we not vnderstand that Antichrist approacheth ? S. Gregorie . lib 4. ep. 38. All thinges which haue bene foretould are in doing : the King of Pride is neere . And in his Homylies vpon the Ghospells , he doth bouldly pronounce , that the end of the world draweth neere : but these were suspicions , and not errors . For these Holy Fathers durst not set downe any certaine tyme .

Others more bouldlie appointed a certaine tyme . One Iudas , as S. Hierome relateth l. de Viris Illust . thought that Antichrist should haue come , and the world ended the two hundreth yeare after Christ , who as is manifest , was deceiued . Lactantius l. 7. cap. 25. diuin. Instit . saith , That all expectation seemeth to be for no more then two hundred yeares &c. Where he teacheth that Antichrist was to come , and the world to end within two hundred yeares after his tyme , and he liued in Constantines tyme , in the three hundreth yeare after Christ , so that he thought the worldes end should haue bene the fiue hundreth yeare after Christ . But he also was deceaued , as experience witnesseth .

S. Augustine lib. 18. de ciuitate Dei cap. 53. mentioneth the errour of some others , which said that the world should be ended the foure hundreth yeare after our Lords Ascension , and of others , which appointed the thousandth yeare , who were all deceaued , as it happened also to the Pagans , who ( as S. Augustine witnesseth in the same place ) out of the answere of some Oracle , gathered , that Christian religion should endure only three hundred threescore and fiue years . There was also a Bishop of Florence , about the yeare of our Lord , a thousand an hundreth and fiue , who affirmed , that Antichrist was then borne , and therefore that the worldes end was at hand . For which cause there was a Councell of three hundred and fourty Bishops gathered at Florence by Paschalis the second Pope of that name . See the Chronicle of Matthew Palmer , and Platina in the life of Paschalis the second .

Lastly it hath alway byn a famous opinion of many , which affirme , that the world shall last six thousand yeares , since God created the world in six daies , and a thousand yeares are with God as one daie . So teach S. Iustine Martyr q. 71. ad Gentes . S. Irenaeus lib. 5. Lactantius l. 7. cap. 14. S. Hilar. in cap. 17. Matth. S. Hierom. in Psal. 89. ad Cyprianum : with which doth also agree the opinion of the Thalmudists , who say , that they haue a Prophesy out of the Prophet Hely , by which it is affirmed , that the world shall endure six thousand yeares .

This opinion cannot yet be refuted by experience , for according to the true Chronologie or accompt of times , there are about fiue thousand , and six hundreth yeares past since the world was made . Wherfore S. Ambrose who l. 7. in Luc. cap. 2. reiecteth this opinion , affirming that in his time there were 6. thousand yeares past , is manyfestly deceaued . S. Augustines moderation is very good , who thought this opinion probable , and followed it as probable l. 20. de Ciuit. Dei c. 7. Neither doth it follow from hence , that we doe know the tyme of the last daie , for we say that it is probable , that the world will not endure aboue 6. thousand yeares , but we doe not say , that it is certaine . Wherfore S. Augustine sharpely rebuketh those , who affirme that the world shal be ended at some certaine tyme , since our Lord said Act. 1. that it doth not belong to vs to know the tymes and moments , which the Father hath put in his owne power . See S. Augustine epist. 80. ad Hesychium in Psal. 89. & lib. 18. de ciuitate Dei , cap. 53. But omitting these , let vs come to the Heretikes .

Wheras all the Heretikes of this tyme doe teach , that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist , and that he hath appeared already , & is now in the world : notwithstanding they doe not agree among themselues of the tyme when he appeared , for there be six opinions of theirs .

The first is of the Samosatenes , which liue in Hungary and Transiluania , who in a certaine booke which they intitle , Forewarnings of Christ and the Apostles , of the abolishing the true Christ by Antichrist , do teach , that Antichrist appeared a little after the Apostles time , to wit , when that doctrine began first to be preached , that Christ is the euerlasting Sonne of God , for they thinke , that Christ is only man , and that in God there is only one person , and that this faith was preached by Christ , and his Apostles : but that a little after the Apostles death , the Roman Antichrist came , and hauing abolished the true Christ , which was only man , brought in another eternall Christ , and made a threefould God , and a twofould Christ .

This opinion besides the arguments which afterward we will bring against all Heretikes , is most easilie refuted in two sortes . First , for that Antichrist when he commeth shall make himselfe God and not any other , as the Apostle saith 2. Thess. 2. but the Bishop of Rome , as they themselues say hath not made himselfe God , but preached Christ , and of only man hath made him God . Secondly because they saie , that straight after the death of Christ and his Apostles , the true faith of Christ was wholy extinguished by Antichrist , and afterward in the whole world Christ was adored for God . But Christ foretould that the gates of hell should not preuaile against his Church , Matth. 16. and the Angell fortould , that Christs Kingdome should endure for euer , Luc. 1. and Dauid foretould , that all Kinges should serue Christ , Psal. 71. how therefore is it true , that in the very beginning , the Church being yet but newly borne , was destroyed by Antichrist ?

The second opinion is of Illyricus , who in his Catalogue of witnesses , teacheth that Antichrist came , when the Roman Empire began to incline to destruction : but it is manifest that the Roman Empire began to decline after the tenth yeare of Honorius , when Rome was first taken , that is , in the yeare foure hundreth and twelue , as Blondus doth shew in the first booke of the first Decade of Histories , from the declination of the Roman Empire . But Illyricus doth seeme to vnderstand this of the conception , & not of the natiuitie of Antichrist for he himselfe Cent. 6. Cap. 1. in the beginning saith , that Anchrist was conceaued after a certaine manner , in the beginning of the 400. yeare , after quickned , formed , and nourished in his Mothers wombe about the fiue hundreth yeare , and lastlie borne the 6. hundreth and sixt yeare , to wit , when Phocas graunted to the B. of Rome , that he should be called the head of the whole Church . Againe cent. 1. l. 2. cap. 4. colum. 438. he affirmeth , that Antichrist should reigne , & tyranize with the spirituall sword , a thousand two hundred and threescore yeares , and with the temporall sword 6. hundreth 3. score , and 6. yeares , & that then the end of the world should come .

He gathereth the former number , out of Apoc. 11. where it is said , that the tyme of Antichrist shall endure a thousand two hundred and threescore daies , for Illyricus will haue a daie taken for a yeare : he gathereth the latter number out of Apoc. 13. where the number of the Beast , is said to be 666.

This opinion may be refuted in two manners . For first it followeth that Antichrist is already not only borne , but also dead , and consequently that the end of the world is already come . For the Roman Bishop began to haue the Temporall sword , that is , temporall dominion at least , from the yeare 699. for them did Aripertus giue the Costian alpes , where Genua is now situated to the B. of Rome , and afterward in the yeare 714. Luitpr and confirmed that donation , as Ado Vienensis writeth in the Chronicle of these yeares , Blondus l. 10. decad. 1. and the Magdeburgenses confesse the same cent. 8. cap. 10. col. 685. and Theodor. Bibliander , who noteth that , in this yeare 714. the first Papisticall Prouince was made .

Not long after , to wit in the yeare seauen hundred fiftie & fiue , Pipin gaue to the Bishops of Rome the Exarchy of Reuenna with a great part of Italy , as Rhegino , Ado , Sigebert , Blond . l. 12. decad . 1. Aemilius , and the Centuriators themselues , cent. 8. cap. 10. col. 724. and Theodor. Bibliander in his Cronicle doe witnes . If therefore the Kingdome of Antichrist did begin in this 755. yeare , and endured 666. yeares , it ended in the yeare of Christ 1421. and so it is more then 150. yeares since Antichrist died : and if the beginning of his kingdome be taken higher vp , to wit in the yeare of our Lord 699. then the end is to be put in the yeare 1365. and there wil be more then two hundred yeares past , since the death of Antichrist .

Perhappes , they will answere , that Antichrist shall not dy after the 666. yeare of his temporall kingdome , but shall only loose his temporall command . For since they say that the spirituall kingdome of Antichrist shall endure 1260. yeares , which should not yet be ended , though they had begun from the 606. of Christ ; they must say consequentlie , that the spirituall kingdome of Antichrist shall indure for some space , after that his temporall kingdome be destroyed . But verilie it is absurd , and against all authors ; and besides at least it followeth , that two hundred years past , the Popes should haue lost their temporall dominion , which is against experience .

Secondly the same error may be refuted , for that it followeth , that the Centuriators doe know exactly , when the world shal be ended , which notwithstanding is against the wordes of our Lord , Act. 1. and Matth. 24. and that it doth follow , is manifest ; for they know , that Antichrist did begin to reigne with the spirituall sword the yeare 6. hundreth and 6. They know also , that he shall reigne only 1260. years and that straight after our Lord will come to iudgment , as they themselues gather out of S. Paul 2. Thess. 2. & consequently they know , that the last Iudgment shal be in the yeare of Christ 1866. or if they know not this , they must also of force be ignorant , whether Antichrist be come or noe :

The third opinion is of Dauid Chytraeus , who in his Commentarie vpon Apoc. 9. doth hould with Illyricus , that Antichrist appeared about the yeare of our Lord 600. & he doth manifestly inough signify , that S. Gregory was the first Antichristian Pope . But vpon the 12. and 13. Chapters Chytraeus doth not agree with Illyricus about the tyme that Antichrist shall indure , but doth wisely admonish , that it is not rashly to be defined ; and he proueth with three reasons , that Antichrist did appeare the 600. yeare .

First , because at that tyme Gregory established the Inuocation of Saintes , & Masses for the dead . Secondly because in the yeare 606. Bonifacius the third did obtaine of Phocas the title of vniuersall Bishop . He addeth a third reason in his Commentary vpon the 13. Chap. for that this tyme doth plainly and euidently agree with the number of the name of Antichrist , which contayneth 666. Apoc. 13.

Chytraus addeth in the same place , that out of this same number of Antichrists name , is gathered the tyme , in which Antichristes Kingdome was confirmed by Pipin , for there be almost so many yeares from the 97. yeare , in which S. Iohn wrote his Apocalyps , vntill Pipin , to wit 666. And in like manner that the tyme is gathered , in which the Pope was first designed and declared Antichrist by Iohn Husse . For there be almost 666. yeares from Pipin , to Iohn Husse .

This opinion may easily be refuted , for it is founded only in lies . For first S. Gregory was not the first , which taught to call vpon Saintes , and offer Masses for the dead . All other auncient writers taught the same , as we haue elswher demonstrated . Now only S. Ambrose sufficeth , who liued before S. Gregory 200. yeares lib. de viduis . The Angels ( saith he ) are to be earnestly beseeched , as also the Martyrs . & lib. 2. ep. 1. ad Faustinum de obitu sororis . Therfore ( saith he ) I doe not thinke , that she is so much to be bewayled , as to be holpen with prayers , nor to be mourned for with thy tears , but that her soule be commended to God with oblations . Neither did Phocas giue the title of Vniuersall to the Pope , but called him the Head of the Churches . But long before , Iustinian ep. ad Ioannem 2. had done this same ; and before that also the Councell of Chalcedon in ep. ad Leonem : without cause therfore is the comming of Antichrist put in the tyme of Phocas .

Now that which Chytraeus addeth of the number 666. is altogeather foolish , because that number doth not preciselie agree with the times , in which Chytraeus would haue Antichrist to haue appeared , or to haue byn confirmed or declared . For from Christ to Phocas his decree , there be 607. yeares , not 666. from the reuelation of the Apocalyps to Pipin , there be 658. yeares : from Pipin to Io. Husse there are , as he himselfe saith 640. yeares . But S. Io. in the Apocalyps noted a precise number , since he addeth also the least particles . Moreouer Iohn Husse declared not first the Pope to be Antichrist : for Wickliss had done so before : yea Iohn Husse neuer said , that the Pope was Antichrist , for in the 19. article condemned at Constance , he saith , that Clergie men by their couetousnes prepare the way for Antichrist . Finally all Lutherans boast , that Antichrist was discouered by Luther .

The 4. opinion is Luthers , in the Computation of tyme , who putteth two commings of Antichrist , one with the spirituall sword after the yeare of our Lord 600. to wit , when Phocas called the B. of Rome head of all Churches , where he also saith , that S. Gregorie was the last B. of Rome . Another with the temporall sword , after the yeare of our Lord 1000. Bibliander teacheth altogeather the same in his Chronicle tabula 11. & 13. wherefore in the first comming Luther & Bibliander agree with the Centuriators and Chytraeus , excepting that Luther and Bibliander saie , that S. Gregory was a good and holie Bishop , but the Centuriators cent. 6. cap. 1. colum. 2. and Chytraeus say , that S. Gregorie aboue all other procured the introduction of Antichrist , and therfore was a verie naughtie man : which is a most horrible blasphemy . In the second comming , Luther and the Centuriators do manifestly disagree .

This opinion besides the common arguments , which shal be made afterwardes , is easilie refuted . For altogeather without reason putteth Luther the comming of Antichrist in the yeares of our Lord 600. and 1000. And of the first wee spake in the consutation of Chytraeus . Of the yeare 1000. it may easilie be proued . For therefore Luther at that tyme , putteth the beginning of the temporall reigne of Antichrist , because then Pope Gregorie the 7. deposed the Emperour Henry the 4. and had temporall dominion , and made warre . But all these thinges were done before also , for Gregorie the 2. excommunicated the Emperour Leo , and depriued him of the Kingdome of Italie in the yeare of our Lord 715. as Cedrenus and Zonaras testifie in the life of the same Leo. And wee haue alredie shewed , that the Bishops of Rome had temporall dominion from the yeare 700. that is , three hundreth yeares before the yeare 1000.

Finally the Magdeburgenses testifie cent. 8. cap. 10. that Stephen the third made warre about the yeare 750. and the same may be said of Adrian the first , and of other their successors . Likewise about the yeare 850. Leo the 4. an holie man , and a worker of miracles , made warre against the Saracenes , and had a notable victorie , and fortified the Cittie of Rome with bulwarkes and fortresses , and besides compassed the Vaticane hill with a wall , which afterward of him was called the Leonine Citty , as almost all the Historiographers of that tyme doe write , and the Magdeburgenses themselues Cent. 9. cap. 10.

The fifth opinion is Henry Bullingers , who in his Preface to his Homilies vpon the Apocalyps writeth , that Antichrist appeared in the yeare of our Lord 763. which opinion disagreeth from all the former , and may easilie be refuted , for that it is grounded vpon a most weake foundation . For Bullinger saith , that in the 13. chap. of the Apocalyps , where the number of the name of the beast is put downe , by that number is signified the tyme of Antichrists comming , that is , how manie yeares after the writing of the Apocalyps , Antichrist was to come . And for that it is manifest out of Irenaeus lib. 5. that the Apocalyps was written about the end of Domitians Empire , that is about the yeare of our Lord 97. he gathereth , that Antichrist was to come in the yeare 763. for so many there are , if 666. be addeth to 97.

Hither may bereferred the opinion of certaine Catholikes , who as I●d●c●s Clicthonem rehearseth in his commentaries vpon the 28. cap. of the 4. booke of S. Iohn Damascene de side , thinke that Antichrist so properlie called was Mahomet , because he came about the yeare 666. as S. Iohn foretould . But this reason is nothing worth . For first the Magdeburgenses gainesay and contend , that the number in the Apocalyps signifieth not the tyme of Antichrists birth , but the tyme of his death . And S. Io. the Euangelist cap. 13. Apoc. reiecteth both Illyricus and Bullengers fiction , for explicating himselfe he saith , that that number , is the number , not of the tyme , but of the name of Antichrist , that is , that Antichrist shall haue a name whose greeke letters shal make the number 666. as Iraeneus lib. 5. and all others expound him .

Moreouer this yeare 763. there was no mutation made that we read of , in the Bishops of Rome , neither did Mahomet come : for he was borne the yeare of our Lord 597. & afterward died in the yeare of our Lord 636. as Palmerius witnesseth in his Cronicle . Wherefore he came not to the yeare 666.

The sixt opinion is of Wolsegangus Musculus , who in his places tit . de Ecclesia cap. 12. affirmeth , that Antichrist came a little after S. Bernards tyme , that is about the yeare 1200. & he proueth it , because S. Bernard serm. 6. in psal. 90. hauing reckoned many vices of men , and especiallie of the Clergie , and most greiuous persecutions of the Church , addeth ; It remayneth that the man of sinne be reuealed . But this opinion also is easily confuted . For S. Bernard ghessed by the euills which he did see , that Antichrist was neere , as we also said , that S. Cyprian , S. Hierome , and S. Gregory ghessed in their tymes , and all their ghesses were false . Besides , there were worse Popes without comparison from the 900. yeare to the 1000. then from the 1100. yeare to the 1200. Wherfore if they were not Antichrists , why should these be ?

M. Downams addition , and reply confuted .

1. MAISTER Downam hath little to say , about the ancient opinions , only he affirmeth , if you will belieue him vpon his word , that there is a great difference betwixt the Fathers opinions , concerning the approaching of Antichrist , The difference betwixt Catholikes and Heretiks concerning the comming of Antichrist . which they held ( saith he ) according to the Prophesies of the Scripture ( & he citeth in the margent 1. Io. 2. 18. 2. Io. 7. 2. Thess. 2. 7. compared with the euent : and their conceipt of Christs approaching vnto iudgment , grounded not so much vpon the Scriptures , as vpon their owne coniectures , which are confuted by experience .

But he might haue done well to haue disproued Bellarmins distinction betwixt Catholikes and heretikes , which he affirmeth to consist in this , that Catholikes know , that Antichrist shall not come but in the end of the world : but Heretikes thinke that antichrist shall come long before the end of the world : and soe we see , that all the Fathers , which thought that Antichrist was at hand , thought the same likewise of the end of the world . So that , if they had liued so long that they might haue seene their coniectures about the end of the world confuted by experience , they would haue bene farre from M. Downams opinion , who thinketh that their arguments , concerning the comming of Antichrist , are confirmed by experience . And the reason would haue bene , for that they would still haue remayned Catholikes , who ioyne both togeather ; and not haue bene of M. Downams crew , whome Bellarmine calleth Heretikes , which seuereth them farre asunder . And the poore man had nothing to help himselfe withall , but only to recite S. Hieromes and S. Gregories wordes , which Bellarmine had alleaged , and tooke them to be so plaine and easy ( as they are indeed ) that they needed no exposition . And it should seeme that M. Downam Downam translateth not well . thought so too , and therfore he thought it necessary to falsifie them in his translation , for , de medio fit , translating , is taken out of the way , wheras it being the present tense , signifieth only that it was not yet done , but was in doing , as it hath bene euer since ; and so he should haue translated , is in taking out of the way , and then we shall easily answere to the argument , See cap. 5. nu. 4. that a thing in doing is not done , and consequently that Antichrist is but comming , and not come . For the remouing of the Imperiall seate from Rome , the taking of Rome by the Goths , the decay of the Empire , are not sufficient for M. Downam to make it good , that the Empire was taken away , but only that it was in taking away ; that is , in decay , not subuerted or perished . And besides , if M. Downam bethink himselfe well , it wil be a litle with the soonest for him and his friends ( whome Bellarmine calleth Heretikes ) to affirme , that Antichrist was come in S. Hieromes tyme . As for the Scriptures , which M. Downam noteth , it is not necessary to explicate them now , since we haue had , and shall haue often occasion to handle them at large : only I will aske M. Downam , what he meant to say , that Bellarmine thought to discredit the arguments of the Fathers , by reckoning them among erroneous conceiptes , since Bellarmine expresly saith , that the opinions of these Fathers , were suspitions , and not errors , because they durst not set downe any certaine tyme ?

2. Now then let vs come ( as M. Downam likewise inuiteth vs ) to Bellarmines heretikes , where he taketh vpon him to defend all those opinions , but the first of the Samosatenes , whome he is content with Bellarmine to call heretikes , but taketh it very ill at his handes , that he would number them among Protestants , which notwithstanding he hath no reason to do , since Bellarmine telleth but the truth , and giueth his reason why he doth so , because they all agree in this , that Antichrist is come , and that he is the Pope ; which will How much the protestants agree with the Samosatenes & all other heretikes . be thought a greater agreement , then Christ hath with the wicked : which comparison it pleaseth M. Downam to vse , though if others had done farre lesse , he would haue bene ready to haue called it blasphemy , if he be not more temperate then many of his fellow Ministers ; and besides he might haue considered , that all the arguments , which Bellarmine vseth against the Samosatenes , make as much against the Protestants ; so that his boasting of his men which haue soundly confuted their heresies , will seeme ridiculous ; except they had confuted this opinion likewise , which they could not doe , except they would confute themselues . And the nippe which he giueth the Papists for houlding their peace , will make some thinke , that either he hath not read so much , as the titles of Bellarmines whole bookes , or els that he is very forgetfull , if not malicious , since it is euident , that he hath not omitted those heretikes , no more then the rest ; neither in other heresies , nor in this ; in which he is as exact , as M. Downam can desire , since he telleth vs in what they differ from him & his crew , which is but in a nice point , God knoweth ( to wit in the circumstances of tyme ) if we consider the other two mayne points , in which they agree ; & besids here M. Downam sayth , that euen in the Apostles tymes , Antichrist had as it were set his foote in the Church , which is something before that , which the Samosatenes affirme , who only thinke , that he appeared a little after the Apostles tyme , so that all the fault will light vpon M. Downam , and his fellowes , who will needes make themselues so like to those , and all other heretikes , that none but themselues can see any other difference among them , but materiall ; to wit , that euery one choseth this , or that matter , in which they differ from the Catholike Church : but all agree in this , that they chose their Religion out of their owne priuate iudgments and spirits , by which they take vpon them to explycate the Scripture , euery one after his owne fashion ; but none of them will subiect their spirits to the spirit of truth , which is according to Christs promise only in the Catholike Church , and consequently they wil be still accompted formall Heretikes till they amend this generall fault of theirs .

3. Concerning the other 5. opinions which Bellarmine From X. to XVII . rehearseth M. Downam would faine make an agreement , by affirming , that the constant opinion of the learned is that of the reuealing or manifest appearing of Antichrist 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ( for the rest is impertinent ) there were two principal degrees , the first about the yeare 607. the second after the yeare 1000. Where first we may note , how Downam nothing Scrupulous in his accompt . cunningly he bringeth it in , with an ( about ) and an ( after ) both which may comprehend one or more yeares . And it must be no little , nor nice difference , which will breake any square in this mans conceipt : but you must beare with him , for he was inforced to inlarge his conscience , and to be nothing scrupulous , because otherwise he could hardly haue made any one to agree with himselfe or any other ; for they which come neerest , differ in a yeare , since Illyricus , Chytraeus , and Luther put that title , which was giuen by Phocas The Protestants disagreement about Antichrists comming . to Pope Boniface the third , in the yeare 606. and not 607. as M. Downam doth , who leauing his Rabbines , is content to ioine with Bellarm. in this accompt . But there is a greater difference betwixt Luther & Bibliander on the one syde , & the Centuriators , and Chytraeus on the other syde about S. Gregory , whether he did belong to Christ , or to Antichrist ; which M. Downam wisely passed ouer in silence , with being content to go about . And yet he must fetch a far greater compasse to comprehend Bullenger , who putteth Antichrists comming more then a 100. yeeares later then any of these , so that by that word ( about ) we must vnderstand a 100. yeares sooner or later . And yet the word ( after ) hath a larger scope since Musculus will haue Antichrists comming to haue byn about the yeare 1200. But M. Downam stoutly denieth , that Bullenger putteth Antichrists comming the yeare 763. yet mentioneth not the place which Bellarmine citeth , which is as plaine , as plaine may be ; but thinketh it sufficient to alledge another place out of Bullenger , where yet he nameth not once Antichrist , but explicateth , how in his opinion the Popes dominion increased & was confirmed ; which only sheweth , that Bullenger either did not thinke , that Antichrists appearing , & the Popes dominion was all one , or els , that he is contrary to himselfe ; of which two I will giue M. Downam good leaue to choose which he listeth . He would also faine excuse Musculus , but that the matter is too plaine ; since he would found his opinion vpon S. Bernard , who plainly affirmeth , that he expected Antichrists appearing or reuealing , and consequently thought , that he was not reuealed at that tyme : so that Musculus following S. Bernard , must needes thinke so too , howsoeuer of his owne head he addeth , that Antichrist was come , which as it is foolish in it selfe , since he could haue no certaine ground to thinke soe , vnles he had appeared in some sort : soe is it also impertinent to the matter we haue in hand , since our question is about his appearing : and they which put it latest ( which are Luther and Bibliander ) make him to come euen with the temporall sword , which cannot choose but appeare , after the yeare of our Lord 1000. And this is the notable consent , which M. Downam hath found among all his writers whom Bellarmine alleageth in this mayne poynt , concerning the time of the comming of Antichrist .

4. After hauing laboured to make an agreement betwixt his Doctours , with the euent which you haue seene , he maketh a shew , as though he would answere all Bellarmines arguments against them , beginning thus : Now let vs see what he obiecteth against this receyued truth : but comming to the point he only chooseth out Bellarmines answere to Chytraeus his second proofe for the first degree of Antichrists comming , to wit , with the spirituall sword , which as you see is no argument at all , but a peece of an answere to an argument ; so that to doe well M. Downam should replie and not answere . But let Downam answereth when hee should reply . vs not vrge the poore man too farre , for it is pure want , that driueth him to these miserable shiftes . Wherefore let vs see , how he can auoid Bellarmines answere . Chytraeus proofe was this . In the yeare 606. Bonifacius the third , did obteyne of Phocas the title of vniuersall Bishop : ergo Amichrist appeared about the yeare 600. To which Bellarmine answereth in these words : Phocas gaue not the title of Vniuersall to the Pope , but called him the head of the Churches . But long before Iustinian ep. ad Ioan . 2. had done the same , & before that also the Councell of Chalcedon in ep. ad Leonem . Without cause therefore is the comming of Antichrist put in the tyme of Phocas . To which first , as I haue noted , M. Downam saith , that Bellarmine obiected this , whereas it is most manifest that he answereth an obiection . Secondlie he addeth , that good authors Phocas gaue not the title of Vniuersall to the Pope , & that which hee gaue , the Pope had before . affirme , that he receyued from Phocas , both the title of the Head of the Church , and also of Vniuersall or Oecumenicall bishop : but they are too good to be named , or els M. Downam was ashamed of them and therefore he must pardon vs , if we belieue neither him , nor them , till we know what they are . Thirdlie he auoucheth that , there is no doubt , but that Bonifacius sought for , and by suite obteyned that , which Iohn of Constantinople had before claymed . But if he had remembred , what himselfe wrote in his 1. chap. of his former booke , of S. Gregorie the great , his dislike of that title in Iohn of Constantinople , he would haue seene , that there had bene great doubt , whether Bonifacius were not more likelie to approue his holy predecessors iudgment in refusing that title for due respectes , though otherwise neuer soe due to him , rather then his proud aduersaries opinion in desiring , or vsing it at that tyme , when at leastwise in that Iohn of Constantinoples sense , it was not only scandalous , See part . 2. Chap. 1. but perfidiouslie false also . Wherfore keeping the dignitie it selfe , they vsed such wordes as might modestlie expresse , what they had , and no way signifie that which they had not themselues , and much lesse Iohn of Constantinople , who most arrogantlie vsurped that false , and also foolish title , being taken in the sense , in which he vsurped it . Fourthly M. Downam would shift of the matter , with saying , that there is no great difference betwixt these two titles , as they are now giuen to the Pope , saue that to be the head of the Vniuersall Church , is the more Antichristian stile . But this will not serue his turne neither , for howsoeuer these titles be all one in substance , yet since Chytraus and others will giue vs a reason , why they assigne the first degree of Antichrists comming in the tyme of Phocas ; to wit , because he first gaue the Pope the title of Vniuersall Bishop , it is not inough , when this is denied , to tell vs , that at least , if he gaue him not that , he gaue him another as great : for all the force of the argument consisteth in this , that this title of Phocas is a new one , which the Pope neuer had giuen him before ; for otherwise there is no reason , why Antichrist should be thought more to come in Phocas his tyme , then before . And this was that which Bellarmine answered , and M. Downam hitherto hath not said any thing to the purpose against him .

Wherefore lastly he goeth about to make vs belieue , that though he cannot deny , but that the Pope had the same title which Phocas gaue him long before : yet there was a great difference in the sense and meaning . For he affirmeth , that before this graunt of Phocas , the Church of Rome had the preheminence and superioritie , ouer all other Churches , excepting that of Constantinople , not in respect of Authoritie and Iurisdiction ; but in respect of order and dignitie , and for this cause especiallie , because Rome wherof he was Bishop , was the chiefe Cittie : for which he citeth the Councells of Chalcedon & Constantinople . And for the same cause ( saith he ) was the Patriarch of Constantinople sometymes matched with him : for which he citeth Concil. Chalcedon : sometime preferred aboue him ; for which he noteth in the margent tempore Maurity ; because Constantinople ( which they called new Rome ) was become the Imperiall seate : yea he addeth , that the Bishops of Rauenna , because their Cittie was the chiefe in the Exarchy of Rauenna , wherevnto Rome was for a Downams answere or replie confuted by Bellarmine in other places . tyme subiect , stroue with the Bishop of Rome in the tyme of the Exarchies , for superiority . But all this discourse of his , is refuted at large by Bellarmine in his second Booke of the Pope : and if M. Downam will loose so much labour about the answering of that , as he hath done about this other , which is the third , he shal be confuted , & I hope fully satisfied in this point also . But now it were to great a labour to put downe all Bellarmines proofes . Wherefore both I and M. Downam must of reason be content with briefly answering his obiections , though that also in truth were not to be expected in this place , but that I desire that M. Downam should haue no reason to complayne . And first that the reason , why Rome had the preheminence The reason of Romes preheminence is not because it is the chiefe Citty . ouer all other Churches , was not because it was the chiefe Cittie , as M. Downam would proue out of the Councels of Chalcedon and Constantinople , Bellarmine proueth by the authoritie of S. Leo. ep. 54. ad Martianum , where inueighing against the ambition of Anatolius then Bishop of Constantinople , which he had discouered in that very Councell of Chalcedon which M. Downam mentioneth , he hath these wordes . Let the Cittie of Constantinople haue , as wee wish her , glorie and Gods right hand protecting her ; let her enioy a long reigne of your Clemencie : Alia tamen ratio est rerum saecularium , alia diuinarum &c. Yet worldly , and diuine thinges haue different reasons : neither will any other building be firme and stable besides that rock which our Lord hath put in the foundation . He looseth his owne , who desireth those thinges which are not his due . Let it suffice that by the foresaid help of your Pietie , and by the consent of my sauour , he hath obteyned the Bishoprick of so great a Cittie : non dedignetur Regiam Ciuitatem , quam Apostolicam non potest facere Sedem , let him not disdaine a Kinglie Cittie , which he cannot make an Apostolicall Sea . So that M. Downam in S. Leo his iudgment confoundeth worldlie and diuine thinges by going about to make vs belieue , that Rome had the preheminence of an Apostolicall Sea , because it was the chiefe Citty , which as you see S. Leo saith , by no meanes can be . Likwise Bellarmine bringeth the authoritie of Gelasius , Epistola ad Episcopos Dardaniae , who likewise reasoneth thus . Millan , Rauenna , Syrmium , Treuers and Nicomedia were the Seates of the Empire many tymes , and yet the Fathers neuer gaue any preheminence or Primacy to those Bishops , as neither they would haue done to Rome only for that respect .

And as for the authority of the two Councells , M. Downam must know , if he be ignorant of it , that the first of Chalcedon was not confirmed by S. Leo , but only in matters of The Councell of Chalcedon . See Paralelus Tortiac Tortoris cap. 4. The Canons of the 6. generall Councell . Fayth : and in this poynt was by him expresly reiected , as may be seene in the Epistle already recited , & in diuers others ad Anatolium , ad Pulcheriam , ad Maximum , ad Iuuenalem . In which likewise , as also in the 16. Act of the Councell it selfe , it appeareth , that this Decree was made in the absence of the Popes Legates , who had the chiefe place in that Councell , and that they did afterward openly gainesay , and resist it . And if by the Councell of Constantinople he meaneth the Canons , commonly called the Canons of the sixt Generall Councell ( as it seemes he doth ) he must likwise be tould , that those Canons , are of no accompt , as not made by that Councell , but by certaine Bishops , which afterward met priuately togeather , as appeareth by the beginning of the Canons themselues and by the confession of Tharasius , Bishop of Constantinople in the 7. generall Councell Act. 4. and Bede calleth them , Erraticam Synodum , an erring Synode , & moreouer writeth , that Sergius then Pope , reiected them lib. 6. de sex atatibus , in Iustiniano Iuniore . And all this , and much more to the purpose might Downam seemeth not to haue read so much of Bellarm. as he impugneth . M. Downam haue learned out of Bellarmine himselfe , if he would haue taken the paines to haue read him ouer , or at least so much as he meant to impugne , as it was good reason he should haue done , before he had gone about to answere him . Neither shall I need to spend any more tyme in this matter since his chiefest authorities are out of these two Councels . For what he meaneth by that which happened tempore Mauritij , I cannot yet coniecture ; for it were too absurd for him to defend Iohn of Constantinople against S. Gregory , as likewise the Bishops of Rauenna , whose arrogancy & ambition is condemned & contemned also by the whole world . But it is no meruaile though in so bad a cause M. Downam can find no better Patrons .

5. Concerning the comming of Antichrist with the temporall sword , which is the second degree , M. Downam goeth about to iuggle with vs after a strange manner . For wheras Bellarmine in the confutation of Luther , confuteth three groundes , which Luther built his opinion vpon . I. the deposition of the Emperour Henry the 4. II. the hauing temporall dominion . III : the making of warre ; by shewing that all these three Actes had bene exercised , by the Pope before this tyme , putting Downams seely iugling . particuler examples of euery one ; M. Downam very cunningly , as he thought , but indeed very seelily , as it will appeare now that he is taken with the manner , answereth , that true it is , that the Popes had a temporall dominion before , but not generall ; and so with granting one part , he thinkes he may safely deny the other , without euer troubling himselfe to examine Bellarmines instance any further . But we must put him in mind , that when Gregory the second depriued Leo the Emperour , of the Kingdome of Italy , he did not only shew himselfe to haue right to the patrimony of S. Peter , which could only haue warranted him to haue kept that from the Emperour ; but The pope hath power to depose Princes for the spirituall good of Christs Church . likewise to haue a generall authority to depriue Princes of their owne dominions in some cases , and for some causes , which he could not do but by a generall power , though we will not much stand with M. Downam about the name of Temporall power ; for that we rather thinke it to be spirituall , & therfore cannot be exercised by the Pope , but for the spirituall good of Christs Church ; as M. Downam may see largely explicated by Bellarm. in his 5. booke ; where also he shall find diuers other examples to this purpose ; to which it will not be inough for him to oppose his hereticall author Auentinus ; Of Auentine See part 2. Chap. 3. n. 6. for we will at any tyme take M. Downams owne word , so soone as any other of his mind , except they bring better profs then he doth . And this is all , which M. Downam hath to saie against Bellarmine ; wherfore he concludeth in these wordes : And thus haue I answered whatsoeuer is in his 3. Chapter . pertinent to the matter in hand , omitting ( as my manner is ) his other wranglings , as being altogeather either impertinent , or merely personal . Where I wil only craue the Iudicious Reader , to looke ouer Bellarmines whole discourse , and if he findeth nothing in it , but which directly impugneth the opinions and not the persons , which he alleageth , and withall that he doth it so inuincibly , that there can be no euasion , as I verily perswade my selfe any Downams manner to omit that which he cannot answere . indifferent man will easily see : then let him know , that whatsoeuer M. Downam hath omitted , was because he could by no meanes make so much as any shew of answering it , as he hath gone about to doe in this , which we haue examined : and withall let him know also , that this is M. Downams manner as he himselfe affirmeth , and make accompt of the Man accordingly .

THE FOVRTH CHAPTER . In which is explicated the first demonstration , that Antichrist is not yet come .

WHEREFORE the true opinion is ( saith Bellarmine ) that Antichrist hath neither begun to raigne , nor is yet come ; but is to come , and to raigne about the end of the world ; which how farre it is off , can by no meanes be knowne . This opinion , which ouerthroweth all the former and cleerely sheweth that the Bishops of Rome are not Antichrists , is demonstrated by six reasons .

For we must know , that the Holy Ghost in the Scripture hath giuen vs six certaine signes of Antichrists comming , two going before Antichrist himselfe to wit the preaching of the ghospell in the whole world , and the desolation of the Roman Empire ; two accompanying him , to wit the preaching of Henoch and Helias , and a most huge & manyfest persecution , so that publique Holies shall wholie cease : two following , to wit the destruction of Antichrist after three yeares and a halfe , and the end of the world : none of which wee see yet extant .

Wherefore the first demonstration is taken from the first signe going before Antichrist . The Scriptures do testifie , that the Ghospell is to be preached in the whole world before the last persecution commeth , which shal be raised by Antichrist , Matth. 24. This Ghospell of the kingdome shal be preached in the whole world , in testimony to all nations . And that this shal be before Antichrists comming , might be proued by that reason , because in Antichrists tyme the crueltie of that last persecution shall hinder all publique exercise of True Religion .

But because the aduersaries admit not this reason and it is no tyme now to deduce it out of her principles : let vs proue the same out of the Fathers testimonies . Wherefore S. Hilarie cap. 25. in Matth. expounding those wordes : This Ghospell of the Kingdome shal be preached in the whole world , and then the consumation shall come , plainelie teacheth , that Antichrist shall not come , whom he calleth the Abhomination of Desolation , vnles the preaching of the Ghospell in the whole world goeth before .

The same is expreslie taught by S. Cyrill catechesi 15. Theodoret in 2. Thess. 2. S. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 28. and others . And besides the same is gathered out of the text , for it is said , that the Ghospell is to be preached before that greatest and last tribulation commeth , what manner of one , neither hath ben before , nor shal be after . By which tribulation that Antichrists persecution is signified , the Fathers teach , and chieflie S. Augustine lib. 20. de ciuitate Dei , cap. 8. & 19. And that the Ghospell was not preached in the whole world at that time , when the new Samosatenes saie , that Antichrist came , that is , about the yeare of our Lord 200. or 300. is manifest by Origen , who Homil. 28. in Matth. affirmeth , that in his tyme the Ghospell was not yet preached euerie where . Likewise by Ruffinus , who lib. 3. hist. cap. 9. testifieth , that in the tyme of Constantyne the Emperour , that is , after the yeare of our Lord 3●0 . the Ghospell was preached to the more remote Indians : whereas , before that tyme , they had neuer heard any thing of Christ . Finally by S. Augustine who in his 80. epist. saith , that he had found by most certaine experience , that in his tyme , there were manie nations which had heard nothing of Christ .

And that the preaching of the Ghospell was not accomplished about the yeare 600. or 700. at which tymes the Centuriators , Chytraeus , Luther , and Bullinger put the comming of Antichrist , is m●nifest b● the conuersion of the Vandals , Polonians , Morauians , and the like , who as it is well knowne heard not the preaching of the Ghospel , vntill after the yeare of Christ 800. as also the Centuriators confesse centur. 9. cap. 2. col . 15. & 18. & cent. 10. cap. 2. col . 18. & 19. In like manner that the preaching was not complete in the tyme of S. Bernard , at which tyme Wolfgangus Musculus putteth the comming of Antichrist is manifest out of S. Bernard himselfe lib. 3. de consider . where he affirmeth , that yet in his time , there were Nations which had not heard the Ghospell .

Finally , that also in our tyme , the Ghospell is not preached in the whole world , experience teacheth , for ther are most vast Regions found in the hast & West , in which there is no memory of the Ghospell . Neither can it be said , that the Faith was there , but was afterward extinguished . For at leastwise , some signes would remaine either there , or in the writings of the Ancients . Besides we know , that where all the Apostles preached , the places were knowne to many if not to all ; but the new world is now found , & was not knowne from the Apostles tyme , but a little before our age .

Against this Demonstration , there can only one obiection be made , to wit , because perhapps the Scriptures , which say that the Ghospell is to be preached in the whole world speake not simple of the whole world , but by the figure of intellection , take the whole for a part , as Luc. 2. where it is said , There went out an Edict from Caesar Augustus , that all the world should be described , otherwise , that will be false , which S. Paul saith Rom. 10. euen then in his tyme , That the sound of the Apostles was gone forth into all the earth , and that which he saith Coloss. 1. The Ghospell which is come to yow , as it is in the whole world , fructifying and increasing . And after , Which is preached to all creatures , which are vnder Heauen .

I answere without doubt , not by any figure , but properly and simply in the whole world , that is , in euery Nation the Ghospell must be preached , and Churches instituted . For first so expresly teacheth S. Augustine ep. 80. ad Hesychium , and the other Fathers alleadged thinke the same , and besides Origen and S. Hierome , and others in cap. 24. Matth.

It may also be proued by three reasons . First , Christ saith that the preaching in the whole world is a signe of the consummation of the world , for so he addeth forthwith ; and then the consummation shall come ; but if not properly , but by Synecdoche the Ghospell were to be preached in the whole world , that signe were nothing worth ; for in that manner the Ghospell was preached in the whole world the first 20. yeares . Secondly as S. Augustine reasoneth , properly all Nations are promised to Christ Psal. 71. All Nations shall serue thee . And Christ died generally for all , and therfore Apoc. cap. 7. the elected are described out of all Nations , and people , and tribes , and languages . Wherfore the preaching also must properly be generall . Finally Match . 24. it is said , that the Ghospell is to be preached in the whole world in testimony to all Nations , that is , least any Nation in the daie of Iudgement might excuse their infidelity , by the pretext of ignorance . Wherfore before the generall iudgement the generall preaching must be .

To those places of S. Paul , S. Augustine answereth epist. 80. and saith , that S. Paul , when he saith Rom 10. their sound is gone out into all the earth , tooke the tyme past for the tyme to come , as Dauid had donne , whose wordes those are . And when he saith Colloss. 1. that the Ghospell is in the whole world , he would not say that it is actuallie , but vertuallie , to wit , because the seed of Gods word had bene cast into the world by the Apostles , which fructifying and increasing by little and little , was to replenish the whole world : as one that had put fire to diuers parts of a Citty , might trulie be said to haue set all the Cittie on fire , because he had applied the fire , which increasing by little and little , was to consume the whole Cittie . And this verie same signifieth the Apostle when he saith , in the whole world , it is fructifying and increasing ; for it had not taken possession wholie of the whole world , seeing it was yet more and more spread afterward abroad , and yet in a certaine manner it had taken possession , that is vertuallie , and not actuallie .

We might also answere with S. Hierome , in Matth. 20. & S. Thomas in Rom. 10. that the Ghospell came to all in two manners : one way by fame , another way by peculiar preachers , and foundation of Churches ; and that in the first manner , the Ghospell came to all Nations of the whole world then knowne in the tyme of the Apostles ; and that S. Paul speaketh of this : in which sort also S. Chrysostome in Matth. 24. is to be vnderstood . But in the second manner , that it came not then , but is to come in the tyme appointed , and that our Lord Matth. 24. Luc. vlt. & Act. 1. speaketh of this .

Adde lastlie , that it is not absurd , if we graunt , that our Lord spake properlie , and the Apostle figuratiuelie . For the reasons which compell vs to take our Lordes wordes in a proper signification , haue not the same force , if they be applied to the wordes of S. Paul , especiallie seeing our Lord spake of a thing to come , and S. Paul of a thing past .

M. Downams Answere confuted .

1. IT pleaseth M. Downam to be a little merrie about these 6. Demonstrations , calling them six slender coniectures , and thinking Bellarmyne troubled with melancholie , for deeming otherwise . But I will leaue it to the Readers iudgment , if it be not more likely , that he is loaden with folly . Afterward he iesteth at Bellarmine , for making Antichrists death , & the end of the world , which shal be after his death , to be two signes of his comming . As though all this were not to fall out within 3. or 4. yeares after his comming : and consequentlie did not plainelie demonstrate , that he came not a 1000. yeares since , which is that , which Bellarmine goeth about to prooue , and so might verie well vse these signes to demonstrate his not comming so long agoe .

2. But comming to answere the first demonstration , it is wonderfull to see how many wordes he spendeth in vaine , and how few to the purpose . For he being to answere Bellarmines proofes , which I haue alleadged , he scarse euer toucheth any of them , but maketh a long discourse altogeather friuolous , about the exposition of that whole place Matth. 24. Wherefore I shal be inforced to gather vp heere and there some scattered denialls , and so replie to this his broken and confused answere .

3. And first to the Fathers which Bellarmine alleadgeth as his chiefest proofe , I find only these wordes of his : Or to what end ( saith he ) should I spend my tyme in answering the Testimonies of the Fathers , who supposed that the Ghospell should be preached in all the world , before the comming of Antichrist , seing according to the meaning of our Sauiour Christ , it was to be preached in all the world , before the destruction of Ierusalem ? And is not this a wise answere , thinke Downam reiecteth the Fathers . you , to accuse the Fathers to be against Christ , because their doctrine is contrary to M. Downams ? But I take it , few will belieue him vpon his bare word against Bellarmine alone , & much lesse hauing so manie ancient Fathers ioyned with him .

4. Bellarmines other proofe was out of the text , because by that great tribulation , before which it is said , that the Ghospell shal be preached in the whole world ; the Fathers , and in particuler S. Augustine vnderstandeth Antichrists persecution . But M. Downam neuer mentioning S. Augustine , or other Father , flatlie denieth their doctrine in this point , as he had done in the former , & therefore indeed , neuer goeth about to answere the argument , but to denie the conclusion , whatsoeuer the proofes be .

5. Yea , that which is worse , because he would seeme to say something , he beareth the Reader in hand , that Bellarmine had bene so simple , as to prooue his conclusion only Downam omitteth Bellarmines proofes & answereth his owne . out of those wordes Matth. 24. This ghospell of the Kingdome shal be preached in the whole world in testimony to all Nations . And then he answereth verie grauelie . But our Sauiour Christ doth not saie , that the Ghospell shal be preached throughout the world , before the comming of Antichrist , but before the end . And is not this to get himselfe out of his Aduersaries reach , and then to shew great valour in playing his prize by himselfe alone , and beating the ayre ?

6. Another tricke of M. Downans is , to answere an argument which Bellarmine thought better for breuities sake to leaue vnproued : that is , that in Antichrists tyme , the cruelty of the last persecution shall hinder all publike exercise of true Religion . To which M. Downam answereth : That it is not necessary , that the Ghospell should be preached generally throughout the world at one tyme : for it might suffice , that in one age it were preached to one Nation , and in another age to another people and so in Antichrists tyme it might be preached to some Nations , where it had not bene formerly preached ; & therfore might be preached to all Nations before the destruction of Antichrist , though it were not before his comming . But Bellarmine neuer affirmed , that the Ghospell should be generallie preached throughout the world at one tyme : but M. Downam dreameth it . And if he would haue said any thing to the purpose , he should haue tould vs , how the Ghospell can be preached to any Nation , when the persecution is so great and generall , that all publike exercise of true Religion doth cease in all places , throughout the whole world . And this is all , that he bringeth in answere to the arguments . Wherfore only there remayneth , that we see , whether he proueth his owne exposition in those two pointes , in which he is contrary to Bellarmine and the Fathers , any better .

7. For first , he will needes haue the consummation of which Matth. 24. our Sauiour speaketh , to be the destruction of Ierusalem , and not the end of the world , but yet neuer answereth to any of those arguments , which Bell. hath in his answere to the obiection ; three o● the which , namelie the authoritie of the Fathers , and the two latter reasons are so manifest , that M. Downam Downam dissembleth the difficultie . delt very politikely in dissembling them , since he could not answere them . And to proue his owne exposition , he bringeth a conceited inuention of his owne , to witt , that our Blessed Sauiour would comfort his Disciples by telling them , that the successe of their Ministry should be such , that before the desolation of Hierusalem , the Ghospell should he preached throughout the world , for a testimony to all Nations vers . 14. And therfore that they should not feare , least togeather with Hierusalem his Church should be ouerthrowne : for be ore the distruction of Hierusalem he would by their preaching to all Nations both Iewes and Gentiles , plant his Church in many nations of the world . And for asmuch as the Temple and Citty of Hierusalem were types and figures of the Church of Christ which were to be abolished when the Church o● Christ should be established ; therefore he addeth , that vpon the planting of the Church by their Ministry , should the end and destruction of Hierusalem come .

8. But this is not only doubtfull , since o● I M. Downams Downam expoundeth Scripture childishly . authority is not sufficient to make it certaine but also altogeather childish and foolish . For how could the Apostles feare , least togeather with Ierusalem Christs Church should be ouerthrowne ? since as he himselfe saith , the Temple and Cittie of Hierusalem were Types and figures of the Church of Christ , which were to be abolished when the Church of Christ should be established , and consequently the Apostles should neuer haue greater hope , that Christes Church should be established , then when they should see the Temple and Citty of Hierusalem , and in them the Iewes Synagogue abolished . And were not he a wise man , thinke you , that would go about to comfort Catholikes , by telling them , that they must not be afrayd , though they see heretikes abolished , who are their chiefest aduersaries ? since that the preuailing of Catholikes consisteth chiefly in the abolishing of heretikes ? But by this we may see to what absurdities , such men as M. Downam are brought , when leauing the exposition of the Fathers , they will follow their owne priuate new-fangled inuentions .

9. After this againe he saith , that wee may not thinke , that our Sauiour Christ would intermingle the Prophesies , concerning the destruction of Ierusalem , and the end of the world , therby to nourish the The prophesies concerning the destruction of Hierusalem & the end of the world intermingled . error of his Disciples , who imagined that the end of Ierusalem should not be before the end of the world , as appeareth by their question . But on the other side the Fathers tell vs , that we must thinke , that our Sauiour did intermingle these Prophesies of purpose , to let them be in continuall expectation of the end of the world , and that when they should see the subuersion of the Temple , they should not be secure , that the end of the world was not also very neere . And this experience also teacheth , since as Bellarmine in part sheweth in the former Chapter and first opinion , the holy Fathers expected our Sauiours comming euery one in his tyme . And this is that which they thinke to appeare both by the Apostles question , and our Sauiours answere ; for they seemed to be doubtfull of it , and our Sauiour leaueth them as doubtfull in this point .

10. Thirdly , M. Downam goeth about to confirme his opinion by those wordes of our Sauiour : Verilie I say vnto you , this generation shall not passe , vntill all those thinges ( pointing as it seemeth ( saith M. Downam ) towards Ierusalem , as he sate on the Mount Oliuet ) be fulfilled . But by this exposition of his , he intermingleth these Prophesies more then any Catholike doth , for he maketh the last wordes to appertayne to the former part only : & to haue no coherence with that , which goeth immediatly before , which is as great a confusion as may be . And because he saw it himselfe , he imagineth our B. Sauiour vpon the suddaine only , while he pronounceth these wordes , to Downams fond imagination . point towards Ierusalem . But we are not bound to belieue all his imaginations , nor reports neither , since he is no Euangelist , and therefore we also thinke that he tooke somewhat to much vpon him , when he presumed to change one only letter in this narration , because it fauoured his imagination more then that which he should haue left , if he had bene a faithfull translator , which indeed belonged vnto him . For our Sauiour saith not ( all those thinges ) as though they were thinges a farre of , but ( these thinges ) of which he had spoken . S. Matthew , Omnia haec , S. Marke , Omnia ista , & S. Luke , only Omnia . So that mee thinkes since all three Euangelists , were so diligent to repeate the word ( All ) he should not haue bene so Downam corrupteth the thxt of Scripture . bould as to change it into ( some ) by applying it to part only of our Sauiours speach , and to the further part also . But we thinke our selues more bound to belieue the Euangelists , & the holy Fathers expounding them , then these farre fetched deuises of M. Downam ; and so we doubt not , that before this generation , that is , this corruptible world passeth , and both heauen and earth be renewed , all those thinges shall come to passe . And this our Sauiour signifyeth , when hee immediately addeth , that Heauen and earth shall passe , and not continue alway , as now we see them : but his wordes shall not passe vnfulfilled .

11. Neither can M. Downam help himselfe , by telling vs Luc. 21. that Luc. 21. The question concerning Ierusalem is propounded alone : for well we may graunt him , that S. Luke onlie mentioneth that question , but wee shall still thinke our selues bound to belieue S. Matthew , telling the same story , and rehearsing the other questions also , which S. Luke answereth aswell as he , though he omitteth the questions for breuities sake . And this very circumstance of preaching the Ghospell in the whole world , was not omitted by S. Luke , but rather very particulerly signified in those wordes , donec impleantur tempora Nationum , while the tymes of Nations be fulfilled , that is , till all Nations haue had the ghospell preached vnto them , as S. Marke , and S. Matthew do explicate , & S. Paul repeateth the very same Rom. 11. Caecitas ex parte contigit in Israel , blindenes hath hapned in part in Israel , which S. Luke said , Ierusalem calcabitur à gentibus . But how long ? S. Paul , donec plenitudo Gentium intraret , vntill the fulnes of Nations should enter , which is the very same , that S. Luke saith in the words following already rehearsed .

12. Finally M. Downam is content to cite S. Chrysostome Downam maketh much accompt of one Father if he fauour his fancies . for his opinion , for it is the propertie of such men to e●●e me more the authority of one Father , which fauoureth their conceipts , then of neuer so many , if they bee against their fancies : & so now we see this man , who would not vouchsafe the Fathers , which Bellarmine alleaged , so much as a word , is yet content to bring out S. Chrysostome for himselfe , and he seemeth to meane the place which a little after he citeth againe Homil. in Matth. 24. And though we might oppose many against one , and so thinke our selues before M. Downam : yet we would haue him know , that our doctrine standeth not so much vpon denials , as his doth ; but rather vpon the affirmative ; Catholike doctrine standeth not so much vpon denialls , as that of Protestants . and so though we affirme and proue , that the Ghospell is to be preached in the whole world , before the end of the world ; yet we deny not , but that it was in some sort so preached before the destruction of Ierusalem , & thinke that our Sauiour with his diuine wisdome comprehended both in the same wordes : for the one being a figure of the other , the same wordes may very well be vnderstood of both , as we see they were by the Fathers , though chiefly & for the most When the proper exposition is to bee preferred . part of the proper & distinct preaching in the whole world as the wordes properly taken doe import . And wee thinke S. Augustins rule very true that when the wordes may be so taken , without manifest absurditie , that is the true sense , & most certaine : for otherwise we should haue no certainty lib. 3. de doct. christia . cap 7. in vnderstanding Scripture at all ; and in this case , admitting both senses , may fitly be vsed that vulgar saying of the Mathematicians : Quod fit in circulo , fit in caelo : that which agreeeth in a circle , may ( due proportion obserued ) be applied to the Heauens , which are like to a circle in being round as likewise the end of the world is to the destruction of Hierusalem in many thinges . And thus much for the first difference about the word Consummation .

13. But now there remaineth another about the great Tribulation , which M. Downam likewise denieth to be any other , then that of the Iewes , and would faine father this exposition vpon S. Chrysostome also ; which as in the other wee may graunt to be probable ; but onlie M. Downam will deny that of S. Augustine and other Fathers ; for none of them By the great Tribulation Matth. 24. is meant the persecution of Antichrist a little before the end of the world . are so forward as he in denying , because they had not his spirit of contradiction : and indeed the matter is so plaine , that he had need to haue an hard forhead that should deny it . S. Marke cap. 13. saith : In illis diebus post tribulationem illam sol contenebrabitur &c. In those dayes after that Tribulation , the sunne shal be darkened &c. which happened not after the destruction of Hierusalem , except M. Downam will run to that shift to say , that it happened after , though it were long first : which though it were very ridiculous and absurd in it self , yet S. Matth. also wholy excludeth it , with adding statim , forthwith : Statim autem post tribulationem dierum illorum sol obscurabitur &c. And straight after the tribulation of those daies , the sun shal be darkened &c. And heere I leaue M. Downam in this strait , hoping he will learne to attribute more to the Fathers expositions hereafter , seeing them so conformable to Gods word .

14. And to conclude this Chapter , let vs see , what M. Downam hath replyed against Bellarmines answere to the obiection , where we must note , that he endeauoreth onlie to impugne the first answere , and to the other two hath not so much as a word to saie ; for that indeed whatsoeuer he had said against them , had byn also against himselfe , as likewise against all experience , and the proofes with which Bellarmine proued his Minor , to wit , that at none of those tymes , which the heretikes assigne for Antichrists comming , and much lesse in the Apostles tymes , the Ghospell had bene preached properlie in the whole world , and therefore when the Apostle saith , that it had bene preached in the whole world , he were either to be vnderstood figuratiuelie , or by fame , which are Bellarmines two latter solutions , not misliked by M. Downam ; though if his distinction of preaching , but not receauing the Ghospell in the whole world , were to the purpose , he should graunt the preaching to haue bene properlie in the whole world , and so contradict himselfe and fall into the absurdities before mentioned , or els be inforced to yield to Bellarmines first solution also , which he so eagerlie impugneth , that S. Paul Rom. 10. tooke the tyme past for the tyme to come , which he calleth a cauillation , Rom. 10. thinking that he may be bould with Bellarmine : but yet he might haue borne a little more respect to S. Augustine , whose Downams immodesty . solution it is , especiallie hauing so little to say against it . You shall heare his owne wordes . But say I , the Apostle proueth , that the Iewes had heard the Ghospell , because the sound of the preachers thereof , was gone through all the earth , and therefore they from whome the Ghospell proceeded to other Nations , ca●●not be ignorant therof . And now let any man iudge , if it had not bene more wisdome & modestie for M. Downam , to haue alleadged S. Chrysostome whose exposition this is , as Bellarmine did S. Augustine , then to come out with an ( I say ) only affirming but prouing nothing , neither by authoritie or reason , as likewise to haue admitted both these expositions for probable , as Bellarmine doth , and not set one Father against another , who agree well inough , and are not so addicted to their owne priuate iudgment , that they condemne any other probable opinion , though they thinke their owne more probable . Now whether of these two opinions is more probable , I leaue to others to examine , since it were from my purpose to discusse that question . But if M. Downam will needes contend , I remit him to Cardinall Tolets exposition vpon this place , where he explicateth , and defendeth S. Augustines opinion , against whome if he hath any thing to say in this point , he shall not goe vnanswered . But I would wish him rather to prooue , then to scoffe , especiallie at S. Augustine & other Fathers ; otherwise to any discret Reader he will seeme too ridiculous , though he vseth all his Sophistrie , as he doth heere , by telling vs , that the Ghospell could not bring How the Ghospell was in the whole world in the Apostles tyme . forth fruite , vnlesse it were actuallie ; and to shew his great learning noteth the same sense in the margent both in latin and greeke . But he must know , that as it is necessary , that the Ghospell should be actuallie in some place of the world , before it bringeth forth fruit ; so is it sufficient , that it be vertuallie in the whole world : & the verie increasing & extending it selfe , is one manner of ●ringing forth fruite , of which the Apostle speaketh ; which could not be , if already the Ghospell had bene actuallie in the whole world , and therefore it is to be vnderstood only vertuallie , in respect of the whole world , as is well declared by the example of a Citty set on fire in some places , which may trulie be said to be all on fire vertuallie , though actuallie onlie some parts of it be soe . And thus wee haue seene what M. Downam hath ben able to saie for himselfe , not hauing omitted anie shift of his , except he would haue vs repeate the same thing as often as he doth , as now at the verie end , citing afresh those wordes of S. Paul , that the Ghospell is preached among all creatures , that are vnder Heauen ; which Bellarmine did put in obiection , and answered three wayes , as wee haue seene .

THE FIFTH CHAPTER . Conteyning the second Demonstration .

THE second demonstration ( saith Bellarmine ) is taken from the other signe going before Antichrists tymes , which shal be an vtter desolation , and ouerthrow of the Roman Empire ; for we must know that the Roman Empire is at length to be deuided into ten Kinges ; of which none shal be , or be called the King of the Romans , although all of them shall occupie some Prouinces of the Roman Empire , as now the King of France , the King of Spaine , the Queene of England , & perhaps some others doe hould some partes of the Roman Empire , and yet are no Roman Kinges , or Emperours , and so long as this is not effected , Antichrist cannot come .

This Iraeneus proueth l. 5. out of Dan. cap. 2. & 7. & out of the Apocal. cap. 17. for in the 2. chap. of Dan is described the succession of the chiefest Kingdomes , vnto the worldes end , by a certayne Statua or Image , whose golden head signifieth the first Kingdome , that is of the Assyrians ; the siluer breast is the second Kingdome , that is of the Persians : the brasen belly the third kingdome , that is of the Grecians . the Iron legges the fourth kingdome , that is of the Romans which for the longest space , was two fould , as the legges are two , and longest . Furthermore out of the two legges there grew ten toes , and in them the whole Statua ended ; for that the Roman Empire was at length to be deuided into ten Kinges , none of which shal be the King of the Romans , as none of the toes is a legge . Likewise in the 7. Chapter , the Prophet Daniel most clearly designeth the same 4. Kingdoms by 4. beastes , and addeth that out of the last Beast , there shall arise ten hornes which signifyeth the ten last Kings which shall arise out of the Roman Empire , but shall not be Roman Emperours , as the hornes arise out of the Beast , but are not the Beast it selfe .

Finally S. Iohn cap. 17. Apoc. describeth a beast with 7. heades & ten hornes , vpon which a certain woman did sit ; and he explicateth the woman to be the great Citty , which is situated vpon 7. hills , that is Rome , & that the seauen heads are those 7. hills , and likewise 7. Kinges ; by which number are vnderstood all the Roman Emperours . The ten hornes he saith to be ten Kinges , who shall raigne togeather at one tyme . And least we should thinke , that these shal be Roman Kinges , he addeth that these Kinges shall hate the harlot and make her desolate , because they shall so deuide the Roman Empire amongst themselues , that they shall vtterly des●roy it .

Besides the same is proued out of S. Paul . 2. Thess. 2. where he saith : And now what deteyneth , you know , that he may be reuealed in his tyme only , that he which now houldeth do hould , vntill he be taken out of the way , and then shall that wicked one be reuealed . &c. where S. Paul not daring to write plainly of the ouerthrow of the Roman Empire , which notwithstanding he had by word of mouth plainly explicated vnto them , speaketh in that sort ; and the sense is : Yow know what hindereth the comming of Antichrist : for I haue tould you , that the Roman Empire hindereth , for that their sinns are not yet at their ful height ; and Antichrist shall not come before , who shall take away this Empire for their sinnes . Therfore let him that now holdeth the Roman Empire , hould it stil : that is , let him raigne till he be taken out of the way , that is , abolished ; and then that wicked one shal be reuealed . So doe the Greeke & Latin Fathers expound it , S. Cyril Catechesi 15. disputing of this place . The foresaid Antichrist ( saith he ) shall come when the tymes of the Roman Empire are expired S. Chrysostome vpon this place : When the Roman Empire shal be taken away then shall Antichrist come , Theophilactus , and Oecumenius write to the same effect .

Of the Latines , Tertullian in Apologerico cap. 32. saith , that Christians doe praie for the continuance of the Roman Empire , because they know , that when that Empire is ouerthrowne , there shall a great calanuty fall vpon the world . And Lactantius l. 7. cap. 15. explicating those thinges which shall goe before Antichrist , and the end of the world , saith : the Roman name by which the world is now gouerned my mind is afraid to speake it , but I will speake it , because it shal be shal be taken from the earth , & the Emptre shall returne into Asia , & the East shall ruie again , and the west serue . S. Ambrose vpon . 2. Thess. 2. saith , that after the defection , and abolition of the Roma Kingdome , Antichrist shall come .

S. Hierome quaest. 11. ad Algasiam expounding the a me place of S. Paul saith : Vnles there come a reuolt first that all Nations which are subiect to the Roman Empire , reuolt from them ; and vides the Roman Emotre be first desolate , and Antichrist goe before , Christ will not come , onlie that the Roman Empire which now houldeth all Nations , passe and be taken away , and then Antichrist shall come . Finally S. Augustine lib. 20. de ●iuitate dei , cap. 19. expoundeth the same place thus : Only let him which now reigneth , raygne till he be take out of the way and then that wicked one shal be reuealed , by whome no man doubteth , but that Antichrist is signified .

Now that this signe was not fulfilled at those tymes , in which the Anti trinitarians of Transiluania say , that Antichrist came , that is about the yeare of our Lord 200. it is manifest , because then most of all did the Roman Empire flourish , and so continued long after .

Likewise that it hath not bin fulfilled at any tyme hitherto , it is plaine , because as yet there remayneth the succession and name of the Roman Emperours , and by the wonderfull prouidence of God , when the Empire failed in the West , which was one of the leggs of Daniels Statua , the empire of the East remayned sound , which was the other legge . But because the Empire of the East was to be destroyed by Turkes , as we see now it is , God erected againe the former legge in the West , that is , the West Empire , by Charles the Great , which Empire lasteth still .

Neither is it any obstacle , that Rome it selfe , according to S. Iohns prophesy , is after a certaine manner fallen , & hath lost the Empire , for the Roman Empire may well stand without the Cittie of Rome , and he be called the Roman Emperour who hath not Rome , so that he succeedeth another Roman Emperour in the same dignity & power , whether he hath more or fewer Prouinces vnder his empire : otherwise neither Valens , nor Arcadius , nor Theodosius the yonger , nor other their successours to Iustinian , none of which had Rome , could haue byn called Roman Emperours . Neither Charles the Great , and his successors , who likewise enioyed not the Cittie of Rome had euer bene Emperours , which is manifestly false , for two reasons .

First , because for this only respect the Emperour which now is , hath the precedence before all Christian Kinges , though otherwise greater , and more potent then he . Secondly because it is well knowne , that Charles was created Emperour , by the consent of the Romans , as Paulus Diaconus testifieth lib. 23. rerum Romanarum , and was saluted Emperour from the Greeke Emperour himself , by his Ambassadours , as Ado testifyeth in his Cronicle of the yeare 810. & honoured as Emperour with presents by the Persians and Arabians , witnes Otho Frisingensis lib. 5. cap. 31. Finally the Lutherans boast , that they haue three Princes Electors of the Roman Emperour : therfore they cannot deny , but that the Roman Empire lasteth still .

Wherfore rightly Orosius lib. 2. cap. 4. comparing the Babylonicall Empyre with the Roman , sayth ; that God hath dealt far more mildly with the Romans , then with the Babylonians , for after 1164. yeares that Babylon was builded , in one day Babylon the head of that Empyre was taken , the Emperour slayne , and the Empire ouerthrowne and destroyed . But after as many yeares , that is 1164. that Rome had bene , Rome was taken by the Gothes , but the Emperour Honorius , who then gouerned , and the Roman Empire being in safety .

Hence appeareth how our Aduersaries are deceaued : for they thought that the declination of the Roman Empire was sufficient for Antichrists comming : but S. Paul , S. Iohn , & Daniel , and the Fathers S. Irenaeus , S. Cyril , S. Chrysostome , Theophilactus , Oecumenius , Tertullian , Lactantius , S. Ambrose , S. Hierome and S. Augustine say , that not a declination , but a desolation is necessary .

But Luther , Illyricus & Chytraeus , obiect , that this demonstration maketh most of all for them : for it was foretould by S. Iohn Apoc. 13. that the Beast , which signifieth the Roman Empire , was to be wounded to death , and healed againe by Antichrist , which surelie was then done , when the Pope restored againe the west Empire which was almost perished , by giuing to Charles the Great the title and dignity of Emperour : therefore out of this transferring or restoring of the Empire it is manifestly gathered , that the Pope of Rome is truly Antichrist . See Illyricus l. contra primatum Papae . & Centur. 8. cap. 10. col. 751. and Chytraeus in cap. 13. Apoc. Illyricus confirmeth this argument out of S. Ambrose who expounding the wordes of S. Paul 2. Thess. 2. saying , that Antichrist shall restore the Romans their freedome , but vnder his owne name : which the Pope seemeth to haue done , when he created an Emperour for the Romans , who notwithstanding should depend vpon him .

I answere , we read not in S. Iohn , that Antichrist should heale the Beast which signified the Roman Empire ; but this we read , that one of the Beastes heads should dye , & a little after rise againe by the dragons , that is , the diuells meanes , which almost all the ancient writers expound of Antichrist himselfe , who will faigne himselfe dead , and by the diuells art will rise againe , that he may imitate the true death , and resurrection of Christ , and by that meanes he will seduce many .

So expoundeth it S. Gregorie l. 11. ep. 3. Primasius , Beda , Haymo , Anselmus , Richardus , & Rupertus in cap. 13. Apoc. and the text it selfe doth plainely compell vs , by that head of the Beast which was dead , and became alyue againe , not to vnderstand Charles the Great , but Antichrist ; for that head as S. Iohn writeth had power onlie two and fourtie monethes , and blasphemed God , and those which dwell in Heauen , and ruled ouer all Tribes , People , Languages & Nations , and all which dwell vpon the earth adored it ; of which thinges wee haue not seene or read any in Charles the Great , or in any of his successors : for Charles raigned longer then 42. monethes , neither did he blaspheme God and his Saintes , but rather gaue them wonderfull reuerence , and many of his successors haue imitated his pietie .

Finallie neither Charles himselfe , nor any of his successors ruled ouer euerie Tribe , People , Tongue , & Nation , as is manifest to all men . Now S. Ambrose saith not , that Antichrist shall create a new Roman Empire which the Pope did , but that hauing ouerthrowne the Roman Empire , he shall restore the Romans their libertie ; which wee read not that any Pope hath done .

M. Downams Answere confuted .

1. MAISTER Downam vtterly , denieth that there should be such an vtter desolation of the Empire , as that there should not remaine so much as the name of the Emperour or King of the Romans , and then explicateth at large , how farre he thinketh it necessary that the Emperour should be taken out of the way . But now it is no tyme for him to explicate his owne opinion , but to answere to Bellarmines argument : wherfore hauing denied the assertion , let vs see , what he can say to the proofes , for all the rest is altogeather impertinent .

2. First then he answereth to the two places of Daniel 2. and 7. togeather , seeking many sillie shiftes to escape the force of them , as that vpon the desolation of the Empire in the West , it was deuyded among ten Kinges at the least ; whereof none was called King of the Romans . Whereby he would inferre , that the diuision Ten Kings shall deuide the whole Roman Empire among them , so that there shal be no Roman Emperour in their tyme . of the Roman Empire into ten Kinges , argueth not the vtter desolation thereof , since at that tyme there were 10. Kinges at the least , and yet besides a Roman Emperour in the East . But I would aske M. Downam , whether those ten Kinges had all , or only part of the Roman Empire deuided amongst them ? and if he must needes answere , only part , them it is no meruaile , though there were a Roman Emperour togeather with them ; but the miracle had bene , if M. Downam could haue shewed vs ten Kinges , that had all the whole Empire deuided among them ; and yet haue found vs a Roman Emperour that had some part of it ; which because he neither hath , nor can doe , therefore when those ten Kinges shall come , that Daniel speaketh of , there shal be no Roman Emperour as there was in the tyme of those Kinges which M. Downam mentioneth , by which we plainely see , that he spake from the purpose of a quite different matter from Daniel , who likewise speaketh of ten Kinges who should succeed the Roman Emperours : euen as they had succeeded the Grecians , and these the Persians , and these againe the Assyrians ; wheras M. Downam telleth vs of 10. Kinges , who liued togeather with the Roman Emperours . And by this tyme I thinke M. Downam will wish , that he had not returned Bellarmines argument vpon him , since he seeth , how little credit and how great shame will returne to himselfe by this returning . For not only Bellarmine , but any other , though neuer so meane a scholler will laugh to heare M. Downam inferre vpon the comming of those his westerne Kinges , the comming of Antichrist also , who they know is not to come , so long as there is any Roman Emperour remayning , how many Kinges soeuer besides come or go ; and they will likewise smile at M. Downams cunning , which he vsed to bring in this returning Argument , in that he putteth Bellarmins argument into a new forme , and maketh him immediatly infer the not comming of Antichrist , by the not comming of the Downam changeth Bellarmines argument . 10. Kinges , wheras he only proueth the vtter desolation of the Roman Empire by their comming , and succeding in al the Dominions of that Empire ; & finally som of his friends will wish , that he had kept that diuersity of reading the Scripture ( some hauing after the Beast , others with the Beast ) Apc. 17. 12. till it might haue stood him in better steed .

But yet you shall heare M. Downam dispute more deeply , for hauing cited part of Bellarmines words , he setteth downe his first answere in these wordes . Answere 1. This argumentation of Bellarmine implieth a contradiction for if there be in Daniel described a succession of Kingdomes , which shall continue to the end of the world , wherof the Roman is the last ; then the Roman Empire shall not viterly be destroyed before the comming of Antichrist , which goeth before the end of the world . But what will you say , M. Downam , if the Roman Empire be not the last Kingdome , which Daniel describeth ? Will you confesse that it shal be destroyed , before the comming of Antichrist , as well as before the end of the world ? Doth not Bellarmyne vrge out of Daniel , as the last succession , ten Kinges signified by the ten toes , and the ten Downam forgetteth what he impugneth hornes ? Is not all this disputation about them ? Are you growne into that heate of passion , that you forget what you impugne ? Surely then it is time for you to dispute no longer , and if you will needes be doing , at leastwise , take heed of these returning arguments .

Thirdly M. Downam confessing , that he leaueth the common opinion , and followeth another of the learned , especially of these later times , affirmeth , that the 4. Kingdome mentioned in those Chapters of Daniel , is that Kingdome of the Seleucidae , & Lagida which tyrannized ouer the people of Iury ; the former being Kings of Syria , & the later of Egypt : but this he proueth not any otherwise , but by a bare repetition of the same assertion , though he beginneth with a ( For ) as though he would haue said something , but we are content to think , that he hath somwhat in store for hereafter : since he promiseth , that hereafter this shal be shewed to be most true , only in the meane time he must giue vs leaue to hold the common opinion till we know who See . Chap. 16. these learned men be , that durst inuent a new particuler opinion except they can proue it most clearly , as M. Downam saith and we will belieue , when we see it , for now it seemeth very probable , that those iron leggs signify the Roman Empire , as well for their length , as Bellarmine well noted , & M. Downam negligently if not craftily omitted in the alleg●tion of his wordes , putting in an ( &c. ) when he came to that place , as also for their strength , in which the 4. Beast also excelleth , The Roman Empire signifyed by the 2. iron leggs of Nabucodonozors statua & the 4. beast . Dan. 7. as the Prophet himselfe expresseth : Quomodo ferrūcomminuit & domat omnia , sic comminuet , & conteret omnia haec . As iron breaketh and tameth all thinges , so shall ( that kingdome ) breake and teare in peeces all these former kingdomes : neither would I haue the Reader deceaued with the opposition of learned , to common , which he findeth made by M. Downam , by thinking that he meant , that the ancient opinion was houlden only by the common sort of people : for no doubt he will acknowledg Bellarmine to be as learned as him selfe , no disprayse to him , who is the only learned man that yet he expresseth to hould this new opinion ; and besides he will not easily condemne S. Irenaeus , whom Bellarmine cyteth for vnlearned ; and yet his once not vouch safing to name him , may make some doubtfull , and therefore I will adde S. Hierome , whome no man but an ignorant will accompte vnlearned . He therfore vpon this verie place Daniel 2. saith : Regnum quartum perspicuè pertinet ad Romanos . The 4. Kingdome perspicuously belongeth to the Romans : & cap. 7. Quartum quod nunc orbem tenet terrarum , Imperium Romanorum est . The fourth which now possesseth the world , is the Empire of the Romans . Thus much for the fourth Beast , and Iron leggs .

But now concerning the ten toes , and ten hornes , M. Downams learned opinion is , that by them were signified the ten Kinges of the two foresaid Kingdomes , which successiuelie vsurped dominion ouer the Iewes , but for his proofes and authors , By the 10. toes of Nabuchodonozors Statua & the 10. hornes of the 4. beast Dan. 7. are signified the ten Kinges which shall deuide the Roman Empire among them . he remitteth vs to heereafter , as in the former , and soe wee must be content to expect his leasure : neither will we do him that iniury , to accompt Porphyrius , against whom S. Hierome writeth cap. 7. to be one of his great learned men , though his opinion be somewhat like ; for by the 4. Beast he vnderstandeth not the Roman Empire , but Alexander the great his 4. successors : and afterward for the ten hornes reckoneth vp ten Kinges , till Antiochus syrnamed Epiphanes , which ruled in Macedonia , Syria , Asia , & Egypt , and all this to the end , that those wordes osloquens ingentia , might be thought to be spoken of Antiochus , and not of Antichrist . But howsoeuer M. Downam wil be ashamed to partake with this Apostata : yet am I sorie , that he commeth so neere , and must be inforced to oppose himselfe , not onlie against S. Hierome , but also against all Ecclesiasticall writers till his tyme , for so he affirmeth : Dicamus , quod omnes Scriptores Ecclesiastici tradiderunt , in consummatione mundi quando regnum destruendum est Romanorum , decem futuros Reges , qui orbem Romanum interse diuidant , & vndecimum surrecturum &c. Let vs say that which all Ecclesiasticall Downam ioyneth with Porphyry an Apostata against all Ecclesiasticall writers . writers haue deliuered vnto vs , that in the end of the world when the Roman Kingdome is to be destroyed , there shal be ten Kinges , who shall deuide the Roman world among them , & that there shall arise an eleuenth little King &c. But if M. Downam wil be so mad , as to oppose himselfe to them all ; surelie we haue no reason to follow him , but rather to endeauour to recall him , as we hartilie wish we might .

Finallie M. Downam is content to suppose , that Daniel had spoken in those places of the Roman Empire , and then he will haue the 10. hornes , and 10. toes , to signifie the seuerall Kinges of that kingdome ; which euasion verie worthilie he confirmeth by the example of the Seleucidae & Lagidae their Kingdomes and Kinges , which were not all one , and yet the Kingdomes in his exposition were signified by the fourth Beast and iron legges , and the Kinges by the 10. hornes , and 10. toes . And is not M. Downam a wise man , thinke you , to confirme one absurditie with another farre greater , and which he knoweth his aduersary will much lesse graunt , then that , Downam childishly confirmeth one absurditie with another farre greater . which he goeth about to proue ? Besides that , this deuise is so foolish that euery child will laugh at M. Downam for it ; for who seeth not , that the King succeedeth not his Kingdome , as the ten toes doe the iron legges , and the ten hornes by the consent of all Ecclesiasticall writers the 4. beast ; but must of force be vnited togeather ? except we will make the Kingdomes of the Seleucidae , and Lagidae , or of the Romans , to haue byn without their Kings and Emperours , and afterward againe the Kinges & Emperours without their States : which is so grosse an absurditie , as mee thinkes M. Downam should see it ; and it is little lesse , to call these Kinges the toes of their Kingdomes , whereas euerie man els accompteth them the heads , in respect of their owne Kingdomes , howsoeuer in respect of others , they may be called toes , because of their succession in the last place . And by this , that hath byn said , I doubt not it will appeare to the iudicious Reader , whether Bellarmines argument , or M. Downams answere be more impertinent and friuolous .

3. To the second proofe out of the Apocal. 17. M. Downam hath very little to answere & therfore he is glad to take hould Apoc. 17. of euery word spoken obiter , and by the way ; as that Rome is the Harlot , wherof S. Io. speaketh , and that the seauen heads signify all the Emperours of Rome : the first of which M. Downam liketh very well , but the second he affirmeth to be vntrue , because they are numbred , fiue are fallen , the sixt is , and the 7. is not yet come ; in which point I will not now much contend ; because M. Downam confesseth , that it is besides the purpose . And if hereafter he can bring any other exposition more probable , he shall find me very ready to allow of it , though he might haue vsed more moderation in his censure , Downam not moderate in his censure . since he cannot choose but know , that many great authors haue taken the number of 7. in this place indefinitely ; as without all question in many other places it is to be taken ; and his difficulty must be solued by himselfe , since that in this very chapter he affirmeth that Apoc. 13. by the Beast with 7. heades is meant the Roman State , and that vnder the Roman Emperours especially : and yet by the head which was wounded , which he maketh the 6. he likewise vnderstandeth the State of the Emperours , which besides the difficulty common to Bellarmine , inuolueth a contradiction peculier to M. Downam . Neither will I stand now to discusse with M. Downam , whether Rome be the Seate of Antichrist or no , or how , and in what state ; only I must aduise him , that Bellarmine affirmeth not , that the Whore of Babylon is the seate of Antichrist , as neither that Rome after the desolation of the Empire is the Whore of Babylon : but these are M. Downams owne additions , See cap. 13. which if he will haue graunted , he must first proue them in their due places .

But now to come to that , which Bellarmin would proue ; M. Downam first is inforced to yeild , that these ten hornes signify 10. Kinges , which shall raigne togeather , and only can help himselfe with affirming , that these are not the same ten hornes whereof Daniel speaketh , which raigned successiuelie . For which point I remit my selfe to that , which hath byn said in the former proofe ; besides that it is no small confirmation that S. Iohn must needes be vnderstood of 10. Kinges , which raigne togeather , since their wordes are so like , and S. Iohn may be thought to expound Daniel , whome heere M. Downam citeth cap. 11 perhaps through the Printers fault ; since that chapter maketh not to his purpose , and therefore was neuer mentioned in the whole precedent discourse . Well it is now at length agreed vpon , that there shall 10. Kinges raigne togeather . Wherfore it only remayneth to proue , that in the time of these 10. Kings , there shal be no Roman Emperour , & consequently that the Roman Empire shal be vtterly destroyed ; and so it is tyme for M. Downam to bestirre himselfe : and to vse al his iugling tricks . First then he bringeth in Bellarmines first proposition , in the beginning of the question for an argument in this place , and not truly neither . But it will be best to heare M. Downams owne wordes . How then ( saith he ) doth Bellarmine proue , that before Antichrist commeth , the Roman Empire shall be so vtterly destroyed , as not the name of a Roman Emperour or King of the Romans should remayne ? because the Empire shall be deuided among 10. Kinges which are not Roman Kinges &c. Wheras Bellarmines wordes are these : We must know that the Roman Empire is at length to be deuided into ten Kinges , of which none shal be , or be called King of the Romans : where you see not only the being , but also the name of Roman Kinges is excluded . But ( saith M. Downam ) he that is none of those 10. Kinges , may haue the name of the Emperour or King of the Romans ; as namely the beast which was , & is not , though it be , which is the 8. head , and is one of the 7. that is to say , the Emperour erected by the Pope .

This found and foolish conceipt , that the beast which was , and is not , is the Emperour erected by the Pope , shall in other places be largely confuted . Now I would only know , how this Emperour can be , when the whole Empire is deuided among those other 10. Kinges , as Bellarmine affirmeth , and proueth out of this very place , as we should haue seene ere this , had not M. Downam interrupted vs with his impertinent disgressions , which perhaps foreseeing and fearing , he putteth another question somewhat more to the purpose . And why may none of these be called the King of the Romans ? first forsooth , because they shall hate Rome , and make her desolate . But he might haue kept his ( first ) & ( forsooth ) in his purse insteed of money : for Bellarmine giueth but one reason , which is the foresaid wordes of Scripture , adding only the exposition of them , which because M. Downam could not impugne , he though best to deuide , that so hauing separated the exposition from the place of Scripture , the one might want authority , and the other be easily shifted of , as he doth in these words : As though he that hath the title of the King of the Romans , may not hate Rome , notwithstanding that title , as indeed some of the Emperours haue done : which euasion had byn too ridiculous , if he had added Bellarmines exposition , to wit , that the Scripture testifieth that these Kings shal hate the harlot , and make her desolate and naked , and shall eate her flesh , and shal burne her with fire , because they shall so deuide the Roman Empire amongst them , that they shall vtterlie destroy it . Where by the way M. Downam may vnderstand , The Roman Empire destroied by the 10 Kings . that by Rome is not onlie vnderstood the particuler Citty , but also the whole Roman Empire , of which in S. Iohns tyme Rome was the head , and so denominated the whole , as that which the Logicians would call principale Analogatum . Now , how can the vtter destruction of this Roman Empire be more significantlie declared , then by being hated , made desolate , and naked , haue her flesh eaten , and finallie be burnt with fire ? And how can anie man imagine , but that the 10. Kinges which shall bring all this to passe shal be vtter enemies aswell of the Emperours so long as there are any , as likewise of the Empire ? And by this tyme I imagine M. Downam will be perswaded that Bellarmine vsed no circular disputation , but confirmed his doctrine by an expresse place of Scripture . But least there should want a circular disputation , M. Downam bringeth in an experience approoued onlie Downams petitio principij . by his owne opinion , but altogeather denied by Bellarmine & all Catholikes , of the Roman Empire alreadie dissolued , & deuided betwixt Antichrist & ten Kinges , the title & name of Emperour still remayning ; by which to anie iudicious Reader hee maketh himself so ridiculous , that his bragging of his former proofs out of this place , that Antichrist is come , and that the Pope is Antichrist , will hardlie be belieued , and at leastwise I doubt not , but men will staie their censure , till they see those proofes examined .

4. M. Downam comming to the third proofe , verie courteously admitteth it , because it is so manifest that he could not deny it , that 2. Thess. 2. is to bee vnderstood of 2. Thess. 2. the Roman Empire : but then he manfully denieth that either the Apostle or anie of the Fathers , excepting Lactantius , whose prophecie ( saith M. Downam ) in this point the Papists themselues do think to be erroneou● , do say that the Empire of Rome shall so vtterly be abolished , as that not so much as the name of the Emperour or King of the Romans shall remaine . Where first wee haue the authoritie of Lactantius so plaine , as no euasion can be found to shift it of ; and therefore M. Downam is inforced to call his prophesie erroneous , and is not ashamed to affirme , that it is held so by Catholikes , euen in this point . For cofirmation of which he is alleadged by Bellarmine , which no doubt is a point of egregious impudency . But wee see noe cause , why wee Downans impudencie . should not more esteeme the authority of Lactantius , so ancient and learned a writer , then of a thousand M. Downams , especiallie since both the Scripture , and Fathers fauour his opinion so greatly . For what is de medio fieri , but to be quite taken away ? and I belieue M. Downam would bee loath to stand to the hazard , if there were order giuen by some in authoritie , vt ipse de medio fieret . And this the Fathers tooke to be so plaine , that they thought it needed no exposition , though sometime they vse other words , which signifie the same vtter desolation , as S. Cyril , when the tymes of the Roman Empire are expired ; Tertull. when the Empire is ouerthrowne ; S. Ambrose , after the defection & abolition ; S. Hierom , except all Nations which are subiect to the Roman Empire , reuolt from them : and vnles How many waves the Fathers affirme the vtter destruction of the Roman Empire & why they spake sparingly of this point . the Roman Empire be first desolate , passe , and bee taken away . And S. Augustine opposeth to be taken out of the way , to raigning . So that when the Emperour is taken out of the way , hee shall raigne no longer , which is all one as to saie , he shal be no longer Emperour . Surelie it is hard to expresse the vtter desolation of any Kingdome , with more significant wordes . And yet Bellarmine tould M. Downam a verie good reason , why both the Apostle , and the Fathers would speake somewhat sparinglie in this point , to wit least it might be offensiue to the Roman Emperours , in whose tymes they liued , and therefore wee see how fearefullie Lactantius speaketh , & how Tertullian bringeth it in without offence , saying , that Christians praie for the continuance of the Roman Empire . And M. Downam might haue done well to haue found vs out some one Father , that had fauoured his exposition ; which he neglected , not for want of good will , as wee see plainelie by his citing of S. Hierome , Qui tenebat , de medio sit &c. which hee translateth , He which held , is taken away &c. putting the preter-perfect , Downam translateth not well . for the present tense , and so he should haue said , He which held , is in taking away , or haue added some other signe , which might haue signified that it was in doing , but not done , which is most true , both in S Hieroms tyme , and euer since , & before too ; and the neerer we see the Roman Empire to draw to an end , the neerer we may likewise thinke , that Antichrist draweth , as S. Hierome affirmeth : but till that ( fit ) be made ( factus est ) that is , till the Roman Empire be vtterlie ouerthrowne indeed , Antichrist shall not come , how neere soeuer he be , which S. Hierome , and all the Fathers plainely affirme , as we haue seene . Neither can M. Downam himselfe think , that the Empire was taken away in such sort in S. Hieromes time , as was necessary before Antichrists comming and reuealing , since that he himself dareth not affirme , that he came then in such sort , as S. Paul describeth 2. Thess. 2. Wherfore he must either reiect S. Hierom in this also , or els expound him , as I haue done . And it is a prettie matter , that the Apostle , and the Fathers telling vs , that the Roman Empire hindereth Antichrists comming , M. Downam should still beare vs downe , that the Empire as it is now , hindereth not Antichrist , but rather furthereth . But I hope men will rather haue the Apostle , and the Fathers to stand by them in the day of iudgment , when they shall giue accompt of their fayth , in this point , then M. Downam , who will haue more then he can doe , to answere for himselfe . The Holy Ghost wel foresaw , that the Roman Empire should be in these tymes , as we now see it , and no doubt would not haue affirmed so absolutely , that it hindereth Antichrists comming , if at any tyme it could haue bene togeather with him , or haue furthered him ; otherwise we might haue a iust excuse for our mistaking . Neither is the Empire now so greatly diminished , as M. Downam There now a Roman Emperour indeed , & not in name or title only . would giue vs to vnderstand : for there is now an Emperour of the Romans indeed , and not only in title without the thing it selfe , as we see the whole world acknowledgeth , euen the Protestants themselues ; and who but M. Downam would affirme that the Emperour that now is , hath no Prouinces ? For as for Rome he graunteth , that it is not necessary , that he should haue it . Is a great part of Germany nothing with M. Downam ? It should seeme , that he is become a great despiser of the world , since that which all Christian , & Infidell Princes and people esteeme so much , he accoumpteth nothing .

5. To conclude this Chapter , M. Downam goeth about to reply vpon Bellarmines answere to the obiection of Luther & the rest ; and telleth vs , that it is euident , that the former Beast Apoc. 13. figureth not Antichrist , but the Roman state , and that vnder the Roman Emperours especially ; but it had bene wel , that he would haue shewed vs this euidence : for neither we , nor the Fathers which Bellarmine citeth , to whom we may adde S. Irenaeus l. 5. cap. 28. Arethas , S. Methodius , and S. Hippolytus in orat . de The former beast , Apoc. 13. signifyeth Antichrist . Apoc. 13. See cap. 15. §. 3. & 4. & part. 2. c. 3. n. 8. consummatione mundi , can see any such euidence , but rather the contrary , to wit , that the former beast signifyeth Antichrist at least in one of his heads , which might be playnly gathered out of the Text , if it were our turne to proue , as it is M. Downams . But since we must answere , only his authority auouching a new exposition without reason , moueth vs very little . Secondly M. Downam telleth vs , that it is not said , that one of the heads did saigne it selfe dead , and by the help of the Diuell did rise againe ( which needeth not ( saith he ) if the death were counterfait ) but that one of the heads had receaued a deadly wound , and was cured againe . But wee knew thus much before he tould vs so ; neither doth Bellarmine affirme , that the Scripture hath that exposition in it selfe , for then what need we seeke for any other . The words of the Scripture are , Vidi vnum de capitibus suis , quasi occisum in mortem . I saw one of his heades , as it were slaine to death . Where we se a ( quasi ) which M. Downam omitted , but the Fathers made so great accoumpt of it , that they chiefely grounded their exposition vpon it , especially because they knew very wel , that if it had byn no faigned , but a true and reall death , it had passed the diuels cunning to haue recouered him ; except M. Downam will thinke that the Diuell can doe true miracles , as he seemeth to insinuate , by saying , that the Diuels help neded not , if the death were countersait ; but yet wee will thinke better of him , then that he will fall to open blasphemy , and will only tell him , that the Diuels cunning was very needfull to make this wound seeme so desperate and mortall , and to faygne death so cunningly , that al should remayne so fullie satisfied , and verily perswaded , that the head had byn dead indeed , and was risen againe by the power which the beast had by the Diuell .

But here wee must not passe ouer in silence M. Downams iuggling trickes : for in his opinion the second Beast with two hornes is Antichrist ; for so he obiecteth to Bellarmine , that he might haue read , that the second beast which is Antichrist , causeth the Image of the beast , that is , the new Empire to be made , and putteth life into it . Now , this second beast had not yet appeared to S. Iohn , when the head of the former beast was healed by the power , which the Dragon had giuen to the former beast : yet is M. Downam content to apply this to the Pope also , not caring ( as it seemeth ) what he saith , so that he may seeme to say somthing against the Pope . But by the former beast , as wee haue seene , & Luther , Illyricus & Chytraeus in their obiections suppose Antichrist is signified , by the latter his chiefe Precursor , and false Prophet , who shall cause his followers to errect Statua's , & Images of Antichrist , out of By the later beast which by his procuring the Diuells shall speake , & giue answers , & other signes of life , as sometimes happened among the Apoc. 11. is signified Anticrists false Prophet . Pagans & Idolators . And this is the exposition of the ancient Fathers : by which all M. Downams deuise of the new Empire erected by the Pope , becommeth too too foolish and ridiculous . And if I were to dispute , and not to answere , I would aske how the Roman Empire came to haue 7. heads togeather ? Perhappes he might haue found two hornes , as the second beast had , by reason of the East and West Empire . But now I will not vrge him any further , since his folly is more then notorious already .

6. Finallie M. Downam would make vs belieue , that Bellarmine fighteth with his owne shaddow , when he inuincibly proueth , that the head which was healed , is not Charles the Great , for ( saith he ) by the head is not meant any one Man , but the state and succession of Emperours . And hath he not amended the matter well , thinke you , that wheras Bellarmine proueth , that it could not be Charles , because he raigned longer then 42. monethes , M. Downam answereth it is true , it could not be Charles , but yet it might be the State and succession of Emperours , as though this endured lesse tyme then Charles , conteyning both him and all the other Emperours ? Can there be anie Downams ridiculous absurditie . thing more ridiculous then this ? And is M. Downam anie better then a shaddow for Bellarmine to fight withall ? But yet he will haue one saying more , and so he telleth vs , that which is added concerning the Vniuersality either of worship or rule is not spoken of the head which was reuiued , but of the beast which was to haue one of his seauen heads wounded to death , and cured againe . Well then , let M. Downam shew vs , where , or by whom the Roman Empire had either worship or rule after the head was healed , that is ( in his opinion ) after the Empire was restored by the Pope , but onlie in Charles the Great , and his Successors ? If he cannot shew vs any such matter anie where els , let him confesse , that this Vniuersalitie of rule and worship cannot befound in the Roman Empire , but onlie in Antichrist ; as neither he can shew vs , that anie of the Roman Emperours after Charles the Great blasphemed God and his Saintes , so as this head or beast is said to doe . But yet to doe him a courtesie , wee will not stick much to graunt him as probable , that Whether the wounded head . Apoc. 13. be Antichrist or noe . the head is not Antichrist himselfe , but one of the 7. Kinges , which shall continue with Antichrist , and follow & assist him in all his wickednesse , as he may see learnedly expounded in Ribera one of Bellarmines religion and order . And thus wee will conclude , leauing the iudicious Reader to iudge , whether the Protestantes are deceaued , thinking that the declination of the Empire was sufficient for Antichrists comming , as Bellarmine modestelie affirmeth , after euident proofes : or the Catholikes be in an errour , who thinke that Antichrist commeth not before the vtter desolation of the Roman Empire , as M. Downam rashelie auoucheth , only because he would exceed Bellarmine in wordes , since he cannot come neere him in proofes .

THE SIXT CHAPTER . Conteyning the third Demonstration .

THE third demonstration ( saith Bellarmine ) is taken from the comming of Henoch and Helias , who liue still , and to this end , that they may oppose themselues to Antichrist , when he commeth , & conserue the elect in the Faith of Christ , and at length conuert the Iewes , which notwithstanding without doubt is not yet fulfilled . There be foure places of Scripture concerning this matter ; the first Malac. 4. Behould I will send Elias the Prophet vnto you , before the great daie of the Lord commeth , and he will conuert the hartes of the Fathers to the Children , and the hartes of the children to their Fathers . The second , Eccle. 48. where we read of Helias : Who wert receaued in a whirle-wynd of fire , in a whirle-wynd of fyery horses : who art written in the iudgments of tymes ; to asswage the Lordes anger , to reconcile the hart of the Father to the sonne , and to restore the Tribes of Israel . And cap. 44. Henoch pleased God , and was translated into Paradise , to giue to Nations pennance . The third Matth. 17. Helias indeed is to come , & shall restore all thinges . The fourth Apoc. 11. I will giue to my two witnesses , and they shall prophesie 1260. dayes .

Theodorus Bibliander alleadgeth also all these places in his Chronicle tab. 14. but he saith , that by Henoch and Helias are vnderstood all faithfull Ministers , which God rayseth in the tyme of Antichrist , of which sort were Luther , Zuinglius , and the rest , and at length he concludeth . Wherfore ( saith he ) it is a childish imagination , or a Iewish dream to expect either Helias or Henoch , as persons described by their particuler proprieties . And the same teacheth Chytraeusin Comment. Apoc. 11. and they prooue it , because those thinges , which are said of Helias by Malachie , our Lord taught vs to be vnderstood of S. Iohn Baptish , Matth. 11. He is Helias who is to come . And S. Hierom in cap. 4. Malach. expoundeth it of all the quire of Prophets , that is to say , of the doctrine of all the Prophets .

But to vs it seemeth not a childish imagination , but a most true opinion , that Henoch and Elias shall come in their persons , and that the contrary is eyther an heresie , or an errour next doore to heresy . It is proued first out of those foure Scriptures : for that the wordes of Malachie cannot be vnderstood of any Doctors whatsoeuer , as of Luther , Zuinglius , & the like , it is manifest , for Malachie saith , that the Iewes are to be conuerted by Helias , and that he is chieflie to be sent for the Iewes , as is manifest by that : I will send vnto you . And in Ecclesiasticus , to restore the Tribes of Iacob . But Luther and Zuinglius haue conuerted none of the Iewes .

That also they cannot be vnderstood litterallie of S. Iohn Baptist , but only of Helias , it is manifest , because Malachie speaketh of the second comming of our Lord , which shal be to iudge : for so he saith : Before the great and horrible day of the Lord commeth : for the first comming is not called , a great and horrible daie , but an acceptable tyme , and the day of saluation . For which cause , it is also added , Least perhappes comming , I strike the earth with anathema and curse , that is to say , least comming to iudgment , and finding all wicked , I condemne all the earth : therfore I will send Helias , that I may haue some to saue . But in the first comming our Lord came not to iudge , but to be iudged , not to destroy , but to saue .

To the wordes of our Lord Matth. 11. we wil answere a little after . To S. Hierome Isay , that though in Comment. Malach . he did not thinke , that Malachie did speake of the true Helias : yet in comment . Matth. 11. & 17. he thinketh & teacheth the contrary . Finallie S. Augustine . lib. 20. Ciu. cap. 29. witnesseth , that this is the common interpretation of the faithfull .

That likewise Ecclesiasticus speaketh of the persons of Henoch & Helias , and not of some other , it is prooued ; for Ecclesiasticus saith , that Henoch shall come to giue the Nations pennance , who is translated into Paradise , and that Helias shall come to restore the tribes of Israel , who was taken away in a chariot of fiery horses , which certainely agree not , but to those particuler persons .

In which place I cannot sufficientlie meruaile , what came into Bishop Iansenius his mind , that expounding this place , he should write : Although it be the opinion of all the Ancients , that Helias shall come , yet it is not conuinced out of this place : for it may be said , that Ecclesiasticus wrote that according to the opinion receaued in his tyme , by which it was belieued out of the wordes of Malachie , that Helias shall trulie come before the Messias in his owne person ; whereas it was not to be fulfilled in his owne person , but in him who was to come in the spirit and vertue of Helias . For if it be so as Iansenius saith , it followeth , that Ecclesiasticus erred , and wrote false thinges . But if I be not deceaued , Iansenius changed his opinion , for writing in Cap. 17. Matth. he teacheth that the place of Malachie cannot be litterallie vnderstood but of the true Helias , which he is likewise compelled to say of the place of Ecclesiasticus , who without doubt expoundeth Malachy .

Now that the wordes of our Lord Matth. 17. are vnderstood of the true Helias , yt is plaine ; because S. Iohn was alreadie come , and had absolued his course , and yet our Lord saith , Helias shall come : and that they are not vnderstood of all doctors , but of one true Helias , it may be proued , first , because the Apostles , who moued the question of Helias , where S. Peter , S. Iames , and S. Iohn , and they tooke occasion by the Transfiguration of our Lord , where they saw Moyses & Helias ; wherefore when they aske ; why therefore doe the Scribes say , that Helias must come first ? they speake of that Helias , whome they had seene in the mountayne with Christ . Therefore Christ answering , Helias indeed shall come & restore all thinges , speaketh also of that particuler Helias who had appeared in the Transfiguration . Secondly the same is manifest out of those wordes , and he shall restore all thinges ; for S. Io. Baptist nor any other hath don that : for torestore all thinges is to recall all Iewes , and heretikes , and perhappes many Catholikes ( deceaued by Antichrist ) to the true Faith .

But Bibliander vrgeth , because our Lord Matth. 11. saith of S. Io. Baptist , He is Helias , who is to come , as if he had said : He is the Helias promised by Malachy . I answere : Our Lordes meaning is , that S. Iohn was the Helias promised , not litterally , but allegoricallie ; for therefore he said first , and if you will receaue him , as if he said , Helias indeed promised in his owne person is to come in the last comming ; yet if you will haue also some Helias in the first comming , receaue Iohn ; Therefore also he addeth : He that hath eares to heare let him heare , signifying , that it was a mystery , that he had said S. Iohn to be Helias .

Finally that the wordes of S. Io. Apoc. 11. are vnderstood of the particuler persons Henoch and Helias , not of all teachers , it is manifest by that which S. Iohn saith in the same place , that they were to be killed by Antichrist , and that their bodies should remayne vnburyed three dayes in the streets of Hierusalem , & that , after three daies they should rise againe , and ascend into Heauen ; which neuer happened to any hitherto .

Notwithstanding Dauid Chytraeus goeth about to answere in his Commentary vpon that place , and he saith first , that S. Iohn would signifie , that many Lutheran Ministers were to bee slaine by the Papistes , whome notwithstanding God restoreth to life , when he taketh them vp to Heauen to liue for euer . Secondly he addeth a little after , that those slaine Ministers shall haue their corporall life restored them in the last daie of Resurrection . Thirdlie and lastly he addeth in the same place , that by this restoring to life , may also be signified , that wee see many other Ministers raised by God , insteed of those which were slaine , with the same zeale & vertue .

But these answeres are too light : for the first cannot be defended , because the blessednes of the soule , is not the restoring of our life lost , but an obteyning of a new life . Besides , those two witnesses in the Apocalyps shall rise againe before many , and shal be lifted vp in Body , which certainlie is not fulfilled in the blessednes of the soule . Likewise the second solution is nothing worth , for S. Iohn saith , that those two witnesses shall rise againe , before the last daie , to wit , while the state of this world endureth , for S. Iohn addeth , that their enemies shal be stroken into a great feare by that resurrection , and that a little after , there shal be an earth-quak & that 7000. men shall perish . Finally the third solution is not to the purpose , for the Scripture saith , that the very same which were dead shal be raised againe , and assumpted into Heauen . But yet we see not any Lutheran Minister rise againe , or be taken vp to heauen . Likewise S. Iohn saith , that Henoch and Helias , shall preach in sackcloth , and the Lutherans beare such an hatred to sackloth , that if peraduenture they haue any when they become Lutherans , they forthw●th cast them away .

Secondlie , it is proued that Helias , and Henoch shall come in their owne persons in Antichrists tyme , by the consent of the Fathers . For of Helias so affirme S. Hilarie , S. Hierome , Origen , S. Chrysostome , and all other interpreters of S. Matth. in cap. 17. Likewise Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 17. and Theodoret in cap. vltimum Malachiae , & S. Augustine tract 4. in . Ioan. and Primas . in cap. 11. Apoc.

Of Henoch and Helias togeather , so affirme many which write vpon the Apoc. as Bede , Richardus , Arethas , who also addeth , that it is without varietie belieued by the whole Church , that Henoch and Elias are to come to oppose themselues to Antichrist . Likewise S. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 28. S. Hippolytus martyr in orat . de consummatione mundi , and S. Greg. lib. 14. cap. 12. & lib. 9. cap. 4. moral . and S. Augustine lib. 9. c. 6. de Gen. ad literam .

Thirdly it is proued , because otherwise there can be no reason giuen , why these two were taken away before their death , & liue still in mortall flesh , being at length to dy : for although the Iews as Rab. Salomon in c. 5. Gen. do say , that Henoch was slaine by God before his tyme , because he was light & inconstant ; and they affirme that Helias , when he was carried vp in a fiery chariot was wholy consumed in body by that fier , and perhaps the Lutherans thinke the same , who deny , that they shall returne : yet all Catholikes certainly belieue , that both of them liue in their bodyes : for that Henoch is not dead , the Apostle teacheth Heb. 11. Henoch was translated , that he might not see death ; and that neither he , nor Elias be dead , and yet shall dye , besides the already cited , S. Irenaeus , Tertullian , S. Hierom , S. Augustine , and Ephiphanius do teach .

S. Irenaus lib. 5 speaking of Henoch & Helias . The Priests ( saith he ) which are the Disciples of the Apostles affirme , that those which are translated , are translated thither ( to terrestriall Paradise ) and remayne there vntill the consummation , contemplating incorruption . Tertull . lib. cont. Iudaeos cap. 1. of Henoch saith thus : Who hath not yet tasted death , as pretending eternitie . S. Epiphanius in Ancorato , of Henoch and Helias saith thus : These two remayne in body and soule in respect of hope . S. Hierome in epist. ad Pamach . contra Ioannem Hierosolymitanum . Henoch ( saith he ) is translated in flesh : Helias being in flesh is taken vp to Heauen , not yet dead , and now inhabitours of Paradise &c. S. Aug. lib. de peccato orig. cap. 23. Henoch ( saith he ) and Helias we doubt not , liue in the bodies , in which they were borne .

M. Downams Answere confuted .

1. MAISTER Downams first answere is , that though all this were true , to wit , that Enoch & Helias were to come in their owne persons , before the second comming of Christ , and to oppose themselues against Antichrist ( all which he meaneth in his second answere to deny : ) Yet it followeth not , that therfore Antichrist should not be come before their comming . It is sufficient ( saith he ) that they come before his ouerthrow , and the second comming of Christ : and therefore , if they were indeed to come , their comming might be yet expected , notwithstanding the truth of our assertion , that Antichrist is already come . But M. Downam did wisely not to stand much vpon Helias & Henoch are to preach in a manner as long as Antichrist is to raigne . this solution , for he could not choose , but know , that Henoch and Helias were to preach very neere as long as Antitichrist was to persecute and raigne , since that Apoc. 11. the tyme of their preaching is appointed to be 1260. daies which wanteth not much of three yeares and a halfe , or 42. moneths ; which both S. Iohn , and Daniel appoint for Antichrists Kingdome , and therfore Bellarmine had reason to affirme , that they were to come togeather , and to accompany one another , which likewise must needes be graunted by them , which admitt that the cause of their comming shall be to oppose themselues to Antichrist , for it would be verie late to come a thousand yeares after , especially for them , which are dead so many yeares before ; wherfore M. Downam was somthing to free in this first answere , but he will make a mends in his second , where he meaneth to deny all , that either the Scriptures or Fathers haue affirmed , concerning the comming of these two diuine witnesses .

2. And to begin this his second Answere , he first citeth Bellarmines wordes falselie , making him say thus : There be 4. Scriptures to prooue that Henoch and Helias in their owne persons shall come against Antichrist . As though Bellarmine had affirmed , that in euerie Scripture of these foure , both Henoch and Helias had byn named , or at leastwise spoken of ; for so M. Downam seemeth to charge him saying forth with : Howbeit this is a manifest vntruth , for no place of Scripture speaketh of Henoch his returne . But Bellarmines words are these : Quatuor Scripturae exstant de haec re . There be foure Scriptures concerning this matter . Now whether any of these places speake of Henoch his returne or no , we shall see Downam alleageth Bellarmines wordes falslie . ere long : in the meane tyme it is sufficient , that the Reader note M. Downams shuffling , and that Bellarmine affirmeth not that all these Scriptures speake of Henoch , nor yet that he is named in any of them ; wherefore his note in the first place , is either malicious , or foolish , that this place maketh no mention of Henoch , but onlie of Helias : for of this there was neuer made any question , but by himselfe .

Wherefore leauing these his shiftes , let vs heare what he can answere to that place of Malachy . He denieth that by Elias , is meant Elias the Thesbite , but Iohn the Baptist : which he Malach. 4. will needes prooue also , because Luc. 1. the Angell saith , that S. Iohn should go before our Lord in the spirit and vertue of Helias , Luc. 1. that he may turne the hartes of the Fathers vnto the Children &c. but who seeth not , that this is onlie to be Helias spirituallie and vertuallie , or as Bellarmine speaketh , allegorically ? which no Catholike denieth ; but withall wee affirme , that Helias litterallie is to come in the tyme of Antichrist , as Bellarm. proueth out of the place of Malachy ; which it seemeth M. Downam is loath to heare of , and therefore he interrupteth him so disorderly with prouing , when it is his turne to answere . But we will beare with his rudenesse , so that he will be satisfied with any reason . Wherfore secondly , be bringeth Matth. 11. where he saith , that our Saviour most plainaly affirmeth , I. IX . that Iohn Baptist is that Helias who was to come . But we must Matth. 11. tell him ere he passe any further , that he is somewhat too bould to change our Sauiours wordes , who not without great cause said not , who was to come , as M. Downam would make Downam corrupteth the Scripture . him ; but who is to come ; signifying plainely , that S. Iohn Baptist comming had not fulfilled the prophesie of Malachie , since that Elias was still to come after him , and consequentlie that S. Iohn Baptist was onlie Elias spirituallie &c. as hath bene said ; because he endeauoured to conuert the Iewes , which lyued then , as Elias shall do those , which shall liue in the time of Antichrist , & both of them haue for office to prepare for our Sauiours comming , S. Iohn for the first , and Elias for the second . I omit M. Downams exposition of the other words in that place as impertinent , because they are not to this purpose : and as for his railing , wee must be content to put vp that and more , at such good fellowes handes .

Thirdly M. Downam alleageth S. Hierome , who affirmeth , that the Iewes and Iudaizing Heretikes thinke , that before their Messias , Elias shall come , and restore all thinges . Hence it is , that vnto Christ this question is propounded in the Ghospell , what is that , which the Pharisies say , that Elias shall come ? To whom he answered : Elias indeed shall come , and if you will belieue , he is alreadie come : by Elias meaning Iohn . And therefore ( saith M. Downam ) in Hieromes iudgement it is but the opinion of a Iudaizing heretike to expect the comming againe of Elias in his owne person . But sure wee are , that this is not S. Hieromes iudgement , if wee speake of the second comming of our Sauiour , since hee himselfe in the 17. of Matth. affirmeth of Helias , that he shall come then iuxta corporis fidem , in bodilie presence , and that in the first comming , he came by S. Iohn in vertue and spirit ; by which it most plainelie appeareth , that hee onlie condemneth them for Iewes and Iudaizing heretikes , which will not receaue any Messias , till they first see Elias in his owne person , because they expound the Prophet Malachy of the first comming of the Messias , as M. Downam doth : only they differ that M. Downam thinketh , that Helias is not litterally spoken of . In which point he erreth more grossely then they , as we shall see afterward .

3. Now , that M. Downam hath spent his owne proofes be is content to begin to answere Bellarmines , who proueth that Malachy speaketh of the second comming , because he calleth it a great and horrible day . Where M. Downam is not ashamed to say , that Bellarmine giueth the lie to the spirit of God , speaking in the Angel , Luc. 1. and our Sauiour Matth. 11. & 17. But Downame impudenty . surely he deserueth to haue the lye giuen him , that is not afraid nor ashamed to behaue himselfe so impudently . Well it is our hard happe to haue to doe with such men . Let vs see , what he answereth : for the application of the Angell , and our Sauiour , wee haue already seene , that it was only a spirituall , vertuall , or allegoricall application , which hindereth not the litterall sense of the second comming , as Bellarmine prooueth . Malach. 3. v. 1. But M. Downam answereth to his argument , that the first comming may also be called terrible , which he confirmeth out of Malac. 3. v. 1. where he speaketh most plainly of the first comming , and yet saith : who may abyde the day of his comming ? and who shall endure , when he appeareth , for he is like a purging fier , and like fullers sope , and he shall sit downe to try , and fine the siluer . But we may well oppose the authority of S. Augustine to M. Downam , without doing him iniury . He therfore lib. 18. Ciu. cap. 35. and lib. 20. cap. 25. & 26. as likewise Euseb. lib. 5. demonst. Euang. cap. 28. and Theodoretus expound these wordes of the second comming , though immediately before the Prophet spake of the first . But yet we will do M. Downam the courtesy to graunt that they are to be vnderstood of the first with S. Cyril , Rupertus and others , so that he will admit their interpretation in other points : for the sense is ; who can so much as think how great the glory of this day is , by reason of the benefites which the Messias shall bring with him to mankind ? and who can sufficiently admire or rather looke vpon so great a light and goodnesse ? For he shal be like a purging fyre , by reason of the labours and afflictions , or rather of the holy Ghost , which shall come in fyery tongues , with which he shall purge the hartes of those which belieue in him , & like the sope or her be of Fullers , by reason of his grace , with which he shall make the soules of men most pure and white ; and he shall do this most seriously , and with great diligence All which signifyeth not the torrible and horrible day , but an acceptable and healthsome tyme . And heere by the way wee may note , what little reason M. Downam , and his fellowes haue to leaue S. Hieromes vulgar translation , who Downam admitteth what inpretation , and Translation he listeth hath : Quis poterit cogitare , and translate with other interpreters , Quis sustinebit ? Except they would admit the former exposition of them , which read it so ? But they will admit what they list , and reiect what they list , and one while they will haue vs belieue , that the Ghospell terrifieth not at all , and an otherwhile , that it terrifieth as much as the old law , yea much more , euen asmuch as the second comming of our Lord to iudgment . But since they take so much liberty to teach what they list , we may likewise take leaue to belieue them , so farre as we list .

Wel , let vs see how M. Downam goeth forward to proue that the first comming of our Lord may be called terrible : Of the same comming ( saith he ) the prophet speaketh in the beginning of the 4. Chap. Behould the day commeth that shal burne Malach. 4. as an ouen &c. shewing how terrible it shal be to the wicked . But vnto yow that feare my name ( saith the Lord v. 2. ) shall the sunne of righteousnes arise , and health shal be vnder his winges &c. But here we are constrayned to forsake M. Downam , since both Iewes and Christians consent , that these wordes are to be vnderstood of the day of iudgment , and the wordes themselues are so playne , that they need no interpretation : and it was tyme for him to adde ( &c. ) in both periods , for otherwise euery man would haue seene , that the proud and wicked are not to be consumed as stubble cast into the fire till then , as neyther , that they shall be trodden vnder the seete of the iust like ashes , as the Prophet affirmeth that they shall be in this great and terrible Downam cutteth of the words which make most to the purpose . day . Wherfore this illation maketh plainely for vs , if M. Downam will shew vs as much courtesie now , as we did him in the former Chapter , that is , to graunt , that the Prophet continueth still to speake of the same comming ; though indeed we need no such fauour , since that in the very place in controuersy , this comming is called great and horrible , as Bellarmine vrgeth . But M. Downam goeth on still with his citations Matth. 3. 10. Now is the axe laid to the roote of the tree &c. Matth. 3. and verse 11. & 12. He that commeth after me is mightier then I : he will baptize you with the Holy Ghost , and with fier , who hath his sa●e in his hand ( vsing the like fimilitude that Malachy did ) and will purge his floore , & gather his wheat into his Granary , but wil burne vp the chaffe with vnquenchable fier . All which maketh very little to the purpose : for the sense is , that heerafter the Iewes shall haue no priuiledge aboue other Nations , by being the children of Abraham , except they did imitate his workes : and that our Sauiours Baptisme was of more force , than S. Iohn Baptists , because he would send the holy Ghost visible in tierie tongues , for which cause he is said to be mightier then S. Iohn , as likewise , because he will purge his floore in this life with tribulations , and with the holy Ghost ( as the Prophet Malachy said ) and after at the day of Iudgement , gather his wheat into his Granary , & burne vp the chaff with vnquenchable fier ; which who seeth not , that it shall be chiefly at his second comming , and in some sort in euery mans particuler iudgement , but in no wise at his first comming ? And the rest seemeth nothing terrible , except perhappes to the Iewes ; but that were without reason also , since they are not made in any worse estate , then they were before , but only other Nations are in better ; so that their priuiledg is made common with others , or rather insteed of their particuler priuiledge , they receaue a common benefit greater without comparison .

Finally M. Downam bringeth the prophesy of ould Symeon Luc. 2. that our Sauiour was put to the ruyne , and rising of many : and Rom. 9. he is called a stumbling stone , and a rock of offence ; Luc. 2. Rom. 9. vpon which stone whosoeuer falleth , shall be broken in peeces : but vpon whomsoeuer it shall fall , it shall all to grind him , Matth. 21. But these places are lesse to the purpose than the rest , for true it is , many Matth. 21. by their owne fault & want of faith came to ruyne by occasion of Christs comming , but this maketh not his comming terrible , no more then any other benefite can be accompted so , because the abuse of it causeth harme to the ab●sers , & in this sense and no otherwise is he called a stumbling stone , or a rock of offence , for otherwise of it selfe , his first comming is only in resurrectionem , and lapis summus , angularis , electus , pretiosus , 1. Pet. 2. as S. Peter speaketh , and to fall vpon this stone , is to be scandalized , and not to belieue in Christ , which is a great misery Apoc. 2. & 21. signified by S. Iohn Apoc. cap. 2. & 21. by the first death , but they vpon whom it falleth tast likewise of the second death , which is a farre greater misery , and is to befall them in the second comming of our Lord to iudgement as a proper effect of that comming : whereas the other is not the effect of our Sauiours first comming , but of mens owne wickednesse , by which they are said to fall and stumble vpon him , by whom they might haue risen , if they had taken that benefite by him , which he came to procure them . And thus we see that the first comming of our B. Sauiour was no way terrible Christs first comming was not terrible , as his second shal be . of it selfe , but altogeather comfortable and pleasant ; so that this great and horrible daie of which the Prophet speaketh , must needes be the day of his second comming , which shall of it selfe , and properlie be terrible , as contayning rather Iustice and Iudgement , then Mercy ; which onlie was to be found in the first , euen towards the wicked themselues , whome he came not then to iudge , but to call to pennance .

All these places of Scripture being thus easilie answered , it was no meruaile , though M. Downam rested not content , & therfore answereth further , that the Hebrew word Norah signifieth also Reuerend , to be feared , or had in reuerence , as Gen. 28. 17. Deut. 7. 21. and so is translated by Tremelius and Iunius in this place of Malachie . And thus both that word , and others of the same roote are vsed in the signification of reuerence , or filiall feare . And he citeth in the margent psal. 13. 4. But M. Downam must know , that we esteeme more of S. Hierome , and other auncient interpreters , then of his new Tremelius and Iunius , who we doubt not will fauour their new opinions so much as they may , by any colour they can deuise . Wherefore since the word may signifie both reuerence and terrour , and besides most vsuallie it signifieth terrour , & particulerlie in this place by the consent of all ancient interpreters & Fathers ; we see no reason why we should imbrace this new particuler opinion , but rather take the same sense in this place , which is manifest , that the same words haue Ioel 2. except M. Doumā can shew vs , that the Sun was turned into darkenes , and the Moone into bloud , before the first comming of our Sauiour . Finally there is no doubt , but that the second comming is as full of reuerence , and filiall feare as the first , and consequently euen in this sense also were to be called horible and terrible . Thus much for the 1. proofe , that Malac. spake of the second comming .

Cardinall Bellarmine his second proofe is , because it is added , least perhapps I come , and strike the earth with a curse : which M. Downam applyeth to the first comming , because our Sauiour at his second comming , shall without peraduenture strike the earth . But he might easily haue bethought himselfe , that at his first comming , without peraduenture , our Sauiour was resolued not to strike the earth with curses , but to replenish it with blessings : & this resolution arose not from any merits , or good disposition of any , that liued eyther then , or before , or after : but from his owne infinite mercy and goodnes , by which he vouchsafed to make vs his friends : being of our selues his enemies so vniuersally , that there was not one that could appease his wrath : and I meruayle much , that M. Downam should vpon the suddaine , only to auoide an argument , attribute more to merits then euer any Downam attributeth more to merits than euer any Catholike did . Catholike did , wherfore we may well hope , that he wil admit free will also , without which there is no merit , and which indeed that ( peraduenture ) signifyeth in this place : for in respect of Gods decre and knowledg , there could be no doubt , what he was to do at either comming , but only how we would dispose our selues , which by al probability those , which shal liue at our Sauiours second comming , and aboue others the Iewes , would not do in any good sort ; especially hauing then more hinderances , by reason of Antichrists persecution , then euer before ; had they not the assistance of these two holy Prophets Henoch and Helias .

Finally the authority of Arias Montanus will stand M. Downam in very little stead , though he accounteth him the most learned writer among the Papists ; for how learned soeuer he was , his priuate exposition plainely both against Arias Montanus the exposition of the Fathers , and the text it selfe ( as Bellarmine hath proued ) can haue no great force : and indeed this was the fault of that man , that he trusted more to his owne iudgment , then to the authority of others , which must needes please M. Downam well , and we are content to let it passe , so long as he was content to submit all his priuate opinions to the Churches censure , which M. Downam will not doe ; and therfore where the other was sometime rash , he is still headlong , that is an heretike : and so we admit that Arias in a rashnes fauoured to much some of M. Downans heresies . And this shall suffice for the first place of the Prophet Malachy .

4. Bellarmines second Scripture is the booke of Ecclesiasticus , out of which he alleadgeth two places , the one for Helias , and the other for Henoch , to which M. Downam answereth : Ecclesiasticus Canonicall Scripture . First , that although this booke be very commendable , yet it is not of Canonicall authority , being but an humane writing , as appeareth not only by the former place alleadged , but also by that erroneous conceipt concerning Samuel Chap. 46. 23. But that this booke is canonicall , he may see manifestly proued in Bellarmine l. 1. de yerbo Dei , cap. 10. & 14. by the authority of Councells and Fathers . Neither could Caluin D. Downams good Maister find any obiection against this booke in particuler , though he censured it more hardely , then M. Downam doth . By which we imagine , that it will be an easy matter to answere to these two obiections , which M. Downam maketh in this place : and indeed they are plaine fooleries , and therfore no meruaile , though Caluin had wit inough to omit them : for what can be more foolish , then to deny the authority of Scripture , only Downans petitio principij . because it fauoureth his aduersary in some questions in controuersy ? Did euer any Heretike deny any part of Scripture , with lesse reason then this ? And for the present question , I hope the Reader will remayne satisfied with that , which shal be said in this Chapter : and for the other of Samuel cap. 46. 13. I remit him to that , which Bellarmine writeth lib. 2. de Purgatorio cap. 6. Only I will oppose to M. Downam the authority of S. Augustine , who as Bellarmine well noteth , hauing bene doubtfull lib. 2. ad Simplicianum q. 3. whether Samuel himselfe appeared to Saul or no , affirmed without doubt that it was Samuel , lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 15. citing the place of Ecclesiasticus , which before he had omitted . M. Downams second answere is , that in neither place it is said , that either of them should come to oppose himselfe against Antichrist . But what then ? at least wise it is said , that they shall come to appease Gods wrath , and to reconcile the hart of the father to the sonne , and to restore the Tribes of Israel : and of Henoch , to giue pennance to Nations : all which we learne out of the other places of Scripture , & by the exposition of the Fathers , that it shal be in the tyme of Antichrist not long before our Sauiours second comming , and consequently that they shall oppose themselues to Antichrist , since he shall striue to drawe both Iewes and Gentills from Christ , and they will labour to conuert them to Christ . And heere I would haue my Reader note one of M. Downams ordinary shiftes , to tell vs what the argument Downans ordinary shifte . doth not proue , omitting directly to answere to that , which it proueth , & for which it is brought . Thirdly he answereth seuerally that Ecclesiasticus in the first place wrote , according to the receaued opinion of his tyme , which in M. Downams opinion was Eccles. 48. false . But surely we haue no reason , to belieue him better then Ecclesiasticus , and the Iewes of his tyme , who were no doubt the true people of God ; which ( whatsoeuer M. Downam may perswade himselfe by his speciall Faith ) others will greatly doubt of him ; and as for our Sauiours , and the Prophet Malachies wordes , we haue and shall sufficiently proue , that they were not against Ecclesiasticus , nor the receaued opinion of his tyme , as neither against vs , who all agree , that Elias in person , and litterally is to come , before Downam condemneth Ecclesiasticus & the Iewes of his tyme . the second comming of our Sauiour . And surely M. Downam is to bould with Ecclesiasticus , and those of his tyme , to attribute vnto them , the errours of those Iewes , which liued in our Sauiours tyme , and were so addicted to this world , that they would by no meanes vnderstand , that their Messias was to come in that humility , in which our Sauiour came , which notwithstanding was plainly foretould in the Scriptures which we haue no reason to thinke , but that Ecclesiasticus , and those of his tyme did vnderstand aright , and consequently knew well inough , that Elias was not to come at our Sauiours first comming , but at his second , since it is manifest in this place , that they expected his comming litterally , and in person . Now as for the authority of Iansenius , who M. Downam prayseth , as he did before Arias Montanus , because he Iansenius maketh for him , to be one of the best writers among the Papists , there had byn no great cause of his commending him , if M. Downam had bene disposed to haue dealt sincerely , since Bellarmine shewed , how he changed his opinion in Matth. 17. where he writeth that the Prophet Malachie cannot be vnderstood but of the true Elias , and consequently must needes Downam dealeth not sincerely taking the obiection & omitting the answere thinke , that Ecclesiasticus was not deceaued in vnderstanding him so . But this is another of M. Downams tricks , to steale an obiection from Bellarmine , and omit his answere : where we might meruayle at his impudent folly , but that it is no new nor strange thing in him , as it was in Iansenius or any Catholike Writer , to attribute an errour to Canonicall Scripture , which was the cause of Bellarmines meruayling at Iansenius , and of his changing so absurd an opinion , or rather errour in his later writings , in which he doth not only auouch and prooue this truth , but also affirmeth that it is the doctrine of the Catholike Church , which none but an Heretike will deny . Concerning the other place which speaketh of Henoch , M. Downam triumpheth , saying , that it is Ecclesiast. 44. a wonder , that Bellarmine would alleage it for this purpose . But that hauing nothing to say to the purpose , he is desirous to say something to bleare the eyes of the simple . The originall text hath ; Henoch pleased the Lord God , and was translated for an example of repentance to the generations ; that is , that the generations present and to come , might be moued by his example to turne vnto the Lord , and to walke before him , knowing by his example , that there is a reward layd vp for those that turne vnto the Lord , and walke before him , as Henoch did . But will Bellarmine hence conclude , that therfore Henoch is to come agayne in the flesh , to oppose himselfe to Antichrist ?

Hitherto M. Downam . And this is all he hath to say . Where first we see , that he cannot deny , but that the latin text , which Bellarmine cited , made much for this purpose : and there is no reason , but that we should attribute as much at least , to the latin interpretation , as to M. Downams interpretation : since it cannot be denyed , but that there is The latin interpreter not to be reiected . lesse suspition of partiality in him , being so ancient , who made no doubt of the sense , and therfore translated it in that sorte , as it were to exclude M. Downams deuise ; and since the latin Church hath all this tyme receaued this translation for Scripture , we must not deny it now , because it is contrary to some Protestant opinions , especially since we see far greater difference in other partes of Scripture , betwixt the originall text , & some interpretations allowed by the Church : neither of which the Fathers durst reiect , but rather imbraced and expounded them both , as the word of God : and indeed who knoweth not , that the chiefest certainty , that we haue of either , dependeth vpon the approbation and authority of the Church , which cannot erre in matters of this moment . And I belieue M. Downam will hardly giue vs any other sufficient reason , why he belieueth these bookes to be Scripture , rather then others , or this interpretation to be good , and others bad . But besides the authority of the latin text , we thinke the Greeke to be for vs also , at leastwise no man can deny , but that our exposition is conformable to the Fathers doctrine , who affirme our assertion of Henochs comming , and consequently we are sure , that we may safely expound it so , without danger of errour , and that M. Downam hath no reason to deny our sense so peremptorily , M. Downams opinion of Henochs translation maketh as much for any other vertue , as for repentance contrary to the Scripture . though he thinke his owne better , which we meruayle not at . But further we cannot well see , why Henochs translation should rather serue for an example of Repentance , then of Hope , Religion , Iustice , Innocency , Faith , Charity , or any other vertue , if we admitt M. Downams exposition ; and yet he is said particulerly , to be an example of pennance , which commeth very fitly for the latin interpreter , and our explication , and agreeth passing well with that , which S. Iohn writeth Apoc. 11. that these two diuine witnesses shall preach amicti saceis , in sack-cloth , which wil be a good example of pennance indeed .

5. About the third place Matth. 17. 11. his first answere is , that by the Euangelist Marke , who speaketh in the present tense , Elias I. VIII . indeed , comming first restoreth all thinges : the meaning of our Sauiour Christ , appeareth to haue byn this , Elias quidem venturus fuit primum , & restituturus omnia : Elias indeed was to come first , and was to restore Matth. 17. Mar. 9. M. Downam egregiously corrupteth S. Marke & S. Matthews Text. all thinges . And you must note , that he putteth S. Markes wordes , as he citeth them , as also his owne interpretation in latin , in a distinct character , to bleare the eyes of the simple , and make them belieue , that they are both very Scripture . And surely howsoeuer he may excuse the later , the first is somewhat hard , since that S. Markes words are ; Elias cùm venerit primò , restituet omnia : which the Protestant English Bible translateth ; Elias verily when he commeth first , restoreth all thinges , where we see a ( when ) which sufficiently sheweth , that Elias was not yet come ; and besides both ( venerit & restituet ) are the future , and not the present tense , and in the wordes following S. Marke hath an ( & ) which cleareth this matter greatly , Sed dico vobis , quia & Elias venit . But I say vnto you , that Elias is also come , which sheweth plainely that in the former clause our Sauiour spake of a future comming , as if he had said , Elias shall come in person , and also is come in spirit in S. Iohn Baptist , which only was required at the first comming of our Sauiour . But nothing will serue head-strong Heretikes , & therfore M. Downam corrupteth S. Matth. Matth. 11. 11. also , making him say , Iohn Baptist is that Elias , who was to come , putting it downe in a distinct letter , as before : whereas the wordes are , Ipse est Elias qui venturus est , where he could see the first ( est ) and translate it truly , but not the second , because it was against him . But in this he deserueth some more fauour then before , because he followeth his Protestant translation , which hath , this is Elias , which was for to come : so sincerely do these men translate Scripture . But yet he hath one trick of his owne here also , for he addeth the word ( that ) which his Bible hath not , nor the Greek , because he would haue vs thinke , that our Sauiour alluded to the place in Malachy , and that S. Iohn was that Elias there promised . But by this we see , that all , that M. Downam saith , is not Scripture , and therfore we are not bound to belieue him , when he telleth vs , that Elias was not promised litterally , and that both our Sauiour , and the Angell vnderstood not the prophesy Malach. 4. of Malachy litterally of Elias the Thes●ite , especially since he bringeth no other proofe , but that they vnderstood it allegorically of S. Iohn Baptist , which is rather against himselfe since that place must not only haue an allegoricall , but also a litterall sense .

After this he commeth to answere Bellarmines proofe who inferred by the vision which the Apostles had seene a little before of the true Elias , that they asked of him , & consequently that our Sauiours answere is of him also . To which M. Downam answereth , that it followeth not , for the disciples spake according to the erroneous opinion of the Scribes , who vnderstanding Malachy litterally , thought that Elias was to come in his owne person , and therevpon ( as it is thought ) inferred , that Christ Downam condemneth the Apostles , and in some sort our Sauiour himselfe . was not the true Messias , because Elias came not before him . But Christ &c. where you see that the Apostles are condemned as followers of the erroneous Iewes , as before Ecclesiasticus , and the Iewes of his tyme were also : and our Sauiour is behoulding to M. Downam , that he did him the fauour to let him goe fre from this imputation , though he chargeth him also with not answering to the purpose , and not freeing , but rather confirming his disciples in their errour , by telling them , Elias quidem venturus est , & restituet omnia . Elias indeed shall come , and restore all thinges , to wit , as you thinke ; for otherwise no doubt , he would haue rather tould them the contrarie , that he was not to come , but was alreadie come : but now he no lesse affirmeth the one then the other . Wherfore if it were true , that Elias was come in S. Iohn Baptist , it must needes be true also that he was to come in his owne person , as our Sauiour affirmeth , and the Apostles thought , as likewise all other , that will belieue our Sauiour & his Scripture more than themselues : out of which number we must exclude M. Downam and his associates , and then our Sauiour , and his Disciples , and Ecclesiasticus , and all other which follow them will agree well inough : for as S. Hierome expoundeth their meaning the Apostles did not only speake of Elias properlie , but also of the second comming of our Sauiour in glory : Aestimant ergo discipuli &c. ( saith hee ) Wherefore the disciples thinke , that this transformation which they had seene in the mountayne , was that of glory , and they say , If thou beest now come in glory . why doth not thy forerunner appeare , chiefly because they saw Elias was departed . Bellarmines second proofe was , that S. Iohn Baptist did not restore all thinges , as our Sauiour affirmeth that Elias shall ; that is ( saith Bellarmine ) recall all Iewes and heretikes , and perhappes many Catholikes deceaued by Antichrist , to the true faith . To which M. Downam answereth , that this doth not agree with the Prophesie of our Sauiour Christ , concerning the want of faith at his comming Luc. 18. 8. The sonne of man when he commeth , shall he find Faith vpon earth ? But if this conceipt of the Papists were true , there shal be more Luc. 18. true belieuers at the end of the world than euer bad bene at one tyme before . Thus argueth M. Downam . Where first I could wish he had obserued , that Bellarmine speaketh not absolutelie of all Iewes and heretikes , but only of such as were deceaued by Antichrist : for many there shal be then , as there are also now , that would be incredulous Iewes , & perfidious Heretikes , How Elias shall restore all thinges . though Antichrist had neuer come . And of these Bellarmine speaketh not , but only houldeth with S. Augustine l. 1. Quaest. Euang. quaest . 21. Quod dixit Dominus : Helias quidem venturus est , & restituet omnia ; id est , eos , quos persecutio Antichristi conturbauerit . That which our Lord said , Elias indeed shall come and restore all thinges , that is , those whome the persecution of Antichrist shall disorder . So that now by M. Downams confession S. Augustine entreth into the number of the Papists . Wherefore Bellarmine , and we all are content to hould our peace , and let him answere M. Downams argument , as hee doth at large in his booke de vtilitat . credendi cap. 15. where this verie place was obiected to him by the Donatists , who S. Augustine answereth Downans obiection . were something a kyn to M. Downam , and hee telleth them both , that our Sauiour spake those wordes , vel propter ipsam fidei perfectionem , quae ita difficilis est in hominibus , vt in ipsis quoque admirabilibus Sanctis , sicut in ipso Moyse inueniatur aliquid vbi trepidauerint , vel trepidare potuerint : either for the perfection of Faith which is so hard for men to haue , that euen in the great & admirable Saintes them selues , as in Moyses himselfe ( Exod. 20. ) there may be something found , where they haue feared or might feare . And then hee giueth a second solution , vel propter illam iniquorum abundantiam , & paucitatem bonorum : or by reason of that aboundance of the wicked , and scarcitie of the good . And of this hee addeth an explication , which may serue also for a third solution : Propterea enim tamquam dubitans Downam omitteth this putas . hoc Dominus dixit : Neque enim ait , veniens filius hominis , non inueniet fidem in terra , sed , putas inueniet fidem in terra ? Cui vtique cuncta scienti , & praescienti de aliqua re dubitare non conuenit , sed illius dubitatio nostram dubitationem figurauit ; quia propter multa scandala circa finem saeculi pullulantia , hoc quoque erat quandeque infirmitas humana dictura . For this cause our Lord spake as being in doubt , for he saith not , The sonne of man comming shall not find faith in the earth , but , thinkest thou , shall he find faith in the earth ? To whome doubtles knowing and foreknowing all thinges , it is not incident to doubt of anie thing , but his doubt signified ours , for that by reason of the many scandals arising towards the end of the world , the infirmitie of man was at length to vtter these doubtfull wordes . Thus farre S. Augustine . So that the conuersion of the deceaued Iewes , and heretikes , may well stand with this doubt , since it is chiefely to be vnderstood in the tyme of Antichrists persecution , which shal be so great that if God had not prouided this extraordinary helpe of Enoch and Elias , it might seeme at least to weaklinges vnpossible The necessity of the comming of Enoch & Elias . to preserue the faith in any sort , & much more in that perfect manner , of which our Sauiour speaketh , as S. Aug. vnderstandeth him in this place , and ser. 36. de verbis Domini secundum Lucam ; and likewise S. Hierom. dial . contra Luciserianos cap. 6. And all this explication is greatly confirmed by the last wordes of the Prophet Malachy , where our Lord giueth a reason , why he would send Elias , saying : Ne fortè veniam , & percutiam terram anathemate : least perhaps I come and strike the earth with a curse , to wit , for the want of Faith , which were likely to be , if Elias were not sent .

The other obiection , which M. Downam intrudeth in this place of the vncertainty of our Sauiours comming , belongeth to the next chapter but one , where it shal be answered . Now it is sufficient to examine that , which is brought in due place , of which sort there remayneth nothing , but M. Downams interpretation , how S. Iohn Baptist did restore all thinges , to wit inchoatiue , which how vnproperly it is spoken , may easily appeare to any , that will but consider what the wordes ( restituet & omnia ) do import ; but to our purpose it is inough , that Elias comming before the second comming ( in which our Sauiour shall restore all thinges in a much more ample and perfect manner , then he did at his first ) may be said also , to restore all thinges much more properly then S. Iohn in this manner of inchoatiue , which may also be confirmed by that , which S. Peter saith Act. 3. that our Sauiour is to remaine in Heauen , vsque in tempora restitutionis omnium : vntill the tymes of restoring all thinges , which can by no meanes be vnderstood of his first comming . And thus I would conclude this third place , but that I haue hope that it may be for the good of M. Downam , or at least of others as also for the greater glory of this great Doctor of the Church to cite at large the wordes of S. Aug. tract. 4. in Euang. Ioan. Where he excellently explicateth this very place : In ●o Dominus Iesus Christus &c. Our lord Iesus Christ would prefigure his future comming in S. Iohn Baptist , and say that S. Iohn was come in the spirit of Elias , and that which S. Iohn was at the first comming , Elias shal be at the second : as there are two comminges of the Iudge , so there are S. Aug. maketh no more doubt that Elias shall come , than that S. Io. Bap. is come . two cryers ; the same Iudge , but two cryers , not two Iudges : & the Iudge was first to come to be iudged ; he sent before him his first cryer , called him Elias , because Elias shal be that in the second comming , which S. Iohn was in the first . For let your Charity consider how true it is , that I say , when S. Iohn was conceaued , or rather when he was borne , the holy Ghost prophesied thus of him , and he shal be the forerunner of the highest in the spirit & vertue of Elias . Then he was not Elias , but in the spirit and vertue of Elias . What signisyeth , in the spirit and vertue of Elias ? In the same spirit , insteed of Elias . Why insteed of Elias ? Because that which Elias shal be in the second comming , S. Iohn was at the first . Wherfore rightly S. Iohn answered . Ioan 1. now properly . For our Lord said Matth. 17. figuratiuely Elias is Iohn , but he ( as I said ) properly : I am not Elias . If thou considerest the figure of a forerunner , S. Iohn is Elias , for that which he was at the first comming , the other shal be at the second . If thou seekest for the propriety of the person , Iohn is Iohn , Elias is Elias : wherfore our Lord for the prefiguration , said rightly , he is Elias , and S. Iohn said rightly for the propriety , I am not Elias &c. And a little after : Numquid tu Elias es ? Art thou Elias ? Now if he should say , I am Elias , therefore Christ comming now in his second comming should iudge , and not as yet be iudged in his first . As if he had said , Elias is as yet also to come : I am not , saith hee , Elias : but respect him , being humble , before whom Iohn commeth , least you feele him , being high , before whome Elias is to come . For our Lord also ended so : Iohn Baptist is he that it to come . He came in prefiguration , as Elias is to come in propriety . Then Elias shal be Elias by propriety , now S. Iohn was Elias by similitude : Now Iohn is Iohn by propriety , then Elias shal be Iohn by similitude . Both these Cryers haue giuen one another their similitudes , and haue kept their proprietyes , but there is one Lord Iudge , whether the one or the other Cryer go before him . Thus farre S. Augustine . Where you see , he maketh no more doubt , that Elias shall come , then that S. Iohn Baptist is come . But he is like to be accompted among the erroneous Iewes , for his labour by M. Downam , and S. Augustine wil be content to take part with his betters the Apostles , as all other that are wise will also : and let this insolent Heretike go seeke other companions like himselfe .

6. Concerning the fourth place , M. Downam hauing verie little to say to the purpose , enlargeth himselfe with impertinent discourses , supposing that Enoch and Elias liue not in mortall bodies , and consequentlie being in Heauen cannot Apoc. 11. returne into this world to die againe . But let vs see how he proueth this supposition : If they were not in Heauen , in soule at least ( saith he ) their estate were worse , then of the rest of the faithfull departed , and so their translation should rather haue bene a punishment , then a blessing or prerogatiue vnto them . And this is all the Scripture or reason he hath for his opinion , against the consent of the Church of God and ancyent Fathers , who alleage so much , and so plaine Scripture for their assertion . But M. Downam shall not need to take any thought for these blessed men , for they thinke their estates happie though it were much worse , then it is , in that they know , that God is most Enoch and Elias are in Heauen honoured in them so , and his blessed will most perfectlie fulfilled , which they , and all other perfect men esteeme much more of , then of their owne ioy and happines . But least this doctrine should not sinke into the Ministers head , wee may also put him in mind , that it was alway among all people accompted a great happines to liue long in this world , speciallie in good estate , and at ease ; and it may be doubted , that it M. Downam might be well beneficed to his liking , he would content himselfe to haue this priuiledge , to remaine so , without molestation to the worlds end ; for it is not euerie mans case to be so desirous to see God , that they would forth with forsake all worldly thinges , yea imbrace death it selfe , not to haue this happines differed : for very few so long as they liue in this world , haue their spirituall eyes so cleere , as to haue so great and effectuall a conceyt of Caluin thinketh that only Christ is in Heauen & that others stay without . Heauen ; and those which haue , are of those perfect , who easilie conforme themselues to Gods blessed will in this , & all other things . And heere likewise I might put M. Downam in mind , that his great Maister , Caluin l. ● . Instit. cap. 20. §. 20. affirmeth , that only Christ is entred into the Sanctuarie of Heauen , and all other stay without in the Court , and there expect vntill the end of the world . And §. 24. he saith , that the soules of the Saintes haue faith still , as we haue : which being soe , no doubt he must needes thinke , that they enioy not the vision of God , in which our essentiall happines consisteth . So that in this mans opinion , there is no great difference betwixt Henoch and Elias , and other Saintes . But I am glad to see M. Downam leaue his Maister in this : would to God he would do so in the rest also , that my ioy for him might be complete .

Another trifling obiection of M. Downam is , that S. Iohn mentioneth neither Enoch nor Elias . As though it were not sufficient that the holie Fathers expound it so , and that the circumstances are such , as that they cannot with anie shew of probability , be applied to anie other , which is the reason that he himselfe onlie goeth about to impugne , but dares Downam dareth not defend his fellowes . not take vpon him to defend his fellow heretikes expositions , which Bellarmine confuteth , nor bring any other of his owne . And surelie , it is a great wonder , that in the Apocalyps S. Iohn should be so ouerseene , as to speake so darkelie , that he would leaue out the names of these two witnesses . Fir allie he threatneth Bellarmine with another answere , saying : But if I should adde , that Bellarmine cannot prooue , that this place treateth of Antichrist , but rather of the Beast with seauen heades arising out of the sea , that is the Romayne State , either generallie or speciallie vnder the Emperours , as may be gathered by comparing verse 2. & 7. of the 11. Chap. with the 1. and 5. of the 13. I would then know to what purpose he alleadgeth this text to prooue , that Enoch and Elias shall come against Antichrist , if neither the one nor the other be heere meant ? Well Syt , put Bellarmine to prooue this , when you will , and you shall see , how many Authors he will bring you to prooue that both these places are to be vnderstood of Antichrist : & for the later which you thinke most hard , you may take a view of those , which he cited in the former Chapter ; where I also added a few more . And this proofe shall suffice for this tyme : for before you and I part , I doubt not , wee shall discusse this matter more fully .

7. After that M. Downam hath thus substantiallie answered Bellarmines first argument out of the Scripture , he commeth to the Fathers , whom he will soone dispatch , and send them Downam reiecteth the Fathers . packing ; for first seeing , that they all consent about the comming of Elias , his answere is in plaine wordes to tell them , that they were all deceaued , but yet he doth them so much fauour , as to confesse that they had reason to be so , because they followed the corrupt translation of the 72. who Malach. 4. v. 5. reade Elias the Thes●ite so that now all the fault is layd by M. Downam vpon these Interpreters , at which the latin Interpreter of Ecclesiasticus hath good cause to reioyce , since by this meanes Downam reiecteth the 72. Interpreters . his case is no worse , then that of these 72. Interpreters , who yet were approued by our Sauiour himselfe , and his Apostles , who were wont to cite the Scripture as they translated it , and all the holy Fathers to expound it also as vndoubted Scripture : and this place in particuler was approued by S. Hierome in his traslation of the 70. as also in his Commentaries , and by S. Cyril , and Theodoretus ibidem , S. Augustine l. 20. de . ciuit . cap. 22. where he also saith , that the 70. Interpreters prophetice interpretati sunt , did interprete as Prophets , and not as bare Interpreters . And lib. 18. cap. 42. he acknowledgeth in them vniuersally , mirabilem ac stupendum , planéque diuinum in eorum , verbis fuisse consensum : that there was an admirabley wonderfull , yea manifestly a diuine consent in their The 72. Interpreters not to be reiected . wordes . And a little after , reuerà spiritus erat vnus in omnibus ; verily they had all one spirit , to wit , the spirit of truth , and of prophesy with which the Scriptures were first written , conformably to which S. Hierome , praesat . in Paralip . acknowledgeth , that the 70. did adde some thinges , vel ob decoris gratiam , velob Spiritus sancti authoritatem : either for ornament , or for the authoritate of the Holy Ghost . But this place in particuler is likewise approued by Euthymius in Matth. 17. & Arethas in Apoc. 11. and finally by S. Chrysostom hom. 58. in Matth. where he also saith : Vides exactam &c. Thou seest the exact diligence of the Prophets prediction , for because S. Iohn might also be called Elias for the likenes of the mystery , to auoyde confusion , he added the Countrey , calling him Elias the Thesbite ; for S ▪ Iohn was no Thesbite . Secondly he saith , that some Author ▪ disagre about Enochs comming , in whose place they put either Elizaeus , or Moyses , or Hieremy . But what is this to the purpose , since Bellarmines argument hath still the same force ? For all consent that Elias is to come , and as yet he is not come ; and besides the common opinion is , that Enoch shall come with him , though perhaps it bee not altogeather so certaine of him , as of Elias .

Lastly he would make vs belieue that among all the ancient , which Bellarmine citeth , only S. Gregory is alleadged to the purpose , whose authority he reiecteth with a scoffe . But this is to shew himselfe in his colours , that is a ridiculous scoffing Minister . For any man , that hath but morall honesty Downam scoffeth at S. Gregory . cannot choose but much condemne this his prophane spirit to contemne this Saintes auctority , because he morally expoundeth a place of Scripture , with the receaued doctrine of the Church , not prouing it out of that place , but only affirming , that by a morall application , those wordes might haue that sense , which the very title of that whole booke might haue giuen this Minister to vnderstand , if he had either wit in his head or honesty in his hart . Well he is content to graunt , that S. Gregory was flat for Bellarmine . But why doth he deny it of the rest ? Surely it is hard to imagine , since their wordes are so plaine , and therfore till he giueth vs a reason , we may iustly thinke , that he hath none , but was willing to delude his Reader , either by scoffiing or any other lewd trick he could deuise , for lightly he could not inuent a worse , then to scoffe at Gods Saints , and particulerly at those , to whom we are most behoulding , among which in the first place S. Gregory is to be accompted , for the great loue he bare to all English men , and the great good he procured them , for which he is worthily called and honoured , as the Apostle of our Nation .

8. Finally M. Downam answereth to Bellarmines reason , that of Enoch & Elias their translation , there is this reason , that there might be euident examples of reward and happines , laid vp both for the vpright in Enoch , and for the zealous in Elias : of their yet liuing in mortall bodyes , if they did so , according to the opinion of some of the Fathers , that reason might be giuen which they alleadge , to witt , to conuert Downam maketh Enochs translation an example of vprightnes contrary to Scripture . the Iewes . Where , in the first part I only note , that M. Downam maketh Enoch an example for the vpright , wheras the Scripture maketh him an example of pennance . But indeed according to this explication , he may ( as I noted before ) be aswell an example of the one , as of the other : yea hardly of pennance since we read none he did , but rather that he was alway vpright , and iust . But now the second reason which only maketh to the purpose , is the same which Bellarmine vrgeth , if M. Downam vnderstandeth it aright as the Fathers held it , to wit , that these two witnesses shall labour to conuert the Iewes , at the end of the world , when Antichrist shall most labour to peruert them : which wil be to oppose themselues to him . Wherefore M. Downam thought best to retire himselfe , Downam reiecteth the Fathers . and to tell the Fathers flatlie , that it is vntrue ( which they say ) that they liue in mortall bodies , or that they shall euer dye : and he offereth to dispute this matter with them . And first he asketh them where they liue in mortall bodies ? To which S. Augustine , lib. 2. de peccato originali , cap. 23. answereth , That S. Augustine answereth to Downans obiection . this is one of those questions which pertayne not to Faith , where Enoch & Elias are , quostamen non dubitamus , in quibus nati sunt , corporibus viuere : whome notwithstanding wee doubt not to liue in the bodies in which they were borne . By which opposition he plainly declareth that he taketh this to be a matter of Faith . And in the same place he testifieth that Christian saith doubteth not , but that the paradise where Adam was placed , is ; though it be doubtfull wher or in what maner it is ; all which is alleadged by Bellar. lib. de gratia primi hominis , cap. 14. to proue that paradise is yet extant ; but I cannot find that distinction which M. Downam bringeth out of him lib. 1. de Sanct. beat . c. 3. that although the place remaine , yet no paradise remaineth , & in the former place he seemeth to teath altogeather the contray

Secondly , if they be in the earthly paradise , and not in heauen , he asketh how it is said of Elias , that hee was taken vp into Heauen . To which demaund S. Gregorie will answere him , if he may be so bould Hom. 29. in Euang. Aliud est caelum aëreum , S. Gregorie answereth another . aliud aethereum &c. vnde & aues caeli dicimus &c. In caelum aëreum Elias subleuatus est , vt in secretam quandam terrae regionem repentè duceretur , vbi cum magna iam carnis & spiritus quiete viueret , quousque ad finem mundi redeat , & mortis debitum soluat . Ille etenim mortem distulit , non euasit . The ayre is also called Heauen , for which cause we say the byrdes of heauen ( according to the phrase of Scripture ) and into this heauen was El as taken vp , that he might forthwith be carried into a certaine secret Region of the earth , where he might lyue in great quiet of bodie and mind , till he returneth at the end of the world , and payeth death his due : for he hath deferred not escaped death . Where also M. Downam may learne , what priuiledge Enoch and Helias haue aboue others , and how Enoch was said to haue byn translated , that he should not see death , to wit , at Heb. 11. that tyme , nor according to the course of nature : then which a great deale lesse is sufficient , that one hath escaped death . And if M. Downam be capable of so high and perfect doctrine A great happinesse to be put to death by Anticrist . heere hee may be tould , that Enoch and Helias thinke it no misery , but an exceeding great happynesse that they shal be put to death by Antichrist , by reason of the great desire they haueto doe and suffer whatsoeuer for the loue of God , and this not for the reward which they expect at his hand , but because he deserueth much more , then we are able to performe .

9. But I will conclude , leauing the indifferent Reader to iudge whether it hath not byn sufficiently proued , that Enoch & Elias are still in their bodies , and that their bodies are mortall , & that they are to returne into the world and die , and that in the tyme of Antichrist , to oppose themselues against him , and consequentlie , that Antichrist is not yet come , which if he iudgeth to be so ; as I perswade myselfe he cannot otherwise choose , I will also craue him to Downans bragging . giue his verdict of M. Downam , whether he thinke him more foolish , or impudent to deny all these particularyties with this flourishing bragge ; Must not this needes be a good cause , that by so learned a man is so stoutlie prooued ?

THE SEAVENTH CHAPTER . Conteyning the fourth demonstration .

THE fourth demonstration ( saith Bellarmine ) is taken from Antichrists persecution , which certainely will be most grieuous and manifest , so that all publique cerimonies , and sacrifices of Religion shall cease : none of which thinges wee see hitherto . That this persecution shal be most gricuious , is manifest by Matth. 24. Then there shal be a great Tribulation the like wherof hath not bene from the beginning of the world , nor shall be . And Apoc. 20. where we reade , that Sathan shal be then loosed , who vntill that tyme was bound .

Of which place S. Augustine disputing l. 20. de Ciuitate Dei cap. 8. and 9. saith , that in Antichrists tyme the Diuell is to be loosed , and therfore that persecution shal be more grieuous , then all the former , by how much the Diuel can rage more cruelly being loosed , then being bound . Wherfore he saith , that the Diuell then shall vexe the Church with al his owne & his followers forces , and S. Hippolytus Mart. in orat de mundi consum . & S. Cyril catechesi 15. do say , that the Martyrs which Antichrist shall put to death , shal be more renowned , then all those , which went before : because they fought against men the diuells ministers , but these shall fight against the Diuell himselfe , persecuting in his owne person . But certainely we haue experienced no such thing from the yeare 600. or 1000.

The Heretikes indeed say , that they suffer great persecution by Antichrist , because sometime some of their number are burnt : but what comparison is there , betwixt such a persecution , and that of Nero , Domitian , Decius , Dioclesian , and others , since that for one heretike which is burnt , there were in times past a thousand Christians put to death , and that in the whole Roman Empire , not in one only Prouince , & wheras now the greatest punishment is to be burnt , then there were incredible , and innumerable torments , of which see Cornelius Tacitus in Nerone , and Eusebius in his Ecclesiasticall History .

S. Damasus in the life of S. Marcellinus writeth , that there were aboue 17. thousand Christians put to death by Dioclesian : & Eusebius who liued at that tyme writeth lib. 8. cap. 6. hist. that al prisons were so full of Martyrs , that there was no place for offenders ; and in all that booke he affirmeth that there were so many put to death within the space of two yeares , that it is impossible to number them . Besides the heretikes of our tymes haue put to death more Catholikes within these 20. or 30. yeares , in France and Flanders , then the Inquisitors haue burnt heretikes perhaps these hundred yeares . Wherfore they cannot call this a persecution , but rather a ciuill warre , for as S. Augustine teacheth ep. 80. ad Hesychium , when the true persecution of Antichrist shall come , only the children of the Church shal be in tribulation , and not their persecutours , as in the tyme of Dioclesian , and the former Princes , only Christians were persecuted , but did not persecute againe .

And if this be to be called a persecution , rather Catholikes suffer it , then Lutherans and Caluinists : for Catholikes are cast out of many Prouinces , and haue lost their Churches , their Inheritance , and their Country it selfe , these new Ministers of this Ghospell intruding themselues into other mens possessions : and as we said , & may be seene in the Commentaryes of Laurence Surius , and other Historiographers of our tyme , the fury of Caluinists consumed more Catholikes in few yeares , then there haue bene Heretikes punnished , by the iudgement of Catholike Princes for denying their Faith .

Now that the persecution of Antichrist , shal be most manifest and knowne , S. Aug. proueth lib. 20. de ciuitate Dei cap. 11. out of those wordes of the Apoc. 20. And they compassed the tents of the Saintes , and the beloued Citty : for by these wordes , it is signified , that all the wicked shal be togeather in Antichrists army , and shall with open warre impuge all the Church of Saintes : for now there are many faigned in the Church , which hiding their malice , are in hart out of the Church , and in it only in bodie . But then all shall break forth ( sayth S. Augustine ) into open persecution , out of their lurking corners of hatred . This surely is so farre of from being fulfilled at this tyme , that there was neuer almost a greater number of false brethren , and faygned Christians , and this persecution is so farre of from being knowne and manifest , that neither they which say they suffer it , nor wee that are said to cause it , can tell when it began .

Certainly the persecutions of Nero , Dominam , & other Roman Princes , were diligently noted by Eusebius , Orosius , Sulpitius , & there is no doubt when they began , & when they ended , as likewise the comming of Christ , because it was true & manifest , we know verie well when it was , and to whome first manifested , and there is no diuersitie of opinions among vs , concerning this matter . But the heretikes , which say , that Antichrist is come , and hath persecuted so long , cannot produce one author , who hath noted the tyme , when Antichrist came , or to whome he first appeared , or when he began his persecution ; and they disagree so among themselues , that one saith he came in the yeare 200. another in the yeare 606. another in the yeare 773. another in the yeare 1000. another 1200. So that they seeme rather to dreame in their sleepe , then to speake waking .

Finallie that in Antichrists tyme the publique and dailie office , and Sacrifice of the Church shall cease , by reason of the greatnes of the persecution , Daniel plainely teacheth cap. 12. from the tyme that the continuall Sacrifice shal be taken away , M. CC. XC . dayes : where by the consent of all , he speaketh of Antichrists tyme , and as S. Irenaeus lib 5. S. Hierome , and Theodoretus vpon that place , S. Hippolytus Martyr in orat . de consummatione mundi , and Primasius in cap. 11. Apoc. expound it , the is sense is , that Antichrist shall forbid all the diuine worship , which is now exercised in the Christian Churches , and especiallie the holie Sacrifice of the Eucharist , but that this signe is not yet fulfilled , experience teacheth .

Out of which three thinges may be gathered . First that Antichrist is not yet come , since the continuall Sacrifice is still in vse . Secondlie , that the Bishop of Rome is not Antichrist , but most contrarie to him , since he doth chiefly adorne and defend the Sacrifice , which Antichrist shall take away . Thirdlie , that the heretikes of this tyme aboue all others are the forerunners of Antichrist ; since they wish nothing more earnestly , then vtterly to abolish the Sacrifice of the Eucharist .

M. Downams Answere confuted .

1. MAISTER Downam verie courteously admitteth that Antichrists persecution was to be verie grieuous ; but alloweth not of Bellarmines proofes , affirming that The persecution of Antichrist most grieuous . the great tribulation which our Sauiour speaketh of Matth. 24. is no other , then the calamyties which at the destruction of Hierusalem by the Romans the Iewes susteyned ; which how true it is , may be sufficiently seene by that which hath bene said in the 4. chapter . Now it is sufficient that we agree in the conclusion .

2. Wherefore all his long discourse about the thousand yeares Apoc. 20. is altogeather impertinent , and foolish also , in that he vnderstandeth those 1000. yeares definitely , The 1000 : yeares Apoc. 20. are to be taken indefinitely . which indefinitely signify all the yeares and space from Christs Passion , when the Deuill was bound , vntill Antichrists time , when he shall be loosed ; and it is false , that any were put to death , by the chiefe Antichrist within those thousand yeares . For how could that be , since he was not to come , before they were expired , as all but Heretikes agree ? But all this , as also the question of Gog and Magog , is from the present purpose , which M. Downam could not choose but see , though he were content to cast this mist before the Readers eyes that he might not see the force of Bellarmines argument , which consisteth in this , that the persecution of Antichrist is to be most grieuous , which he is content to The persecution of Antichrist shal be greater then the calamities of the Iewes . graunt , because he cannot deny it , & would help to prooue it also , though verie simplie , God wot ; but wee will accept his good will , since his meaning seemeth to be only to confirme Bellarmines assertion , which wee onlie request him to graunt : though wee would not haue him afraid to thinke , that the persecution vnder Antichrist shal be greater then the calamities of the Iewes , since the same wordes are vnderstood of both , and that of the Iewes was but a figure in comparison of the other . Wherfore Dan. also cap. 12. writeth , that this shal be such a tyme , as hath not bene , since the Nations began to be . And surely no persecution can be greater , than that in which the Diuell shall vse the vttermost of his owne , & all his followers forces , as S. Augustine affirmeth he shall in this , being then loosed from his long imprisonment , as S. Iohn affirmeth , whatsoeuer M. Downam imagineth .

3. Well this supposed , M. Downam will needes make vs belieue that this great persecution hath bene made by the Popes , against men of his Religion : and first he is fayne to tell vs of the Popes spirituall persecution , wherin ( saith he ) he taketh such liberty to himselfe ; that if he carry whole troupes of soules into hell no man may say vnto him , Syr why do you so ? But this is a A shameleslye . shameslye , especially now that it hath bene so fully discouered by the author of the Warn-word against Syr Frauncis Hastings and O. E. otherwise M. Sutcliffe , who patched vp a lie out Encount . 2. cap. 13. 11. 16. of two places of the Canon law , wherof one had no connextion at all with the other , as that Author at large declareth , who likewise telleth him where , and when some Catholikes were bayted by dogges in beares skins , which to him is such great newes . Ibid. cap. 2. n. 4.

4. And besides , this allegation of spirituall persecution is from the purpose , and a fault by some called petitio principij , Downans petitio principij because all Catholikes count it a great blessing , and no persecution at all . Secondly he goeth into France for Martyrs , where he taketh into his accoumpt the Albigenses & Wallenses , & ioyneth them with his H●gon●●s , & so he may wel inough , for they be Martyrs al alike , to wit , of the Diuell ; since they were al Heretiks , though of diuers sects , as he may be fully instructed by the same Author I mentioned before , in his Treatise of Fox his Calendar-Martyrs . And yet M. Downam part. 1. cap. 3. shall not find so many Martyrs of these neither , except he will number them who were miraculously slaine in lawful warre by Symon Momford them Earle of Leicester & after of Tolosa , which were plaine rebells against their King & Countrey . And Iohn Fox could only find 13. of these two sects , which he thought worth the putting into his Kalender , as the same Author sheweth , & euery man may see in Fox himselfe .

After France he commeth into the Low Countries , & there numbreth 36000. which the Duke of Alba caused to be executed , which how many soeuer they were , as al the world knoweth , were open rebells , as likewise those 40000. if they were so many , killed in the Massacre at Paris . But M. Downams religion hath this vertue in it , that houlding but one or some few pointes Downans Martyrs , Heretikes & Rebels of it , a man may safely dye for any other heresy , or crime , & yet by his fellow Hugonots be accompted a Martyr . Lastly he citeth Vergerius and in the margent quoteth Io. Bale de act. Pontif. who witnesseth , that within the space of 30. yeares , there were put to diuers fearfull deathes , by the bloudy Inquisition , an hundreth and fifty thousand Christians . But we must haue better proofes , then only the testimonie of two most violent , and lying heretikes , before we belieue this : and besides it were necessary for M. Downam to proue , that all those Christians were of his religion , which wil be very hard for him to do , since that these his Authors affirme no such matter .

5. But why doth not M. Downam answere to Bellarmine , who telleth him , that all this persecution is but a ciuist warre , since Protestants put Catholikes to death , as well as they do Protestants ; and S. Augustine telleth vs , that in Downam flieth the difficulty . Antichrists persecution , only the children of the Church shal be in Tribulation , and not their persecutors . The cause of this was , because he saw there was no shew of answere to be made , and therfore he thought it best to passe it ouer in silence , hoping that the Reader would not take the paines to looke vpon Bellarmine , nor any other to discouer his follies ▪ for he cannot deny , but that Catholikes haue bene persecuted by Protestants , & yet he would fayne diminish these persecutions against Catholikes by his brethren ; & first hee auoucheth plainly , that the warres which haue bene vndertaken by the Hugonots in France and Flanders for their owne defence , that they Downam maynteyneth open Rebellion & treason . might be free from their Princes outrages , were lawfull battailes : euen as when the Machabees resisted : Antiochus and other Tyrants . So that you see open rebellion and treason mainteyned for lawfull by this new Ghospeller , which defence notwithstanding cannot comprehend the manifold murthers of Priestes , Religions and others which these Hugonots committed in cold bloud , & out of battaile , of which M. Downam could not be ignorant . But let vs see , what he saith of our English persecution , for he is not afraid forthwith to charge all Priests and Catholikes put to death in our Countrey , of treason , and to complaine greatlie of the fauour which the Prince in some sort hath vsed to them in durance ; so cruell and bloudie a mynd carrieth this Minister with him , being not ashamed to affirme , that the life of the prisoners The persecution of Catholikes in England . in Wisbich & Framingham , hath bene more easie and pleasant , and mayntenance more plentifull , then of the Students and ministers of his crew ; which all wise men will easilie laugh at , except he should speake of spirituall and heauenlie comfortes , which this poore Minister neuer tasted of : for other ease , pleasure , or maintenance , it were hard for them to haue , liuing in prison , and often in chaines , & hauing no other maintenance , then the almes of poore Catholikes , many of them being so impouerished with oppressions for their conscience , that they should scarce be able to mainteyne themselues , and their families , were they not content to liue within their compasse , and vnder their degrees , whilst a sort of marryed Ministers feed vpon their substance ; which is another kind of persecution which Bellarmine vrgeth , and M. Downam passeth ouer in silence , to wit to be cast out of their Churches , and Church-lyuings , Vniuersities , and the like , which were instituted for Catholikes by their Ancestors , and are now vsurped by Protestants , altogeather against the Founders will & intention : and the like is of the Inheritances in some , and of their Countrey in many . And this shall suffice for these persecutions or rather the cyuill wars of this tyme betwixt Catholikes & Heretiks : only I could wish my Reader to reflect a little vpon the Christian Princes , in whose dominions at this daie there is The difference betwixt the Catholike & the Protestant Princes . diuersity of Religions , & he shall find , that all the Catholike Princes tolerate in some sort their Hereticall subiects , as the Emperour , the King of France , the King of Poland , & now the Arch-duke in Flanders , whereas heere in England the Catholikes canfind no such fauour , who , that they suffer for Religion , and not for treason none but impudent Ministers and their mates can deny .

Neither is this craft of Protestants any great glory for them , who by reason of the distrust which they haue in their owne cause , vse to put Catholiks to death vnder the name of Treason , Catholikes are put to death for Religion by Protestants . though they can prooue nothing against them , but the exercise of their Religion . For in this they imitate the Iewes who dealt so with our Sauiour , and some other Tyrants , but chiefly Iulian the Apostata , which were alway accompted the greatest and worst persecutors . Whereas Catholikes haue alway punished heretikes directely for their heresie , esteeming it ( as it deserued ) a far greater crime then treason , as being committed against the King of Heauen , whom all earthly Princes are bound to respect more then themselues , & so wee see in Queene Maries tyme , Bishop Cra●mer had his Treasons pardoned , but not his heresies , for which hee was burned . And so it appeareth by the proceeding of our aduersaries that wee are free from heresie : & how false their imputations of treasons are , is proued by many , and lastely by W. R. in his Confutation of O. E. aliâs Sutcliffes vaunting challeng , in the last chapter , to which I remit my reader . And this shall suffice for the greatnes of the persecution vnder Antichrist .

6. Touching the manifestnes of it , M. Downam is not of Bellarmines mynd , yea he thinketh his doctrine contrary to our Sauiours , who hath said , that the good and bad shall grow togeather like wheat and tares , vntill the day of the great haruest . But M. Downam Antichrists persecution most manifest . Matth. 13. may vnderstand , that Bellarmine houldeth with S. Augustine quaest. 11. super Matth. that this is to be vnderstood of the whole world , in which Bellarmine denieth not , but there wil be store of tares in this tyme of Antichrist ; and besides our Sauiour only willeth his seruants not to roote out all the tares , when there is danger , that the corne may also he destroyed by that meanes . But now we speak of his enemies who partly by persecuting , partly for feare of persecution will separate themselues of their owne accord , from among Gods wheate , to wit , his elect ; and yet are to bee separated also in the day of Iudgment against their wills , which is all that the place alleadged doth proue .

To the authority of S. Augustine alleadged by Bellarmine he giueth two answeres . First , if he had said so , we might haue Downam reiecteth S. Augustine esteemed his speach to haue bene but a human coniecture , rather then a prophesy diuine : so that it is no matter , what S. Augustine , or any other can say . For if it please not M. Downams vaine fancy , it shall be accompted but an humane coniecture , though he gather it out of Scripture , as S. Augustine doth this . But secondly , saith M. Downam , Bellarmine without all shame falfifieth his wordes , who speaketh of the Diuell alone , and not of all the wicked , saying : Now it is said , that he shall goe forth , viz. into open persecution : he shall breake forth of the couerts of hatred : for which we must note , that S. Augustine interpreteth the depth into which the Diuell was put , to be their hartes which hate the Christians , in quorum ( saith he ) quotidie velut in abysso , Bellarmin vniustly charged by M Downam cacis & prosundis cordibus includitur . cap. 8. In whose blind and profound hartes , he is daily inclosed , as in a depth . Which exposition he mentioneth againe cap. 11. which Bellarmine cited , where he expoundeth , how he is said to come forth out of this depth , to wit , out of the couerts of hatred , within which he was inclosed , into open persecution , because he shall seduce those , whose harts he possessed to make warre against Christians , which before he hated , but was not permitted to hurt ; all which , that he meaneth of all the wicked , the wordes following immediately declare . Haec enim erit nouissima persecutio no●issimo imminente iudicio , cùm sancta Ecclesia toto terrarum orbe patietur , vniuersa scilicet ciuitas Christi ab vniuersa Diaboli ciuitate , quantacumque erit vtraque super terram . For this shal be the last persecution , the last iudgment being at hand , which the holy Church shall suffer ouer all the world , to wit , the whole citty of Christ , by the whole citty of the Diuell , how great soeuer either of them shall be vpon the earth . Can any thing be more plaine then this ? And after againe he saith ▪ that the holy Church shal be enuironed ab omnibus inimic●● suis , by all her enemies : yea he repeateth the very like wordes to those , which he had spoken in the singular number , againe in the plurall , speaking of the Nations , quae sunt in quatuor angulis terrae , in the foure corners or quarters of the earth , in apertum odium de operto erupturae sunt : they shal breake forth into open hatred of their hidden malice . Wherfore let any man iudge , whether Bellarmine changed S. Augustines sense , though for brenity and perspicuities sake he cited his wordes in the plurall number , as they were to be vnderstood , & are repeated also by S. Augustine himselfe . All the Churches enemies shal ioyne to impugne her in Antichrists tyme .

7. Now , that al that hate Christians or the Church , haue not hitherto ioyned against them , is so manifest , that M. Downam cannot deny , and therfore granting it , he only turneth to aske : whether they shall do so when Antichrist commeth or no ? To whome we returne answere , that they shall , as hath bene sufficiently proued , and therfore it is manifest , that Antichrist is not yet come . To the second part of Bellarmines proofe he answereth , that the vncertainty of the beginning of Antichrists persecution , if it were true , doth not disproue the greatnes : but argueth the length . As though now we treated of the greatnes , and not of the manifestnes of this persecution , Downam forgetteth what he impugneth . which surely is plainly disproued , if it were so secret , that no man can tell when it began . Secondly he saith , the persecutions vnder Nero & the rest , were wel knowne when they began , and when they ended , because there was some intermission of them , but these now , haue no end , nor yet intermission , except it be when they haue none to persecute . And is not this a wise answere thinke you , to tell vs that the beginning of a persecution cannot be shewed , because it hath no intermission , nor end ? Except he would haue vs to vnderstand him , that he meaneth , that it hath had no beginning : neither to which we likewise willingly agree , for the tyme was , and that An inuisible persecution of an inuisible Congregation within these hundred yeares when there was no Protestant in the world to persecute , so that this is an inuisible persecution of an inuisible Congregation , which he maketh so much adoe about , and will needes haue it to be the great persecution of Antichrist . Finally he would willingly bring his brethren to an agreement , about the time of Antichrists comming , but he laboureth in vaine , and bringeth nothing , but that which is already confuted in the third chapter . Wherfore it remayneth cleere and manifest , that the persecution of Antichrist is not yet come .

8. The third part of this Demonstration was , that in The publike & daily office and Sacrifice of the Church , shall cease in Antichrists tyme . the tyme of Antichrists persecution , the publike and daily office , and sacrifice of the Church shall cease , which M. Downam denieth flatly , but yet would seeme to moderate it , by adding , that at least it shall not be so at his first comming : & then setteth downe certayne degrees inuented by himselfe of Antichrists appearing , which so far as they make any way against vs , haue and shal be sufficientlie confuted . But now wee must intreat M. Downam not to go from the difficultie , but to answere directly to Bellarmines argument , taken out of an expresse place of Scripture , ioyned with the exposition of the Fathers , whome hee easilie reiecteth in few wordes saying ; Downam reiecteth the Fathers . the hee needeth not runne with Bellarmine to the Fathers , for the exposition of this place : but I am afraid wee shall find him running to worse men , who will leade him into most absurd errours ; for that is most true , which S. Hierome writeth in the end of Dan. 11. hauing learnedly confuted M. Downans chief Captaine in the exposition of this whole place , which wee haue now in hand . Hoc ideo prolixiùs posui ( saith he ) vt & Prophyrij ostendam calumniam ( qui haec omnia ignorauit , aut nescire se finxit ) & Scripturae sanctae difficultatem , cuius intelligentiam absque Dei gratia & doctrina maiorum sibi imperitissimè vel maximè vendicant . I haue put downe this the more at large , both to shew Prophyries calumny ( who either was ignorant The difficultie of the Scripture , & why many erre in the interpretation thereof . of these thinges , or saygned that he knew them not ) & also the difficultie of holy Scripture , the vnderstanding of which the most vnskillfull aboue all others , challeng to themselues without Gods grace , and their Ancestors learning . And may not M. Downam be ashamed to defend this very calumny , and to shew himselfe , as ignorant , or malicious as wicked Prophyrie himselfe ? and consequently to be without Gods grace , which S. Hierome ioyneth with the learning of our elders , whome M. Downam professeth to set litle by ; and so by S. Hieromes iudgement is a graceles , impudent , & most vnlearned heretike . And will any man be so mad , as to aduenture his saluation vpon the conduct of such blind giudes ?

But yet let vs discouer his follie more fully , that if it be possible , he may by shame be brought to leaue it , or at least others which are not so farre ingaged , may see it , and abhore it . Wherefore S. Hierome in the same 11. Chapter Dan. 11. vpon those wordes : Et saciet iuxta voluntatem suam Rex &c. sheweth , that now not onlie all Christians , but euen the Downam followeth Prophyry an Anpostata , against both Christians and Iewes . very Iewes themselues , who before had their particuler interpretations , agreed , that from that place the Prophet was to be vnderstood of Antichrist , Ab hoc loco ( saith he ) Iudai de Antichristo diciputant . And a little after : Quod quidem & not de Antichristo intelligimus . Prophyrius antem , & caeteri qui sequuntur eum , de Antiocho Epiphane dici arbitrantur . From this place the Iewes thinke , that Antichrist is spoken of ; which truly we also vnderstand of Antichrist : but Prophyrie and those which follow him ( among whome M. Downam will needes make one ) suppose it to be spoken of Antiochus Epiphanes . But comming to the 12. Chap. out of which Bellarmine alleadged Dan. 12. his testimony , S. Hierome writeth thus : Hactenus Prophyrius vtcumque setenuit , & tam nostrorum imperitis , quàm suorum malè eruditis inposuit . De hoc capitulo , quid dicturus est , in quo mortuorum describitur resurrectio , alijs suscitat is in vitam aternam , & alijs in opprobrium sempiternum ? Nec potest dicere , quifuerint sub Antiocho fulgentes quasi splender firm amenti , & alij quasi stella in perpetuas aeternitates . Sed quid non facit pertinacia ? Quasi contritus coluber cleuat caput , & moriturus in eos , quimorturi sunt , venena diffundit . Hitherto in some sort Prophyrie hath defended himselfe , and deceaued aswell the vnlearned among vs , as the euill learned among them . What will hee say of this Chapter , in which the resurrection of the dead is described , some being raised to life euerlasting , others to euerlasting reproach ? Neither can he tell vs , who vnder Antiochus they were that shined , as the brightenes of the firmament , and others as starres for euerlasting eternities . But what doth not pertinacie ? She listeth vp her head like a brused snake , & dying spitteth out her venom Downans and Prophyries pertinacy . vpon them which are likewise to dy . And will M. Downam ioyne with Prophyrie in his pertinacie ? Will he needes be one of these brused-dying-snakes , and still continue to spit out his hereticall , & persidious poison ? If he be thus obstinate , yet I beseech my Readers , yea all my Countreymen to fly from him , least he kill them with his venemous tongue . For if they will not approach too neere , they may perhaps heare him hisse like a goose , but sting them he cannot .

But let vs heare what S. Hierome writeth vpon the very words which Bellarmine citeth : Hos mille ducentos nonaginta dies Porphyrius in tempore Antiochi , & in desolatione Templidicit completos , quam & Iosephus & Machabeorum liber tribus tantùm annis fuisse commemorat . Ex quo perspic●●●● est tres istos , & semis annos de Antichristi dici temperibus , quitribus & semis annis , hoc est , mille ducento nonaginta diebus Sanctos persecuturus est . Postea corr●iturus in m●nte in●●y●o & sancto . A tempore igitur 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ( quod nos interpretari sumus , Iuge sacrificium ) quando Antichristus orbem obtinens , Dei cultum interdixerit vsque ad intern●cionem eius , tres & semis anni , id est , mille ducento & nonaginta dies complebuntur . These thousand two hundreth and ninetie daies Porphyrie saith were fulfilled in the tyme of Antiochus , and in the desolation of the Temple , which both Iosephus and the booke of the Machabees mention to haue bene only three yeares . By which it is manifest , that these thret yeares and a halfe are spoken of Antichrists tymes , who shal persecuie the Saints three yeares and a halfe , that is , a thousand two hundreth ninety daies , and after shall perish in the famous and holy Mountayne . From the tyme therfore 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which we haue translated , the continuall sacrifice , when Antichrist conquering the world , shal forbid the worship of God , vntill his destruction , three yeares & a halfe , that is , a thousand two hundreth and nynety dayes . Thus farre S. Hierome : where we haue not only his opinion , but also his proofes , euen out of the conference with scripture , which M. S. Hierom confuteth Porphiry and Downam Downam appealeth vnto : but perhaps he meaneth only if we giue him leauen to choose the places , & make the conference himself . But we must know him better before we giue him so much liberty , except it be reseruing the like to our selues , so that after we haue heard what he can say , we may confer it with other surer principles then his expositions are , and only admit of that which we find agreable to them . And vpon this condition we will see how well he conferreth in this place . First then he conferreth this place with Chapter 7. where he saith , that the tyme from the interruption of Gods seruice , to the first restitution therof by Iudas Machabaeus , which was three yeares and ten dayes , namely from the 15. of the moneth Casleu in the 145. yeare of the Seleucidae 1. Machab. 1. 57. vnto the 25. Dan. 7. of the moneth of Casleu in the yeare 148. 1. Machab. 4. 52. is called by Daniel a tyme , and tymes , and partell of a tyme . But now wee Downans petitio principij returne to the same difficulty : wherfore not to be too tedious , remitting my Reader for the rest to that , which hath byn said about this 7. Chapter of Daniel in the 5. Chapter , I will only recyte S. Hierome vpon these very words in controuersy . Tempus annum significat ( saith he ) tempora iuxta Haebraici sermonis proprietatem , qui & ipsi dualem numerum habent , duos annos praefigurant ; dimidium autem temporis sex menses , quibus Sancti potestati Antichristi permittendi sunt , vt condemnentur Iudaei , qui non credentes veritati susceperunt mendacium ; de quo tempore & Saluator in Euangelio loquitur ; Nisi abbr●●iati essent dies illi , nequaquam salua esset omnis caro . Non conuenire haec tempora a Antiocho in extrema visione dicemus . A tyme signifieth a yeare , tymes according to the propriety of the hebrew speach , which haue also the duall number , prefigure two yeares ; and halfe a tyme , six monthes , in which the Saintes are to be permitted to Antichrists power , that the Iewes may be condemned , who not belieuing the truth receaued a lye ; of which tyme our Sauiour also in the Ghospell saith ; Except those daies should be shortned all slesh thould not be safe . That these tymes agree not to Antiochus , we will teach in the last vision . Thus farre S. Hierome .

Where we see that both these places are to be vnderstood of Antichrist , and neither of Antiochus ; which appeareth also by that in this Chapter , aswell as in the 12. there is expresse mention made of the last iudgment , as S. Hierome noted in The interruption of the Iewes Sacrifice was only three yeares . the place which I alleaged before . So that his computation of the times out of 1. Machab. are not to the purpose : and besides as S. Hierome also noreth , that time is only three yeares : for so it is rather to be accompted from the 25. day of the moneth Casleu , when 1. Machah . 1. it is expressed , that the Gentiles first sacrificed super aram , quae erat contra altare : vpon the Are which was against the Altar ; and so the Scripture it selfe accompteth in the place alleadged by M. Downam 1. Machab. 4. secundum tempus , & secundum diem , in qua contaminauerunt illud gentes ; according to the tyme , and according to the day , in which the Gentills defiled it ; and by this reckoning M. Downam hath lost his ten dayes , which he made so great accompt of , that hee was not afraid to corrupt the wordes of Scripture , Downam corrupteth the Scripture . by changing halfe a tyme into a parcell of a tyme , as though because halfe is not the whole , but a parcell ; therefore euery parcell had bene halfe . But now by the Scripture and S. Hieromes accompt , he hath neither halfe nor parcell aboue three yeares , and yet they must haue an entyre halfe of M. Downam , or els he is like to smart for it one day .

And is not this a strange conferring of Scripture thinke you , to alleadge a place of Scripture against himselfe , and then to change it , because otherwise it will not serue his turne ? wheras indeed , if it had bene , as he would haue it , a parcell and not halfe , it had byn least of all to the purpose , except by that parcell we should haue vnderstood an halfe : for otherwise it had bene cleere , that these two places were Downans conferring of Scripture . spoken of diuers thinges . And this M. Downam did in some sort see : wherefore he telleth vs , that vnto the victory obteyned by the Machabees , wherby the forces of Antiochus were expelled out of Iury , and therby the restitution before begun , established , were 3. yeares and a halfe , as Iosephus testifieth . But this maketh nothing to the purpose , as neither his other accomptes of 1260. dayes to the striking of Antiochus , and 1335. vnto his death ( for which two later he neither citeth Scripture , or other Author ) for See the next Chapter . heere is no conference of Scripture at all ; and besides , if all this were so , which wee can hardly belieue , till it be better proued , it only sheweth a wonderfull correspondence betwixt Antiochus the figure , and Antichrist whom he figured , but no way proueth , that in the places of Dan. 7. and 12. there is any mention of Antiochus ; which S. Hierome hath euidently disproued , and much lesse that they were only to be Antiochus not spoken of at all Dan. 7. & 12. vnderstood of him ; which is that , which it behooueth M. Downam to demonstrate : for otherwise Bellarmines argument hath his full force , and much more now , that there is no mention of Antiochus .

This then being so , I doubt not any discreet and indifferent Reader will graunt , that not only the Iewes , but also the Christians were to haue a continuall sacrifice , and worship of God , which was not wholie to be interrupted vntill Antichrists tyme : and against all M. Downams rayling , I need to oppose no other argument , but only this place , which is sufficient to conuince any but obstinate heretikes . And he bringeth not any one argument , but only affirmeth many blasphemies without all proofe ; and therefore at this tyme , the discreet Reader must expect no more but a bare Downam & his fellow Ministers their manner of disputing . denyall to a bare affirmation , for otherwise wee should neuer make an end of iangling , if whensoeuer he will blaspheme , I should leaue the principall question , and refute other particulers altogeather from the present purpose , which seemeth to be that , which this Mynister desireth now , and the whole crew of them are wont to practise in all disputations . Wherfore I will end this Chapter , requesting my reader to consider attentiuely if it be not euident out of this last proofe , that Antichrist is not yet come , that the Pope is most contrary to him , and that Protestants are his forerunners , as Bellarmine inferred .

THE EIGHT CHAPTER . conteyning the fifth Demonstration .

THE fifth Demonstration ( saith Bellarmine ) is taken from the continuance of Antichrist . Antichrist shall not reigne past three yeares & a halfe . But the Pope hath already reigned spiritually in the Church aboue 1500. yeares ; and there cannot be any assigned , who hath byn accompted Antichrist , who hath raigned precisely three yeares and a halfe . Wherfore the Pope is not Antichrist , nor Antichrist is yet come .

Now , that Antichrists raigne shal be three yeares and a halfe , it is gathered out of Dan. cap. 7. & 12. and Apoc. 12. where we read , that Antichrists raigne shall indure for a tyme , and tymes , and halfe a tyme : for by a tyme is vnderstood one yeare , by tymes two yeares , and by halfe a tyme halfe a yeare . For so S. Iohn explicateth , who Apoc. 11. and 13. saith , that Antichrist shall raigne 42. Monthes , which rightly make 3. yeares & a halfe : & cap. 11. he saith , that Henoch and Helias shall preach 1260. dayes . which make the same tyme , for the Hebrews did vse the yeares , and monthes of the Moone , though they did reduce them to those of the Sunne by adding euery sixt yeare one Lunation . And three yeares and a halfe of the Moone make iust 42. moneths , or 1260. dayes . For a full & perfect yeare of the Moone consisteth of 12. monthes , euery one of which hath 30. daies , as S. August . teacheth l. 15. deciu. Dei . c. 14.

Neither is it against this , that Dan. 12. Antichrist is said to raigne 1290. daies , that is 30. daies more , then S. Iohn said : for S. Iohn speaketh of Henoch and Elias which shal be slain by Antichrist one moneth before he perish .

To this the Aduersaries answere in three sorts : first Chytraeus in cap. 11. & 13. Apoc. saith , that these tymes cannot be taken for three yeares and a halfe , because it is against experience , & S. Paul . 2. Thess. 2. saith , that Antichrist shal indure vntill Christs comming .

Secondly he saith , that a certaine tyme is put for an vncertaine , and therfore for 42. monthes , or 1260. daies there are to be vnderstood more then a 1000. years . The same saith Bullenger serm. 46. in Apoc. whose reason seemeth to be that , which Luther insinuateth in supput . temporum , because it is manifest Apoc. 20. that the Diuell is to be loosed in the thousand yeare : wherfore the comming of Antichrist with the temporall sword was the thousand yeare after Christ ; therfore now he hath raigned more then fiue hundreth yeares : wherfore we must take those 42. monthes for an vncertaine tyme .

Thirdly the Magdeburgenses answere cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col. 438. that Daniel & Iohn take a day for a yeare , and therfore by a 1260. daies , wee must vnderstand 1260. yeares : the reason may be , because also Dan. 9. the 70. weekes are vnderstood of all , to be weekes of yeares , and not of daies : & Ezech. 4. it is said , I haue giuen thee day for a yeare : & Luc. 13. I must walk to day , & to morrow , & the next day , that is , liue three yeares ; which reason Chytraus giueth in cap. 11. Apoc. where he saith , that these manner of yeares and monthes are called Angelicall , and not Humane .

But against this , is the common opinion of the Ancients , who affirme by reason of the places cited , that Antichrist shall raigne only three yeares and a halfe . S. Hippolytus Martyr in orat . de consummatione mundi Antichrist shall raigne vpon the earth three yeares and a halfe , afterward his kingdome and glory shall be taken away . S. Iren. lib. 5. in fine . He shall raigne three yeares and six moneths , and then our Lord shall come from Heauen . And S. Hierome in cap. 7. Dan. A tyme signifieth a yeare , tymes according to the propriety of the Hebrew speach , who haue also the duall number , presigure two yeares , and halfe a tyme , six moneths , in which the Saiutes are to be permitted to the power of Antichrist . S. Cyril catechesi 25. Antichrist shall raigne only three yeares and a halfe , which wee speake not out of Apocriphall bookes , but out of the Prophet Dan. And S. Aug. lib. 20. de Ciuitate Dei , cap. 23. That Antichrists kingdome against the Church shal be most cruell ; though to be susteyned for a small space of tyme , he that readeth these thinges euen halfe a sleepe is not suffered to doubt ; for that a tyme & tymes , and a halfe tyme , are one yeare & two , and one half , and consequentlie three yeares and a halfe , it is plaine by the number of daies , which is put afterward , and sometyme it is declared also in the Scripture by the number of moneths . The like hath Theodoretus in cap. 7. Dan. Primasius , Beda , S. Anselme , Arethas , Richardus , Rupertus .

Secondly it is proued , for that the Scriptures say , that the tyme of the Diuel being loosed , and of Antichrist , shal be very short , Apoc. 12. Woe be to the earth , and the sea , because the Diuill goeth downe to you , hauing great anger knowing that he hath a small tyme . And Apoc. 20. hee bound him for a thousand yeares , and after this he must be loosed a small tyme . How I pray you , shall this be true if Antichrist shall raygne 1260. yeares ? For so he shall be longer loosed , then bound .

Thirdly , because , as S. Aug. argueth lib. 20. de ciuitate Dei cap. 8. and S. Gregory lib. 33. moral . cap. 12. vnlesse that cruell persecution were most short , many would perish , which shall not perish . Wherefore our Lord saith Matth. 24. vnlesse those dayes had bene abreuiated , all flesh should not be safe . But how shall it be most short , which shall indure aboue a thousand yeares ?

Fourthly , Christ preached only three yeares and a halfe , therefore it is also decent , that Antichrist be not permitted to preach longer .

Fifthly , because the summe of 1260. yeares which the Aduersaries appoynt , cannot any way be accommodated to those wordes of Dan. & S. Iohn , a tyme , and tymes , and halfe a tyme ; for by a time without doubt must be vnderstood some one number , as one day , one weeke , one moneth , one yeare , one Lustre , one Iubily , one age , one Millenarie or thousand ; & if wee take this last , then Antichrist shall raigne 1500. yeares which the aduersaries admit not : if wee take one age , Antichrists tyme shal be 350. yeares , which likewise they admit not : and the same is manifest of a Iubily &c.

Sixtely , because when Dan. 4. wee often read , that 7. tymes shall passe in which Nabuchodonosor shal be out of his kingdome , by those tymes all vnderstand . 7. yeares , for if wee would vnderstand yeares of yeares , as the aduersaries vnderstand , when Antichrist is spoken of , wee should saie , that Nabuchodonosor lyued out of his Kingdome 2555. yeares .

Neither is it hard to solue their slender reasons ; for when Chytraeus saith , that the three yeares and an halfe , of which Daniel and S. Iohn speake , cannot be taken properly for our vsuall yeares , because experience witnesseth that Antichrist hath tyranized much longer already ; he manifestlie repeateth or beggeth the principle , or beginning , as the Logitians speake , for hee taketh or assumeth that which is in controuersie : for that the question is , whether Antichrist be come or noe . And when he addeth that Antichrist by S. Paules opinion shall raigne till the second comming of Christ , and thereupon concludeth , that hee must raigne longer then three yeares and a halfe , hee seeth not that hee either repeateth the principle againe or saith nothing ; for that illation prooueth nothing , vnles it be assumed , that Antichrist is already come , which notwithstanding is in controuersy .

And to that , which both hee and Henry Bullenger say , that a certaine number is taken for an vncertaine in this place : I answere , that then only a certaine number is put for an vncertaine , when some full and perfect number is put , as 10. 100. 1000. and not when there are diuers numbers assigned , where there are great and little mingled . Wherefore then is a certaine number to be taken for an vncertaine , when the Scripture saith Apoc. 12. that the Diuell was bound for a 1000. yeares , as S. Augustine expoundeth it , lib. 20. de Ciuitate Dei cap. 8. and S. Gregory 33. moral . cap. 12. and not when he assigneth a tyme , & tymes , and halfe a tyme , or 1260. dayes , or 42. monethes : for to what end is that diuersity of numbers , if an vncertaine tyme be designed ?

To the argument of Illyricus , I say , that in the Scripture there are indeed found , and rightely called weekes of yeares , but not dayes for yeares , or moneths of yeares : for weekes of yeares wee read Leuit. 25. Thou shalt number to thy selfe seauen weekei of yeares &c. and that rightly , it is manifest , because a weeke is denominated of the number of 7. in greeke , in latin , & in hebrew ; for the hebrewes call a weeke scabuagh , of scheuagh , which is seauen , as also in Greke it is called 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and in Latin septimana , of the number of 7. Wherfore as 7. daies are called a weeke of daies ; so , seauen yeares a weeke of yeares but we no where read a moneth of yeares or a day for a yeare : neither were it rightly spoken . For a month is not denominated of any number , but of the course of the Moone , which is finished in 30. daies , for which cause the hebrewes call a moneth jareach , that is a Moone , or chiresch , that is a renewing , to wit of the Moone , and in greeke a moneth is called 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , because the Moone is called 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉

Likewise a Day , doth not signify number : but the tyme of light , Gen. 1. God called the light Daie , and darknesse Night . Neither is that of Ezech. 4. against this , I haue giuen thee a day for a yeare : for the meaning is not , that by daies litterally are signifyed yeares , otherwise Ezechiel should haue slept vpon his left side 390. yeares , which is vnpossible . For God commaunded him to sleep vpon his left side 390. daies , and added , I haue giuen thee a day for a yeare . If therfore those daies be taken for yeares , Ezechiel should haue slept vpon his left side 390. yeares : but he liued not so long : wherfore daies are taken there truly for dayes , but are said to be giuen for yeares : because those 390. dayes in which Ezechiel slept , were a signe of the sleeping of God , by which he tolerated the sins of the Israelites 390. yeares .

To that which Chytraeus obiecteth out of Luc. 13. I must walke to day , and to morrow , and the daie following : I answere that it is not signified in those wordes ( as the erring Aduersaries say ) that Christ was to preach three yeares after ; for our Lord spake those wordes the last yeare of his life . For as S. Hierom writeth lib. de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis , in Ioanne , and the thing it selfe sheweth , S. Matth. S. Marke , and S. Luke wrote not the deedes and wordes of Christ of the former two yeares , but only those of the third . Wherfore our Lord by those three daies either vnderstood the three daies , which he was to spend in the iourney to Hierusalem , as Albert and Caietan expound it ; orels by that manner of speach would signify that he should liue and preach a little tyme after , as I ansenius rightly teacheth . Therefore let Illyricus and Chytraeus bethinke themselues , where they found Angelicall daies and moneths , for they are not to be found in Scripture .

M. Downams Answere confuted .

1. BEFORE M. Downam beginneth to answere any thing to this demonstration , he childishly beareth his Reader in hand , that Bellarmine teacheth vs not to looke for Antichrist , vntill he be gone , nor to expect his comming till the world haue an end : because in this , & the next demonstration he proueth , Downans childish cauill . that Antichrist is not yet come ( as the Heretikes affirme ) because if they sayd truth , he should likewise haue bene gone , and the world also haue bene ended long ere this , since he was not to raigne , but three yeares and a halfe , and the world was not to endure long after . And the heretikes , euen M. Downam himself affirme , that Antichrist came a thousand yeares since . Wherfore this silly shift will not serue his turne ; but except he can disproue Bellarmines assertion of the short tyme of Antichrists raigne , and of the speedy end of the world afterward , it wil be manifest to any indifferent Reader , that he and his fellowes haue most shamefully abused the world , in affirming that Antichrist came so many yeares agone . Wherfore let vs see , what he can answere to Bellarmines proofes .

2. But first you must giue him leaue once more to bewray Downam changeth Bellarmines argument . his shameles folly , for he will needes resolue Bellarmines argument , and so make him bring the mayne question for an argument . But these are his idle conceiptes , for the matter is plaine inough , since Bellarmine argueth thus : Whosoeuer shal be Antichrist , shall raigne only three yeares and a halfe , but none hitherto hath done so : Ergo , none hitherto hath bene Antichrist . Wherfore except M. Downam answereth to this argument in forme , he may well daunce in a round , but will say nothing to the purpose ; which he himselfe seemeth to acknowledge , saying immediately after : But to come to the purpose , viz. from which he had spoken all this while .

2. And now we shall find him farre more coole : for first he graunteth the assumption or minor , so farre as is necessary , to wit , that the Pope hath reigned more then three yeares , & a halfe : viz. a thousand yeares , which is sufficient for our purpose , and therefore I will not stryue with him about the other Antichrist shall raigne three yeares & a halfe . Dan. 7. & . 12. 500. yeares , because I would not be like him in speaking from the purpose . Wherefore let vs see what he can say to the proposition , concerning which , he affirmeth , the whole controuersie to be . And so hee flatly denieth it , affirming that the places of Daniel , are to be vnderstood of Antiochus , and not of Antichrist , and repeateth his Chymericall distinctions inuented by himselfe of the 4. degrees , in the deliuerance of the Iewes from the Tyranny of Antiochus , for which hoe hath neither Scripture nor other author , but Iosephus corrupted . only Ioseph●● corrupted by some fauourite of Porphyrie , & of his owne exposition of Daniel , for S. Hierome found no difference betwixt Ioseph , and the Machabees , but both affirmed , that the desolation of the Temple lasted only three yeares , and by their authoritie he manifestlie conuinceth , that Daniel cannot be vnderstood of the tyme of Antiochus , but of Antichrist , because he putteth halfe a yeare more then the sacrifice ceased among the Iewes in the tyme of Antiochus . Wherefore it is manifest , that S. Hierome found but 3. yeares in Ioseph , and that the 6. monethes were added since : and if See the precedent Chapter . Ioseph had written otherwise , he were to be euidently conuinced of falshood out of the Machabees , which M. Downam would gladlie conceale , and therefore he maketh Ioseph to speake of another degree , and putteth his words only in Greeke : but all these deuises will not serue his turne , since he expresly affirmed , that the dailie sacrifice ceased 3. yeares and six moneths . Ipse ( Antiochus ) & Templum spoliauit , & quotidianae religionis assi●●itatē per annos tressexque menses inhibuit : which is flatlie against the Machabees , and M. Downam himself also , who will haue it to haue byn only 3. yeares and ten daies , & so maketh Daniel to agree with him , by changing halfe a yeare into a parcell ; and would no doubt willingly haue done as much for Ioseph , but that hee could not conuey it cleanly , because he expresly reckoneth 6. monethes , as now Hierom. in cap. 12. Dan. wee haue him , but indeed only accompted three yeares , as S. Hierome citeth him , and so he agreeth passing well with the Machabees ; and it is euident , that Daniel spake not of Antiochus , but Antichrists tyme , as hath bene sufficiently proued , aswell by this number of three yeares , and a halfe , as by other circumstances , which agree not to Antiochus , in the former Chapter . And this is all he hath to say about the places of Daniel , only he repeateth an obiection , which Bellarmine made to himselfe , that Daniel reckoneth 1290. daies , and S. Iohn but 1260. 30. lesse . To which he answered , that Anticrists last moneth is not accompted in his raigne . S. Iohn speaketh of the preaching of Henoch and Helias , and Daniel of the death of Antichrist , which shal be 30. daies after , in which he shall notraigne so absolutly as before , and therfore this last moneth is not commonly accompted in his raigne , as neither the yeares before , in which hee obteyned to the height of his greatnes . For after the death , resurrection , and assumption of Enoch and Helias , the third part of the Citty shall fall , and 7000. shal be slaine with an earthquake , and the rest shal be terrified , and giue glory to the God of Heauen , as S. Iohn writeth Apoc. 11. by which Antichrists kingdome shal be much diminished , though hee shall liue one moneth Ionger , Dan. cap. 12. and persecute so much as he may , as the Angel tould Daniel , being desirous to know what was to follow after the 3. yeares and a halfe .

3. The places of the Apoc. trouble M. Downam shrewdly , and therfore he giueth six solutions ( such as they are ) poore ones , God wot . First then he denieth that the tymes Apoc. 11. 12. 13. mentioned in the 11. 12. and 13. chapters are the same , and putteth Bellarmine to proue it , because he himself hath neither reason nor authority to impugne it withal , both which Bellarmine hath alleadged for his exposition , in which there is no difficultie , where wee are to begin the accompt . Neither will M. Downams bare word be taken , affirming , that all these tymes are not to be taken litterally , and that none of them defineth Antichrists raigne . For Bellarmine expresly prooueth the contrary . But , saith M. Downam , the 42. moneths in the 11. and 13. Chapters signifie the tyme of the persecution vnder the Roman Emperours , either only or specially . For cap. 11. v. 2. it is said , that the Gentills shall tread vpon the holy Citty 42. moneths . But Antichrist as the Antichrist shal be the Prince of all the wicked in generall . Papists hold , shal be the Prince of the Iewes , and counterfaite Christians : and of all the wicked in generall also , as M. Downam cannot choose but know , if he would deale sincerely , and not seeke for shiftes , and starting-holes . For in the last Chapter that was plainly , not only affirmed , but also proued , as afterward it shall againe : as likewise in due place , that the great Citty , where the two witnesses shal be slaine , is Hierusalem & See cap. 13. not Rome ; though if it were Rome , it were no proofe , but that they might be slain by Antichrist there , in whose tyme they shall preach , as hath bene largly conuinced . By which it is likewise manifest that these places are to be vnderstood of Antichrist . But nothing conuinceth this more euidently The foolish dreame of the foole Fox . then the foolish dreame of the foole Fox , whome the diuell which seemeth to haue perswaded him , rightly so called , because he was so blockish , as to beleiue so absurd a deuise , which notwithstanding M. Downam is content to make his cheifest ground , because he hath no better , to wit , that by 42. moneths should be vnderstood so many sabbaths , or weekes of yeares . Was there euer a more absurd or ridiculous deuise inuented , or maintayned ? Is this the sincere exposition of Scripture , which they so greatly brag and boast of ? what connexion hath 30. dayes with 7. yeares ? Surely a moneth contayneth 4. weekes . Wherfore if they will haue these 42. monthes to be vnderstood of yeares , they must not tell vs of 42. weekes of yeares , but of so many monthes , which they cannot do ; and besides Bellarmine well proueth , that there are not moneths of yeares , as there are weekes , and much lesse that moneths are taken for weekes , which is There are no monethes of yeares . a meere madnesse to imagine , and altogeather as absurd as to thinke that Foxes head was of glasse , as he is reported to haue most fondly imagined . And yet is M. Downam content thus to shift of the difficulty of all these places , thinking it sufficient to haue found this goodly Glosse for the 42. months , and that the number of daies , or yeares need no further explication , but is to be reduced to these 42. weekes of yeares though neither himself , nor any man els , can possibly inuent how to make them agree . For first concerning the daies , if we take a day for a yeare , and after this accompt , we can take it for no lesse , they make 4. tymes as many yeares as the 42. Downam & Fox their absurd exposition of Scripture . sabbothes come to at least , and then what shall we make of the three yeares and a halfe ? Surely this is an endles labour and labyrinth ; but to this passe must these good fellowes needes come , that will go about to frame Scripture to their owne brittle and beetle braines .

But yet M. Downam will giue one attempt more about the three yeares and a halfe , which he thinketh may be vnderstod of the tyme , wherin the Church of Christ , which was at Hierusalem , after it was admonished by a voice out of the Sanctuary to depart , and accordingly remoued to Pella , was susteyned there . In which deuise ; First he must graunt that the 1260. dayes , signify also 3. yeares and a halfe , for the same space in this Chapter is twice accompted , once by tymes , and againe by dayes : by which it wil seeme more than probable , that the moneths are to be vnderstood so also , and so the foole Fox hath lost his bable ; and besides , many things in this 12. Chapter cannot be applied to those few Christians which were at Hierusalem , as the battaile betwixt Michael and the Diuell , the great persecution which was raised against the woman &c. But M. Downam obiecteth , that in this 12. Chapter , there is no speach of Antichrist , but of the Diuel , who first seeketh to ouerthrow the Church of Christ among the Iewes , and afterward commeth to the Gentiles , and therfore it is said , that he standeth vpon the sea shore , from whence he rayseth the Beast with 7. heades &c. where it is meruaile , that Apoc. 12. he did not marke , how the Serpent or Dragon had 7. heads and ten hornes , aswell as this beast , and consequently , that they are both to be at the same tyme ; and to be the chiefe causers of this great persecution : yet with this difference , that the diuell is the cause of all other , aswell as this . Wherfore not vnfitly Antichrist is here called his taile , in which chiefly the venome of this serpent lyeth : so that whatsoeuer The diuel and Antichrist described after the same manner . Antichrist shall do either by himselfe or his instruments , may be peculiarlie applied to the Diuell . For which cause the Diuell in Antichrists tyme cannot be more liuely set forth then by the same description , which representeth Antichrist himselfe , by which M. Downams deuise is quite ouerthrowne and become ridiculous , as also his profe , for that the Diuell is said to stand vpon the sea shore , from whence hee raiseth the beast with 7. heads &c. for this prooueth nothing but that Antichrist , is a beast of the Diuells raising , and hath his power from him , which no man denieth : though I meruaile how M. Downam forgot his Greeke in this place , in which wee read 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ( steti : ) as also Andreas Arethas , Erasmus , Rupertus , and Codex Complutensis haue it ; and consequentlie were to be referred to S. Iohn himselfe , who signifieth whither he was carried in spirit to see the beast ( which followeth ) arise ; for which cause diuers ancient writers begin the next chapter at those words .

4. In the second place M. Downam addeth , that by Bellarmines interpretation of those tymes , it would follow , that after Antichrist is once reuealed , all men that be acquainted with the Scriptures , may precisely define before hand the very day of Christs comming vnto iudgment , which the Lord notwithstanding will not haue knowne Mar. 13. 32. as Bellarmine himselfe must needes graunt , seeing he vseth this , as the chiefe argument against those who by 1260. daies Whether those that liue at Antichrists death , may gather how long they haue to the end of the world or no ? vnderstand so many yeares . To which I answere that no such thing can be gathered out of Bellarmine , who lately also Apolog. cap. 10. hath plainly declared , that in his opinion , there can no more be gathered out of the Prophet Daniel , then that the world shall endure at least 45. dayes after Antichrists death , but whether longer or no , that the Scripture declareth not : but indeed S. Hierome wryteth plainly , that 45. dayes after Antichrists death , Christ shall come to Iudgment . Out of which wee willingly graunt , that those which liue , at the tyme of Antichrists death may easilie gather out of Scripture , how far the day of iudgment is off . Neyther is this against Mar. 13. 32. where our Sauiour only saith , that at that tyme it was only knowne to God , which hindereth not , but that heerafter it may be gathered by Daniels prophesie , when it is within so few dayes .

But M. Downam addeth further in his 6. Chapter , that our Sauiour Matth. 24. 39. and Luc. 17. 26. hath foretould , that the end of the world shal be suddaine , and vnlooked for euen as it was in the daies of Noah and Lot . This is the obiection which I referred to this place , as belonging to it , and Daniel answereth it with a distinction , that at the death of Antichrist there shal be both good and wicked men , as there were in the time of Noah and Let , and euer since . Now saith Daniel , Only the iust & learned shall make this collection . impièagent impij , neque intelligent ownes impij : porrò docti . intelligent . the wicked shall doe wickedly , and none of them shall vnderstand ( these mysteries , though they be so plainely fortould ) and of these speaketh our Sauiour when he saith , that the day of iudgement shall come vnlooked for . But Daniel addeth further , porrò docti intelligent ; the learned shall vnderstand them , and may make a certaine collection of the tyme of the daie of Iudgement , when they once see Antichrist dead , that is , such pious interpreters as S. Hierome was . And this difference wee see in the tyme of Noah and Lot , and now also : for though the Scripture speaketh plainly of Antichrist and his persecution , and how long it is to continue : yet wicked Porphyrie , M. Downam , and the rest of that crew vnderstand it not : but S. Hierome and other holy Saintes and Catholikes instructed by them vnderstand it plainely . So true is , and euer was , and shal be that saying of the Wiseman , In maleuolam animam non introibit sapientia . Wisdome will not Sap. 1. enter into a wicked and malicious soule ; such as all heretikes haue , and alway had , though they brag neuer so much of Scripture , and their priuate spirit , which is one of the chiefest branches of their impiety . Neither doth this any whit infring Bellarmines argument against those which expound the 1260. daies to be so manie yeares : for they cannot haue any ground at all , to affirme that those yeares are to Downans iugling . begin more at one tyme , then at another , and yet euery one by assigning what tyme it pleaseth him , must needs graunt , that from that tyme vntill Christs comming there are iust so many yeares , which is , to take vpon them to know that , which Christ said was so hydden , that without an euident reuelation , as that of Daniel is , after Antichrists death , no man , nor Angell can know it . So that Bellarmine vseth that argument , only to disprooue the tyme , which Illyricus and others appoint of Antichrists comming , and not absolutly to reproue that interpretation ; as M. Downam would haue his reader think . Wherefore in all this Chapter , in which he so largelie refuteth that interpretation , he neuer vrgeth that illation . But this is no iugling at all in M. Downans conceipt .

Thirdly , saith M. Downam , It is incredible , if not impossible , that so many and so great thinges , as they assigne to Antichrist should be effected , and brought to passe in so short a tyme , as Hentenius a learned Papist doth confesse , and as hath bene shewed heretofore . If M. Downam In praefat , translat . Areth. had set downe these many and great thinges wee might perhaps haue shewed him how many of them were not to be done in these 3. yeares and a halfe , in which notwithstanding Antichrist may doe very many by himselfe , and his Ministers , hauing all the world at command ; and thus is Hentenius to be expounded , who only thinketh it impossible for Antichrist to obtaine so many Kingdomes and Prouinces in so short a space : which maketh nothing at all against vs , who rather think , that this short tyme is to begin after those victoryes be ended . M. Downans other proofes are to be examined in their due places .

Fourthlie ( saith M. Downam ) When wee proued that Antichrist is not any one man alone , but a whole State and succession of man , we proued this by consequence , that his raigne was not to continue only three yeares and a halfe . He saith well : for when he can prooue the one , he may proue the other ; but he will neuer be able to proue either , as the Reader will easily see , by conferring See chap. 2. his proofes , and my answeres togeather : which now it is no tyme nor place to do .

Fiftly ( saith M. Downam ) Antichrist according to the conceipt of the Papists is to raigne before the preaching of the two witnesses , and as Enoch & Elias shal-begin to preach in the beginning of Antichrists Raigne . Bell saith , is to continue one moneth after their death . Seeing then the two witnesses preach 1260. dayes , which as Bellarmine also saith make three yeares & a halfe precisely ; how can the terme of Antichrists raigne , be three yeares & a halfe precisely ? First M. Downam might haue done well to haue named those Papists who conceipt Antichrists raigne before the preaching of the two witnesses , for we would haue byn so bould , as to haue tould them , that they were in a wrong conceipt , vnles they meant that he should be of great power before ; but yet not of so great , as he shal be for the space of three yeares and a halfe , in which these two glorious witnesses shall preach , as neither in his last moneth after their death , by which he shall receaue such a blow , that his kingdome shal be so much diminished , that the last moneth is not accompted to belong to the height of his raigne , as before we also explicated out of Apoc. 11. and so there remayneth iust three yeares and a halfe for Antichrists reigne , Supra nu. 2. and these two holy witnesses preaching . Lastly he remitteth himselfe to his proofes , that Antichrist was come in the Apostles tyme , and reuealed in the yeare 670. for answere of which bare assertion ( for heere he goeth not about to proue any thing ) I must likewise remit my Reader to the answers See Chap. 3. which I gaue to those his proofes in their due places , and so leaue him to iudge how well M. Downam hath answered Bellarmines allegations , and confuted his assertions .

5. After Bellarmine had proposed his owne argument out of Scriptures , he setteth downe three distinct answeres of the Protestants to those places , which he refuteth : first by the authority of the Fathers , who with one accord expound Downam insolently reiecteth the Fathers . those places in that sense : to which M. Downam giueth no other answere , but that they could not vnderstand those prophesies ; which is plaine dealing indeed , and sufficiently manifesteth Downans proud priuate spirit , which dareth tell so many holy Fathers , and pillars of Gods Church , that he knoweth more , then they all , and that they sayd they knew not what , when they interpreted those prophesies in that sort : which I would thinke should be sufficient for all soules , to fly from such proud Luciferian spirites , as this fellow , and his Companions haue .

To Bellarmines second proofe M. Downam hath more to say : for first he reprehendeth Bellarmine , for saying , that the Scriptures affirme , the tyme of the diuels loosing & Antichrists raigne , to be breuissimum , Bellarmin vniustly charged . very short , or most short , they only saying , that it is short , or smal . But his Wisdome should haue considered , that Belarmine putteth that breuissimum for the sense , and not for the wordes of the Scripture ; which afterward he alleadgeth as they ly ; so that if they import a very short , or most short tyme , Bellarm. is not to blame . But M. Downam denieth this also , shewing at large , that many tymes a thousand yeares or more Apoc. 12. in Scripture are accoumpted but as a day , or a very short tyme , in respect of the Lord , who speaketh in the Scripture : which we willingly graunt : but he should haue shewed vs , that these places now in question are to be vnderstood in respect of the Lord , and not rather in respect of the thousand yeares , in which the Diuell was bound . And cap. 17. it is yet more p●aine , that Antichrist shall raigne a small tyme in respect of The tyme of Antichrists raigne verie short . Apoc. 17. the 6. Kinges , which went before him , which howsoeuer M. Downam vnderstandeth them , cannot be said to haue raigned much more then a thousand yeares a peece . Neither is it true , that Antichrist not only was , but also persecuted those , that refused his marke , within the thousand yeares of Sathans imprisonment : though S. Iohn . Apoc. 20. saw the Martyrs in the tyme of Antichrist , Apoc. 20. togeather with those which were before ; of which only he speaketh , when he saith that they liued and raigned with Christ in the thousand yeares : except some will say with S. Ambrose , that the Martyrs in the tyme of Antichrist are said to raigne ( before they were ) in the former Martyrs , because they were members of the same body : or that the thousand yeares are diuersly taken . And thus wee see plainly , that the tyme of Antichristes raigne , and the Diuells being loose , is said to be a very short tyme .

6. To the third argument he answereth briefely , that S. Augustine &c. did mistake the place Matth. 24. 21. and that Matth. 24. Downam reiecteth S. Augustine & S. Gregory . it is to be vnderstood of the calamitie of the Iew●s , as he hath manifestly prooued ( if you will belieue him : ) but if you will take a view of my answere to his proofes , perhaps you will thinke them manifestly fond and foolish . Secondly he saith , that wee are to distinguish betwixt the tyme of Antichrists continuance , & the tyme of his heatest persecution ; which we willingly admit , See chap. 4. though so , that we alway thinke , that his whole persecution shal be most hoat : for we find no cold persecution of his at all . Wherefore if he will graunt vs , that the great and hoat persecution of Antichrist , which is spoken of in the Scripture shal be very short , least in a manner all perish , we desire no more ; and thus much we must haue whether he will or no , since the Scripture truly interpreted by the holy Fathers expresly affirmeth it .

In answering the fourth congruence , he is somewhat large . First he saith , that Bellarmine presupposeth that Antichrist is but one man , which is true in some sort , because he had prooued it before , and yet proueth it now againe thus farre , that it is very improbable , that more then one should be necessarie for the space of 3. yeares and a halfe , longer then which Christ preached not ; and therefore in likelihood Antichrist shall preach no longer neither .

Secondly he taketh vp Bellarmine very short , for making himself Gods Counsaylour : which yet is farre otherwise , for he only seeketh reasons of that , which is already knowne that God hath done . For I would haue M. Downam know , that Bellarmine is too wise to haue deliuered any certainty only vpon this congruence , and therefore would by no meanes make that inference , which he would haue him , that Antichrist shall peruert no more then Christ conuerted , because The conuerting of one , argueth more power than the peruerting of many . it is farre more easie to peruert , then to conuert , and so the conuerting of those few , or any one of them which Christ conuerted , sheweth farre more power , then all that peruerting doth in Antichrist , which bewrayeth no power at all , but malice and hatred : and yet would not Bellarmine say neither , that Christ as man could conuert no more , than he did , but that he vsed sufficient meanes to conuert farre more , and could haue vsed more ; but he is wont to proceed sweetly , though effectually with his elect , whereas Antichrist vseth all cruelty and extremitie , and findeth men more disposed to follow him , then Christ did , and therfore there is no comparison betwixt them two in this , but only it seemeth vnfitting for vs to thinke , that Gods goodnes will giue Antichrist a longer tyme to vse all those barbarous and tyrannycall meanes , then was allotted to Christ , only to allure men by his diuine perswasions , and admirable workes .

Thirdly he would make a difference betwixt Christ and Antichrist , in that Christ hath spoken by the mouth of his Prophets and Ministers . As though Antichrist hath not alway had his Ministers also , all heretikes ; and now M. Downam , and his rable must be content to let all the world but themselues thinke , that they are his Ministers . Fourthly hee Antichrist may raise a vniuersall persecution , ●● one time , would begin to proue , that Antichrist cannot doe all those thinges which Catholikes attribute to him , in so short a tyme . But this is another matter now , and he cannot deny but that Antichrist may raise a generall persecution in all his Kingdomes in one tyme , from which daie forward , let M. Downam begin to reckon the three yeares & a halfe of his raigne , & if any thing cannot be well comprized with in this space , we will not stick to graunt , that it was to be done before , as the subduing of so many Kingdoms &c.

To the 5. and 6. proofe he only saith ; that they are not worth the mentioning . But it should seeme he meant , they were too hoat to be touched without burning his fingers , and therfore he thought it best to haue only a snach & away ; saying : that the tyme , and tymes , and halfe a tyme , as hath byn shewed , belong not to antichrists raigne , and that he taketh tymes for yeares . How he hath shewed that this belongeth not to Antichrists raigne , we haue already seene and refuted . But now Bellarmine vrgeth , how the 1260. daies being taken for yeares can agree with three yeares and a halfe : and here M. Downam was faine to skippe , for otherwise he could not haue escaped : and it is Downam omitteth what he cannot answere . inough in this place that he graunteth vs , that a tyme , and tymes , and halfe a time signify three yeares and a halfe : for by this it is manifest , that both the 42. monthes , as also ●he 1260. dayes , signify the same , and consequently that Antichrist is to raigne no longer , since that it is euydent , that they are vnderstood of his tyme , as hath ben plainly proued .

7. In the last place M. Downam goeth about to reply to the answers which Bellarmine gaue to his fellowes reasons ; and first to keep Chytraeus out of the ditch , he lendeth him his authority , saying , that he saith it as well as Chytraeus , at which I imagine the Reader will laugh ; and then because he saw that the place of S. Paul proued nothing neither , vnlesse it might be graunted , that Antichrist was already come , he lendeth him another of S. Iohn , affirming that the Antichrist was come in his tyme : at which I suppose Chytraeus would chafe . Chap. 2. Downam cannot defend his fellowes . For now we shall haue Antichrist to endure as long as Christ ; & besides S. Iohn affirmeth not , that the Antichrist was come in his tyme , but that he had many members then , as hath byn sufficiently proued in due place ; so that Chytraeus remayneth in as ill case , as he was before M. Downam layd to his helping hand . But yet once againe he will try what he can do for him and Henry Bullenger togeather , which he perfourmeth with a very subtill distinction , saying : that they speake of the tyme , & Bellarm. of the number ; so that there shal be iust 42. & 1260. but no man can tell of what . And is not this a wise exposition think you ? Will not Chytraeus & Bullenger be ashamed of such a P●●cter , who make the say they know not what themselues . But M. Downam will saue their credit if they will be ruled by him by bringing their vncertainties to some certainety , as to the 4● . sabbothes of Iohn Fox , & the 1260. yeares of the Magdeburgenses , the former of which I refuted before , and the latter is here exploded by Bellarmine : in defence of which M. Downam hath nothing to say , but to repeate their Argument out or Ezechiel , without seeming to vnderstand Bellarmines distinction , denying that daies are litterally taken there for yeares ; which is necessary for their argument , though they may be a signe or figure of yeares , and consequently signify them mysticallie , as tho●e 390. daies in which Ezechiel slept vpon his left side , were a figure and signe of so many yeares , euen as his sleeping was a sign of the toleration which God vsed towards the people of Israel : but yet none but a mad man will say , that Ezechiels sleeping is to be vnderstood litterally of Gods tolerating , so that when he was bidden to sleepe so many dayes , God was litterally commaunded to sleepe so many yeares . Neither is M. Downams addition out of some of the Ezech. 4. learned , namely Iunius , any thing to the purpose . For Apoc. 2. only the number of 10. is put indefinitely , as is vsually in Scripture , so that 10. daies is all one , as if he had said many dayes . And this is all , that M. Downam can say for his fellow Dayes are not taken for yeares Ministers . Now he will say some thing against them , telling them plainly that if they take daies for yeares , it will follow , that the speciall tyme of Christs comming may be fore tould after the Reuelation of Antichrist , which he thinketh Apoc. 2. must in no wise be graunted : and we haue shewed how far the Catholikes may fortell it without danger of any inconuenience . Wherfore we may now conclude this Chapter , in which it sufficiently appeareth , that Antichrist is not come , as the heretikes affirme .

THE NINTH CHAPTER . Conteyning the sixt Demonstration .

THE sixt Demonstration ( saith Bellarmine ) is taken from the last signe , which shall follow after Antichrist , which shal be the end of the world : for the comming of Antichrist shal be a little before the end of the world . Wherefore if Antichrist had byn come long since , the world should haue byn ended long since also . The Prophet Dauid cap. 7. speaking twice of Antichrist , once telling his vision , and afterward expounding it , both times addeth , that after Antichrist , shall forth with follow the iudgment . I considered ( sayth he ) the bornes , and behould another little horne arose , and three of the first hornes were pulled of before his face . I beheld vntill the Thrones were placed , and the Ancient of daies sate &c. And after expounding the vision : The fourth beast ( saith he ) shal be the fourth Kingdome , and the 10. hornes shal be 10. Kinges , and another shall arise after them , and he shal be more potent then the former , and shall humble 3. KInges &c. and they shal be deliuered into his hand for a time , and tymes , and a halfe a tyme , and Iudgment shall sit &c.

The like Prophesie hath S. Iohn Apoc. 20. After these things , he must be loosed a tittle tyme : and I saw seates , and they sate vpon them , and iudgement was giuen vnto them &c. And againe the Prophet Dan. after hee had said cap. 12. that Antichrists Kingdome should endure 1290. daies , addeth : Blessed i●●e which expelleth , and commeth to 1335. daies , that is to 45. daies after Antichrists death , for then will our Lord come to iudgement , and will restore the Crownes of Iustice to the conquerors , as S. Hierome , and Theodoret expound it in their Commentaries vpon this place .

Besides , the same is gathered out of Matth. 24. This Ghospell of the Kingdome shal be preached in the whole world , for a testimony to all nations , and then shall the end be : that is , a little after shall the end of the world be , and after forthwith . After the tribulation of those daies the sun shal be darkened , and the moone shall not giue her light , and then shall the signe of the Sonne of man appeare &c. The same appeareth out of 2. Thess. 2. Then shall that wicked one be reuealed , whom our Lord Iesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth , & shall destroy with the brightnes of his comming &c. where the Apostle teacheth , that almost immediatly after Antichrist , Christ shall come , viz. there shal be a very little tyme betwixt them : and the fraudes and deceiptes of Antichrist , which were begun to be destroyed by Helias and Henoch , shal be wholy destroyed by the comming of Christ himselfe , and the fearefull signes which shall goe before .

Finally wee haue the same 1. Ioan. 2. My children it is the last houre , and as you haue heard , that Antichrist commeth , and now there are many become Antichrists , whereby we know that it is the last houre . Where S. Iohn saith that this tyme from Christ to the end of the world , is the last houre , that is , the last tyme , or the last age , as S. Augustine expoundeth it : and he proueth it excellently out of this principle , because wee know that Antichrist shall come in the end of the world . For S. Iohn maketh this argument . Wee know that Antichrist shall come in the end of the world : but now wee see many of his forerunners , or little Antichrists present ; wherfore it is a certayne signe , that this is the last houre or age . As one might argue of the houre last of the night : wee know that the sunne shall rise in the end of the night : but now we see many of his beames enlighten the aire , wherefore wee know that this is the last houre of the night .

To conclude , the same is confirmed by the common consent of the Fathers Iren. l. 5. in fine . Tertul. l. de resurrect. August . l. 2. ciu. cap. 19. & others ; & by our Aduersaries confession : for our Aduersaries acknowledge , that Antichrist shall raigne to the end of the world , and therfore a little after his destruction , the ●nd of the world shal be . From this signe then , togeather with the former , we haue inuincible demonstration , by which it is proued , that Antichrist is not yet come , nor is the Bishop of Rome . For if forth with after the death of Antichrist the world shal be ended ; and Antichrist shall not liue after he hath appeared , and begun to reigne , but 3. yeares and a halfe : then he shal not appeare , nor begin to reigne , but three yeares & a halfe before the worldes end . But the Pope hath already reigned with both swordes , euen in the opinion of our Aduersaries , aboue 500. yeares , & yet the world endureth still .

M. Downams Answere confuted .

1. MAISTER Downam first cauelleth with Bellarmine because he will not prooue that Antichrist is not yet come , but only , that he is not come long since . As though Bellarmine had taken vpon him to fight with the wind , and not to impugne M. Downam , and his fellowes , who affirme , that Antichrist came long since . Wherfore this shift will not serue his turne , but he must either yield himselfe , or answere the argument , which he will do very substantially with a distinction , that the comming of Antichrist , and his death , are two thinges ; so that though it be true , that he is not vtterly to be destroyed before the second comming of Christ , yet he came euen in the Apostles tymes , as S. Paul insinuateth , and S. Iohn plainely teacheth . Where we must put M. Downam in mynd , that these The end of the world shal not be long after Antichrists comming . two Apostles only teach , that Antichrist came in their tyme only in his forerunners , but now we seeke for him in person , or as M. Downam speaketh 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , in which sort , he and his fellowes make him to haue raigned a 1000. yeares which Bellarmine impugneth , because presently after his destruction the world must end , and he shal be destroyed within 3. yeares and a halfe after his being in that height , and consequently the world should haue ben ended 1000. yeares since , if the Protestants opinion about the tyme of Antichrists comming in that sort were true . In the Protestants opinion the world should haue byn ended many hundred yeares since .

2. Fayne would M. Downam weaken Bellarmines proofes , by telling vs , that some are not to be vnderstood of Antichrist Dan. 7. Apoc. 20. Matth. 24. 14. but we haue proued the contrary at large in diuers places , to which the Readers may haue recourse . Others , sayth M. Downam , are against himselfe , Dan. 12. out of which he draweth these consequences . 1. that the raigne of Antichrist is not iust 3. yeares and a halfe , but 1290. daies . But we haue already giuen the reason , why the last moneth that Antichrist shall liue , is not accoumpted in his raigne . 2. that Antichrist shal be destroyed before the end of the world . Wheras Paul telleth vs , that Christ shall destroy him at his appearing , & not 45. daies before . But M. Downam should haue noted , that S. See chap. 4. 5. 7. Paul maketh two degrees of the destruction of Antichrist : first his particuler death by Christs speciall commaundment , or apparition : & secondly the destruction of his Kingdome Dan. 12. by his comming , and the signes which shall go before .

M. Downams third inference is , that the day of iudgment shal be certainly knowne after Antichristes reuealing : but of this we haue said inough before , that there is no doubt , but that the day of iudgment may be knowne when God 2. Thes. 2. reuealeth it , though the wicked will not vnderstand it so neither , as Daniel affirmeth : by which M. Downams last inference 2. degrees of Antichrists destruction . is also answered , and the Papists will prooue true , by following Christ and his Prophets , when M. Downam and his companions must needes be lyers , leauing either of them , though they protest neuer so much , to cleaue to the other .

3. After this he commeth to Matth. 24. 29. where he confesseth , that the signes of Christs comming are to follow the tribulations Matth. 24. vnder Antichrist ; which is asmuch as Bellarmine desireth at his handes ; but yet he will needes inferre out of this place also , that Antichrist shall not be one man , because v. 23. 24. our Sauiour speaketh of many false Christs , and false Prophets , which we know very well ; and haue daily experience , how true it is by seeing so many sectaries in our dayes : but we also know , that euery false Christ or false Prophet is not Antichrist , though we will not deny , but that he shal be a false Christ , and a false Prophet also ; yea the falsest of them all . But what is this to the purpose , to prooue that he shall not be one man ? Next he commeth to 2. Thess. 2. where he repeateth his distinction of Antichrists comming and ending , but to as little purpose as before , though he explicateth many Chymericall degrees more largely , which so farre as they make against vs , are elswhere confuted . Lastly he commeth to the 1. Ioan. 2. where he impugneth the 1. Iohn 2. argument that Bellarmine frameth out S. Iohn , making him prooue , that it is now the last houre , because wee see many petite Antichrists . For , saith M. Downam , by the like reason wee might prooue , that the fulnes of tyme was from the beginning , because there were alway Prophets , which Bellarmine calleth the forerunners of Christ . But M. Downam should haue considered , that it is not absolutely true , that it is the fulnes of time , whensoeuer it may be said that Christ commeth , but only when he commeth in person , and therfore it is no meruaile , though he commeth in his forerunners from the beginning of the world , Antichrist cannot be said to come at al but in the last houre . and yet the fulnes of tyme was not come ; but Antichrist cannot be said to come at all , but only in the last houre , and therfore S. Iohn proueth verie well , that it was the last houre , because Antichrist was already come in his members and forerunners .

After he hath thus checked Bellarmine for framing of S. Iohns argument , M. Downam taketh vpon him to put it in forme himselfe . This then ( in his opinion ) is the Apostles reason . When the Antichrist commeth , it is the last houre . Now , saith he , Antichrists are come ( meaning by Antichrists , the same with the Antichrist , which elswhere he affirmeth was then entred into the world , or els there are 4. termini , 4. termes in the Apostles argument : ) Therfore now is the last houre . But in this manner S. Iohns argument should not only haue 4. but 5. termes . For Antichrist , and Antichrists Downam peruerteth S. Io. text & argument . are not all one , nor commeth , and are come ; to omit that the wordes of S. Iohn be ( are become . ) Wherfore M. Downam sheweth himselfe a veric poore Logitian , if he can frame no better arguments then this . Neither can wee belieue him when he telleth vs , that the Antichrist and Antichrists are all one in S. Iohn : for besides , that the article is put only in one place as hath ben noted before , why should S. Iohn change both number and phrase , and so obscure his sentence , if there were no difference in the thing it selfe ? And if M. Downam would be ashamed to speake thus absurdly himselfe , much greater cause hath he to blush for attributing so grosse an absurdity to S. Io. or rather to the Holy Ghost who speaketh in him . And by this it is plaine that in these few wordes of S. Io. there are conteyned two arguments , if wee will reduce them to forme , as before I haue shewed , and Bellarmine supposeth Chap. 2. in this place .

4. But at length , though M. Downam cauilleth with Bellarmines proofes in this sort , omitting the authoritie of the Fathers altogeather , yet he granteth his conclusion , that Antichrist shall raigne or continue vntill the end of the world , & likwise acknowledgeth , that if the former argument concluded ( which I willingly remit to the Readers censure ) then this demonstration is likewise vnanswerable , which is that , that Bellarmine pretended in this whole Chapter . Neither doth M. Downans distinction , which he repeateth heere againe of Antichrists comming and end , any whit auayle him : for Bellarmine proued in the former argument , that Antichrist was not to continue in his kingdome past three yeares and a halfe , and in this , that the world was to end very shortly after him , by which it is euident , that it cannot bee a 1000 yeares , since he began his raigne , as M. Downam and his mates affirme .

The other obiection , which hee maketh concerning the length of Antichrists raigne , is a meere cauill : for Bellarmine in his whole discourse sufficiently explicateth in what sense he saith , that Antichrist shall not begin his raigne but 3. yeares and a halfe before the end , viz. before the end begin , for he taketh not the end for the very last instant , but for that space in which God shall begin to confound Antichrist , and destroy his kingdome ; which in all wil be 75. daies , as Daniel foretelleth , which space helpeth M. Downams The end of the world is not only the last instant . cause very little , who hath need of manie tymes so many yeares , to make his position good , that Antichrist came 1000. yeares since , and yet the world indureth : and that this was Bellarmines mind , he himselfe hath now sufficiently explicated in recognit . operum pag. 18. where he noteth , that he said that Antichrist shall not appeare , nor begin to raigne but 3. yeares and a halfe before the end of the world , because the space betwixt the death of Antichrist , & the end of the world , shal be so little , that it may be accompted nothing : for otherwise he had not forgotten , that he had proued a little before , that there should be 45. daies betwixt the death of Antichrist , and the end of the world , out of Dan. 12. And thus we will conclude these 6. demonstrations which make Bellarmines third argument , and desire the Reader to consider attentiuely , whether Bellarmines proofes , or M. Downams solutions , be more substantiall ; and what is to be thought of such men as will open their mouthes in such blasphemous manner , against all authority & reason , in a matter of this importance , vpon which al other questions in controuersy in great part depend .

THE TENTH CHAPTER . Of Antichrists name .

THERE followeth ( saith Bellarmine ) the fourth disputation of the proper name & characters of Antichrist . All acknowledg that those wordes of S. Io. Apoc. 13. do certainly belong to Antichrist : And he shal make all , little with great , rich and poore , free men and slaues , to haue a character in their right hand , or vpon their foreheades , and that none can buy or sell , vnles he hath the character , or name of the beast , or the number of his name . Heere is wisdome , let him that hath vnderstanding reckon the number of the beast , for it is the number of a man , and his number 666.

There are many opinions of this number . The first is , that by this number , not the name , but the tyme of the comming and death of Antichrist is designed : so houldeth Bullenger , who praefat. Hom. in Apoc. thinketh , that the tyme of Antichrists comming is signifyed . In like manner the Magdeburgenses , who cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. thinke , that the tyme of Antichrists death is designed . Likewise others , who as witnesseth Clictonem in l. 4. Damasceni c. 28. thinke , that the death of Mahomet is degsined , whom they say was Antichrist : with whome agreeth Lyranus vpon this place , though he thinketh not , that Mahomet was Antichrist ; yet he imagineth that by this number is signifyed , that the death of Mahomet was to bee in the yeare 666. from Christs comming .

This is a most absurde opinion . First because S. Iohn saith , that he speaketh of the number of the Beastes name . Secondly because the beast , whose number this is , will commaund all Merchants to vse it for a signe in contracts , as is manifest Apox . 13. Wherfore it is not the number of the death of the Beast , but belongeth to him aliue . Thirdly , because it is also false , that Mahomet died the yeare of Christ 666. For some say he died in the yeare 637. as Matthew Palmer : some the yeare 630. as Cedrenus in compend . hist. . some the yeare 628. as Ioan. Vaseus in chronico Hispaniae .

The second opinion is of Dauid Chytraeus in cap. 13. Apoc. who saith the name of Antichrist is 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or in the Hebrew Romiith , Romanus . Therfore the Pope , who is a latin Prynce , since he ruseth in Latium , and is the Bishop of Rome , is Antichrist . The same teacheth Theodorus Bibliander tab. 10. and therfore he maketh the inscription of the 11. table of his Cronologie , which beginneth at the yeare 600. Latinos Papa . Their reasons are two : the first , because S. Irenaeus lib. 5. teacheth , that it is very like , that this shal be the name of Antichrist . The other , because indeed the letters of his name make that number , as is manifest .

Resc . 200. λ. 30. τ. 300. Vau. 6. α. 1. ε. 5. Mem. 40. τ. 300. ι. 10. Iod. 10. ε. 5. τ. 300. Iod. 10. ι. 10. α. 1. Tau. 400. ν. 50. ν. 50. ο. 70. ς. 200. 666. 666. 666.

This opinion is altogeather temerarious : for first Irenaeus saith indeed , that the name λατεῖνος may probablie be applyed to Antichrist ; but he addeth , that it is much more probable , that Antichrists name shall not be λατεῖνος , but τειταν which also expresseth that number : and is a far more noble name , since it signifieth the Sunne .

Besides Irenaeus his coniecture which might haue some probabilitie then , now hath none : for he saith , that it is probable , that Antichrist shal be called Latinus , not because he shall in Latium , but because in his tyme the Latines had greatest dominions , and in a manner the whole world . For because Antichrist shal be a most potent King , without doubt he shal possesse the most potent kingdomes , which he shall find at his comming : but the most potent kingdome is that of the Latines , saith Irenaeus , for they now most trulie raigne . Surely this coniecture now is nothing worth : for the Latines raigne no longer ouer all the world , but the Turkes are those which most truly raigne , and among vs the Spaniards and French , not the Latines .

Moreouer the name of Latin , as it signifieth a Roman , is not written with ( ● ) but with a simple Iota , and then it maketh not that number . In which manner the deuise of the name Romiith may likewise be confuted . For Romanus cannot end in Tau , since it is the masculine gender , for that it is the termination of the Feminine gender among the hebrews : but if wee remoue the letter Tau , there want 400. to make the number of Antichrist . Likewise the name 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , if it be the name of Antichrist , it shal be proper to him , as Arethas teacheth , and his most vsuall name , for it must be shewed for a signe by all that buy and sell . But the name 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is common ; for there was neuer any Pope , that by his proper name was called Latinus . Neither is this an vsuall name , for the Popes neuer call themselues Latines , but Bishops , or Popes The name Romanus was proper to one only Pope , who notwithstanding could not be Antichrist , since he liued but 4. moneths , and otherwise it is a common name .

Finally , if only this name 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or Romanus , made the number 666. our Aduersaries said something : but there are innumerable names , which make the same number . Hippolytus Martyr in orat . de consummatione mundi , noted another name which maketh the same number , viz. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is nego , I deny . Arethas named seauen , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , id est , Illustris . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , id est , Sol. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , id est , Victor . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , id est , pra●us dux . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , id est , verè nocens . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , id est , olim inuiden● . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , id est , agnus nocens . Primasius addeth another , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , id est , contrarius . Rupertus , and before him Haymo inuented two other , viz. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which is a Gothes name , & , DIC LVX , a Latin , which maketh 666. if after the Latin manner we take D : for 500. l. for one , C. for 100. L. for 50. V. for 5. and X. for 10.

Of the later writers Lindanus l. 3. Dubitantij , noteth , that Martyn Lauter maketh the number 666. if the Latin letters be taken for numbers after the manner of the Greeke and Hebrew thus : A. 1. B. 2. C. 3. D. 4. E. 5. F. 6. G. 7. H. 8. I. 9. K. 10. L. 20. M. 30. N. 40. O. 50. P. 60. Q. 70. R. 80. S. 90. T. 100. V. 200. X. 300. Y. 400. Z. 500. Gilbert Genebrard in the last booke of his Cronologie noted also , that the name of Luther in hebrew , maketh that number Lulter . I add two more in fauour of Luther & Chytraeus , to wit , Dbid Citriu , id est , Dauid Chytraeus , and σαξόνειος , which later agreeth aswell to Luther , as the name Latinus to the Pope .

Daleth . 4. σ. 200. Beth. 2. α. 1. Iod. 10. ξ. 60. Daleth . 4. ο. 70. Caph. 20. ν. 50. Iod. 10. ε. 5. Tau. 400. ι. 10. Resc . 200. ο. 70. Iod. 10. σ. 200. Vau. 6. 666. 666.

The third opinion is of many Catholikes , who ghesse that Antichrist shal be called 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , because this name properly agreeth vnto him , and conteyneth exactly that number . So affirme Primasius , Anselmus , and Richardus .

This opinion is well confuted by Rupertus , because the name which S. Iohn insinuateth in this place , shall not be giuen to Antichrist by his Aduersaries , but taken by himselfe , as glorying therin , insomuch that he shall make it be written in mens foreheades . And yt is not probable , that he will take to himselfe any hatefull or vile name , such as 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and almost all the other aboue rehearsed .

The 4. opinion is of Rupertus himselfe , who thinketh that the name of Antichrist is not signified by this number , but a triple preuarication of the Diuell to be fulfilled in Antichrist : for the number of 6. because it commeth not to 7. in which is rest and happynes , is the number of a creature by preuarication falling from rest . And the Diuell hath incurred a threefold preuarication , or rather hath tripled one . For first he preuaricated when he sinned in himselfe : after againe when he made the first man sinne , and then to 6. he added 60. Thirdly he shall preuaricate , when he shall seduce the whole world by Antichrist , and then to 60. he shall adde 600.

The fifth opinion is Bedes , who taketh the contrary course , and teacheth that the number of 6. is perfect , because God made heauen and earth in 6. dayes , and 60. more perfect , and 600. most perfect . Whereupon he gathereth that Antichrist is designed by the number 666. because he shall vsurpe to himselfe the most perfect tribute , which is only due to God . In figure wherof we read lib. 3. Reg. cap. 10. that the weight of gold which was brought euery yeare to Salomon was 666000. talents . These two opinions seeme not sufficiently to agree with that which S. Iohn saith , that , that number is the number of the name , not of the dignity or preuarication : neither would these Fathers haue their opinions otherwise accompted of , then as suspicions , and coniectures .

Wherefore their opinion is truest who confesse their ignorance , and say , that Antichrists name is yet vnknown , which is the opinion of S. Irenaeus vpon this place of the Apocalyps , and of others . And I will set downe S. Irenaeus his words , because Chytraeus exhorteth his reader to peruse them . I exhort ( saith he ) the studious Reader to peruse the last pages of Irenaeus vpon this place , which are the 333. and the 334. who disputeth of this number of the Beast modestly , and piously , and among other things sheweth , that Antichrist shal be a Latin or Roman by the name 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. Wherefore Irenaeus saith thus : It is therefore more certayne , and without danger to expect : he fulfilling of the Prophesy , then to suspector ghesse at any names , since there may be many names found which haue the foresaid number . And notwithstanding there remayneth the same question ; for if we find many names , which haue this number , the question is which of them be shall beare that is to come . Neither doe we say this , for any scarsity of names which haue the number of his name , but for the feare of God , and zeale of truth : for the name 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath the number we seeke ; but we affirme nothing of it . Likewise the name 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath the number 666. and is very likely , because this name hath the truest Kingdome , for the Latins are they which raigne now . But we will no beast of this . But 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 hauing the first syllable written by the two greeke vowells ● , & ● , is the name which deserueth most credit of all , that are sound in our language &c. And after . Since therefore this name Titan hath so many perswasions , and so great likelyhood , that we may gather by many thinges , that peraduenture he that is to come , shal be called Titan ; yet we will not hazard our selues in it , nor affirme with asseueration , that he shall haue this name , because if his name were to be publikely manifested at this tyme , doubtlesse it would haue byn declared by him , who saw the Reuelation . So he .

Wherefore let Chytraeus giue eare to Irenaeus disputing modestly , piously , and learnedly , and let him not falsly impute that vnto him , which he neuer sayd . For Irenaeus did not thinke , that Antichrist should be a Latin or a Roman , but he saith , and repeateth oftener then once , that the name of Antichrist cannot be knowne yet , and this he also proueth by two very good reasons . First , because there be many names , which make that number , neither can we ghesse which of them is that which is foretould . Secondly , because if God would haue had it knowne at this tyme , certainly he would haue reuealed it by S. Iohn himselfe . And he added that he did not speake thus for any want of names , but for the feare of God , and zeale of the truth . For which cause he rehearsed three names 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , & 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , of which he affirmed that the second was more likely then the first , and the third then the second , but that none of them was certaine .

We may also adde a third reason out of the same Irenaeus : for a little before disputing against them , which gathered false names of Antichrist , out of their owne conceipt , he saith , that they fall into many inconueniences , for they expose themselues to the danger of erring , and of deceauing others , and of causing both themselues and many others to be most easily seduced by Antichrist . For when he shall come , and haue another name then they perswade themselues he shall haue , he shall not be held by them to be Antichrist , and consequently shall not be auoyded . All which inconueniences will doubtles happen to the Lutherans , and especially this last , for because they haue perswaded themselues that the Pope is Antichrist , when that true Antichrist shall come , he will not easily be discerned by them , and therefore not auoyded .

But heere we must note , that Antichrists name wil be most manifest when he is come , for likewise before Christ came , the Iewes knew not certainely how he should be called , although the Prophets had foretould many thinges of his name . Yea one of the Sybills ( as we find in the first booke of their verses ) had noted the number of Christs name and said that it was 888. as S. Iohn wrote of Antichrist , that the number of his name is 666. And yet vntill Christs comming men knew not , that he was to be called Iesus . But since Christs comming all controuersy is taken away , and all know that he is called Iesus .

The Sybills verses are these Sed quae sit numeri totius summa docebo . Namque octo monadas , totidem decadas super ista atque hecatontadas octo , infidis significabit Humanis nomen , tu verò mente teneto .

ι. 10. η. 8. σ. 200. ο. 70. υ. 400. ς. 200. 888.

To this we may adde , that it is common to all Prophesies to be doubtfull and obscure , till they be fulfilled , as S. Irenaeus rightly teacheth and proueth lib. 4. c. 43.

Hence we may take an insoluble argument to proue that the Pope is not Antichrist , and that Antichrist is not yet come . For if Antichrist were come , and were the B. of Rome , there would be no question of his name , foretould by S. Iohn , as because our Christ is come , there is now no question euen amonst the Turkes , Iewes , and Pagans , how he is called . But there is very great Controuersy about the name of Antichrist , as is manifest by so many opinions as we haue rehearsed and refuted . Wherefore the Prophesy of S. Iohn is not yet fulfilled , and consequently Antichrist is not yet come , neither is the Pope Antichrist .

Adde a confirmation out of the confession of Augustin●● Marloratus , who in his great explication vpon the new Testament , gathered out of diuers Lutheran and Calumist wryters , saith thus of this place : There are almost as many expositions , as expositours of this place : by which it appeareth , that it is most obscure and darke . Thus he . But if this Prophesy be still most obscure and darke , it is not yet fulfilled ; wherefore Antichrist is not yet come ; for all Prophesies are made most cleere when they are fulfilled . Why then doest thou Marloratus brag in thy Preface vpon the Apoc. that , it is so manifest , thee the Pope is Antichrist , that if you held your peace , the stones would excla●me .

M. Downams Answere confuted .

1. FOR answere . First M. Downam deemeth , that this name of Antichrist shal be commonly knowne so soone as he is come , and he giueth his reason , because the name of Antichrist cannot be knowne , as the name of Antichrist , vntill Antichrist himselfe be knowne and acknowledged , which was not to be at his first comming , for then he could not be able to seduce many , few or none beeing so desperately mad as to follow him whome they know to be Antichrist . But M. Downam should haue considered , that Antichrists name shal be known when he is come . Bellarmine speaketh not of any secret comming of Antichrist , but of his reuelation and raigne , which M. Downam and his crew affirme to haue happened many hundred yeares since , and Bellarmine confuteth them by this argument , that if it were so . Antichrists name would be well knowne , as we see Christs is , and yet many are so mad , as to refuse Christ , though they know his name : and in like manner no doubt , many will imbrace Antichrist after that his name shal be certaynely knowne .

2. Secondly M. Downam telleth vs , that in the similitude taken from Christ there is no likenesse , because Christ was ore particuler man , but Antichrist is not , but a State which cannot haue a proper name : which as you see is no answere at all , if Antichrist shal be See . chap. 2. one particuler man , as hath ben proued in due place , to which I remit my Reader : and besides I see no reason why a State may not haue a proper name also . Yet M. Downam giueth vs another difference , for that Christ comming to saue , his name Iesus , the name of the Sauiour was to be made knowne , that he might the rather be imbraced : Antichrist comming to deceaue , and to destroy M. Downams iugling . was ( according to his diuellish policy ) to conceale that name , whereby he should be knowne to be Antichrist ; where you must marke how cunningly M. Downam concealeth the diligence which the Diuell vsed to obscure the name of Christ , and likewise the power and wisdome of God to make Antichrist knowne , for otherwise his Reader would very easily haue conceyued how God is as able to manifest Antichrists name , that he may be auoyded , as he was to make our Sauiours name knowne , that he might be imbraced . And besides it is more then probable , that Antichrist will not be so humble , but that he will desire to haue his name knowne : for this is the great and powerfull wisdome of God to ouerthrow the wicked by their owne courses . Wherefore it is not certayn , that Antichrist shall either know , or make accompt of this Prophesy , nor reflect vpon his name , whether it conteyneth this number or no. But though all this should be so , yet he will thinke to ouercome this difficulty , aswell as the rest , especially when he is come to that height of pryde to extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God . And sure we are , that by one meanes or other his name shal be manifest , for otherwise this reuelation of S. Iohn concerning it , would serue to small purpose .

After this M. Downam maketh a litle digression from his purpose to tell vs , that the Sybil did not only foretell , that our Sauiours name should conteyne the number 888. but also , by certayne Acrostiches foretould that he should be Iesus Christ , the sonne of God and Sauieur But of Antichrist she speaketh nothing so playnly : howbeit she calleth Rome Babylon as Io. doth . And in the 8. booke describing Antichrist as some thinke , she calleth him a Prince with many heads : which The Sybills verses of Adrian are expounded . M. Downam will haue to be vnderstood , either by a Metonymie for the Popes triple crowne , or by a Synechdoche for the succession of Popes . Likewise the Sybil addeth , that he shall haue a name neere to Ponti , that is Pontisex , the Pope , saith M. Downam . Now how Rone is Babylon we shall see afterward . And as for that thought of some , it is euident , that not Antichrist , but Adrian the Emperour is spoken of in those verses , in which See Florimond Reymond of Antichrist cap. 22. among other things , his little God Antin●●● is described . Neither is he called a Prince with many heads , as M. Downam supposeth , but is only sayd to haue one white , or gray head , as Spartianus testifieth in his life , that Adrian had , and that either by these verses of the Sybil , or by those of Virgil , ●n which he describeth Numa Pompilius , by his gray head also , Nosco crines , incanaque menta , Adrian prognosticated that he Aeneid , 6. should come to be Emperour . Bullenger and Castalio differ from M. Downam , and the truth also ; for they will not haue it to be a white head , but a white hat , or helmet , deriuing it rather from 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , then 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , contrary to the common vse of such compounds . But euen by Castalio his consent , he that in this 8. booke is by the Sybil called 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , in the fifth booke is also named 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , in which place he is expressely sayd to succeed Traian , as Adrian did . And in both places he is sayd to haue a name neare to the sea , which in greeke is called 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , in respect of the Adriatike sea , which was denominated of a Citty called Adria , neere Venice , in which this Emperour was also borne , and from thence had his name Adrianus . That other conceypt of M. Downam , who thinketh that this name neere to Ponti , is Pontifex , is very farre fetched ; for what connexion is there betwixt 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in greeke , and Pons in latin ? especially since that Pontifex is no greeke word , and the Sybil wrote in that language , and consequently the name which she spake of , must not be only among Latins . Finally , if we should admit this fond conceipt , yet all might be applyed to this Emperour , who , as Platina writeth in vita Alexandri , repayred one bridge at Athens , and built another at Rome of his owne name , and besides was consecrated Bishop of Ceres ; but this refuge is needlesse , since we haue the former most manifest explication . I haue stood longer vpon this , then was necessary , since that M. Downam confesseth , that it is from the purpose , to which now he promiseth to returne .

3. And he goeth about to answere Bellarmines other proofe , which is , that Prophesies are obscure till they be fulfilled , and cleere when they are fulfilled ; and his answere is , that although they become more cleere after then before ; yet many tymes they remayne darke and obscure to very many . And he exemplifieth in the Prophesies of Christ , which are cleere to good Christians , but not to the Iewes ; and confesseth , that many Prophesies concerning Antichrist are plainely vnderstood of the true Professors , yet they seeme darke and obscure to the followers of Antichrist . Where me thinkes he granteth all that which he denyed before , viz. that the name of Antichrist being once come , shall be aswell knowne , as that of Christ : and besides , he openly gainsayeth Marloratus , who affirmeth , that euen among M. Downams true Professors , there are as many expositions , as expositors of M. Downam contradicteth himselfe & Marloratus . this place . And besides Bellarmine sheweth , that euen the Iewes , Turkes , and Pagans graunt , that the name of our Christ is Iesus , which manifestly conteyneth the number 888. But all Catholikes , and others are far from thinking that the Pope is to be called Romanus , and Latinus , except something els be added ; and besides these names conteyne not iustly the number 666. as Bellarmine proueth . Hauing thus put off the Argument , M. Downam maketh another digression , taking hould of the former part of Bellarmines proposition , that prophesies till they be fulfilled are ( for the most part ) darke and ambiguous : and heereupon he inferreth , that therefore the writinges of the Fathers , who lyued before Antichrist , were most vncertayne ghesses in their expositions of the Prophesies concerning him : which illation we deny , and rather inferre the quyte contrary , that since the Prophesies are The necessity of the Fathers expositions . obscure , and ambiguous , we had the more need to take some light and certainty from the Fathers writings , who receaued their expositions from the light of Gods spirit , and the certainty of the Apostles Traditions . But M. Downam proueth his inferrence by Bellarmines confession , euen in this Chapter , and cyteth his wordes in the margent . Sed necisti Patres voluerunt sententias illas suas alio loco haberi , quàm suspicionum & coniecturarum . Neither would these Fathers haue those their opinions otherwise accompted of , then as suspicions , and coniectures ; which assertion of Bellarmine commeth far short of M. Downams position , for he speaketh only of two Fathers Rupertus and Beda , M. Downam speaketh in generall of all the Fathers ; Bellarmine calleth only those two particuler opinions of theirs , suspicions and coniectures : M. Downam would proue , that all the opinions of all the Fathers concerning Downam proueth an vniuersall by a particuler . prophesies not fulfilled , are but ghesses , which is to proue an vniuersall by a particuler ; a fit argument for M. Downams Diuinity , if not for his Logick , which perhappes the badnes of his Diuinity maketh him either to forget or forsake . The like fault he committeth againe in alleaging S. Irenaeus , who only speaketh of this one prophesy of Antichrists name : and Andraeas maketh as little to his purpose , only affirming with Bellarmine , that experience will make manyfest to them that are vigilant , both the exact computation of this number , and all other thinges which are written of Antichrist ; which M. Downam seemed before to deny , and now is as far The auctority of the Fathers . from prouing , that the Fathers expositions when they all agree , make not a Prophesy certainely to be vnderstood ; though when they are deuyded , their expositions be but probable , and therefore , because they were so in this place , we see that Bellarmine grounded not his argument vpon any of them , but vpon another certayne rule , which they all agree in , and M. Downam himselfe cannot choose , but confesse in great part .

4. Thus much for this digression . Now M. Downam commeth againe to the purpose , & goeth about to answere Bellarmines Assumption ; which is , that Antichrists name is Antichrists name yet vnknowne . yet vnknowne , where M. Downam distinguisheth , confessing that in the Church of Rome , it is not knowne of the ignorant , nor acknowledged of the obstinate ; but in the true Church of God Antichrist is knowne , and his name acknowledged . But Marloratus affirmeth the contrary , and M. Downam insinuateth as much saying , that to the opinions which Bellarmine alleadgeth many more Downam contradicteth him selfe and Marloratus . might be added : which he will hardly make good , except he haue recourse to his new Ghospellers , who though they be vnited in malyee against the Pope , yet their proud heads cannot agree in the exposition of this , or almost any other place of Scripture . And besides the agreement of Protestants in this or in any thing els must needs be of little accompt , except they could bring better proofes , that they are the true Church of God : which affirmation whilst it be proued is petitio principij , and the Iewes , Turkes , and Pagans will say asmuch for themselues , if any man wil be so foolish as to belieue them , which he hath reason to doe assoone as heretikes , of which number to vs , it seemeth euident , that Protestants are .

5. Next M. Downam maketh Bellarmine to prooue , that Antichrists name is not yet knowne by the authority of Irenaeus , which he impugneth , because Irenaeus liued before the fulfilling of this Prophesy , which he affi●meth to be now fulfilled ; which obiection I thinke deserues no other name then the M. Downams Petitio principij . former ; for it is a playne petitio principij . And M. Downam might easily haue discerned , that Bellarmine was in that place discussing and searching out the most probable opinion among Catholikes , who all agree , that Antichrist is not yet come no more then he was in Irenaeus his tyme , and therfore his authority among them proueth very well , that his name is not yet knowne . As for M. Downam and his Mates , who haue forsaken the Catholike Church and faith , he argueth against them from their owne authority , and manifest experience , as we haue seene . Wherefore all Irenaus his proofes are good and firme for the end that Bellarmine bringeth them , as likewise his inference is euident to all Catholikes , that The danger of Protestants the Protestants are in great danger to receaue Antichrist when he commeth , since before he come they so verily perswade themselues that he is already come , which is a good warning for Protestants also to looke about them , and to take heed , that they be not so confident , but vpon better groundes , for the daunger is great . But heere I must desire my Reader to marke attentiuely M. Downams deuise , who will needes be so foolish as to seeme to thinke , that M. Downam mistaketh Bellarmine . the proofes which Bellarmine bringeth to conuince that Irenaeus was of that opinion , that Antichrists name should not be certainely knowne before his comming , were brought by him to proue absolutely against Protestants that Antichrists name is yet vnkowne : whereas he beginneth not to propose his argument to this purpose , till he had fully examined both Irenaeus , and all the other opinions .

6. Well , you must giue M. Downam leaue to mistake sometymes , otherwise he should haue very little to say to the purpose : Yet he will try what he can say to Bellarmines true proofe , which is , that Antichrists name is not yet knowne , because there is a great controuersy about it . Against which he obiecteth : that by the same reason Bellarmine may conclude , that few pointes of religion are yet knowne , because there be few , concerning which there is no controuersy . But M. Downam must consider the difference , which is great . For first about Antichrists name , there is not only a question betwixt Catholikes and Protestants , but likewise euen Protestants M. Downam contradicteth himselfe . themselues doe vary , and Catholikes also are not all of one opinion , which M. Downam insinuateth in some sort , saying , that in other controuersies the truth is knowne of those which are Orthodoxall , howsoeuer others will not acknowledge it . But of this matter he dareth not go so farre , but only aduentureth to say , that he doubteth not , but that the truth of it is knowne , although some cannot , and others will not as yet see it . So that in this , some cannot know the truth but in other controuersies , all may that will . And besides M. Downam might haue noted , that not only the Orthodoxall , but all others must know and acknowledge Antichrists name thus farre , that they confesse , that he whome the Orthodoxall take to be Antichrist hath that name which hath this number of 666. as all Pagans , Turkes , and Iewes confesse , that the name of Iesus , which Christian should to be the name of Christ , is indeed the name of our Christ , and contayneth the number 888. But heere it is otherwise ; for though M. Downam and his fellowes giue the Pope the name of Romanus and Latinus : yet neither the Popes themselues , nor any other giue them that name without addition , especially that of Latin cannot be attributed to him , for he is head aswell of the Greeke as the The name of Latin cannot be giuen to the Pope . Latin Church : & his particuler Sea or Bishoprick , to which this supreme iurisdiction is annexed , is only Rome . And besides there is much controuersy whether these names contayne the number 666. or no , as we shall see presently . Neither can M. Downam help himselfe with telling vs that without doubt the Roman State is signified by the beast , whose name contayneth this number 666. for this he knoweth is denied by vs , and his proofes wherof he braggeth are all discussed , and confuted in their due places .

7. Wherefore now let vs see , how he will confute Bellarmines Answere to the reasons which Chytraeus , and Bibliander bring for their opinions . And heere Bellarmine must be content to put vp an iniuryous imputation that M. Downam layeth vpon him , that it is his manner to make choyce of the easiest Bellarmine slaundered by Downam . obiections , omitting the harder ; which is so manifest and notoriou● a slander , that I dare remit the iudgement to any indifferent , or morall Protestant . For no man , that hath read Bellarmine , can deny , but that he vrgeth all arguments against himselfe to the vttermost , in so much that it is the common censure of Protestants , that he is a good Author to be read against himselfe , because his obiections are so forcible : but their meaning is , that the Reader should stay in them , and not passe to his answers , because they are also most plaine and euident . But to come to our particuler , M. Downam should haue shewed vs those hard obiections of Chytraeus and Bibliander which Bellarmine omitted ; but he hath no such matter , only he writeth thus : We produce three other arguments , as you haue heard , speaking of himselfe in the plurall number , and as it seemeth vsing the same figure in numbring his arguments ; for I can only find one of his owne adding , which is that the number of 666. is not the name of Antichrist himselfe , but of the former beast , which signifieth the Roman State . But how can Bellarmine be blamed for not answering this argument , which M. Downam hath framed so many yeares after his booke was written ? Downam contrary to his fellowes . For Chytraeus and Bibliander could not vse this argument since they were not of M. Downams opinion in this point , but tooke that number to be vnderstood of the name of Antichrist himselfe , as all other Authors , but M. Downam , do also , for ought I can perceaue , since he alleadgeth none for See cap. 5. n. 5. &c. his opinion : and indeed the matter is playne , as you may see in those places , where it is discussed at large .

The first reason then which Bellarmine answereth is the authority of Irenaeus , to which he saith that Irenaeus preferred another name before 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and M. Downam graunteth , that it is true indeed , that he seemeth to do so , and addeth , that they buyld not vpon Irenaeus his authority , but vpon those reasons whereupon his coniecture is grounded , which are two ; the one because it is the name of that Kingdome which is figured vnder the former beast Apoc. 13 : 7. whose authority Antichrist was to vsurpe : and he translateth Irenaeus thus : It is the name of that which most truly is called the Kingdome , for they are the Latines that now raigne ; and addeth his Apoc. 13. owne exposition , making Irenaeus say , that it is the name of the former Beast , spoken of Apoc. 13. 1. which figureth verissimum Regnum , Downam corrupteth Irenaeus his wordes & meaning . that Kingdome which most truly is called a Kingdome , that is the Latin or Roman State . All which is a plaine corruption , both of Irenaeus his wordes , and meaning . For there can be nothing more playne , then that Irenaeus attributeth this number to Antichrist himselfe , whome also he vnderstandeth to be signified by that former beast as commonly all other Authors doe ; only he giueth a reason , why he thought it probable , that Antichrist should take that name , as Bellarmine truly explicateth , and withall sheweth , that though that reason might seeme to haue some force in Irenaeus his tyme , now it hath none at all , because the Kingdome of the Latins is decayed since that tyme . And if Irenaeus had thought that this name was to be attributed to a Kingdome or State , surely he had no reason to preferre the name of Teitan before Lateinos , as he did . Neither are we to make any accompt of M. Downams confirmation , vpon supposition that Antichrist it come , for this is his ordinary fault , and is called petitio Antichrist shal be a most potent King . principij : and his deniall , that Antichrist shal be a most potent King , is tooto shameles , and disproued vpon diuers occasions ; and in this very place , according to the best exposition , he is said to haue the power of the 4. Monarches : for the 10. Princes which shall deuyde the Roman Empire amongst them , shall belong to him , and he shal be like to a Pard , and haue feete like a Beare , and a mouth like a Lyon , which are the three beastes , to which the other three Monarches are compared by Daniel , and lastly the Diuell signified Dan. 7. by a Dragon , shall giue him his force and great power .

The other reason of S. Irenaeus , vpon which M. Downam now saith that he graunteth his opinion ( though a little before he said it was easy to answere ) is because the letters of the name 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 make the number 666 to which Bellarmine obiecteth that the name of Latin , as it signifieth a Roman , is not written with ● , but which a simple iota , and then it maketh not that number . M. Downam answereth that the ancient Latines vsed to write and pronounce ● , long , by ● , dipthong , and the Grecians vsually expresse ● , long , by ● , and he obserueth , The name of Latin containeth not the numbe● 666 , that S. Irenaeus setting downe these two names 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as conteyning 666. taketh it for graunted , that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 may be so written ; whereas of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 he saith that it maketh that number , if it be written with ● , dipthong . For answere of all which , I reply : first , that M. Downam should haue shewed vs , that the ancient Latins euer wrote their owne name by ● , diphong , which I can hardly belieue , since they tooke it from Latium , which can hardly be so written . Secondly the Grecians did not vsually write ● , long , by ● : and we need go no further then to the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 for an example . Thirdly , the reason why S. Irenaeus expressed the diuersity of writing in 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 & not in 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is plaine , because he writing in greeke could not alter the greeke Orthography without much note in the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which is a greeke word : but for the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , he made no such difficulty , because he respected only the sound and pronunciation , as we commonly doe in all Greeke wordes , which we wryte or vse as Latin . But this hindreth not , but that there is a difference betwixt 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and Latinus , except M. Downam thinketh , that the changing , or taking away of a letter will not alter the signification , which were too absurd and grosse . And no doubt , we must rather stand to the Latin then to the Greeke Orthography of a Latin word . The like obiection maketh Bellarmine The name Romansh conteynet● not the number 666. against Romanus , for it maketh not the number , except it endeth in Tau , and be a feminine , whereas Antichrist is to be a man by the consent of all Authors . To which M. Downam answereth , that collectyue names in Hebrew , are indifferently expressed in either genders : but he neither telleth vs , what names be collectiue , nor sheweth that Romanus is one of them , nor produceth any authority for that he saith : and therfore we are rather to stand to Bellarmines iudgment , who hath written an Hebrew grammer , then to M. Downams , of whom we are not sure , that he can read Hebrew : and if by a collectyue name , he exclude a proper , he is farre wyde . His second answer is , that because the name heere spoken of , is the name of the Roman State , it may be feminyne , since that elswhere that State is called the whore of Babylon , & a woman . But we deny , that the name is to be attributed to any other then to Antichrist himselfe : and with vs agree in a manner all Authors , and indeed the matter is euident , and els where sufficiently See cap. 5. n. 5. &c. proued .

Another obiection of Bellarmine is , that the name signified by this number , is to be the proper and vsuall name of The name which conteyneth the number 666. shal be the proper & vsuall name of Antichrist Antichrist , whereas Latinus is neither , and Romanus was only the proper name of one Pope who lyued but 4. monethes . To which M. Downam giueth no other answere but this in these wordes : Neither ought it , seeing it is the name of the beast which signifieth a whole State , and in setting downe Bellarmines obiection he omitteth the one halfe , that it must be vsuall , only making mention of the other , that it must be proper . And as you see , his answere is as slender , still running vpon that erroneous conceipt of his owne , that this is not Antichrists name , but of the Roman State .

Finally Bellarmine obiecteth that there are innumerable names , which make the same number . To which M. Downam after a little cauilling at some of the names , which Bellarmine bringeth , answereth , that though it be so , yet none can be the name heere spoken of , vnlesse also it be the name of the beast , that is the Latin or Roman State , and vnlesse it be such a name , as he , to whome all other notes of Antichrist doe agree , causeth men to take vpon them ; which is to harpe still vpon the same string , and to sing the same song like a Cuckow ; for this name belongeth to no other beast , but Antichrist : and the other part is the mayne controuersy , and therefore to assume it as a thing graunted , is petitio principij , a figure wherewith M. Downam is well acquaynted , and therefore chooseth to make it his conclusion also , as the Reader may see , if he please , to whose iudgment I leaue it to consider whether M. Downam hath answered Bellarmines argument , or rather that it is altogeather vnanswerable and inuincible , as Bellarmine deseruedly affirmeth .

THE ELEAVENTH CHAPTER . Of the Character of Antichrist .

THERE are also ( saith Bellarmine ) two or three opinions of Antichrists Character . The first is , of the heretikes of this tyme , who teach that the Character of Antichrist is some signe of obedyence and coniunction with the B. of Rome yet they do not explicate after the same manner , what that signe is Hemicus Bullengerus scr. 61. in Apoc. will haue it to be the vnction of Chrisme , with which all Christians that are obedient to the Pope are signed in their foreheads . Theodorus Bibliander in Chron. tab. 10. saith , that the Character of the Pope is the profession of the Roman faith : so that he is not accompted a true Christian , who professeth not , that he cleaueth to the Roman Church . Dauid Chytraeus besides these two , addeth the Oath of Fidelity , which many are compelled to make to the Pope . Likewise the Preistly vnction , which is receaued in the crowne , and hand , and imprinteth , as the Papists call it ( quoth hee ) an indeleble Character . Finally to fall downe before Images , and consecrated bread , and to be present at Masses of Requiem .

Neither are these thinges vnlike to those which Sebastianus Meyer , and others alleadged by Augustinus Marloratu● in Apoc. 13. do teach . But it is an easie matter to confute these toyes , both because they agree not with the words of the Text , and also because all these signes were in the Catholike Church before that Antichrist had appeared , in their opinion .

First therefore we haue out of the text , that the Character shal be one , not many : for the Scripture alway speaketh in the singular number , both of the Character , and of the name & number of Antichrist . Wherefore there shal be one Character , likewise one proper name of Antichrist , and one number of his name . Wherefore when our Aduersaryes multiply so many Characters , they shew , that they know not which that is , of which S. Iohn speaketh .

Secondly , that Character shal be common to all men in Antichrists Kingdome , as is playne by those words : He shall make all ; little & great , rich & poore , free and bound to take his Character . But the Oath of obedyence and Priestly vnction agree to few .

Thirdly , the Scripture declareth , that the Character shal be such , that it may indifferently be carried in the right hand , or forehead , for so it saith : He shall make all men receyue his Character in their right hands , or foreheads . But none of those thinges , which our aduersaryes bring , is such : That the vnction of Chrisme cannot be receyued in the right hand . The profession of the Roman Faith , is neither in the hand nor forehead , but in the mouth by confession , in the hart by faith . The Oath of Fidelity is taken with the hand and mouth , but can in no wyse be carryed in the forehead . The Priestly vnction is neither receaued properly in the right hand , nor in the forehead , but vpon the head and fingers of both hands . Finally to be present at Masses for the dead , to kneele before Images , and the Eucharist , belong not to the forehead or hand , but to the whole body , and chiefely to the knees .

Fourthly the same Scripture saith , That in the Kingdome of Antichrist no man shal be permitted to buy and sell , vnles he shew the Character , or the name , or the number of the name . But how many doe buy and sell in the dominious of the Pope , who are not yet chrismed , nor haue taken the Oath of fidelity , nor are Priests ? Doe not many Iewes , euen in the very Citty of Rome where the Pope hath his Sea , negotiate publikely , buy and sell , although they haue none of those signes ?

Let vs come to the other reason & prooue that all these signes are elder then Antichrist . Antichrist by the opinion of our aduersaryes came not before the yeare 606. but Tertullian lyued about the yeare 200. and yet maketh mention of Chrisme lib. de resurrectione carnis . The flesh ( saith he ) is washed , that the soule may be clensed : the flesh is annoynted , that the soule may be consecrated . S. Cyprian liued about the yeare 250. and maketh mention of Chrisme lib. 1. epist. 12. He must necessarily be an noynted ( saith he ) who is baptized , that hauing receaued Chrisme ( that is vnction ) he may be the aunoynted of God , and haue in him the grace of Christ . S. Augustine lyued about the yeare 420. and yet he saith tract . in Ioan. 118. What is it , that all know the signe of Christ , but the Crosse of Christ ? Which signe vnles it be applyed , either to the foreheads of the faithfull , or to the water with which they are regenerated , or to the oyle with which they are Chrismed , or to the Sacrifice with which they are nourished , none of these thinges is rightly performed .

Likewise to cleaue to the Roman Church was the signe and Character of a true Catholike man before the yeare of our Lord 606. S. Augustine writeth epist. 162. of Caecilianus , who liued about the yeare 300. He needed not to care for the multytude of enemyes which conspired against him , since he saw himselfe vnited by communicatory letters to the Roman Church , in which the principality of the Apostolicall chayre alway flourished , and to the other Countries from whence the Ghospell came into Africa . S. Ambrose , who lyued about the yeare of our Lord 390. in orat . de obitu fratris sui : He asked the Bishop ( saith he ) if he agreed in doctrine with the Catholike Bishops , that is with the Roman Church .

Victor Vticensis , who lyued about the yeare of our Lord 490. lib. 1. de persecut. Vandal . writeth , that an Arian Priest going about to perswade the King not to put a Catholike to death , vsed these wordes : If thou puttest him to death the Romans will accompt him a Martyr . In which place , by the name of Romans , the Catholikes of Africa are designed , who doubtles are not called Romans by the Arians for any other cause , but for that they followed the Faith of the Roman Church , and not the misbeliefe of the Arians .

We find the Oath of obedience made to the B. of Rome in the tyme of S. Gregory lib. 10. epist. 31. and therefore before the yeare 606. for S. Gregory lyued not so long .

Of Priestly vnction we haue the testimony of S. Gregory Nazianzen , who liued about the yeare 380. in Apologet. ad Patrem suum , when he was made B. of Safimi . There came vpon me againe ( quoth he ) the vnction and spirit , and I haue new cause of mourning and sadnes . In which place , he maketh mention of a double vnction , the one when he was made Priest , and the other then at his consecrating Bishop . Likewise orat . 1. de pace , speaking of S. Basil , who being made Bishop refused the exercize of that authority : Although he hath the spirit , and talents , and the care of a flock committed vnto him , and is annoynted with the oyle of Priesthood and perfection , yet his Wisdome delayeth to take vpon him the Prelacy .

Now for the Sacrifice for the dead , it shal be sufficient in this place to bring S. Augustines testimony , who lib. de hares . cap. 53. saith . That it was the peculiar fancy of Aerius the Arch-Heretike , that we ought not to offer oblation for the dead .

Of the Adoration of Images , only S. Hierome who liued about the yeare 400. shall suffice . He , in vita Paulae , saith thus : Prostrate before the Crosse , she adored , as though she had seene our Lord vpon it . Finally of the adoration of the Eucharist S. Ambrose may deseruedly suffice , who lib. 3. de Spiritu Sancto cap. 12. explicating that place , Adore his footestoole : Therefore ( saith he ) by the footestoole is meant the earth , by the earth the flesh of Christ , which at this day also we adore in the mysteryes , and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Iesus , as we haue said before : which S. Augustine saith , almost in the same wordes in explicat . Psal. 98.

Since therefore all these thinges , which our Aduersaries will haue to be the Characters of Antichrist , were vsed by the Catholike Church many yeares before Antichrist was borne : it must needes follow , that either Antichrist learned them of that Church ( and to say this , is to confound Antichrist with Christ ) or that none of these things belong to the Characters of Antichrist . And this is that , which we prooue . Thus much shall suffice for this rash and most absurd opinion of our Aduersaries , which they haue not proued by any witnesses , or reasons .

The second opinion is of certaine Catholikes , who thinke , that Antichrists Character is the letters with which his name shal be written . So thinke Primasius , Beda , and Rupertus , who seeme to be deceaued , because they read , But he who hath the Character of the name of the beast , or the number of his name . But S. Iohn saith not so , but thus , But he who hath the Character , or the name of the beast , or the number of his name , and the Greeke text agreeth with this , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 .

The third opinion is of S. Hippolytus Martyr orat . de consummatione mundi , & some others , that the Beastes Character shal be not to vse the signe of the Crosse , but rather to execrate and abolish it . In which the Caluinistes are egregious forerunners of Antichrist . I rather thinke that Antichrist shall inuent a positiue Character also , as Christ hath the signe of the Crosse knowne to all : but it is not knowne what this Character is , vntill Antichrist commeth , as we said of the Name .

M. Downams Answere confuted .

1. THOVGH Bellarmine frame no particuler argument from this discourse of Antichrists Character , yet M. Downam will needes by resoluing the discourse it selfe , and by conferring it with the former Chapter , make him argue from the Character , as he did from the number of the name . About which we will not striue with him , but rather supposing that this was Bellarmines mynd , we will examine the solution he giueth to this argument , so framed by himselfe .

2. And first he would deny that Antichrists marke shal be knowne at his comming , in the very same manner that he denyed before , that the number of his name should be knowne . Wherefore for this point , I remit the Reader to that which hath bene said before .

3. As also for the other , that this Character is not yet knowne , because there is so much controuersy about it ▪ for he only teacheth briefely that which he explicated more at large , about the number of his name , which we examined and confuted before .

Wherefore let vs see , what he can say for the Protestants or Heretikes of this tyme , whose opinion Bellarmine impugneth : by which we shall also discouer , how much his explication helpeth them , and what absurdity the opinion of Catholikes conteyneth . Which two points M. Downam thought good to touch before he came to answere Bellarmines two proofes .

4. And first to that out of the Scripture , M. Downam granteth , that the marke of Antichrist is but one , meaning ( as he explicateth himselfe ) in substance , although the same by diuers The mark or Character of Antichrist but one . meanes , may be diuersly expressed and testified , that is , subiection to the Pope as their head , and the acknowledgment of the Sea of Rome , and of the Popes Supremacy &c. But what he meaneth by one in substance , is not easy to conceaue , except it be this , that all the outward signes , Characters , and markes agree in this , that they signify the same subiection to the Pope &c. so that the markes shal be distinct , and diuers in themselues , and in their manner of signification , though the thing by them signified be one . But this is not sufficient to affirme , that the Character of Antichrist is but one , for in this sort the name , and the number of the name , and the Charcter are all one in substance , since they signify the same thing ; and all signes which signify the same thing may be said to be one in substance , as wryting , speach , gesture , and the like : and all the figures in the old Testament , which signified Christ are but one figure in substance , and all the Sacraments of the Church which signify grace , shal be but one Sacrament , which is too great an absurdity for M. Downam to defend , & consequently he must needes graunt , that his fellow Ghospellers assigne more Characters then one , contrary to the Scripture , and therefore they are so farre from truly interpreting the Scripture , that they wholy peruert it .

To Bellarmines second instance , out of the Scripture , M. Downam giueth no direct answere at all , but would same put it off , by telling vs , that the Pope hath declared , that it is necessary to saluation , to be subiect to the Pope . But this is only to shew , that the body must be vnited with the head , in which all Religions whatsoeuer , yea all Societies must The mark of Antichrist shal be common to all in his King dome . needes agree . But Bellarmines instance impugneth two of the markes , which some Protestants affirme to be the Characters of Antichrist , by this euident proofe , that the Character of Antichrist shal be common to all men in Antichrists Kingdome as the Scripture plainely affirmeth : but the oath of Obedience , and the Priestly vnction agree to few , therefore these cannot be the Character wherof the Scripture speaketh . To this M. Downam answereth not a word , neither indeed could he , for euery part and parcel is most euident and playne , and therefore he was inforced to run to his old shift , and to bring vs his wonted figure of petitio principij , by which he desireth vs to graunt him his conclusion , that the Pope is Antichrist , without any further proofe . But he must pardon vs , because it importeth vs much to hould with Christ , which we cannot see how we can possibly doe , if we oppose our selues against his substitute and Vicegerent , as though he were Antichrist , as M. Downam would haue vs .

To the third instance , M. Downam answereth more formally , denying that the Scripture speaketh of the carrying of this marke , and the carrying of it indifferently either in the forehead or in the Antichrists Character may be caried either in the right hand or forehead . hand . But by M. Downams leaue , the Scripture mentioneth both the forehead and the right hand , & that with disiunction , that all must haue the marke in the one or in the other : by which it is plaine , that either of them will serue : so that it is indifferent to Antichrist in which of them his marke be carryed , so that it be carried in the one of them : for that it must be carryed , is euident by the Scripture euen according to M. Downams translation , which is this : That he may giue them a marke on their right hand , or els on their foreheads . For surely if he giue them a marke on either place , they must carry it perforce . Now as for his Mysticall interpretation , that they shall receaue this marke on their forehead by profession , or in the right This Character is not profession or practise . hand by practize and operation : first it is hard to vnderstand , how profession is made with the forehead , except there be some marke vpon the forehead , and it will be no very easy matter for Antichrists Ministers to examine euery man that would 〈◊〉 or 〈…〉 practise and operation ; and finally those vactions , which are assigned can hardly be drawne to either of these two heads , if profession be taken properly for declaration , by speach , and practise for our owne actions and operations , since they doe rather import a suffering and passiue receauing , then any actiue operation , in which notwithstanding they draw neerer to this marke which shal be giuen by Antichrist , and receaued by all others ; and therefore neither profession , not practise agreeth well to this M. Downam contradicteth himselfe . marke . Finally M. Downam seemeth to contradict himselfe : for on the one side he will haue profession and practise to answere to the forehead and hand , and consequently to be the marke , and yet a little after he saith , that the subiection it selfe is the marke , which is not only contrary to the former , but also foolish : since that this subiection is the thing signified by the marke , and not the marke it selfe . For what wise man would euer say , that subiection is a signe or marke , but rather that other things are signes and markes of it , as appeareth plainly to any , that will consider the subiection of seruantes to their Maisters , subiects to their Prince , and of Christians to Christ and God &c.

To the fourth instance M. Downams answere is , that Antichrist shall prohibite all Christians , that haue not his marke to buy or sell &c. but he will permit the Iewes &c. But we find no such exception in the Scripture , which generally affirmeth , that he shall not permit any , little or great , rich or poore , free or bound , vnder which diuisions , no doubt , not only the whole nation of the Iewes , but euen euery particuler Iew is comprehended . And besides , we find no such rigour in the Pope towards M. Downams Christians : for though that Bull of Martinus Quintus had ben generall for all The Bull of Martinus Quintus against the Hussites . tymes and places , as it was not , yet doth it not exact that euery man should professe by word or worke his subiection to the Pope , before he be admitted to buy or fell any thing at all , especially such things as are necessary for daily sustenance , but only excludeth all Hussites &c. from all human conuersation ( when voility or decessity , or some other lawfull circumstance doth not otherwise require ) which are openly , manifestly , and notoriously such : which is farre lesse rigour , then Antichrist shall vse , and yet much more then we see vsed in many Countries now , euen by Martinus Quintus his authority , where Catholikes and Heretikes are permitted to liue peaceably togeather . Yea euen in Italy & Spayne , & Rome it selfe , where they are most carefull to auoyd this contagion , there is no such rigour vsed as M. Downam See part. 2. cap. 8. §. 7. speaketh of ; the reason of which we shall afterward declare more at large . But though all this be true , yet we must not omit to obserue , that Bellarmine in this instance only impugneth three of the markes , which M. Downams brethren assigned , viz. Chrisme , the Oath of Fidelity , and Preisthood . All which three , it is euident , that not only all Iewes , but likewise very many Christians , yea Catholikes also haue not , and yet are permitted to buy and sell : neither are they once questioned withall about any of them . All which M. Downam could not choose but see , though because he could find no solution for Bellarmines instance thus lymited , he thought best to runne to generalityes , where he might roue a● randome , and make his Reader belieue , that he had something to say , though he saw himselfe that he could say nothing directly to the purpose .

M. Downam hauing this dispatched the first argument commeth to the second ; where first he affirmeth , that though those things had bene vsed in the Catholike Church before the reuelation of Antichrist , yet that hindereth not , but that now they may appertayne to the marke of the beast , because he doubteth not to affirme that there were many corruptions crept into the Church before the reuealing of Antichrist , which he was to retayne with increase . So that as you see , the marke of Antichrist was in the world before himselfe , yea in the Catholike Church , which consequently must The Church of God cannot haue the marke of Antichrist . needes belong to Antichrist , and be a great freind of his , as indeed she is to the Pope , and euer was , and wil be as to her chiefe Pastour vpon earth . But how she should beare and vniuersally imbrace any marke or corruption of Antichrist , seemeth as vnpossible , as that Christ and Antichrist shall haue both one marke , or one Church , and therefore M. Downam must either perswade vs , that euen from the Apostles tymes the Church of Christ bare Antichrists marke , and consequently that he was then come , or els he must graunt , that his brethren haue not rightely assigned the markes of Antichrist , but rather haue vttered an horrible M. Downams blasphemy . blasphemy , charging Christs Church , and consequently Christ himselfe ( who teacheth his Church ) with the markes and doctrine of Antichrist . But M. Downam giueth vs two differences , betwixt these markes before Antichrists comming and after . First vntill the yeare 607. there was not ( saith he ) in the Catholike Church an vniuersall subiection to the Pope as the head , and consequently till then , these things could not be vsed as signes thereof , as since they haue . But M. Downam may when it pleaseth him , take the paines to peruse what Bellarmine The Church was alway subiect to the Pope . bringeth in the 19. & last Chapter of his second booke concerning this point , & I doubt not , but he will acknowledge an vniuersall subiection to the Pope euen from the Apostles ; or if he be obstinate , and will nor yield to an euident truth , yet I am sure , he will neuer be able to answere Bellarmines proofes ; & if his pryde be such that he presumeth that he can ; let him begin , when he will , and see what he shall gaine by it . The second difference which M. Downam alleadgeth is , that before the yeare 607. these thinges were not imposed and inioyned vpon all by the lawes of the Pope as since they are ; so that the cause of vsing them now is not the example of the ancient Church , but the authority of the Popes law . But this is a very poore difference , and argueth a wonderfull corruption in the ancient Church , since that she was so forward to take Antichrists markes , that she needed no commaund : and besides , if M. Downam maketh the ancient Church to be very corrupt . Downam will take the paines to peruse the ancient Councells , and Decrees of Popes , which Bellarmine bringeth in these particuler controuersies , he shall find , that there was the same necessity for all men to performe these things then , that there is now , many of them being commaunded by Gods law , and others not exacted of all , and some not of any , as the Reader may easily distinguish by considering the particulers .

6. Wherefore now let vs consider how M. Downam answereth VII . Bellarmines particuler obiections . And first concerning Chrisme vsed in the Church before the yeare 607. Chrisme he answereth , that those three Fathers speake of the annoynting with oyle vsed in the Sacrament of Baptisme ; and addeth , that this also without warrant of the Scripture is retayned among the Papists . Where you see he maketh these three Fathers Papists in that point at the least : and though it be true , that they acknowledge that Cerimony of Baptisme ; yet in these places , they speake most plainely of Chrisme , and the Sacrament of Confirmation . For T●rtullian , and S. Cyprian compare it with baptisme , attributing to it the effects of grace , aswell as to Baptisme : and S. Augustine placeth it betwixt baptisme and the Eucharist , and calleth it Chrisming , which is the proper name of this Sacrament . Wherefore M. Downam must of force confesse , that these Fathers were Papists in this point also , and that this marke was long before the yeare 607. Now whether this vnction were vsed in the primitiue Church , or no , is a new question belonging to another place , and it is inough for vs now , that it was long before Antichrist came , according to the Protestants accompt : and that they do not much vse euen the imposition of hands , which they acknowledg was vsed in the primityue Church : of which M. Downam can giue no better reason , then for that it was abused by vs . By which in their opinion they might also leaue off Baptisme , Eucharist , and all other rites and exercises of How chrisme maketh vs Christians . de Consecrat. dist. 5. c. Vt ieiun . Ibid. c. De bis verò . Christian Religion , as indeed they haue done in great part ; only they loue to heare themselues talke in a Pulpit , though they say neuer a true , nor wise word . I omit his other impertinent obiections out of the Canon law , where first that holy Pope and Martyr Melchiades saith , that a man shall neuer be a Christian ( meaning a strong and valiant , or perfect Christian ) except he first receaue this Sacrament : for so he vseth the name ( Christianus ) as the Latins vse ( Vir ) and the Aurelian Councell saith , that this Sacrament is more to be reuerenced , then Baptisme , if we respect the person of him who ministreth it , because he must of necessity be a Bishop , How Chrisme is more to be reuerenced then Baptisme . and besides this Sacrament supposeth , and in some sort includeth baptisme , and in that respect is said to be more venerable , then baptisme by it selfe . And this is all that M. Downam can say for himselfe , or against vs ; for that which he addeth concerning the ordayning of the Sacrament , as though it were ordayned by the Church , and not by Christ , is a fond Chymera of his owne . For we affirme that it was instituted by Christ , as all other Sacraments were : and besides it is now from the purpose , since our whole question is , whether this Sacrament were vsed before the yeare 607. which Bellarmine hath euidently conuinced that it was .

To the second obiection M. Downam answereth with a distinction ; that to cleaue to the Roman Church in ancient tyme , was the note of a good Christian , because then that Church was Apostolicall ; but now it is the marke of an Antichristian , because now that Church is Apostaticall . Where you find him still in the same fault of petitro principij . And besides you see , he graunteth asmuch as Bellarmine would haue him , that in old tyme the cleauing to the Roman Church was so far from beeing the marke of Antichrist , that it was the ( chiefest ) note to know a good Catholike Christian , from a false and wicked heretike : and consequently it is to be accompted so still . For the heretikes in those tymes could say as M. Downam doth , that the Roman Church was Apostaticall , but they were not able to proue it any more , then M. Downam is : and all good Catholikes were then , and are now certayne , that it can neuer be so , since Christ hath promised the contrary to S. Peter and his successors . And besides it is very strange , that Christ & Antichrist cannot haue both one marke Christ and Antichrist should both haue one marke . And that the arguments , which the old Fathers vsed against heretikes , should come to be vsed by Antichrist against Catholikes . But to these absurdities must they needes fall , who call light darkenes , and darkenes light , as M. Downam and all heretikes doe . M. Downam goeth forward with his distinctions and differences , affirming , that in ancient tymes , at other Churches did cleaue to the Church of Rome , so did the Church of Rome cleaue to them . Now it acknowledgeth no Church besides it selfe . All which is false ; for now also other Churches cleaue to the Church of Rome , as to their head ; and the Church of Rome cleaueth to them as to her members ; and it acknowledgeth many other particuler Churches besides it selfe still , though all subiect and subordinate to it as they were euer . How the Church of Rome is vnited & standeth with other Churches . And that which he addeth is a meere cauill ; for the Church of Rome , if we vnderstand that particuler diocesse , is still accompted but a part of the Catholike Church : and in this sense , a man may still be a good Christian , although he be not of the Church of Rome . And in ancient tymes , the Church of Rome alone ( that is the Church , of which the Bishop of Rome is the chiefe Pastor ) was accompted the Catholike Church . And consequently that he that was not a member of that Church was not taken for a Catholike or true Christian , as appeareth sufficiently by the places , which Bellarmine citeth , to which I will only adde one more out of S. Hierome in his Epistle to Pope Damasus . I am vnited in Communion ( saith he ) to thy Blessednes , that is , to the Chayre of Peter . I know that the Church was built vpon that rock ; whosoeuer eateth the Lambe out of this house , is prophane : if any man be not in the Arke of Noe , he will perish in the deluge . I know not Vitalis , I refuse Those which belong not to the Church of Rome belong not to Christ but to Antichrist . Meletius , I esteeme not Paulinus , whosoeuer gathereth not what thee scattereth , that is , whosoeuer belongeth not to Christ , belongeth to Antichrist . Now let M. Downam compare the writing of any Catholike at this tyme , and see if they attribute more to the Pope or Church of Rome at this tyme , then S. Hierome did at that ; and with all consider , if in S. Hieromes iudgement , it be not a playne marke of an Antichristian to be against the Roman Church , and of a good Christian to be vnited to it .

8. To the third obiection M. Downam answereth , that the Oath which Bellarmine alleadgeth , is not an Oath of obedience , and allegiance to the Pope , but of faith and Religion towards God , conformable to the faith , and Religion then professed by the Bishop and The oath of obedience made to the B. of Rome before the yeare 606. Church of Rome . But by M. Downams leaue , the wordes of the Bishop are these : Sub meiordinis casu spondeo , atque promitto tibi , & perte Sancto Petro Apostolorum principi , atque eius Vicario Beatissimo Gregorio , vel successoribus ipsius , me numquam &c. ad schismata reuersurum , sed semper me in vnitate Sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae , & communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum . Vnder perill of loosing my place , I profer & promise to thee , and by thee to S. Peter Prince of the Apostles , and to most blessed Gregory his Vicar , or to the successors of him , that I will neuer returne to schisme , but will alwayes in all pointes remayne in the vnity of the holy Catholike Church , and in the communion of the B. of Rome . By which we see , that the promise to remayme in the communion of the Pope , was as absolute , as that other to remayne in the vnity of the Catholike Church : which I suppose M. Downam will admit to be perpetuall without limitation of any tyme . And this promise he presently confirmeth with an Oath by Almighty God , by the 4. Ghospells which he held in his hands , and by the health of Nations , and of the rulers of his Common wealth . Now it is a friuolous cauill to say , that this Oath was taken vpon the occasion of his lapse ; for this Bellarmine denieth not , but only affirmeth that it was taken before the comming of Antichrist , according to the Protestants accompt . Neither is it to the purpose , that now such Oathes are more generall , and common ; for this Bellarmine denieth not : and who seeth not that the exaction of Oaths may proceed vpon diuers occasions ? And if the Oath be lawfull , the often exacting of it is not culpable , but rather If the Oath be lawfull , the often exacting of it is not culpable . commendable : arguing greater vigilancy in them , which gouerne . And the like may be said of some other clauses more expresly set downe in some other formes of oathes , according to the necessity of tymes , and the qualities of them , who are to sweare . M. Downam should shew vs that there is any oath exacted of any now , that is not fit to be performed by them , which thinke it necessary to liue in the communion of the Pope , as this Bishop did , as appeareth by his Oath ; wherein he promiseth as much in generall , as any other can expresse in particuler : for he protesteth , that he will neuer be drawne from this communion by any perswasions or any other meanes , and consequently that he will alway remaine in the obedience of the Pope ; for he renounceth not any heresy , as M. Downam supposeth , but only schisme , which he performed by returning ad vnitatem Sedis Apostolicae , to the vnity of the Apostolike Sea , which I hartily wish , that M. Downam and his fellow Protestants may also doe ; for otherwise it would not be sufficient to renounce their heresies , though this were a good step to that .

To the fourth , after a fit of rayling , M. Downam answereth Priestly vnction vsed before the yeare 606. Desacra vnctione c. Cum venisset . at length , that both the places of S. Gregory Nazianzen are to be vnderstood figuratiuely of consecration to the Ministry : & this he endeauoureth to proue by the testimony of Innoc. 3. by which it appeareth that this cerimony of annoynting was not vsed in the Greek Church , whereof Nazianzen was ; but reiected as Iewish , vntill he imposed the same vpon them about the yeare 1200. But M. Downam goeth beyond Innocentius , for he only affirmeth that they , to whom he wrote , that is at the most , the Grecians of his tyme , were not wont to vse this cerimony of annoynting : but that the Greeke Church had not vsed it before , Innocentius affirmeth not , and much lesse , that they had reiected it as Iewish . Wherefore these are M. Downams additions , which we may bouldly reiect , since he hath no proofe for them , and consequently his figuratiue interpretation falleth to the ground , and we are to take the words of S. Gregory Nazianzen , as they sound , especially since others as ancient as he both of the Greeke and Latin Church make expresse mention of this Cerimony , as M. Downam may see in Bellarmine lib. 1. de Sacramento Ordinis cap. 12. where he also handleth this obiection out of Innocentius 3. and vrgeth it further then M. Downam Bellarmin vrgeth Downams obiection further then he doth himselfe . doth : whome I must intreat not to be angry though I passe ouer his rayling in silence , since he saith nothing to the purpose which is not already answered ; for now all our question is , how ancient this Cerimony is , and for the lawfulnesse therof I remit him to the place of Bellarmine already alleaged , where he solueth that obiection taken from the Iewes , and whatsoeuer els M. Downam can inuent .

10. To the fifth obiection M. Downams answere is , that S. Augustine is to be vnderstood of Sacrifice of prayer , and not of any propitiatory Sacrifice ; but by M. Downams leaue he cannot carry it so ; for we will appeale to S. Chrysostome , S. Sacrifice for the dead vsed before the yeare 606. Cyril , and S. Augustine himselfe . For first S. Chrysostome lib. 6. de Sacerdotio writeth thus . The Priest is an Embassador for the whole world , and an intercessour with God , that he wil be propitious to the sinnes of all men , not only of the liuing , but also of the dead . Cyrillus Hieros . cateches. 5. mystag . We belieue ( saith he ) that it is the greatest help of those soules for which the obsecration of that holy and dreadfull Sacrifice which is laid vpon the Altar is offred . And S. Augustine himselfe quaest. 57. in Leuit. affirmeth , that in this Sacrifice , vera fit remissio peccatorum , sinnes are truly forgiuen : and tract. 84. in Ioan. answering directely M. Downams distinction , he writeth thus : Therefore at the Table in selfe we do not so make Commemoration of the Martyrs , as of others , who rest in peace so that we also pray for them : but rather that they may pray for vs . By all which , it is plaine , that in the tyme of these Saintes , Masses were offered for the dead , in the very same manner , that they are offered now , and consequently this is no marke of Antichrist , except M. Downam wil be so bould , as to marke these holy Fathers with it , by which amongst wise men , he shall only get to himselfe the opinion of an impudent heretike , one of the forerunners of the true Antichrist indeed .

11. To the sixt ( for we will omit his citation of Bishop Iewell , as sufficiently answered by D. Harding ) M. Downam answereth first , that the adoration , which holy S. Paula Adoration of Images vsed before the yeare 606. vsed , was not a common practice , but peculiar to her . But we must intreate him to let her haue S. Hieromes company at least , who commendeth this her deuotion . Secondly he saith , that it was not vsuall vnto her , but only at that tyme , and that place . But how will he prooue this ? Was it not asmuch to kisse the stone of the Sepulcher , and to licke the place where Christs body lay , as to kneele downe before the Crosse ? Thirdly he saith , that the did not worship the Crosse as Papists doe , but falling before that Crosse , worshiped Christ . Well then , will M. Downam be content to do asmuch ? We will only desire thus much of him , that he will apply that outward reuerence to the Crosse , because it representeth Christ , whome he inwardely submitteth himselfe vnto , and adoreth . And so much it is plaine , that S. Paula did in this and her other actions of kissing and licking the Sepulcher : and in this sort How Latria is giuen to the Crosse by Catholikes . only doe we attribute the worship of Latria to the Crosse , so that the outward reuerence be exhibited to the Crosse , as a thing belonging to Christ , to whome the inward submission is wholy and entirely giuen .

To the authority of S. Amborse for the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament , he answereth , that Christ may be adored in his Sacraments ; but the Sacrament is not to be adored . To which I Adoration of the Eucharist vsed before the yeare 606. answere , that we adore the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament , which the Protestants will not allow of , but S. Ambrose doth , & the Sacrament it selfe , that is , euen the forme of bread and wyne may be adored in that manner , that we haue explicated of the Crosse , that is , as a thing belonging to Christ ; but alway the inward submission and adoration is to be referred to the person of Christ , which must needes be in the Sacrament , since his body and humanity is there , as S. Ambrose affirmeth . Now that which M. Downam addeth out of S. Ambrose in the same place , is nothing to the purpose . For we know very well , that our B. Lady is not to be adored with that adoration , which is due to the Holy Ghost and Christ , which is all that S. Ambrose there affirmeth , as appeareth euidently euen by those words which M. Downam alleadgeth . Finally his euasion to the authority of S. Augustine is very friuolous , for he neuer goeth about to answere the words , but supposeth that S. Augustine would not affirme the reall presence which yet his wordes must needes import , since he saith that we eate Christs flesh , and that no man eateth , but he first adoreth : which is the very same , that M. Downam will needes haue to be the marke of Antichrist : so that if we will belieue him , all the Christians in S. Augustines tyme had the marke of Antichrist : for which his pleading no doubt if M. Downam lyue to see Antichrists raigne , he shall haue a good fee ; and howsoeuer , he cannot goe vnrewarded , since the Dragon to whom Antichrist belongeth taketh a record of all such worthy enterpryzes , that tend so highly to the aduancement of his Kingdome . God graunt that M. Downam may take a better course in time .

12. Thus we might conclude this Chapter , but that we will not omit to examine how M. Downam impugneth the Catholikes opinion in generall , for that they seeme to num. 3. agree in this , that the Character is a visible marke of Antichrists name which notwithstanding he might haue seene denied by Bellarmine , prouing out of the Scripture that the marke of Antichrist and his name , or the number of his name are not all one . But indeed that which M. Downam chiefely impugneth is , that it shal be visible , and yet in this num. 2. also he is deceyued . For S. Hippolytus Martyr thought , that i● should be a priuatiue signe , that is , the not vsing the signe of the Crosse , which is the marke of Christ : for which M. Downam was so angrie with him , and with Bellarmine both that he calleth him a counterfaite Author , and chargeth the other with falsifying his testimony . But for S. Hippolytus , Eusebius l. 6. cap. 14. and S. Hierome in Scriptoribus will answere , who recount many of his learned workes , and S. Hierome nameth this of Antichrist . & S. Ambrose the Martyr thought him a fit man to propose to learned Origen to imitate ▪ Now how Bellarmine hath falsified his testimony , M. Downam doth not tell vs , nor we can imagine , except it be , for that illation of his , that in S. Hippolytus his iudgment , Protestants are notable forerunners of Antichrist , which notwithstanding is most manifest , since they neither vse themselues , nor will suffer others by their good will , to vse the signe of the Crosse vpon their foreheads , or to carry the picture of it in their handes , or to haue it before their eyes , as the Christians vsed in S. Hippolytus daies ( who liued not 200. yeares after Christs Passion ) and Catholikes vse to this day .

But let vs see , how M. Downam impugneth those Catholike Antichrists marke shal be visible . Authors , that thinke it shal be a visible marke : his first argument is , because it is a grosse thing to imagine , that Princes and Magistrates , and men of all sortes would euer suffer themselues to be branded , as it were with Antichrists visible marke . To which I answere , that it were grosse indeed to imagine so , if these Princes &c. were not forced vnto it by danger of incurring otherwise some greater inconuenience , because it is not probable , that all shal be so far gone that they will glory in Antichrists marke , though no doubt many will , and others will seem to do so , though in their harts they mislike it . Neither are we to thinke , that Antichrist shall want deuises how to do this without paine or deformity . But I would faine know , where M. Downam found this imagination of branding , for I cannot see why all Catholikes may not be vnderstood to speake only of such a visible marke , as the signe of the Crosse , which is visible inough , and yet we see no man branded with it . His second Argument is ▪ that if this were Antichrist , practize , euery man would be able to discerne him . But what meaneth M. Downam by discerning . No doubt men shall discerne him to be an enemy of Christ , and the question in those daies wil be , which of them is the true Christ , for he will affirme himselfe not only to be the true Christ , but also will extoll himselfe aboue all , that is called God . Thirdly M. Downam obiecteth the ordinary glosse , Downam contradicteth him selfe . Antoninus , and Lira , and referreth himselfe to some places of Scripture : by all which he only ouerthroweth his owne assertion , that all Catholikes agree that Antichrists marke shal be such a visible signe , as he impugneth , since now he himselfe hath found some who thinke otherwise : and besides , this is a new confirmation , that this Character is yet vnknowne since that Authors are so deuided in their opinions concerning it . Finally , so farre , as these Authors agree See part. 2. cap. 8. §. 4. with the heretikes or differ from Bellarmine , they are sufficiently confuted by him , with the same arguments with which he impugned the heretikes themselues . And as for the Scriptures we shall more commodiously discusse them in another place , where M. Downam vrgeth them somewhat more in particuler , for now he alleadgeth them only in generall , and so we answere in generall , that though other places cannot without absurdity be vnderstood of visible marks , yet that proueth not , but that this place is so to be vnderstood , since no doubt , some markes may be visible , and all circumstances argue a visible marke in this place , though we cannot in particuler certainely tell , what this marke shal be , which is a plaine token , that Antichrist is not yet come as M. Downam maketh Bellarmine to reason in this place , and he himselfe demonstrateth a little before , applying it to Antichrist name , as we haue seene .

THE TWELVTH CHAPTER . Of Antichrists Generation .

AS for the fifth ( saith Bellarmine ) of the Generation of Antichrist there are some thinges euidently erroneous affirmed by some ; some thinges probable , and some manifest and certayne . First then , there were in tymes past many errours of Antichrist . The first , that Antichrist shal be borne of a Virgin by the worke of the Diuell , as Christ was borne of a Virgin by the worke of the holy Ghost .

This errour is reported by the Author of the Treatise of Antichrist which goeth vnder S. Augustines name in the end of his 9. Tome , which seemeth probable to be made by Rabanus : certainely it is not S. Augustines . This is a manifest errour for it is only the worke of God ( who can supply all efficient causes ) to produce a man without the seed of man , because he only is of infinite power and contayneth virtually all the perfection of crea●ures . The Diuell who is a creature can indeed doe meruaylous workes by speedy application of actiue thinges to passiue , but he cannot supply the actiuity of causes . Wherfore S. Augustine ep. 3. ad Volusian . saith , that to be borne of a Virgin was such a miracle in Christ , that there could not be a greater expected from God .

Yet it were no errour to say , that Antichrist shall be borne of the Diuell and a woman , in that sort that some are said to be borne of the Diuells , which we call Incubi : for though the Diuell cannot by himselfe without the seed of man produce a man , yet he can in a body assumed in the forme of a woman , receaue the seed of man , and after in the forme of a man cast that seed into a womans wombe & so beget a child . This S. Augustine testifieth lib. 15. de ciuitate Dei cap. 23. and addeth , that this hath ben proued by so great experience , that it may seeme madnes to go about to deny it still .

The second errour was of the blessed Martyr Hippolytus who in orat . de consummatione mundi teacheth , that Antichrist shal be the Diuell himselfe , who shall assume false flesh of a false Virgin : for as the word of God , who is truth it selfe , tooke true flesh of a true Virgin ; so S. Hippolytus thought it probable , that the Diuell who is the Father of lyes would faigne himselfe to haue taken mans flesh of a Virgin . This opinion is refuted , both because 2. Thessal . 2. Antichrist is called a man , as also because the rest of the Fathers with common consent do write , that Antichrist shal be truly a man .

The third errour is , that Antichrist shal be a true man indeed , but withall a Diuell by the incarnation of the Diuell , as Christ by his incarnation is God and man . This error is reported and confuted by S. Hierome in cap. 7. Dan. Beda in c. 13. Apoc. and S. Damaseen l. 4. c. 28.

Origen thought this opinion possible : for Tom. 2. in Ioan. he affirmed , that some Angells were truly incarnate , whom S. Hierome confuteth in praefat. in Malach. & in cap. 1. Aggaei . And doubtlesse it is erroneous , for no created , and consequently finite person can sustayne two perfect natures as the Word of God who is infinite can . Neither is there any controuersy of this now among Deuines : for though some say that it doth altogeather imply a contradiction , others teach it doth not : vet all agree in this , that it cannot be done by the force of only a creature , as the Diuell is .

The fourth errour is , that Nero shall rise againe , and that he shal be Antichrist , or els that he liueth still , and is secretly preserued in his youthly vigour , and shall appeare in his tyme . Sulpitius lib. 2. sacrae hist . insinuateth this errour ; yet lib. 2. dial . de virt. S. Martini , he writeth plainely , that Nero shall not be Antichrist himselfe , but that he shall come with Antichrist , and at length be slayne by Antichrist . But because all these thinges are said without any reason , S. Aug. lib. 20. de ciu. Dei . cap. 19. deseruedly calleth this opinion a meruaylous presumption .

Besides these errours , there are two probable opinions of the holy Fathers , of the generation of Antichrist . The first is , that Antichrist shal be borne of an Harlot , and not of any lawfull matrimony . So teach S. Damascen lib. 4. c. 28. and some others . But since it cannot be proued by Scripture , it is probable , but not certayne .

The second opinion is , that Antichrist shal be borne of the Tribe of Dan : so affirme S. Irenaeus l. 5. S. Hippolytus Martyr orat . de mundi consummat . S. Ambrose l. de benedict. Patriarch . c. 7. S. Aug. quaest. 22. in Iosue . S. Prosper de promission . & praedict. Dei part . 4. Theodoret. quaest. 109. in Gen. S. Greg. l. 31. moral . c. 18. Beda , Rupertus , Arethas , Richardus & Ansel . in Apoc. c. 7. They proue it out of Genesis 49. Fiat Dan coluber in via , cerastes in semita &c. and ex Hier. 8. Ex Dan audiuimus fremitum equorum eius &c. Finally because Apoc. 7. where 12000. are signed by the Angel out of euery Tribe of the children of Israel , the Tribe of Dan is omitted , which seemeth to be done in hatred to Antichrist .

This opinion is very probable , for the authority of so many Fathers , and yet not altogeather certayne , both because many of these Fathers do not say , that they know it , but insinuate it to be probable ; as also for that none of those Scriptures do conuynce . For first Gen. 49. Iacob seemeth to speake litterally of Sampson when he saith : Let Dan be made a Snake in the way , an horned Serpent in the path : and let him byte the heeles of the horse , that the ryder may fall backeward . For Sampson was of the Tribe of Dan , and he was truly like a snake in the way to the Philistians , for he met them in euery place and vexed them . So S. Hierome expoundeth it in quaest. Hebr. and surely Iacob seemeth to wish well to his Sonne , when he saith these wordes , and therefore not to foretell euill , but good .

And if it be allegorically applyed to Antichrist , it can be but a probable argument , such as is drawne out of mysticall senses . And without doubt Hieremie cap. 8. speaketh not of Antichrist , nor of the Tribe of Dan , but of Nabuchodonosor who was to come to ouerthrow Hierusalem through the Country which was called Dan , as S. Hierome rightely expoundeth it vpon that place . Now why Dan is omitted Apoc. 7. is vnknowne , especially since Ephraim also is omitted , whose Tribe is one of the greatest .

Besides these two probable assertions , there are other two most certaine : the one , that Antichrist shall chiefly come for the Iewes , and shal be receaued by them as the Messias . The other that he shal be borne of the Nation of the Iewes , and be circumcised and obserue the Sabboth at least for a tyme . This is proued , first out of the Ghospell Ioan. 5. where our Lord saith to the Iewes : I came in the name of my Father , and you haue not receaued me : if another come in his owne name , him you will receaue . Which place that it ought to be vnderstood of Antichrist we haue proued before cap. 2. Likewise out of the Apostle 2. Thessal . 2. Because they haue not receaued the charity of Truth , that they may be saued : therefore God shall send them the operation of Errour , that they may belieue a lye &c. Caluin and other Heretikes in their Commentaries vpon these words expound this place of vs , who because we haue not receaued their Ghospell , are suffered to be seduced by the Antichrist of Rome . But first they bring forth no witnesses , but we haue all the Interpreters of our side who expound it of the Iewes . See S. Ambrose , S. Chrysostome , Theodoretus , Theophilactus , Oecumenius .

Besides these , S. Hierome quaest. 11. ad Algasiam , saith thus : Antichrist shall doe all these thinges , not with power , but by the permission of God ; for the Iewes , that because they would not receaue the charity of Truth , that is the spirit of God by Christ , that receauing our Sauiour they may be saued ; God shall send them , not the worker , but the worke or operation , that is , the fountayne of Errour , that they may belieue a lye &c. And also without the Commentaries of so many Fathers , the thing it selfe speaketh , that the Apostle speaketh of the Iewes : for he saith that Antichrist is to be sent to those who would not receaue Christ . Now , who ought more , and would not receaue Christ then the Iewes ? Where it is also to be noted , that the Apostle sayd not , because they will not receaue the Truth , but , because they haue not receaued . Wherfore he speaketh of them who would not belieue when Christ and the Apostles preached . Now it is manifest , that in the Apostles tyme , the Gentills receaued the Ghospell with exceeding great desire , and the Iewes would not receaue it .

Moreouer , besides S. Hierome & the others already alleaged , all the other Fathers teach the same , as S. Irenaeus lib. 5 S. Hippolytus Mart. orat . de consummatione mundi , Theodoret in epit . diuin. decret cap. de Antichristo . Sulpit. ex B. Martino l. 2. dial . S. Cyril catech . 15. S. Hilar. can. 25. in Matth. S. Ambros . l. 10. in Luc. in cap. 21. S. Chrysost. S. August . S. Cyril . Alex. in cap. 5. Ioan. S. Gregor. lib. 31. moral . cap. 10. S. Damascen lib. 4. c. 28. And reason also perswadeth the same .

For without doubt Antichrist shall first ioyne himselfe to those who are ready to receaue him . But the Iewes are of this sort who expect their Messias a temporall King , as Antichrist shal be . But the Christians expect indeed Antichrist , but with feare and terrour , not with ioy and desire . Wherefore as Christ came first to the Iewes to whome he was promised , and of whome he was expected , and afterward drew the Gentills also vnto him . So also Antichrist shall come first to the Iewes , of whome he is expected , and after by little and little , shall subiect all Nations vnto him .

Now that Antichrist shal be a Iew and circumcised , it is certaine , and deduced out of that which hath ben sayd : for the Iewes would neuer receaue one that were no Iew , or that were vncircumcised for their Messias . Yea because the Iewes expect their Messias of the family of Dauid and the Tribe of Iuda , without doubt Antichrist although he be truly of the Tribe of Dan , will faigne himselfe to be of the family of Dauid . Secondly all the Ancients teach most cleerly , that Antichrist shal be a Iew , as those 12. alleadged a little before , who say that he shal be of the Tribe of Dan ; and besides S. Ambrose , who in 2. Thess. 2. affirmeth that he shal be circumcised , and S. Hierome , who in cap. 11. Dan. saith that he shal be borne of the people of the Iewes , and S. Martin apud Sulpit. l. 2. dial . that Antichrist shall commaund that all be circumcised , according to the law of Moyses , and S. Ciryl , who Cateches , 15. affirmeth , that he shal be very carefull of the Temple of Hierusalem , that he may shew himselfe to be of the progeny of Dauid . Finally S. Gregory who lib. 11. ep. 3. saith that Antichrist shal be a reuerencer of the Saboth and other Iewish Cerimonies .

Hence we haue a most euident demonstration , that the Pope is not Antichrist . For from the yeare 606. in which our Aduersaryes say that Antichrist came , it is manifest , that no Pope was a Iew , neither by Nation nor by Religion , nor in any sort . It is also manifest , that the Pope was neuer yet receaued by the Iewes for the Mesias , but contrary wise is accompted their enemy , and chiefe perfecutor . Wherefore they in their daily prayers aske of God , that he will giue the Pope then liuing a good mind towards the Iewes , and that in his daies he will send the Messias , viz. that he may deliuer them out of the Popes power : and they call a Bishop , as chiefly the Pope is , in the Syrian language Zanbon , which signifieth a Tayle , and is opposite to an head : for because we call the Bishop the Head of the people , they contrary wise call him the Tayle in reproach ; so farre are they off from being ready to receaue the Pope for their Messias .

Finally Rab. Leui Gerson cap. 7. and 11. Dan. expoundeth all those thinges which are spoken of Antichrist , of the Pope , whom also he calleth another Pharao , and opposeth him to the Messias which is to come . See orationes Mahasor , sol. 26.

M. Downams Answere confuted .

1. TO this Argument , first M. Downam obiecteth in generall , that in all this dispuration Bellarmine presupposeth , See cap. ● . that Antichrist is but one singular person ; which though it were trne , yet he did presuppose nothing but what he had proued before , which I remit to the Readers iudgement . Downams absurdity . But now indeed this argument presupposeth no such thing , but is of much moreforce , if we speake of many then if we speake only of one , for it is most euident , that neither all the Popes since 607. were Iewes not that the Iewes haue receaued them as their Messias : both which thinges shal be verified in Antichrist , be he one man or many , as Bellarmine most certainely proueth .

Secondly M. Downam noteth briefely three pointes out of the errours which Bellarmine reiecteth . First his cunning in that he imitateth crafty tradesmen , who being desirous to vtter their bad wares at a good price , first shew those that are worse , that the naughtines of the worse may comnend and set forth those that be not so bad . But where M. Downam learnt this cunning , or of what tradesmen I know not , except he meaneth those of his owne profession : but sure I am that no tradesman can deale more plainely and sincerely , then Bellarmine doth , telling vs what wares are so bad , that by no meanes they are to be delt withall . Againe what wares are likely to be very good , Bellarmines sincere dealing . but yet some doubt may be made of them , which he declareth and vrgeth to the vttermost . Finally what they are also , that are out of all question , being generally warranted by all the most skilfull and honest Merchants . This is Bellarmines proceding in this , and all other difficulties , as the Reader may easily perceaue by perusing his workes , and in particuler this place . Now , how this can be disliked by any good and substantiall chapman , I cannot imagine ; only some crafty and deceiptfull Merchant may be hindered thereby to vtter his broken trash , and therefore out of enuy cauill at him , as M. Downam doth . His second note is , that S. Hippolytus is the Father of one of these errors : vpon whose counterfaite authority ( saith M. Downam ) the Papists in other points concerning this controuersy do so muchrely . But it M. Downam had asmuch wit , as he hath malice , he might haue noted out of this place in what manner we esteeme the authority of any Father , though neuer so ancient or graue , viz. if he holdeth any thing against all the rest , and against a plaine place of Scripture , in the interpretation of which all the rest agree , we altogeather reiect the authority of that Father . If he affirmeth any thing without euident proofe , How Catholikes esteeme of the Fathers . in which the rest are silent , and yet he hath probability for that he saith , we admit of his authority as probable : and this so much the more or lesse , as we find more or fewer of his opinion , or that they affirme it with more certainty and resolution , or bring better proofes for that they say . But yet so long as we find any controuersy among the Fathers , or that they vary in their expositions of any place of Scripture , we hould it not altogeather certayne that the greater part affirme , except the matter be decided by the successours of S. Peter , and the other Pastors of the Church to whome it doth belong to decyde and define such controuersies . But when all the Fathers agree it were more then rashenes , yea plaine madnesse to goe against the whole streame of all antiquity either in opinions belonging to faith , or in the exposition of the Scripture . And by this M. Downam may see , that though we esteeme the authority of S. Hippolytus much , yet it alone is no certayne ground of our Faith , though we are farre from reiecting him altogeather , or calling him counterfaite , as M. Downam doth , without any other reason then that he displeaseth him , as commonly all other Fathers doe . M. Downams third obseruation is , that these opinions ( which Bellarmine calleth errours ) shew into what absurdities men doe fall , when as they will needes be comparing Christ with Antichrist , as the Papists in many things doe . But he should haue added , that these absurdityes fall out , when these comparisons are made without any sound or sufficient ground , which the Papists do not in any thing at all , as appeareth plainely by this whole Treatise , and may in part be gathered by this , that Bellarmine reiecteth those conceipts that were only grounded vpon these similitudes , because they were only builded vpon them , and are repugnant to other former groundes .

2. Thus M. Downam passeth ouer the errors , and commeth to the two probable opinions , about which he liketh Bellarmines iudgement well inough , in that he thinketh M. Downams iugling . neither of them certain , but maketh no mention of the other part in which he affirmeth that the latter is very probable for the authority of the Fathers . M. Downam liketh also so well of Bellarmines interpretation of the two first places of Scripture , that he would challeng them to be his owne , or at least to belong to his fellows . For in the first he plainely saith , that Bellarmine answereth with them ; and in Gen. 49. Ierem. 8. the second he relateth it so cunningly , that if the Reader be not very wary , he will easily thinke , that Bellarmine were against S. Hierome , and that M. Downam had found it out .

In the third place , M. Downam goeth against Bellarmine , affirming that the trybe of Ephraim is not left out , but vnderstood by the Tribe of Ioseph , in which I like his iudgement very well , for indeed ( as Ribera and others vpon this The tribe of Ephraim , not omitted . Apoc. 7. place , proue very well ) the Tribe of Ephraim is in other places called the Tribe of Ioseph , as Psal. 77. Ezech. 27. Amos 5. and the reason is , because though Ephraim were the yonger brother , yet he was preferred before Manasses the elder Gen. 48. But what hath M. Downam gained by this ? Is not this rather a confirmation of the Fathers opinion , that Antichrist M. Downam impugneth himselfe . shal be borne of the Tribe of Dan , since that only was omitted in this place ? Yea but ( saith M. Downam ) Symeon is not mentioned in the blessing of Moyses Deut. 33. no more then Dan in the Apocalyps . But he himselfe confesseth , that Symeon is comprehended vnder Iuda , but that Dan is altogether omitted , Deut. 33. which as you see is a great difference . And besides though Symeon were altogeather omitted also , the reason were to be found out and not put off with another difficulty . Wherefore Why Moyses omitted Symeon in his blessing . there be two reasons why he was not mentioned by Moyses . First because that Tribe was not to haue any particuler possession distinct from the rest in the land of Promise but only some small portion among those of Iuda , for which cause , as it seemeth M. Downam saith , that Symeon is comprehended vnder Iuda in this place , to which we may adde that other obseruation of S. Hierome in quaest. Hebr. that in processe of tyme , the Tribe of Symeon was constrayned to goe into the desert because they had not possession sufficient for them , after they were multiplyed , which he proueth out of 1. Paral. 4. But though this reason be probable , ●et the two Apollinarij giue another more certayne , for this reason would also haue excluded the Tribe of Leui which had no particular possession in the Land of Promise , but was Why the Tribe of Leui is often omitted . deuided among all the Tribes : for which cause when mention is made of the Tribes in respect of their temporall possessions , the Tribe of Leui is omitted . But heere we see , that Moyses maketh most honorable mention of Leui. Wherfore the two Apollinarij with whome also agreeth Caietan , and Lippomanus rather thinke , that Moyses made no mention of Caiet . in Genes. Symeon , by reason of the curse which Iacob laid vpon him , togeather with Leui vpon his death-bed , from which the Tribe of Leui was freed , by the zeale which the shewed in Gods cause against Idolatry at Moyses his commandement , by which they wiped away the curse which Iacob had laid vpon them for their fury and vniust reuenge , and consecrated their handes to God , and deserued to haue a benediction giuen them as we see that Moyses gaue them , absoluing them from their Father Iacobs malediction , but passing ouer Symeon Exod. 32. in silence , & Deo iudicandum relinquens , and leauing him to Gods iudgment , as the elder Apollinarius writeth , with whom agreeth the assertion of the Iewes , that there was not a poore Scribe nor Schoolemaster among all the Tribes , but he was of the Tribe of Symeon , many of them ( as it seemeth ) beeing constrayned by necessity to seeke their liuing by that meanes , as others were inforced to fly the country , and so Iacobs Prophesy was fulfilled in both these Tribes , that they were deuided and dispersed through Iacob and Israel , but with this difference , that Leui liued with great authority and plenty , and Symeon in great disgrace and pouerty : which perhaps was also insinuated by the holy Patriarch by those distinct wordes of deuiding and dispersing in Iacob and Israel . So that now we haue the reason why Symeon was omitted Deut. 33. but still we seeke for this other , why Dan is omitted Apoc. 7. And M. Downam giueth vs a generall reason why some one was to be left out , viz. because Leui was Why the Tribe of Dan is omitted Apoc. 7. put in , and consequently if all the rest had byn recyted , there should haue ben 13. Whereas he supposeth that the Holy Ghost would neither number more nor lesse then 12. But first this were strange , that the Holy Ghost should stand so precisely vpon any number . And if a Papist should do so , M. Downam would exclaime against him for superstition . Secondly Moyses Deut. 33. indeed numbreth only 1● . Tribes , for he includeth Ephraim and Manesses vnder the name of Ioseph , as he himselfe expresseth in the end of his benediction , and M. Downam well obserueth that the like is to be seene Deut. 27. and Ezech. 48. Thirdly our difficulty is not now why any Tribe is omitted ; but why rather the Tribe of Dan then any other . And to this M. Downam answereth , that the reason is , because that was the first Tribe which fell from God vnto Idolatry : and that for the same cause ( as some thinke ) the Genealogy of that Tribe is omitted in the first booke of Chronicles . But this is not a good reason , for though it were true , that the Tribe of Dan fell first from God to Idolatry , yet this is no particuler cause , why that The Tribe of Dan fell not first to Idolatry Exod. 32. Num. 25. Ios. 22. Tribe should be omitted only in these two places and in no other , and besides it is not true , that this Tribe fell first to Idolatry : for all the Tribes are said to haue fallen togeather , when they worshiped the calfe , and after againe Beelphegor , which seemeth to be particulerly obiected to the Tribe of Ruben , and God , and the halfe Tribe of Manasses , by Phinees and the 10. Princes of the other 10. Tribes . And in the tyme of the Iudges almost in euery Chapter , there is mention made of the peoples falling to Idolatry without any particuler mention of Dan , and euen that particuler Idolatry Iudic. 17. 18. which M. Downam seemeth to ayme at , was not begun by the Tribe of Dan , but by Michas of the mountayne of Ephraim from whome those of Dan tooke perforce his idolls and Priest : which indeed was a great sinne in them , but not the first , nor yet the greatest , and therefore not a sufficient reason why the Tribe of Dan should be omitted only in these two places , as M. Downam will needes affirme against the Fathers , but indeed proueth nothing at all against them . For suppose his reason were good , yet that is no hinderance , why the reason of the Fathers should not be good also : for why might not this Tribe be omitted for both these reasons , and the latter which these Fathers bring be a punishment of the former , which M. Downam alleadgeth ? For since S. Iohn speaketh of those which shal be saued of the Iewes in the tyme of Antichrist , and only omitteth the Tribe of Dan , of which he reckoneth none to be saued , is it not more then probable that the cause of this is , because the Tribe of Dan shall wholy giue themselues to Antichrist Antichrist shall be of the Tribe of Dan. as to the head of their Tribe ? And likewise since the chiefe reason why the Genealogyes of the Tribes are rehearsed , is because Christ was to be borne of one of them , may it not be very well thought that in hatred of Antichrist , which was to be of the Tribe of Dan , the Genealogy of that Tribe was omitted ? though indeed this latter proueth no more of the Tribe of Dan , then of divers other Tribes , whose Genealogyes were also omitted in that place ; and therefore no meruaile , though the Fathers made no inference out of this , as M. Downam and some of his friends not very wisely doe .

3. M. Downam hauing thus agreed with Bellarmine in not admitting the Fathers opinion in this point , though he differeth in this , that Bellarmine thinketh it very probable for their authority , which he doth not ; he would by this president prooue , that they may lawfully reiect the Downam impugneth the Fathers authority . Fathers authority in all other pointes concerning Antichrist , when it seemeth to them the Fathers alleadge not the Scriptures in their true sense . But first M. Downom must remember , that an vniuersall is not to be inferred from a particuler . Secondly Bellarmine reiecteth not the authority of these Fathers , but admitteth their opinion as probable , which is asmuch as they themselues for the most part affirmed , and so indeed Bellarmine followed them so farre as they would haue him . Thirdly Bellarmine had the authority of some Fathers for his exposition of the two first places , and therefore he might well follow their opinion , especially since most of the other did rather follow the mysticall , then the litterall sense . In the third place where he brought no authority for himselfe , M. Downam did rightely correct him , shewing his instance to be very probable , though still there remayneth some question why Ephraim was not named as well as Manasses , but comprehended vnder the name of Ioseph . Fourthly therefore M. Downam hath no reason to reiect all the Fathers , when they agree without contradiction or doubt , nor to make himself wiser then he is , to take vpon him to vnderstand the Scripture better then they all ; yea though their arguments out of the Scripture should be only from the mysticall sense , yet he may well assure himselfe , that they would neuer be so resolute , except they had some other good ground of diuine or Apostolicall tradition , known by them to haue ben taught by the Apostles , and from their tyme , from age to age conserued in the Church : for which reason I also incline to thinke that it is in a manner certayne , that Antichrist shal be of the Tribe of Dan , since so many Fathers affirme it without contradiction of any .

4. But let vs passe ouer this argument as Bellarmine doth , making it only probable and not certayne , and come to those others , that are most euident and certayne . Against which M. Downam first obiecteth , that Antichrist shall not be one singular man : which I haue already shewed to be both false and impertine● . Secondly he saith , that these opinions may be num. 1. disproued by Scripture , because Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God , that is , shall raigne in the Church of Christ . But of this we shall See Cap. 13. haue occasion to treat afterward . Besides saith he , Bellarmine confesseth , that Antichrist shal be the head of the Apostasy , that is , backesliding Christians , Ergo , not of the Iewes . But M. Downam might easily haue considered , that Antichrist may be the head of both , as Bellarmine affirmeth . After this he noteth that Antichrist shal be head of the Roman State , and haue his Seate in Rome , which how true it is we shall see afterward . Now I would See cap. 13. faine know why a Iew may not haue both these conditions . Lastly M. Downam would know , when the Iewes shal be called to Christ ? To which I answere that some shal be called in Antichrists raigne , but the most after his fall , which shal be not long before the end of the world , as we haue already seene in part .

5. Thus hath this wise man shot his bolt , and now he holdeth vp his buckler to beare off Bellarmines Artillery : and first to the testimony of S. Iohn 5. 43. he saith , that he hath proued before , that our Sauiour speaketh not absolutely but conditionally , Io. 5. not definitely , but indefinitely , and only of the Iewes present which Cap. 2. are dead long since : but all these shiftes are confuted long since at large , and therefore it were needeles to repeat them , or confute them heere againe .

6. The second testimony 2. Thess. 2. troubleth him somewhat more , and therefore his tongue runneth at randome , 2. Thess. 2. explicating the place at large after his owne fancy and railing against Catholikes , but obiecteth nothing worth the answering : the most that he hath to the purpose is , that the Apostles wordes may be applyed to all others that follow Antichrist aswell as to the Iewes . In which we will not stand with him ; but now our question is , whether the Iewes be included in these wordes or no , and Bellarmine saith they are , and that chiefly : and this he proueth out of the Scripture it selfe . First because none ought more , and would lesse receaue Christ then the Iewes .

7. To which M. Downam answereth not a word , but that the Rhemists confesse , that others may be said not to receaue the loue of the Truth also . But what is this to the purpose ? Doe the Rhemists , or can any other deny that none refused more to receaue the loue of the Truth then the Iewes ? And yet this is all the answere , that M. Downam giueth , but falleth into a rage , and railing againe like a man more then halfe beside himselfe ; yet after a while , he commeth to himselfe againe , and returneth to Bellarmines second proofe out of the Scripture , where he noteth , that the Apostle speake in the preter tense , of the refusers to receaue the Truth , and in the future tense of the comming & receauing of Antichrist : out of which he inferreth , that he is to be vnderstood of the Iewes , who were they that chiefly had refused to receaue Christ in the Apostles tyme . To which M. Downam answereth , that this preter tense is not to be referred to the tyme of the Apostles writing , but to the tyme of their punishment . By which as you see , he maketh the preter and future tense all one , or at least ioyneth them togeather , expounding the later part of the Apostles words in English thus : That all may be condemned , that shall not haue belieued the Truth , but shall haue delighted in iniquity , and willing vs to conferre this place with Mar. 16. 16. which he likewise expoundeth in the same manner : He that shall haue belieued , and shall haue ben baptized , shal be saued ; but he that shall not haue belieued , shal be condenmed , though in both places , he is inforced to confesse that the greeke is the preter tense , and he dareth not translate it otherwise , howsoeuer he expoundes it . So that vnlesse we will stand to M. Downam● exposition rather then to the wordes of the Scripture , we are to vnderstand all this of the preter tense only , as the condemnation , and the receauing of Antichrist in the future tense only , which is a plaine signe , that all this is not to be vnderstood of the same tyme , as is also euident by the thing it selfe , for men refuse to belieue , and to be baptized in this life when they are preached vnto , but they are condemned in the other life , when all Sermons are at an end for them . And this out Sauiours words signify most exactely , if M. Downams commentary be taken away . And yet the matter is more cleere in the words , which Bellarmine vrgeth , in which there is no Participle in the Greeke , as in the places which M. Downam compareth , but the Verbe it selfe ; which cannot well be vnderstood , but of things truly past , as neither the Verbe in the future tense , but of thinges truly to come ; and since the Apostle limitteth not that preter tense to any other tyme , as our Sauiour doth : it must be vnderstood to signify that , which was past before the tyme of his writing . But M. Downam obiecteth further , that if Bellarmine will needes vrge the preter tense , as though the Apostle meant that Antichrist should be receaued only of those , who before that tyme had reiected the truth , he must withall hould , that Antichrist shal be receaued in the end of the world of those who dyed aboue 1500. yeares since . But this is both a false , and friuolous obiection : false , because it addeth the word Downam falsifieth Bellarmines wordes . ( only ) which Bellarmine hath nor , for he neuer went about to prooue , that only the Iewes should receaue Antichrist , but that they should receaue him : friuolous , because the Apostle & Bellarmine also speake of the Nation of the Iewes , and not of any particuler men , as is manifest to any that is not wilfully blinded with malice , of which number it grieueth me that M. Downam will needes be one .

8. To the authority of the Fathers , M. Downam briefly answereth , that there is no probability in their assertion or exposition no more then in the former , that Antichrist should be of the Tribe of Dan , or in their expositions of the places of Scripture , which they brought to that effect , which ( sayth he ) no man now , vnles he wil be too ridiculous can vnderstand of Antichrist . Where I desire the Reader to consider the little accompt that M. Downam maketh of al the Fathers , when they make against Downam reiecteth the Fathers . him : and as for his similitude , I haue already shewed how vnlike it is , aswell because the Fathers speake not resolutly themselues in that point , as they do in this , and also because all the Fathers do not agree in that assertion or exposition . And yet M. Downam is very insolent in condemning all for ridiculous , which follow the Fathers exposition of those places of Scripture : for first there is no doubt , but that the two former may be mystically so vnderstood , and the last can haue no other probable sense , as hath sufficiently appeared . Neither is that obiection of his worth the answering , by which he would prooue , that the Fathers might aswell prooue , that Antichrist shall be of the Tribe of Beniamin , because of him it is said in the same place , that he shall raigne as a wolfe , for M. Downam might haue added the other clause , which is to be taken in good num. 2. part , and therfore cannot be applied to Antichrist , but to some other who shall change his condition , and of a rauening wolfe become a glorious Preacher , and Apostle of Christ , as S. Paul did , of whom some of the Fathers mistically expound those words . Wherfore M. Downam must be content , though much against his will , that both these assertions and expositions haue that probability and certainty , which the Fathers affirme that they haue , as Bellarmine hath sufficiently declared .

9. Lastly to Bellarmines reason M. Downam answereth , that Antichrist shall ioyne himselfe , not to any whatsoeuer , but to those in the Church , that are ready to receaue him . For proofe wherof he alleadgeth S. Cyprian epist. 1. lib. 1. where he affirmeth that the Diuell troubleth the seruants of God , and Antichrist impugneth Christians , and seeketh not those whome he hath already subdued , or desireth to ouerthrow those whome he hath already made his owne &c. Which in truth is a strange proofe ( if you marke it well ) for M. Downam ridiculously impugneth himselfe . Bellarmine speaketh not a word of troubling , impugning , or ouerthrowing , but only of ioyning with the Iewes as with friends ; and M. Downam to proue , that Antichrist shall not ioyne with them , so alleadgeth S. Cyprian , who affirmeth that he shall impugne Christians . Would any man take M. Downam for a Doctor or Reader of Diuinity , that should heare him dispute thus grossely , bringing quid , pro quo , and impugning himselfe insteed of his aduersary ? But let vs pitty his folly , and affirme with S. Cyprian and Bellarmine , that Antichrist shall impugne Christians , and to that effect , first ioyne himselfe to the Iewes . To Bellarmines minor , that the Iewes are ready to receaue Antichrist , M. Downam hath nothing to answere directly , but only repeateth certaine assertions of his owne , that Antichrist shall not be one particuler man &c. which haue , and shall be confuted in their due places .

But now M. Downam should haue impugned Bellarmines proofe , which is , that the Iewes expect a temporall King , as Antichrist shall be , and not only affirme vpon his bare word , that Antichrist shall not b● such a one , as the expected Messias of the Iewes , and that there is no necessity , that there should such a one come to the Iewes as they expect : both which assertions are ouerthrown by Bellarmines reasons and other proofes . And to the second part , that Christians expect Antichrist with feare and terrour , M. Downam only answereth , that vnsound and back-sliding Christians , are ready to receaue Antichrist . By which , if he meaneth , The difference betwixt Christians and Iewes in expecting Antichrist . that they are in great danger to be drawne to him by little and little , it is very true , and that which Bellarmine affirmeth : but if he would say , that they expect Antichrist with ioy and desire , as the Iewes do , he is farre wide : for the Iewes will receaue him the sooner because he is against Christ , which very few Christians though neuer so vnsound will yield to at the first , but rather be terrified with the very mention therof , as M. Downam may experience amongst Protestants , whome we accompt vnsound Christians , and the world will testify of all Catholikes , whome he taketh to be such . Now for his supposition , that Antichrist is come , and that the Pope is Antichrist , we know this to be the question and maine controuersy , and therfore cannot but acknowledg M. Downams ordinary fault , which is petitio principij .

10. M. Downam hauing thus worthily answered Bellarmines first certaine position , he commeth to the second , which is , that Antichrist shall be a Iew : which Bellarmine proueth out of his former assertion , that the Iewes shall receaue Antichrist , which they would neuer do , except he Antichrist shall be a Iew. were a Iew. To which M. Downam answereth , that he hath ouerthrowne that former assertion : which how true it is , I remit to the Readers iudgment . Secondly he obiecteth , that the Herodians receaued Herod for their Messias , but he doth well not The Herodians . to stand vpon this ; for the solution is euident , for these Herodians were a few flattering Courtiers , & now we speake of the whole Nation of the Iewes , and chiefly of those great Rabbynes who professe so great knowledge in Scripture , which teacheth most euidently , that the Messias is to be of the Iewish nation , and the Tribe of Iuda , though for this second , they cannot now much striue , because their Genealogies are so confounded : and so it will be no hard matter for Antichrist to be taken for one of the Tribe of Iuda , though indeed he be of the Tribe of Dan.

To the authority of the Fathers , he answereth according Downam reiecteth the Fathers . to his custome , that they are not to be belieued in this point which hath no ground in the word of God , and still he insisteth vpon Bellarmines reiecting the twelue Fathers which affirmed , that Antichrist should be of the Tribe of Dan for the same reasons . But he abuseth both Bellarmine and the Fathers , as the Reader may easily see . Bellarmine , for he reiecteth not the Fathers authority , but imbraceth it as very probable , which was as much as the most of them affirmed . The Fathers , because he reiecteth them all in a thing , wherin they agree as certaine , which they would neuer do without some certaine ground either of Apostolicall tradition , or Scripture , and reason , which Bellarmine hath sufficiently explicated in his former assertion .

Finally M. Downam briefly passeth ouer the opposition which Bellarmine sheweth that the Iewes haue against the Pope , because he was ashamed to see what Iewes the Protestants are in this behalfe : but yet he is content to take hold of their application , of the Prophesies of Daniel against the Pope , because they are no parties , and therfore their authority The Iews opposite to the Pope . may be some inducement , to thinke indeed that the Pope is Antichrist : where I could wish the Reader to marke attentiuely , the great connexion betwixt Iewes and Protestants in this point of impugning the Pope , though vpon different grounds . For if you examine a Iew , why he is so eager against the Pope , he will tell you , that it is , because he hateth Christ himselfe , and for his sake all Christians , but chiefly the Pope , who is the chiefe of them . Againe if you How the Iewes and the Protestants agree and differ in impugning the Pope . pose M. Downam with the same question , why he cannot abide the Pope ? He will tell you another tale , that it is , because he loueth Christ and all true Christians , to whome he thinketh the Pope and his adherents to be most opposite . And is it not strange , that these men should ioyne in the expositions of Scripture ? Yea that M. Downam should take the Iew to be no party against the Pope , but an indifferent man , and therfore thinketh his exposition fit to be some inducement to make men belieue his doctrine ? Is it not too plaine , that M. Downam is in the high way to deny Christ , howsoeuer he protesteth the contrary , since he hateth the Pope , whome the Iewes only detest out of their malice to Christ himselfe ? True it is , that the consequence is not so necessary from the hatred of the Pope to the hatred of Christ , as contrariwise , but yet he that is come so farre , as to hate Christs most principal seruant in the highest degree , and with vnplacable hatred , may easily be carried a step further , except God giue him grace to turne back in time , which I most hartily wish for M. Downam himselfe , and all others , that are in that most miserable and dangerous estate .

THE THIRTENTH CHAPTER . Of Antichrists Seate .

TOVCHING the sixt ( saith Bellarmine ) our Aduersaries bouldly affirme , that the chiefe Seat of Antichrist is Rome , or the Apostolike Chaire founded there : for they say , that Antichrist shall inuade the Sea of Peter , and raise it vp to a certaine soueraigne height , from the which it shall rule and tyranniclly gouerne the whole Church . And that Rome is the Kingly Citty of Antichrist , they proue out of Apoc. 17. where S. Iohn speaking of the Seate of Antichrist saith , that it is the great Citty which is scituated vpon seauen hills , and which hath the Kingdome ouer the Kings of the earth .

And that at Romè , not in the pallace of Nero , but in the very Church of Christ , Antichrist shall haue his Seate , they proue out of S. Paul , who 2. Thess. 2. saith : that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God : for since he saith absolutly in the Temple of God , he meaneth the true Temple of the true God , and there is none such , but the Church of God . For the Temples of the Gentiles are true Temples , but of the Diuels , not of God . And the Temple of the Iewes was indeed of God , but it ceased to be a Temple , when the Iewish sacrifice and Priesthood ceased : for these three are so ioyned , that one cannot be without the other . Besides the Temple of the Iewes , within a while after , was to be desolated , and neuer to be bult againe , as Dan. cap. 9. saith : and the desolation shall perseuere till the consummation , and the end . Wherfore the Apostle cannot speake of it .

And this argument is confirmed out of the Fathers . S. Hierome quaest. 11. ad Algasiam : He shall sit ( saith he ) in the Temple of God , either at Hierusalem as some thinke , or in the Church , as we thinke more truly : and Oecumenius , He saith not ( saith he ) the Temple of Ierusalem , but the Churches of Christ .

Theodorus Bibliander addeth the testmony of S. Greg. who l. 4. ep. 38. ad Ioan. Constantinopolitanum saith : The king of pride is nigh , and ( which is impious to be spoken ) an army of Priests is prepared for him . Out of which words a double argument is drawne , one thus : Iohn of Constantinople is sayd to forerun Antichrist , because he will be called the vniuersall Bishop ; therfore he shall be Antichrist , who in very deed shall make himselfe the Vniuersall Bishop , and shall sit in the Church , as the head of all . The other thus : The army of Antichrist shall be Priests , therfore Antichrist shall be the head of Priests . By which arguments the heretikes thinke , that they euidently shew , that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist , since he ruleth at Rome , sitteh in the Temple of God , and is called the vniuersall Bishop , and is the Prince of Priests .

Notwithstanding the true opinion is , that Hierusalem and not Rome , shall be the seat of Antichrist , and the Temple of Salomon , and Throne of Dauid , not the Temple of S. Peter , or the Sea Apostolike , which we can proue in two sorts : First with an argument ad hominem . Secondly out of the Scripture and Fathers .

First then I make this argument : Antichrist shall sit in the Church of Christ , and shall be accompted the Prince & head of his Church , and shall haue Magistracy and offices in it , as Philippus Melanctonin apologia art. 6. confess . Augustanae , Caluinus lib. 4. Iustit . cap. 2. §. 12. & cap. 7. § . 25. Illyricus cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col. 435. and all other Sectaries of this time do teach : but the Pope of Rome is Antichrist , as they themselues also teach in the same places . Therfore the Pope of Rome sitteth in the true Church of Christ , and is the Prince and head of his Church . But the Church of Christ can only be one , as Christ is one , as Caluin also teacheth lib. 4. Instit. cap. 1. § . 2. Therfore the Lutheram and Caluinists , and as many as are out of the Church which is vnder the Pope , are out of the true Church .

Caluin saw this argument , and answered , that not so much the Church , as the ruines of the Church of Christ are seene vnder the Pope . For thus he speaketh , lib. 4. Instit. cap. 2. § . 11. As there remained in old tyme certaine peculiar prerogatiues of the Church vnder the Iewes ; so neither at these daies do we take from the Papists the steps of the Church , which the Lord would haue remaining among them of the dissipation . And after : God hath wrought with his prouidence , that there should be also other remnants extant , least the Church should wholy perish . And as buildings are often so throwne downe , that the foundations and ruines remaine , so he hath not suffered his Church to be either subuerted from the foundation , or quite throwne downe by Antichrist , or els he would haue the building halfe saued from destruction . And againe § . 12. Wherfore hence it is manifest , that we deny not , that the Churches remayne euen vnder his Tyranny .

But this solution affoardeth vs two arguments . The first ; if only the ruines of Christs Church remaine : then the Church of Christ is fallen . Wherfore the truth hath lyed , which sayd Matth. 16. and the Gates of hell shall not preuaile against it . The other , the Church is fallen , and the Papists hold the ruines of it , and the foundation , yea the building it selfe halfe throwne downe : Then the Lutheram and Caluinists haue no Church , for they haue not the whole and entire Church of Christ , for that is fallen , and the ruines yet remaine ; neither haue they it halfe throwne downe , for that is among the Papists vnder Antichrist . What haue they then ? Perhaps a new building , but in that it is new , it is not Christs . And who that is not altogeather blind seeth not , that it is more safe to remaine in the true Church of Christ , although halfe throwne downe , then in none ?

Now I come to the Scriptures , by which it is proued , that Hierusalem , and not Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist . The first is in Cap. 11. Apos . where S. Iohn saith : That Enoch and Helias shall fight with Antichrist in Ierusalem , and be slaine thereby him , and their bodies ( saith he ) shall lye in the streets of the great Citty , which is spiritually called Sodome , and Aegipt , where also their Lord was crucified : vpon which place Arethas ; Their bodies ( saith he ) shall be cast vnburied in the streets of Hierusalem , for he shall raigne in that Citty , as King of the Iewes . In like manner do all other Interpreters expound it , and surely it can by no means be denyed , that this is spoken of Ierusalem : for what Citty is there where our Lord was crucified , but Ierusalem ?

Wherfore Chytraeus who would haue this Citty to be Rome , letteth passe those words ( where also their Lord was crucified ) as though they were not to the purpose . Neither is it any hindrance , that S. Hierome in ep. 17. ad Marcellam , endeauoureth to shew that Hierusalem cannot be called Sodome , since that euery where in Scripture it is called the holy Citty ; for in that Epistle , he perswadeth Marcella to forsake Rome , and come into Palestins , and therfore he heapeth vp all that he can in the praise of Hierusalem , and in the reprehension of Rome , and endeauoureth by all meanes to excuse Hierusalem Neither doth he it in his owne name , but in the name of Pauls and Eusto . hium , whome he thought ought to be pardoued , if they explicated any thing some what otherwise then it was . For that earthly Hierusalem may be called Sodome , for last and offences of the Iewes , is manifest out of Isaias , who in his first Chapter , when he had prefixed the title : The vision of Isaias , which he saw vpon Iuda and Hierusalem , addeth forthwith : Heare the word of our Lord you Princes of Sodome , harken with your eares the law of my God you people of Gomorrha .

Neither is that a good argument ; Hierusalem is called holy , therfore it cannot be called Sodome , for as S. Hierome sayth in the same Epistle , that Rome is called Babylon , and the purple harlot by S. Iohn , by reason of the Pagan Emperours , and yet that it is holy , by reason of the Church of Christ , & the Sepulchers of S. Peter and S. Paul : so also Ierusalem is an holy Citty , by reason of the Prophets and Apostles which preached there of the Crosse , and Sepulcher of Christ , and the like , and yet it is Sodome and Aegipt , by reason of the offences and blindnes of the vnbelieuing Iewes .

The second place is Apoc. 17. where S. Iohn saith , that the 10. Kings who shal deuide the Roman Empire among themselues , & in whose raigne Antichrist shal come , wil hate the purple Harlot , that is Rome , & wil make her desolate , & wil burne her with fire : How then shall it be the seate of Antichrist , if it must be ouerthrowne , and burnt at that very time ?

Besides , as we proued before , Antichrist shal be a Iew , & the Messias , and King of the Iewes . Wherfore without doubt , he shal place his seat in Ierusalem , & will go about to restore the Temple of Salomon , for the Iewes dreame of nothing els , but of Hierusalem , & of the Temple : Neither doth it seeme , that they wil euer accept any for their Messias who shal not sit in Hierusalem , & restore the Temple in some sort . Wherfore Lactantius l. 7. c. 15. saith : that in the time of Antichrist the chiefest Kingdome shall be in Asia , & that the West shall serue , & the East rule , and c. 17. he determineth the part of Asia , in which this Kingdome shal be , & saith : that it is Syria , that is Iudaea , which is part of Syria , and which is alway called Syria by the Latins . Likewise S. Hierom & Theodoret in c. 11. Dan. gather out of Dan. that Antichrist shal fix his tents in the country of Ierusalem , & at length be slaine in the Mount Oliuet , and S. Irenaeus l. 5. said plainely , that Antichrist shall raigne in earthly Ierusalem .

The third place , is in those words of S. Paul , 2. Thess. 2. So that he shall sit in the Temple of God . For although there be many expositions giuen by the Fathers , and some vnderstand the minds of the faithful , in which Antichrist is said to sit , when he hath seduced them , as S. Anselme expoundeth it ; & some by the Temple vnderstand Antichrist himselfe with all his people , for Antichrist will desire to haue himselfe and his seeme the spiritual Temple of God , that is , the true Church , as S. Augustine expoundeth it l. 20. Ciuit. Dei c. 19. where he deduceth this exposition out of the manner of S. Pauls speaking , who sayd not in Greeke 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , in Templo , but 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , in Templum as if he should say that Antichrist shal sit in Templum Dei , that is as though he and his were the Temple of God , although this annotation of S. August . is not necessary , for though in Latine we cannot wel say sedere in Templum , for in Templo , yet in greeke it is not euill said 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , yea it is commonly so said .

Some also vnderstand the Churches of Christians , which Antichrist shall command to serue him , as S. Chrysostome interpreteth it : yet the more common , more probable , and the more litterall exposition is of them , who teach that the temple of Salomon is vnderstood by the Temple of God , in which after some sort repaired , Antichrist ●●all fit . For first , in the Scripture of the new Testament , the Churches of Christians are neuer vnderstood by the Temple of God , but alway the Temple of Hierusalem : and that which is more , the ancient Fathers Latine and Greeke , for some ages , neuer called the Churches of Christians , Temples , which in greeke are called 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as in this place of S. Paul , but they called them 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is , Oratoria , Ecclesias , Domas orationis , Basilicas , Martyria .

Certainely , neither S. Iustine , nor S. Irenaeus , nor Tertullian , nor S. Cyprian do vse the name of Temple , when they treat of the Churches of Christians : and S. Ierome ep. ad Riparium saith , that Iulian the Apostata commanded that the * * Basilicae . Churches of the Saints should either be destroyed , or turned into Temples .

And the reasons why the Apostles call not the Churches of Christians Temples , are two : the one , because then they had not any Temples , but only in priuate houses they appointed certayn places for praier , Sermons , and saying of Masse . The other reason is , because the memory of the Iewish Temple was fresh , least the Apostles might seeme to bring in some thing like to them , and that they might distinguish the Church from the Synagogue , they abstained from the name of Temple . As also for the same reason the Apostles in the Scripture , neuer call Christian Priests Sacerdotes , but only Episcopos , and Presbyteros . But after that Hierusalem was ouerthrowne , and the Temple burnt , and the memory of the old Temple and Priesthood abolished , the holy Doctors began to vse commonly the name of Temple and Priesthood .

Since therfore the Apostle writing , that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God , said somthing which he would haue vnderstood of them , to whome he wrote , and they then did not vnderstand by the name of Temple , any other but the Temple of Hierusalem , it seemeth certaine that the Apostle spake of it , which is also confirmed by the common exposition of the Fathers , S. Irenaeus lib. 5. When Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of Hierusalem , then our Lord will come &c. S. Hippolytus Mart. orat . de mundi consummat . He shall build the Temple at Hierusalem . And S. Martin apud Sulpitium , lib. 2. dial . teacheth the same . S. Cyril . Hierosol . cateches. 15. What manner of Temple meaneth the Apostle ? In the Temple of the Iewes which is remayning : for God forbid that it should be done in this , in which we are . And S. Hilary can. 25. in Matt. Antichrist being receaued of the Iewes , shall stay in the place of Sanctification . Where he plainly speaketh of the Temple of the Iewes , for he calleth the place of Sanctification , that which Christ Matth. 24. calleth the holy Place , when he saith : When you see abhomination standing in the holy place .

S. Ambrose in c. 21. Luc. saith , that Antichrist according to the history , shall sit in the Temple , into which the Romans cast the head of a swine , in the time of the Emperour Titus , and according to the mysticall sense , that he shall sit in the inward Temple of the Iewes , that is , in their perfidious minds .

Sedulius vpon this place of the Apostle explicateth , that in the Temple of God , He will endeauour to repaire the temple of Hierusalem &c. S. Damascen lib. 4. cap. 28. In the Temple ( sayth he ) not ours , but the old Iewish . S. Chrysostome , Theodoret , and Theophilact , who say , that Antichrist shall sit in the Churches of Christians , affirme also , that he shall sit in the Temple of Salomon , for S. Chrysostome writeth thus vpon this place : He shall command himselfe to be worshipped for God , and to be placed in the Temple , not only of Hierusalem , but also in the Churches . The same say Theophilact and Theodoret. S. Augustine also lib. 20. Ciuit. Dei cap. 19. & S. Hierome quaest. 11. ad Algasiam , do not deny that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of Salomon .

Only Oecumenius denieth , that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of the Iewes : but he is the last of all , and by no meanes to be preferred before all the Fathers ; perhaps also his text is corrupted , & there wanteth but one particle ( only ) for it is not credible that he would depart from S. Chrysostome Theodoret , and Theophilact , whome in all other things he alway followeth .

Now let vs answere to the arguments of our Aduersaries , which we proposed before . To the first I answere in three manners . First it may be sayd with S. Augustine in Psal . 26. Arethas , Haymo , Bede , and Rupert . in cap. 17. Apoc. that by the Harlot , which sitteth vpon seauen hills , and hath her Kingdome ouer the Kings of the earth , Rome is not vnderstood , but the whole Citty of the Diuel , which in the Scripture is often called Babylen , and is opposed to the Citty of God , that is , to the Church , which is called Hierusalem , and that by the seauen hils is vnderstood the vniuersality of the proud , and chiefly of the Kings of the earth .

Secondly it may be sayd , and in my iudgment better , that by the harlot is vnderstood Rome , as Tertull. l. cont. Indaeos & lib. 3. cont. Martian . and S. Hierome ep. 17. ad Marcellam , & quast. 11. ad Algasiam , but ●thnick Rome raigning , worshipping Idols , and persecuting Christians , and not Rome Christian , for so those Authors expound .

And surely meruailous is the impudency of Heretikes who to proue that the Roman Church is the purple Harlot , vse the testimony of Tertullian and S. Hierome ; for since at that time Heathen Rome was contrary to Christian Rome , which of them I pray you , do those Fathers call the purple Harlot ? If heathen Rome , why then do the Heretikes abuse their testimonies ? If Christian Rome , it followeth that the Roman Church had degenerated then , and Antichrist did raigne then , which they themselues do not graunt .

Furthermore if Christian Rome was Babylon then , why doth Tertullian de praescript . say : Happy Church to which the Apostles powred out their whole doctrine with their bloud ? And why doth S. Hierome lib. 2. cont. Iouinianum in the end speaking to Rome , say : Shall I speake to thee , who hast wiped away the blasphemy written in thy forehead , with the confession of Christ ? Finally the same is manifest out of S. Iohn himselfe , who saith , that he speaketh of that Rome , who held the Empire ouer the Kings of the earth , and which was drunke with the bloud of Saints , and with the bloud of the Martyrs of Iesus , which certainly haue not place , but in that Rome , which in the raigne of Nero and Domitian slew the Martyrs .

Thirdly I say , although that Woman were Christian Rome , as the heretikes would haue it , yet their argument hath no force at all : for as we shewed before , Antichrist shall hate Rome , and fight with it , and consume and burne it , out of which it manifestly followeth , that Rome shall not be the seate of Antichrist .

To the second we haue already said , that S. Paul in that place speaketh of the Temple of Salomon , and to the reason which we made , I answere , that the Iewish Sacrifice and Priesthood ceasing , the Temple also ceased to be the Iewish Temple , but it ceased not forth with to be the temple of God , for the same Temple might be the Temple of Christians , and indeed it was so , so long as it remained : for the Apostles preached in it , and prayed , after the Ascension of Christ , and the comming of the Holy Ghost , as is manifest by those words Luc. vltimo : They were alway in the Temple praysing and blessing our Lord . Likewise Act. 3. Peter and Iohn went vp into the Temple at the ninth houre of prayer : and Act. 5. the Angell sayth to the Apostles : Speake in the Temple to the people all the words of this life .

To that of Daniel I answere , that eyther Daniel would say , that the Temple is not to be built againe , but in the end of the world , which is true , for Antichrist shall not come but in the end of the world , or that the desolation shall remaine for euer , because though it were built againe , yet the Temple should neuer be but prophaned after the ouerthrow made by Titus : for when it shall be erected by Antichrist , them chiefly shall the abhomination of desolation remaine in it , that is Antichrist himselfe , or his Image : or finally , that the Temple should neuer be perfectly built againe , but yet that the building should be begun , & that Antichrist should sit in the Temple begun in some sort .

To the places of the Fathers we haue already answered , that they affirme , or at least deny not , that Antichrist shall sit , in the Temple of Salomon , and wheras many of them add , that Antichrist shall also sit in the Churches of Christians , it is true , and not contrary to vs , for the Fathers meane not that Antichrist shall sit in the Church as a Bishop , as Heretikes dreame , but that he shall sit as God . For Antichrist shall command that all the Temples of the whole world be conuerted to his worship , and he will make himselfe to be adored in them . He will command ( saith S. Chrysostome in this place ) himselfe to be worshiped , and reuerenced for God , and to be placed in the Temple , not only of Hierusalem , but also in the Churches : and the rest speake in the same manner .

To the arguments taken out of the words of S. Gregory I answere , that out of his words the contrary of that is deduced which the heretikes infer , for they argue thus : The Bishop of Constantinople did forerun Antichrist , because he made himselfe the Vniuersall Bishop , therefore Antichrist shall be some Vniuersall Bishop , who shall vsurpe all to himselfe . But the contrary is inferred , for the forerunner is not to be the same with him whome he forerunneth , but farre lesse , though like him in some thing , as appeareth in S. Iohn Baptist , and Christ . If therfore the forerunner of Antichrist be he , who maketh himselfe the vniuersall Bishop , the true Antichrist himselfe shall not make himselfe that , but some other thing greater , viz. he shall extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God : or if the true Antichrist shall only make himselfe the Vniuersall Bishop , that Iohn of Constantinople , who did this , was not the forerunner of Antichrist , but the true Antichrist himselfe , which notwithstanding neither S. Gregory , nor our Aduersaries say . Wherfore the sense of S. Gregories words is , that because Antichrist shall be most proud , and the head of all the proud , so that he will not suffer any equalls , therfore whosoeuer vsurpeth to himselfe any thing otherwise then he ought , and will exceed and surpasse others , is his forerunner : and such were the Bishops of Constantinople , who being in the beginning but Archbishops , first vsurped to themselues to be Patriarches , and after the title of Vniuersall .

In like manner when S. Gregory sayth , an army of Priests is prepared for him , he meaneth not , that Priests , as Priests , belong to the army of Antichrist , for so he should haue put himselfe in that army , but that Priests as they are proude , prepare an army for Antichrist : for he speaketh of the same Iohn , and of Priests like him , who were extolled aboue the rest vniustly . But hence it followeth not , that Antichrist shall be the Prince of Priests , but that he shall be the Prince of the Proud .

Out of this sixt head we haue a notable argument , that the Pope is not Antichrist , since his Seate is not Ierusalem , nor in the Temple of Salomon ; yea it is credible since the yeare 600. no Bishop of Rome was euer at Hierusalem .

M. Downams Answere confuted .

1. MAISTER Downam denieth that Antichrist shall fit at Hieresalem , and to Bellarmines first proofe out of Apoc. 11. he answereth : first , that it may be doubted , that S. Antichrist his Seate shall be in Ierusalem . Iohn speaketh not of Antichrist , because he seemeth to speake of the former beast Apoc. 13. which M. Downam supposeth not to be Antichrist . But this is a very good confirmation , that S. Iohn speaketh of Antichrist in this place also , since it is certaine , that he speaketh of him in the 13. chapter , and expresseth Apoc. 11. Apoc. 13. See c. 5. §. 5. &c. him by the former beast , and in a manner all Interpreters agree , that Antichrist is spoken of in both places , and of this latter we haue said some thing before . Secondly , M. Downam confirmeth this his doubt , that Antichrist is not spoken of Apoc. 11. because the Papists teach , that Antichrist shall be the King of the Iewes , and counterfaite Christians , therfore by their owne Doctrine , this persecution of the Church by the Gentiles , should not be the persecution vnder Antichrist . But the answere is easie , as Ribera , and others vpon this place learnedly declare , for S. Iohn Why those that follow Antichrist are called Gentiles . speaketh of the Church vnder the metaphor of the Temple , and consequently calleth her enemies Gentiles , because those that impugned the Temple were such : and besides M. Downam cannot choose but know that the Papists thinke , that all those which follow Antichrist , though they were before Iewes , and Christians , yet then they shall be Gentiles , and Idolaters , since they shall acknowledg no other God , but Antichrist himselfe . Besides this doubt , whether S. Iohn speaketh in this place of Antichrist , or no , M. Downam saith , that he hath proued two other points more certainely : First , that Henoch and Elias be not heere spoken of , and that See c. ● . the holy Ghost doth not meane Hierusalem . But these proofs of his are all confuted in their due places , to which I remit the Reader , for now I will only examine that which he bringeth in this place , where he is content to suppose , that S. Iohn speaketh both of Antichrist and of Ierusalem , and yet saith , M. Downams iugling . that it followeth not , that whersoeuer the witnesses of Christ are put to death by him , or by his authority , that there should be his principall seate : and then he putteth Bellarmines argument in forme for him , making the proposition thus , Where the two witnesses are put to death , there is the seate of Antichrist : to which he also answereth with this distinction , that being generally vnderstood , it is false , if particulerly , then Bellarmines argument is not a Syllogisme , but a Paralogisme , where you see how he tosseth and turneth Bellarmines argument , to auoid the force of it , and yet it will not be : for first he would make vs belieue , that Bellarmine spake of witnesses without determination of number , then hauing added the number , yet he saith , that it may be vnderstood generally , which I cannot conceaue how he meaneth , except it be that Bellarmine should speake of any two witnesses whatsoeuer , which notwithstanding is very ridiculous , since it is manifest that he speaketh of those two only , which S. Iohn speaketh of . But , saith M. Downam , if it be vnderstood particulerly of two determinate and particuler witnesses , then Bellarmines argument is a Paralogisme . And why so I pray you Syr ? What deceipt is there here ? Yea , were it not great deceipt to speake vniuersally , since the Scripture speaketh determinately , and particulerly of only two , which Bellarmine hath also euidently conuinced to be Helias and Enoch ? and consequently M. Downam cannot deny , but that it is a perfect Syllogisme and an euident See part . ● . c. 2. §. 17. demonstration , except he can find some fault in the Assumption , for which he remitteth vs to his former proofes , by which he telleth vs , that he hath made good , that the Citty which is here spoken of , is Ciuitas Romana , the Citty and Empire of Rome ; which no doubt will proue a great Citty indeed , & comprehendeth Ierusalem , & many great Citties besides , and consquently Antichrist may very well sit in Hierusalem , M. Downam foolishly contradicteth himselfe . and yet be sayd in this sense to sit in Ciuitate Romana , in the Citty and Empire of Rome , as we see that M. Downam auoucheth , that our Lord was crucified in this great Citty , and yet all men know that he was crucifyed at Hierusalem , by which the Reader may take a scantling of M. Downams proofes till we examine them in particuler : for it is manifest , that they will only proue , that Antichrists seate shall be some where within the Roman Empire , which neuer any man doubted of yet : but this is no proofe at all , that it shall not be in Hierusalem , since that also is within M. Downams great Citty , and so I cannot see , but that Bellarmine and M. Downam will agree well inough in this point , since he granteth that it is as true , that Antichrist shall sit at Hierusalem , as that our Sauiour was crucified at Hierusalem , which all men know to be most true .

2. To the second place Apoc. 17. M. Downam remitteth himselfe to his answere in another place , whither I will See part. 2. cap. 2. §. 18. also refer the Reader for the confutation . Likewise to Bellarmines proofe from his former argument , in which he proued that Antichrist shall be a Iew &c. he only saith , that he hath disproued this position in his former Chapter : Wherfore I must also desire the Reader to take a view of his disproofes , and my confutation in the precedent argument . Thirdly M. Downam obiecteth to himselfe the authority of 4. Fathers , and presently M. Downam reiecteth the Fathers . reiecteth them , because their assertions cannot be proued out of Scriptures , and will needs father this his impudency vpon Bellarmine himselfe : but I would willingly know who shall be iudge , whether the Fathers , or M. Downam vnderstand the Scriptures aright ? Bellarmine sometimes when the Fathers are different among themselues , may very well cleaue to those that seeme to him to bring better proofes , for that they say : and likewise when they affirme a thing as probable , he needeth not auouch it for certaine . Bu M. Downam hath none of them of his side , and flatly deny●th that which they affirme , without any doubt at all . And his cauils against the authorities in particuler , are impertinent and ridiculous , for Lactantius plainly speaketh of the chiefest kingdome in Antichrists time , which neither he , nor any other doubteth , but that it shall belong to Antichrist himselfe , and consequently M. Downam is exceeding ridiculous , if not worse , to tell vs , that Lanctantius speaketh not of Antichrist , M. Downams folly . since it is manifest that he speaketh of his Kingdome . Now as for S. Hierome and Theodoret , they affirme both the one and the other , viz. that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple at Ierusalem , and in the Churches of Christ as Bellarmine proueth , and sheweth that there is no opposition at all betwixt those two assertions , whatsoeuer M. Downam sayth to the contrary , but bringeth no proofes at all for that he saith : so that he should seeme to thinke his credit very good , and that he shall be belieued vpon his bare word , in which he is mightily deceaued . Lastly , in this place I must desire the Reader to note M. Downams subtilty : for to discredit the Fathers M. Downams iugling . which Bellarmine alleadgeth , he telleth vs that they are foure , and yet to make some shew of an answere to them , he confoundeth the sitting of Antichrist as in his Kingdome , and his sitting in the Temple of God , wherof Bellarmin speaketh in his next proofe , and for which he alleageth not only foure Fathers , but almost foureteene , for if you add Lactantius and S. Hierome whome he bringeth heere , they are in all thirteene .

3. In the third place 2. Thess. 2. M. Downam first endeauoreth to apply the three former expositions to the Pope , 2. Thess. 2. whome he affirmeth only to sit as it were a God in the minds of men , prescribing lawes to binde the Conscience , and that with guilt of mortall sinne , as we speake . But in this , he is at least deceaued , for we Both spirituall & temporal Superiours may prescribe lawes to binde the conscience vnder mortall sinne . affirme that not only the Pope , but all other both spirituall and temporall Superiours may prescribe lawes to bind the conscience , and that with guilt of mortall sinne , and this we may gather euidently out of the Scripture : and many of M. Downams bretheren are ashamed to deny it , and by all probability he would be at least afraid to affirme the contrary , if he were well examined by the temporall Maiestrate . Secondly , sayth M. Downam , the Pope and Church of Rome vaunt that they alone are the Catholike Church , and that all others professing the name of Christ , which are not subiect to the Pope , or acknowledge not themselues members of the Church of Rome , are heretikes or schismatikes . This is very true indeed , for we thinke that there is but one faith , and one Church , and whatsoeuer One faith and one Church . Christians are out of it , must needes be schismatikes at least , if not heretikes , and I would haue thought that M. Downam would not haue beene so absurd , as to deny this common principle agreed of by all , which if he had graunted , he would not much haue meruailed , that we hould our selues to be of the true Church , and consequently that all , that are not vnited to vs , are out of the Church , for we do no more then all other Churches and Congregations do . And finally M. Downam must of force put some limits to his Church also , which if he make so capable , that it may comprehend vs also , we shall in some sort be beholding vnto him , though we cannot requite him with the like . But when we know all the conditions that are required to be of his Church , it will be an easy matter to inferre , that whosoeuer wanteth those conditions must of force be out of it , and so this exposition will agree aswell to M. Downams Church , and any other , as to the Roman . How the third exposition may be applied to the Pope , M. Downam explicateth not , but only affirmeth that this is the most true exposition , and agreeth properly to the Pope of Rome . Of the truth we shall see in due place , but how properly it agreeth to the Pope , is not so easy to conceaue . For first all the Churches of those which M. Downam taketh to be the only true , or at least the best Christians , acknowledg not the Pope at all , and Catholikes acknowledg him only to be Christs Vicegerent vpon earth , which is far from that which Antichrist shall do , when he shall so sit in the Temple of God , that he shall shew himselfe , as if he were God himselfe .

Concerning the fourth opinion which pleaseth not M. Downam , first he denieth it to be the more common opinion , as Bellarmine affirmed it was , and yet wheras Bellarmin bringeth an cleauen Authors for his opinion , M. Downam bringeth but fiue for his , foure of which affirme also as much as Bellarmine doth , and are by him alleadged to that purpose , which M. Downam could not choose but see , and therfore thought good to add , that the being more common doth not proue it to be the more true , for truth goeth not by voyces , neither is it See Part. 2. cap. 4. §. 15. to be weighed by the multitude of suffrages , but by weight of reason . By which you may imagine what a great deale of reason , and wit M. Downam thinketh him selfe to haue , and how little he attributeth to the Fathers . But all this is but in his owne proud and foolish conceipt , for all but himselfe will be easily perswaded , that there was more wit and true wisdome in the meanest of these ancient Fathers , then there is in this insolent Minister , though he had many of his fellow Ministers ioyned with him . Secondly he denieth this exposition to be more probable because the Temple shall neuer be reedified , which were his wonted figure of petitio principij , but that he addeth ( as hath bene shewed . ) Wherfore I will not censure him any further , till the Reader hath seene how learnedly he sheweth it , and whether the Fathers , or he haue more reason and probability in this point .

Thirdly he addeth that it were not materiall , though this exposition were more litterall , vnles the litterall were vsuall . And to shew that it is not vsuall , he obserueth , that in all the Epistles , by the Temple of God is meant the Church , where first the Reader must marke that the word Temple is not vsed in any Epistle , but only in this place of the 2. to the Thessalonians , and in the 2. to the Corinthians , and only in 3. Chapters of them both , in the which the faithfull , and their bodies are called the Temple of God , because the Holy Ghost is present , and Temple what it signifieth in the new Testament . remaineth with them . But how can this be applied to Antichrist sitting in the Temple of God , and shewing himselfe as if he were God ? Can Antichrist dwell in the soules and bodies of men , as in his Temple ? Or if he could , were this hidden and spirituall sitting any ostentation , or shewing of himselfe as God ? And yet in this place S. Paul affirmeth that Antichrist shall do so , for which no doubt he must sit visibly in a visible Temple , by which most properly is signified the Temple of Hierusalem , yea when S. Paul wrote , and for many yeares after , only that was so called , as Bellarmine proueth , and is to be seene in all the foure Euangelists , and the Acts of the Apostles . Wherfore since this place may , yea indeed must litterally be vnderstood of a materiall Temple , aswell as many other places of the new Testament , it is ridiculous folly in M. Downam to tell vs , that in some few places , the word Temple is to be taken spiritually also , and contrariwise the word Church materially , for of this we neuer made question . Yea but , saith M. Downam , to sit in the Temple of God , as God , is to rule , and raigne in the Church of God , as if he were a God vpon earth . By which exposition he maketh all Prelats & Magistrats , which rule and raigne in the Church of God , to sit in the Temple of God as God , in the manner that S. Paul saith , that Antichrist shal sit in the Temple of God , which is a fit interpretation for a Puritanicall Minister , who seeketh to peruert the whole order & Hierarchy of Gods Church , & by with drawing the Christian people from the obedience of their lawfull Pastours , prepare them to receaue Antichrist himselfe when he commeth , and in the meane time his forerunners the Heretikes , of which because Downam seemeth to haue byn a Puritan when he wrote this . M. Downam is one himselfe , no meruaile though he pleadeth so hard for himself , his fellowes , and Maister : but if he had meant to deale sincerly he should haue proued his exposition out of the Fathers , or answered the authority of those which Bellarm. alleadgeth for himselfe , neither of which he once attempteth , but yet remitteth vs to another place , See part . ● : §. 13. 14. 15. where God willing we will examine all that he obiecteth .

4. M. Downam hauing in this sort answered to Bellarmines proofes out of the Scripture , returneth to his argument ad hominem , where first he taketh great exception at Bellarmine for not putting the word ( true ) in the premisses , and yet expressing it in the conclusion , which is a meere cauill , for Bellarmine would not add any word in the premisses , which he found not in Melancthon , Caluin , and Illyricus , whose opinion he alleadged . In the conclusion which was his owne , he might very well expresse that which was necessarily to be vnderstood , as Bellarmin explicateth out of Caluin himselfe , for M. Downams deuise , that the Church of Christ The Church comprehendeth not al that professe the name of Christ . may be taken for the company of Christians , that is of those , that professe the name of Christ , is too ridiculous , since by this meanes he includeth all heretikes whatsouer , who are indeed the Synagogue of the Diuell , & so confoundeth the Church of God , and the Sinagogue of the Deuill ; & wheras S. Paul saith , that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God , he meaneth according to M. Downams interpretation the temple of the Diuell . All which is so obsurd , that the authors with whom Bellarmine disputeth , would haue byn ashamed of so ridiculous an assertion , and therfore they sought other cuasions , as we shal see forthwith ; but now let vs go on with the other illation , that the Protestants are out of the true Church : for how the Temple of Hierusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of God , we shall see afterward in the discussion of Bellarmines answeres to the arguments of the Protestants .

5. Wherfore M. Downam to saue himselfe , and his brethren from being out of the true Church of Christ , is driuen to this exigent , to deny that there is any one visible Catholike Church , but only one invisible Catholike Church , and many particuler visible Churches , which is a most extrauagant and absurd paradox , contrary both to Scriptures , Fathers , and Councells , as Bellarmine sufficiently proueth lib. 4. de There is one visible Catholicke Church . Ecclesia militant . cap. 10. But now I will only oppose to this insolent madnes , the authority of the Creed generally receaued of all , where the Church is called One , Holy , Catholike , and Apostolike : and who seeth not , that all which belong truly to Christ , must agree in one faith , and not to be deuided by schismes and heresies , which in M. Downams conceipt can only happen in particuler Churches , or at least in them only be acknowledged and rooted out ? So that if any particuler Church will wholy fall to either , or rather if the chiefe head and pastour of any such Church shal become either schismaticall or hereticall , there is not meanes left for his reduction , since that he is not bound to be at vnity with other particuler Churches , nor to subiect himselfe to any visible Catholike Church , or to any visible head therof : which is as much in effect , as to say , that Christ hath left no meanes vpon earth to decide controuersies concerning Faith , or to take away schismes & diuisions , but that euery particuler Church , or Pastor , yea indeed euery particuler man may freely follow his owne fancies without contradiction , or controlement of any , so long as he can pretend any text of Scripture ( though neuer so much wrested and falsly vnderstood ) for that , which he is resolued to hould . And is it meruarle , that heresies and schismes be so rife in our daies since these absurd paradoxes are so currant ? But what should heretikes and schismatikes do , but defend schismes and diuisions : and im●ugne vnity and concord , which if they would admit , they must of force returne to the Catholike Church , where it is only to be found ? Since therfore the visible Church of Christ is one , and by the aduersaries confession it is the Roman , it followeth manifestly that they themselues are out of Christs Church , since that they The Protestants are out of the Church of Christ . are out of the Roman . For the other cauill which M. Downam maketh , that the Roman Church is a particuler Church , is not worth the answering , for euery child can tell him that the Roman Church is taken for all those which agree in faith , and are vnited with the Bishop of Rome , who is not only Bishop of that particuler Citty , but also the head and Pastor of the whole Church , which of him , her Head , is called the Roman Church , which continueth the true Church of Christ , as Bellarmine proueth , and Melancthon , Caluin , and Illyricus dare not deny , howsoeuer M. Downam is so impudent in his rayling , consorting himselfe with a vaine Poet , whose meaning notwithstanding was far better then M. Petrarcha Downams is .

6. M. Downam hauing thus shufled vp the matter hitherto , at length commeth to explicate himselfe more plainly , and agreeth with Caluin , that the Church of Rome vnder the Pope may be called the Church of God , in respect both of some notes and signes of a visible Church , as the administration of the Sacrament of Baptisme , and the profession of the Name of Christ , as also of some reliques and remainder , as it were the gleanings of the inuisible Church , for he doubteth not , but that , in the corruptest times of Popery , the Lord hath reserued some who haue not receaued the marke of the beast . And for explication he compareth the Church of Rome to the state of Israel vnder Ieroboam and Achab , because they then retained the Sacrament of Circumcision , and professed Iehoua to be their God , although they worshipped him Idolatrously . And euen vnder Achab , the Lord had reserued 7000. who neuer bowed their knee to Baal . In which comparison M. Downam insisteth wholy Downam his petitio principij . vpon his wonted figure of Petitio principij , and consequently , all that he saith is but meere railing . If he would haue said any thing to the purpose , he should haue shewed two points in that example : the first that the visible Church among the Iewes was altogeather ceased , by that Idolatry of Israel . The second , that Israel departed not from the Religion which was generally houlden before , but that the ancient Religion was by little and little changed to Idolatry , and that those which came after , separated themselues from the former , and yet were the true Church . With these two points M. Downam might haue made some comparison , betwixt the people of Israel , and the Church of Rome . But since The Protestants like to Israel & the Catholikes to Iuda . neither of these are so , but the quite contrary , it will fall to M. Downam and his fellowes share to be like the people of Israel , since they haue left the visible Church , of which they once were , as the other did , and consequently the Church of Rome is like to the people of Iuda , and the rest which ioyned with them , since it continueth in the ancient faith generally holden throughout Christendome , before there were any Protestants in the World . Neither do we graunt , that the Protestants haue any part of Christs Church , no more then the Israelites had , since they haue not any iote of true faith , howsoeuer they make profession of some articles : for the reason why they hould them , is not the authority of God proposed by the Scriptures , or the Church , but only their owne fancies , because so it seemed necessary for their reputation and credit , or some other human and priuate respect , how much soeuer they pretend to be only moued by Scripture , for of this they admit no more The Protestants haue no probable rule of faith , nor any true faith at al. then they please , and for the interpretation , they haue no other rule , then their owne pruate spirit , or fancy , which is far of from being any probable rule of truth , & much lesse so certaine as is necessary for the certainty of diuine and supernatural faith to be built vpon . And this is the true reason why the Church of God is but one , because there is but one rule of fayth : from which whosoeuer falleth , cannot haue any true faith at all , nor belong to the true Church of God . The other comparison which M. Downam vseth is much les to the purpose , for it is not the Church , but the Bishop of Sardis ( as he himselfe saith , that it is agreed by In his Sermon at Lambeth pag. 2. Apoc. ● 1. Interpreters both new and old ) who had a name , that he liued , but indeed was dead , neither was this death for want of faith , but of charity and good workes , as is manifest , and though it were otherwise , yet M. Downam could proue nothing by this comparison , except we would belieue his bare word , that the Church of Rome were in this case , which is our chiefe question , and M. Downams wonted figure , to take it as granted . Wherfore since he can argue no better , let vs see how he can answere .

7. To Bellarmines first reply vpon Caluins deuise , that the Roman Church is not the true Church , but that there VIII . remaine in it only the ruines and reliques of a true Church , M. Downam granteth , that all visible Churches may faile , and fall away , but not the inuisible Church of Christ . which he calleth the Catholike Church , nor any one sound Christian , that is of this inuisible Church . In which answere he graunteth Bellarmine as much as he went about to proue , that the gates of hell in his opinion haue preuailed against Christs visible Church , so that in a whole thousand yeares Christ had not so much as one constant professor of his truth , and though I might easily proue , that Christ spake of his visible Church , and that it The visible Church is to endure to the end of the world . was to endure vntill the worlds end , yet now I will not trouble my Reader with so needles a digression , since the matter is so plaine and euident in it selfe , that me thinks any man which maketh accompt of Christ his passion and glory , or of his desire to saue soules , and to prouide for their conuersion and faith , should stop his eares not to heare so great a blasphemy vttered , as M. Downam is not ashamed to affirme : yet if any man haue any doubt , or desire to be more fully satisfied in this point , let him read Bellarmine him selfe lib. 3. de Ecclesia militant . cap. 12. & 13.

To Bellarmines second reply M. Downam answereth , that it proueth nothing , except he suppose that the Church of Rome is the only true Church : But he should haue answered it in forme , & admitted only that which Caluin auoucheth , that the Papists hold the ruines of the Church , and the foundations , yea the buildings themselues halfe throwne downe , for out of this only Bellarmine argueth and sheweth , that the Protestants can neither haue the whole & intire church , since in their opinion it is fallen , nor the part which remaineth of it , since they grant The Protestants cannot haue the Church of Christ , but only some new building of their own . it to be among the Papists , to which delēma M. Downam answereth not a word , but only braggeth , that the Church of Rome may fall , & yet the Catholicke Church of God may stand , yea shall stand &c. But he forgetteth himselfe , & marketh not what his Maister Caluin hath graunted , that not only the Church of Rome , but euen the very Church of Christ is fallen , and that the Papists haue as much as is left of it , & consequently the Protestants can only haue some new hereticall building of their owne , though M. Downam be neuer so loth to acknowledge it . Neither will the example of the Church of Iuda vnder Iosias serue his turne : for that was only a reformation of manners , and a destruction of Idolatry without any departing from the ancient Church of God , in which remained the true succession of Priests , and Gods true religion , after a visible manner , no otherwise then if it should please his Maiesty to put downe heresie , and aduance Catholike Religion in his Kingdome , which were only to imbrace the true Church of Christ , and not to erect any new building as the Protestants haue done , as Bellarmine conuinceth .

8. M. Downam hauing thus impugned Bellarmines arguments , commeth to refute his solutions to their obiections , and wheras Bellarmine gaue three solutions to the first , See part. 2. cap. 2. M. Downam passeth two of them ouer in silence , telling vs that he hath taken them away in another place , which how true it is the Reader shall be iudge when we come to that encounter . Now let vs see how he refuteth the second solution which Bellarmine giueth , that the harlot of which S. Iohn speaketh , is Rome Ethnick raigning , worshiping Idols , and persecuting Christians , and not Rome Christian , the Apoc. 17. contrary of which M. Downam neuer goeth about to proue with any new argument , as he should haue done , it being his turne now to argue , but only contenteth himselfe to answere Bellarmines proofe , which he doth also by halfes , for Bellarmine proueth his exposition euidently by the authority of Tertullian & S. Hierome , and sheweth the impudency of heretikes , that are not ashmed to alleadg those authours altogeather against their meaning , to proue that S. Iohn speaketh of Rome Christian . To all which M. Downam giueth him not a word , but is very well content to be thus beaten , so that it may not be spoken of : but to the other proofe , he thinketh himselfe able to say something , & therfore answereth two wayes , 1. that though Popish Rome had not dominion ouer the Kings of the earth , and were not drunke with the blould of the Saints and martyrs of Iesus , yet we might vnderstand the Apostle thus , that , that Citty , which then had dominion ouer the Kings of the earth , and then persecuted the Saints , is called Babylon , because it was to be the seate , or sea of Antichrist . So that as you see M. Downam will haue Rome to be called Babylon , because it was to be the seate or sea of Antichrist , which he supposeth as manifest , though Bellarmine in this third solution , and before also in one of his arguments ( both which M. Downam passeth ouer in silence ) sheweth manifestly , that Antichrist shall hate this Babylon , and not make it the seat of his kingdome . So that this first solution is nothing but M. Downams wonted figure of Petitio principij , not only without any proofe , as commonly he vseth it , but against euident proofe , which also he is forced to do now and then . His second solution is , that these notes agree also to Popish Rome , both in respect of dominion , vsurped more insolently ouer the Kings of the earth by the Pope , then by any Emperour , and in regard of most cruell persecution of the Saintes of Christ . To which impudent assertion of his , I see not what The Pope hath only a spiritual power ouer Princes . other answere can be giuen , but to refer the matter to the Readers iudgment , who will easily perceaue , that the Pope hath now only a spirituall power ouer Kings , aswell as ouer other Christians for the good of their soules , without exacting or vsurping any temporall dominion ouer their persons or estates , as the old Roman Emperours did , to whome they were Tributary , if not altogeather subiect : and whatsoeuer the Pope doth in temporall affaires , it proceedeth from his spirituall authority , to which no doubt temporall things do so farre belong , as they may hinder or help the good of soules , and no further , as is largely explicated by Cardinall Bellarmine , and other Catholike Deuines . And as for M. Downams Saints which the Pope doth persecute , I am content to referre the decision of this question , whether Christian Rome may be called Babylon or no , till he hath shewed vs an authenticall canonization of these his Saints , and in the meane time it shall be also as certane , that Ethnick Rome is meant by Babylon , as that those blessed Martyrs which died in those daies , were truly the Martyrs of Christ and glorious Saints .

9. Thus much M. Downam thought sufficient to reply to Bellarmines answeres of their first argument , and comming to the second , where they contend , that Antichrist shall sit in the Church of Christ , because S. Paul saith : that he shal sit in the temple of God , he is content to let passe Bellarmines solution to the first proofe , that the Apostle vnderstood the Church of Christ by the Temple of God which was , because when the Apostle wrote , there was no other Temple of God , but the Church of Christ , since that the Temple of the Iewes was ceased to be a Temple , when the Iewish Sacrifice and Priesthood ceased . To which Bellarmine answered that though it had ceased to be the Iewish Temple , yet it ceased not forth with to be the Temple of God , but belonged to the Christians so long as it remained , as he proueth Downam omitteth Bellarmin his answere . out of the Scriptures . To which as I said , M. Downam hath not one word , for which cause I might also haue passed it ouer in silence , but that I promised a little before to shew in this place , how the Temple of Ierusalem is by S. Paul called the Temple of God , which as you see is no hard matter to do , since that he speaketh of it , as it was in his time , when it was most truly the Temple of God , and besides since Antichrist shall build it againe for the Iewes , and pretend not to withdraw them from the true God , but to professe himself to come from him , at least before he discouereth himselfe further , the temple erected by him may be called the Temple of God , though when he shall sit in it , and shew himselfe as God , he will professe himselfe to be the true God , and so either auouch that he is the God of the Iewes , in whose Temple he shall sit , or els extoll himselfe aboue him , for so much the words of S. Paul do import , as we shall see afterward .

Concerning the place of Daniel , M Downam hath found his tongue againe and giueth words inough , but indeed nothing but words . Well , he replieth to all Bellarmines answers and to the first he vrgeth our Translation , vsque ad consummationem & finem perseuerabit desolatio , and S. Hierome who saith , Dan. 9. vsque ad finem mundi , and others whome he nameth not ( because as it seemeth they were not worth the naming ) vsque The temple of Hierusalem shall be built againe in the end of the world . ad consummationem , eamque praecisam , and then he alleadgeth three places of Scripture , out of which he inferreth that the word ( vntill ) signifieth rather a perpetuity , then cessation before the time , which seemeth therby to be limited . But first we must charge M. Downam with a manifest falsification of Bellarmines words , for he alleadgeth them in a different letter thus : Danyel would say , that the Temple should not bee reedified vntill a little before the end of the world : wheras Bellarmines words are these , Adillud ex Daniele respondeo , vel Daniclem voluisse dicere , non esse reedificandum Templum , Downam corrupteth Bellarmines words . nisi in fine mundi . To that of Daniel I answere , that either Daniel would say , that the Temple is not to built againe but in the end of the world : and is not this a great shame for a Doctour of Diuinity , to be taken in so grosse an absurdity , that either he must confesse that he cannot conster two words of latin , or els that he is a wilfull falsifier ? Well now that we haue Bellarmines true words , let M. Downam vrge our text , and S. Hierome , and see if he can pick any more out of them , then that the Temple is not to be built againe before the end of the world , which Bellarmine affirmeth also , and only addeth , that it may be Daniel meant , that it was to be built in the end of the world , but not before . But against this M. Downam vrgeth the authoritie of others , who add the word pracisam , by which we might coniecture that they were some Precisians , but whatsoeuer they be , if by the precise consummation , they meane the indiuisible instant , which the Philosophers call vltimum quod non , they shew themselues to be more precise then wise , for the Scripture is not to be interpreted so precisely , or metaphysically , but after the manner of common and ordinary speach , as when we say , such a man made not his will till his death , we meane that he made it then &c. And as for the three authorities of Scripture , it were no hard matter to find 300. for M. Downams three , where it is otherwise taken , but now one or two shall suffice , as Gen. 49. when Iacob foretould that the Scepter should not be taken from Iuda , vntill the comming of Gen. 46. 2. Reg. 1. The word Vntill signifieth neither continuance nor cessation , but is indifferent to both . the Messias , the sense is plaine , that it was to be taken from them then , yea a little before also , if M. Downam will needes vrge that point . Likewise 2. Reg. 1. where Dauid and those which were with him , are said to haue mourned for Saul and Ionathas &c. vsque ad vesperam , vntill the euening . I hope M. Downam will giue vs leaue to thinke that they left mourning then , wherfore it is a fond illation of M. Downam to inferre a perpetuity out of that word ( vntill ) for it importeth no such matter , but only signifieth what is done till then : but whether it continued at that time , or after that time , or no , must be gathered by other coniectures or proofes : As to exemplify in one of M. Downams authorities , there was neuer any so foolish yet , as to bring that place of Matth. 1. to proue our Blessed Ladies perpetuall Virginity , but S. Hieroms and other Fathers haue byn inforced to answere it , and to shew that the word ( vntill ) sheweth only what hath byn done , or not done vntill then , but leaueth the rest of the time altogeather vncertaine , whether things continued in the same state still , or no.

To Bellarmines second answere , M. Downam hauing corrupted his words , as the Reader may see ( if he please ) replieth first , that the Primitiue Church belieued that the Temple should neuer be built againe , & held this assertion of the Papists as a Iewish fable . But he bringeth not any one authority to proue Downam belyeth the Primitiue Church against the testimony of the Fathers . this withall , and therfore we must needes tell him that we do not belieue him , for if we did , we should do the Fathers great iniury , which Bellarmine alleadgeth , to reiect their authority without any ground , and to thinke that M. Downam knew the beliefe of the Primitiue Church better then all they who liued so long before him . For the other part of his answere we will not contend , but that our Sauiour might meane the Army of the Romans by the Abhomination of Desolation , but that he meant only that , M. Downam neither hath proued The temple of Ierusalem shal alway be prophane though it be built againe . nor euer will be able to proue , and therfore Bellarmines solution is very good , that Daniel when he affirmeth , that the desolation shall perseuere to the consummation and end , might very wel meane , that though the Temple were built againe in the end of the world , yet it should alway be prophaned after the ouerthrow made by Titus , because the chiefest prophanation and abhomination of desolation shall be in Antichrists time .

At Bellarmines third solution M. Downam is much offended , and telleth vs , that in this place Daniel speaketh not a word of Antichrist , nor yet of Antiochus his Type . And for Antiochus we belieue him , neither did Bellarmine euer dreame of any such matter : of Antichrist the matter is not cleare , though now it skilleth not , whether he did or no , for Bellarmine is only to shew that Antichrist sitting in the Temple of Hierusalem , is not against this place of Daniel , and not to proue out of this place that he shall sit there . Wherfore let M. Downam begin his reply anew , and so he doth , arguing that it is not probable that Antichrist being so great a Monarch will suffer the temple which he chooseth for his chiefe seate to be vnbuilt , or that he will sit in a temple without a roofe or vnfinished . To which it is easy to answere , that this is not probable indeed , if he may haue tyme inough , and there fall no other hinderance . But now M. Downam may remember , that his raigne is to endure in that greatnes , but only three yeares & a halfe , which is very little for the finishing of so sumptuous a building , & yet we thinke he may haue the roofe vp also at least in some part , in which he shall sit , till he may get the rest finished , as he will hope he shall , but yet he shall be hindred either The temple of Ierusalem shall not be finished by Antichrist . Socrat. l. 3. cap. 20. Theodoret. l. 3. c. 20. Sozom. l. 5. cap. vlt. Luc. 21. by the shortnes of time , or by some accidents , not vnlike to those that fell out in Iulians time , though it be very likely , that God wil permit much more in Antichrists daies without working myracles , especially since it is certaine , that the Temple was not to be built againe vntill the end of the world , as Daniel foretould . Which M. Downam will needes haue confirmed by that place of Luc. 21. where our Sauiour foretelleth , that Hierusalem should be troden vnder the foote of the Gentiles , vntill the tymes of the Gentiles be fulfilled . Which words if they might haue that sense , were a good explication of that which Daniel called the consummation and end , for it is certaine that the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled , before the end of the world be fully accomplished .

10. To Bellarmines answere to the Fathers , M. Downam replieth not a word , and yet it contained matter of no smal importance , but that which ouerthroweth the whole Protestants deuise . For Bellarmine affirmeth & proueth , that those Antichrist shall sit in materiall Churches and not in the Church of Christ as a Bishop . Fathers which they alleadg , are no way against vs , but manifestly against them , since they speake of materiall Churches , in which Antichrist will commaund himselfe to be placed and worshipped for God , and not that he shall sit in the Church of Christ as a Bishop , which is only the fond conceipt of M. Downam , and his like , without any authority either of Scriptures , or Fathers , or shew of reason . Neither must the reader thinke , that M. Downam omitted this reply because he maketh little accompt of the Fathers when they seeme to be on his side , for of this we shal see the contrary in that he laboureth so earnestly to make S. Gregory seeme to say something in his fauour . For to Bellarmines answere concerning his authority he replieth , that the pride and ambition of Iohn of Constantinople , though very great and Antichristian , was not to be compared with the incredible insolency and pride of the Antichrist of Rome , because Iohn of Constantinople challenged not that height of authority & The Pope hath not so much soueraignty as Iohn of Constantinople challenged . See part . ● . cap. 1. soueraignty which Popes since haue vsurped , not only ouer Bishops and Ecclesiasticall persons , but also ouer the Kings and Monarches of the Earth . Where ( to omit that Bibliander made his illation against the Pope precisely , because he maketh himselfe the vniuersall Bishop , and sitteth in the Church as head of all , and consequently all other charges are from the purpose ) you see the Pope charged first , with taking more soueraignty vpon him , then Iohn of Constantinople did , which is a loud lye by M. Downams leaue : for Iohn of Constantinople would haue bene the Vniuersall Bishop in that sense , that there should be no other properly Bishops besides himselfe , but al others should be his Vicars and Vicegerents , which was more then euer the Pope challenged or pretended . The second charge seemeth to be , that Iohn of Constantinople sought only a superiority ouer all Bishops , but the Pope hath vsurped the same ouer all Kings and Monarches also : But this is so ridiculous that M. Downam may well be ashamed therof , for what doubt can there be , but only in a flattering parasites conceipt , that he who hath superiority ouer all Bishops , must needes also haue it ouer all Christian Kings and Monarches , since that these are also subiect in spirituall causes to their particuler Bishops and Pastors . But M. Downam knew well inough , where he wrote this , in which respect he doubted not that it would be pleasing , and then it made no matter Downam seemeth to haue byn a Puritan when he wrote this . See part. 2. cap. 5. for the truth , though it went against his owne conscience , for he seemeth by his writing to be of the Puritanicall sect , and consequently to thinke himselfe a better man by his Ministery , then euer a King in the world ; howsoeuer he is content rather to dissemble and flatter , then to put his bennefice in icopardy . Now for his bragges , that he hath shewed els where , that in some things the Pope matcheth himselfe with Christ , in somethings he aduanceth himselfe aboue him , and aboue all that is called God . I must desire the Reader to haue patience till we come to that place , and in the meane time to looke wishly vpon M. Downams forehead , whether it be made of brasse or no , for surely it is exceeding hard . But now I would aske M. Downam in good earnest , why he left out the chiefest part of Bellarmines answere , for this other was but to shew that the obiection proued asmuch against the Protestants as for them , which is not to solue an argument , but to make another . Wherefore Bellarmine answereth directly , that the sense of S. Gregories words is , that because Antichrist shall be most proud , and the head of all the proud , so that he will not suffer any equalls , therfore whosoeuer vsurpeth to himselfe any thing otherwise then he ought , Whosoeuer vsurpeth more dignity than is due to him is Antichrist his forerunner . and will exceed and surpasse others , is his forerunner : and such were the Bishops of Constantinople , who being in the beginning but Archbishops , first vsurped to be Patriarches , and after the title of Vniuersall . How chance M. Downam replieth not against this ? nor doth so much as go about to shew , that the Pope vsurpeth any more then he ought according to his place and dignity ? which is to be Christs Vicegerent in spirituall causes , as the Emperours and temporall Princes are in temporall .

To the other part of Bellarmines answere , M. Downam replieth thus : Shameles , 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 Hierarchie of Rome consisteth of ? Where first I desire the Reader to consider whether M. Downam be not exceeding shameles , to leaue out that clause of Bellarmines Downam corrupteth Bellarmines words . answere which is most to the purpose , which is his proofe , that S. Gregory meaneth not that Priests as Priests , belong to the army of Antichrist , in these words , for so he should haue put himselfe in that army . Secondly , I must craue the like iudgment of his ridiculous sophistry , for Bellarmine answereth to Biblianders argument , who proueth that Antichrist shall be the head of Priests , because S. Gregory Antichrist the head of all the proud . affirmeth that his army shall be Priests . That S. Gregory meaneth not Priests , as they are Priests , but as they are proud , and consequently it followeth not , that Antichrist shall be the head of Priests ( is they be not proud ) but of the proud ( whether they be Preists or others ) M. Downam replieth that he shal be the prince of proud Priests . Can there be any thing more ridiculous then this , to infer the same which his Aduersary graunteth ? Yea but he addeth , such as the whole hierarchy of Rome consisteth of . This is the question , and this M. Downam after his wonted manner would haue granted , Downam his petitio principij . which if it may not be , he hath no more to say , but will put vp his pipes and make an end , as he doth heere , but yet with a crake , for otherwise he were no Minister .

THE FOVRTENTH CHAPTER . Of Antichrists Doctrine .

OF Antichrists Doctrine ( saith Bellarmine ) there is very great controuersy betwixt vs and the heretikes . It is manifest out of the Scriptures , euen by the testimony of our Aduersaries , that there shall be foure heads of Antichrists Doctrine . For first , he shall deny that Iesus is Christ , and for that cause shall impugne all the ordinances of our Sauiour , as Baptisme , Confirmation &c. and shall teach that Circumcision is not yet ceased , nor the Sabaoth , and the other cerimonies of the Law . 1. Ioan. 2. Who is a lyer , but he that denieth Iesus to be Christ ? And this is Antichrist , who denteth th● Father and the Soane ? Afterward when he hath perswaded that our Sauiour is not the true Christ , then he will affirme , that he himselfe is the true Christ , promised in the Law , and the Prophets . Ioan. 5. If any come in his owne name ▪ him you will receaue , viz. for the Messias . Thirdly he will affi●me that he is God , and will be worshipped for God . 2. Thess. 2. so that he sit in the Temple of God , shewing himselfe as though he were God . Lastly he will not only say that he is God , but also that he is the only God , and he will impugne all other Gods , that is , aswell the true God , as also the false Gods , and all Idols , 2. Thess. 2. Who extelleth himselfe aboue all that is called God , or that is worshipped as God . And Dan. 11. And he will not repute the God of his Fathers , nor care for any of the Gods , because he will rise against all .

That all these things are in some sort true , and belong to Antichrist , our Aduersaries agree with vs : But the question is of the sense of these foure heads , for the Catholikes vnderstand them plainely , and as the words of Scripture sound , that Antichrist will deny the true Christ , make himselfe Christ , proclaime himsefe God , & detest all other Gods and Idols . Out of which are taken foure arguments that the Pope is not Antichrist : for it is manifest that the Pope denieth not Iesus to be Christ , nor bringeth in Circumcision , or the Sabaoth , insteed of Baptisme , and our Lords day . And likewise it is manifest that the Pope doth not make himselfe Christ nor God ; and chiefly it is manifest , that he maketh not himselfe the only God , since that he openly worshippeth Christ , and the Trinity , and in our aduersaries conceipt he worshippeth all Idolls , that is , Images and Saints departed .

But our Aduersaries interprete all these things farre otherwise , for first they say , that Antichrist will not deny in word and openly , that Iesus is Christ , nor Baptisme and other Sacraments , but that he will deny him in worke , because vnder the colour of christianisme and the Church , he will corrupt the doctrine of Sacraments , of Iustification &c. Caluinus lib. 4. cap. 7. § . 25. We gather ( saith he ) that the Tyranny of Antichrist is such , that it abolisheth not the name of Christ , or of the Church , but rather abuseth it vnder the colour & pretext of Christ , and lieth lurking vnder the title of the Church , as vnder a vizard . Magdeburgenses Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. col. 435. So that ( say they ) the Kingdome of Antichrist consisteth in doctrine which professeth Christ , but yet he denieth his Merit and Office . And after : Iohn ( say they ) sheweth that Antichrist shall deny , that Christ is come in flesh ; that is , that Christ hath entirely redeemed and saued vs in his flesh , but that our good workes do also help vs somthing to saluation . Secondly they say that Antichrist shall not make himselfe Christ or God in word , but in worke , because he shall occupy the place of Christ , and God in the Church , making himselfe the head of all the faithfull , which belongeth only to Christ . So the Magdeburgenses loc. cit. He shall shew himselfe ( say they ) for God , as that he is Christs vicar , and the head of the Church , and can fasten & loose the articles of Faith .

Finally , they say that Antichrist shall not reiect Idols , yea that he shall adore them openly , which they proue out of Daniel , who cap. 11. after that he had said , that Antichrist should rise against all the Gods , addeth : But he shall reuerence the God Maozim in his place , and he shall worship the God whome their Fathers knew not , with gold and siluer , and precious stones &c. And by Maozim the heretikes vnderstand the ornaments of the Churches , the Masses , Images , Reliques , and other like . So Illyricus in lib. cont. Primat . and all the rest .

And that which the Apostle saith 2. Thess. 2. that Antichrist shall extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God , or that is worshipped : they expound the Pope , who maketh himselfe the Vicar of Christ , and yet vsurpeth greater authority then Christ had . Illyricus in catalog . testium pag. 3. proueth this ( for I haue not hitherto seene how they proue the rest ) because Christ Matth. 24. declared , that it is nothing els to shew himselfe to be God , yea to extoll himselfe aboue God and his worship , then to come in the name of Christ : out of which it followeth , that the Pope who challengeth himselfe to be Christs Vicar , is most truly Antichrist . Likewise Christ subiected himselfe to the Scripture saying , that he did and suffered those things , which he did and suffered , that the Scripture might be fullfilled : but the Pope sayth , that he can dispence against an Apostle or Euangelist , and make those things which seeme right to be wicked &c. This is the summe of the chiefest part of our Aduersaries doctrine of Antichrist , which is wholy grounded vpon only Scripture , falsly explicated by new glosses . In signe wherof they alleadge not so much as one Interpreter or Doctour for themselues .

Wherfore let vs begin with the first , that Antichrist shall openly , and of set purpose deny Iesus to be Christ , and therfore reiect all his Sacraments , as the inuentions of a seducer ; it is proued first out of that which we haue said cap. 12. For if Antichrist shall be by nation and religion ● Iew , and receaued by the Iewes for their Messias ( as we haue shewed ) certainly he shall not preach our Christ , but shall openly impugne him , for otherwise the Iewes should receaue our Christ by Antichrist , which is most absurd . Besides , since there cannot be two Christs , how can Antichrist obtrude himselfe for Christ to the Iewes , vnles he first teach , that our Christ which went before , was not the true Christ ?

Secondly , that it is proued out of that 1. Iohn 2. Who is a lyer , but he that denyeth Iesus to be Christ ? And this is Antichrist ; for all heretikes are called Antichrists , who in some sort deny Iesus to be Christ : Therfore Antichrist himselfe shall simply , and in all sorts deny Iesus to be Christ . And it is confirmed , because the Diuell is said to worke the mistery of iniquity by heretikes , because they hiddenly deny Christ : But the comming of Antichrist is called a reuelation , because he shall openly deny Christ .

Besides , out of the Fathers , S. Hilaryl. 6. de Trinit . saith that the diuell by the Arians endeauored to perswade men , that Christ was not the naturall , but the adoptiue Sonne of God , but that by Antichrist he wil endeauour to perswade , that he is not so much as the adoptiue , that he may vtterly extinguish the name of the true Christ . S. Hippolyt . mart . orat . de consum . mundi , saith , that Antichrists Character shall be that men shall be compelled to say : I deny Baptisme , I deny the signe of the Crosse , and the like . S. August . lib. 20. Ciuit. Dei cap. 8. inquireth , whether in the time of Antichrists persecution it be credible that any shall be baptized ? and a● length he answereth : Truly ( quoth he ) both the parents shall be so couragious for the baptizing of their children , and likewise those who shall then first belieue in Christ , that they will ouercome the strong man , euen vnbound . Where S. Augustine presupposed that Antichrist will not permit them to be baptized : and yet that some godly parents will rather suffer any thing , then that their children should not be baptized .

S Hierome in cap. 11. Dan. Antichrist ( saith he ) is to rise of a meane nation that is of the people of the Iewes ▪ and he shal be so vile and contemptible , that Kingly honour shall not be giuen vnto him , and by subtilties and deceipt he shall come to be a Prince , and this he shall do , because he shall frame himselfe to be captaine of the League , that is , of the Law and Testament of God . Where S. Hierome teacheth that Antichrist shall obtaine the Kingdome among the Iewes , because he shall shew himselfe zealous for the Iewish Law . Sedulius in 2. Thess. 2. saith , that Antichrist shall restore all the Iewish Cerimonies , that he may dissolue the Ghospell of Christ . S. Gregory l. 11. ep. 3. Because Christ ( saith he ) shall compell the people to Iudaize , that he may recall the right of the outward Law , and subdue to himselfe the perfidiousnesse of the Iewes , he will haue the Sabaoth obserued .

Finally in the time of Antichrist by reason of the vehemency of his persecution , the publicke offices and the diuine Sacrifices shall cease , as we haue shewed c. 7. By which it is euident , that Antichrist will not depraue the Doctrine of Christ vnder the name of Christianisme , as the heretikes will , but that he will most openly impugne the name and Sacraments of Christ , and bring in the Iewish cerimonies : which since the Pope doth not , it is euident that he is not Antichrist .

Now that Antichrist will plainely , and by name cal himselfe Christ , and not his Minister or Vicar , that is manifest , first out of those words of our Lord , Iohn 5. If another come in his owne name , him you will receaue . Where our Lord seemeth of purpose to haue added , in his owne name , foreseeing that the Lutherans & Caluinists would say , that Antichrist shall not come in his owne name , but in the name of our Christ , as his Vicar .

Besides , the Fathers in many places teach this : S. Iren. lib. 5. He will endeauour ( saith he ) to shew himselfe Christ . S. Ambrose in cap. 21. Luc. He will argue out of the Scriptures ( saith he ) that he is Christ . Theodoret in 2. Thess. 2. He will name himselfe Christ . S. Cyril cateches. 15. He will induce ( saith he ) a certaine man falsly calling himselfe Christ : and by this appellation deceauing the Iewes , who expect him to come . Briefly , all the Fathers as we haue shewed before , do say , that Antichrist shall be receaued of the Iewes for the Messias : Wherfore he shall openly and by name make selfe the Messias , that is Christ . Wherefore the Pope , who doth not this ( as is knowne ) is not Antichrist . For in that he calleth himselfe the Vicar of Christ , he affirmeth himselfe not to be Christ , but his seruant .

And that Antichrist shall openly name himself God , and will be worshipped for God , not only vsurping some authority of God , but the very name of God , it is proued first by those words of the Apostle 2. Thess. 2. So that he sitteth in the Temple , shewing as though he were God . Where S. Paul doth not only say , that Antichrist shal sit in the Temple , for we also sit in Temples , and yet are not Antichrists , but also he explicateth the manner in which he shall sit , viz. that he shall fit as God , to whome alone properly a Temple is erected . And this is more plaine in the Greeke text , for it is not 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , tamquam Deus , but 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is , ostendens quod sit Deus , shewing that he is God . And so did all the ancient Fathers vnderstand this place .

S. Irenaeus lib. 5. Being an Apostatae and Thiefe , he will be adored as God . S. Chrysostome in hunc locum : He will command himselfe to be adored for God , and placed in the Temple . And Homil. 40. in loan . expounding this place : He will professe himselfe the God of all . And after : He will glory that he is the greatest of Gods . S. Ambrose in 2. Thess. 2. He will affirme himselfe to be God himselfe , not the Sonne of God . In like sort do all expound it . By which we vnderstand , that the Pope who acknowledgeth himselfe to be the Seruant of God , and not God , is not Antichrist .

Finally , that Antichrist will not suffer any God , neither true nor false , nor any Idolls , it is proued first by those words of S. Paul , 2. Thess. 2. Who is extolled aboue all that is called God , or that is worshipped ; where it is to be noted , that in greeke , for that is worshipped , it is 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which the Magdeburgenses will haue to signifie worship , that is , the act of worshipping , not that which is worshipped , that from thence they may proue , that the Apostle meaneth not that Antichrist will not adore Idols , but that he will depraue the worship of the true God , mayming the Sacraments , or adding vnto them diuers Cerimonies . But certainely 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 signifieth most properly not the act , but the obiect , that is , that which is worshipped , as the Altar , Temple , Idoll &c. For the worship is called 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , not 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Wherfore the same S. Paul . Act. 17. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 &c. Praeteriens & considerans Simulachra vestra , inneni Aram &c. passing by and considering your Idols , I found an Altar &c. Where S. Paul most manifestly by 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , vnderstandeth the things themselues which are worshipped , as the Temples , Altars , Idols &c. And Sapient . 15. we read : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 : Melior est homo idolis quae ipse secit : nam ipse vixit aliquando , illa autem numquam . Man is better then the Idolls which he hath made : for he liued sometime , but they neuer : which place I know not whether any dare so peruert , that he wil deny by the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , the idolls or figures themselues , which are made with mens hands , to be signified , and which seeme to haue life , and yet liue not .

Wherfore all the Grecians , and Erasmus also himselfe ( to whome all the heretikes attribute much ) aswell in his translation , as in his annotations , doth teach , that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 should be translated Numen , Soueraignty , or diuine power and Maiesty . Secondly the words of Daniel cap. 11. are most manifest : Neither will he care for any of the Gods , but will rise against all . Vpon which place S. Hierome writing , sayth : that they cannot be vnderstood of Antiochus , as Porphiry would haue them , because it is manifest that Antiochus adored the Gods of the Greekes , but they are to be vnderstood of Antichrist , who will worship no God .

Lastly , this is the consent of the ancient Fathers . S. Irenaeus lib. 5. He shall lay aside Idols , to perswade that he is God , but he shall extoll himselfe the only Idoll . S. Hippolyt . Serm. de consumm●t . Antichrist will not admit Idolatry . S. Cyril catech. 15. Antichrist will hate Idols . S. Chrysost. vpon this place : He is extolled aboue all that is called God , or Maiesty , for he will not lead to Idolatry . The same teach vpon this place Theophilact , Oecumenius . Theodoretus , who also note very well , that the Diuell doth and will wonderfully play with the children of perdition , for in old time he perswaded , that there were many false Gods , and that diuers Idols were to be worshipped , and by that meanes gained many : But in the time of Antichrist , because he shall see , that by the Doctrine of Christ , Idols are cast in a manner out of the world , and the multitude of false Gods , he will also accuse Idols , and the multitudes of them , and by that meanes will deceaue more yet . By which it appeareth , that the Pope who in the opinion of the Catholikes acknowledgeth God the Father , the Sonne , and the Holy Ghost , and in the opinion of Heretikes adoreth many Idols , can by no meanes be sayd to be Antichrist .

But say they , Daniel cap. 11. affirmeth that the God Maozim shall be worshipped by Antichrist with gold and siluer , and preti●●● stones ; it is answered first by the God Marzint , which is interpreted of strengths , that is most strong , Antichrist himselfe may be vnderstood , for the word venerabitur , will worship , is not in the hebrew jista●a●ch , adorabit , will adore , but jecabbed , glorificabit , will glorify , as Psal. 90. God saith , Eripiam cum & glorificabo cum , I will deliuer him , and glorifie him , in hebrew ●●abbedeh● : and certainely God doth not glorify men , by subiecting himselfe vnto them , but by exalting them . So therfore shall Antichrist glorify himselfe , when he shall cause himself to be adored of all , for which cause the 70. translated it 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and in this sort doth Theodoret expound it : He calleth himselfe the strong and mighty God , for this doth Maozim signify , for he did put ( in this place ) for himselfe . For he will erect Temples to himselfe , and will adorne them with gold , siluer , and pretious stones . Thus Theodoret.

Secondly , it may be said , which I like better , that Antichrist shall be a Sorcerer , and after the manner of other Witches , shall secretly adore the Diuell himselfe , by whose help he shall do wonders , and that he is called the God Maozim : yea I do not thinke that Maozim is the name of a God , but of a ce●aine most fortified and secret place , in which shall be the chiefest treasures of Antichrist , and in which , as we said , he shal adore the Diuell , for it followeth in Daniel : And he shall cause Maozim to be sortified with a stong God , whome he hath knowne . And truely Maoz signifieth both strength , and a castle . In this sort doth Lyranus expound it , and that we must necessarily say , that Antichrist is himselfe the God Maozim , or if it be any other , that he is not to be adored by Antichrist , but in a most hidden place , and secretly from the knowledge of all , the very words of Daniel compel vs , which otherwise should be contrary to themselues : For if he shall care for none of the Gods , how shall he openly worship Idolls ?

Now the two arguments of Illyricus are of no importance , for in the first , he committeth three faults . First in that he affirmeth , that Christ explicateth the words of S. Paul ; wheras rather S. Paul ought to explicate the words of Christ . Secondly , in that he saith , that Matth. 24. To come in the name of Christ , doth signify the same , as to be the Vicar of Christ : For the explication of Christ himselfe , is repugnant to this explication of Illyricus , for when our Lord had sayd : Many will come in my name , forth with he addeth explicating , saying : I am Christ . Wherfore to come in the name of Christ in that place , is to vsurp to themselues the name of Christ , which in old time Simon Magus did , as witnesseth S. Iren. lib. 1. cap. 20. and in our time Dauid Georgius : and at length Antichrist himselfe shall do . But the Pope euen in that he nameth himselfe the Vicar of Christ , doth make himselfe not to be Christ .

Illyricus his third fault is , that he maketh Christ an vnfit interpreter of S. Paul , for he doth not rightly expound that place of S. Paul ( He extolleth himselfe aboue all Gods ) by this ( many will come in my name , that is , will make themselues my Vicars ) for the Vicar of God is not aboue all Gods , but vnder all Gods , as the Vicar of a King , is vnder all Kings , for it cannot be imagined or deuised how he , that professeth himselfe to be the Vicegerent of any King , should boast , that he is aboue all Kings , by which the blindnesse and impudency of our Aduersaries is apparent , who somtime vtter such things as are against common sense .

And to that argument of Illyricus , by which he proued , that the Pope did vsurpe greater authority then Christ hath ; I answere , that the proposition and assumption of that argument , are two lyes , and besides , that the consequence is nothing worth . For first it is false , that Christ subiected himselfe to the Scriptures , since that it is manifest , that he is the Author of the Scriptures , and therfore aboue the Scriptures : and when we read that Christ did those things which he did , that the Scriptures might be fulfilled ▪ that vt , or this , signifyeth not the cause , but the euent , as S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine teach in cap. 12. Ioan. for Christ did not dye because Isay wrote so , but Isay wrote it , because it was to be .

Secondly it is also false , that the Pope euer sayd in word or in dead , that he can dispense against an Euangelist or Apostle , for though he can dispense in the positiue precepts of the Apostles , yet this is not against an Apostle , but according to an Apostle , who doubtles knew , that the Apostolike power , by which he ordained something in the Church for a time , was to be in his successors , by which they might moderate or change the same thinges , as should be expedient for the Church . But in the Euangelicall , that is the diuine percepts , no Catholike euer said , that the Pope could any way dispense .

Finally the consequence is naught , for in the Maior , or Proposition , Illyricus speaketh of the subiection of Christ vnder the Scriptures , not concerning the precepts , but concerning the Prophesies , for Illyricus was not ignorant that Christ had taken away the Sabboath , and abrogated the Ceremoniall Law : & in the Minor or Assumption , he speaketh of precepts ; and so his argument hath foure termes , and can conclude nothing . This shall suffice for the doctrine of Antichrist in this place .

M. Downams Answere confuted .

1. MAISTER Downam beginneth his answere , telling vs , that there are more Doctrines of Antichrist then foure : which Bellarmine denieth not , and therfore this is not to the purpose . Secondly he sayth , that those two doctrines of diuels . 1. Tim. 4. of forbidding marriage , and commanding abstinence frome meats belong also to Antichrist : which Bellarmine will not stick to grant , or at least to let passe , as being nothing against him , or the Pope , as may easily be shewed vpon any good occasion . But now we haue other foure Doctrines in hand , of which M. Downam affirmeth two things . First , that they are not all the doctrines of Antichrist . Secondly , that those which be his Doctrines , do not vnfitly agree to the Pope . Wherfore let vs see how he can make either of these his assertions good , or answere Bellarmines proofes to the contrary .

2. First , then concerning Antichrists deniall of Christ , M. Downam denieth that it shall be openly , directly , and expresly , and telleth vs , that he hath prouided els where that Antichrist was only to deny Christ couertly , indirectely , and by Antichrist shall openly deny Iesus to be Christ . consequent , and that he hath likewise shewed , that the Pope doth so . Concerning which assertions of his , I must craue thus much fauour at the Readers hands , that he will not belieue M. Downam vpon his word , vntill after the discussion of those proofes , he find him to be an honest man , for now this place requireth that we examine how he answereth Bellarmines arguments . To the first of which , M. Downam hath nothing See part. 2. cap. 4. §. 6. 7. 8. See cap. 12. at all to say , if Antichrist shall be by Nation and Religion a Iew. Which point hath byn already discussed , and therfore now the reader is to giue iudgment , whether he shall be so or no , and consequently , whether it be not also manifest by this argument , that Antichrist shall deny Christ plainly and openly .

3. For answere to the second argument , M. Downam denieth , that S. Iohn in that place speaketh either of the body of Antichrist 1. Ioan. 2. in generall , or of the head of that body in particuler , but of Cerinthus and others , which denied the Diuinity of Christ , as appeareth plainly by that which followeth in the text : This is that Antichrist that denieth the Father & the Sonne . But M. Downam might haue remembred how Bellarmine in his second argument obserued , that in some places the article was put in , and in some left out , to signifie when Antichrist himself was spoken of , and when his forerunners or members . Wherfore since the article is put heere , it is euident , that the chiefe Antichrist himself is spoken of . Neither is it to the purpose , that Cerinthus and other denied the Diuinity of Christ , for S. Iohn denieth not , but that others may deny it aswell as Antichrist , but only affirmeth , that he shall deny Iesus to be Christ , and likewise the Diuinity both of Christ and his Father , which others did indirectly and by consequence , as M. Downam confesseth , which seemeth not sufficient for that which S. Iohn sayth : for he speaketh absolutly , and affirmeth , that Antichrist shall deny aswell the Diuinity of the Father , as of Christ . And by this M. Downam may see how he was at least deceaued , §. 1. when he affirmed , that Bellarmine vnderstood this place of denying of Christ , couertly , indirectly , and by consequence . Perhaps when Bellarmine added , that all heretikes are called Antichrists , Downam mistaketh Bellarmin who in some sort deny Iesus to be Christ , M. Downam vnderstood that they were called so in this place . But this is a great mistaking , since in this place Antichrist is with an article : by which Bellarmine gathereth , that Antichrist himselfe is spoken of , as before , where the Apostle saith , that many were become Antichrists , there is no article , and therfore the Apostle speaketh of heretikes . Likewise M. Downam is much out of the way when he inferreth , that because Antichrist shall come in all deceauablenesse of iniquity , as S. Paul affirmeth 2. Thess. 2. therefore he shall not deny Christ openly , for that seduction or deceauablenesse is vnderstood of his How Antichrist shall seduce . subtill and cunning perswasions , and not for any moderation in his errours and blasphemies , which the greater they shal be , the more craft he wil vse to bring men to them , and not only craft , but also all power and lying signes , and wonders , as the Apostle testifieth in the same place : and finally See cap. 7. most grieuous persecution , as we haue seene before . Wherfore no doubt , besides the authority of S. Iohn , Bellarmines inference is very good , from the heretikes to Antichrist himselfe , for he shall exceed them in opposition to Christ Antichrist shall exceed al heretikes . by many degrees : so that since they haue denied Christ couertly , yea some of them openly also , Antichrist shall go as farre and further , then any of them , in this deniall . And though those other comparisons which M. Downam maketh of the parts and points of Christan Doctrine , and likewise in respect of the parties which shall ioyne with him , and finally in the greatnesse of ambition , be also true , if they be rightly vnderstood : for no doubt Antichrist shall surpasse all heretikes in these also , yet this is no proofe , that he shall not exceed them likewise in the greatnes of his errours & blasphemies , which is that , that Bellarmine now only affirmeth , without the deniall of the rest , & hath proued both out of the plaine words of S. Iohn , and likewise a minori ad maius , and thirdly confirmeth it , because the Diuell is said to worke the mystery of iniquity by heretikes , but the comming of Antichrist is called a reuelation . To which M. Downam replieth , that the mystery of iniquity 2. Thess. 2. 7. is Antichristianisme , or that Antichristian Apostasie from Christ , mentioned vers . 3. But first M. See cap. 2. Downam might remember , that Bellarmine in his answere to his third obiection against his second principall argument , sheweth , that the departure or Apostasy mentioned vers. 3 , hath diuers interpretations , and therfore he should not haue taken this as the only . Well we will not stand with him in this , since the exposition is probable , as Bellarmine declareth in that place : but we can by no meanes grant , that the mystery of iniquity , and this Apostasy is all one , since that ( as we haue shewed before ) S. Paul himselfe doth euidently See cap. 2. §. 6. The mystery of iniquity , & the reuelation of Antichrist & the Apostasy be not alone . distingish them , affirming , that the Apostasy was not come in his time , but that the mystery of iniquity did them worke . And in like manner also he distinguisheth the reuelation of Antichrist , for of that he likewise sayth , that it was to be afterward , wherfore I cannot see how M. Downam can affirme , that the mystery of iniquity doth most truely belong to Antichrist himselfe , vnlesse he would also graunt , that Antichrist himselfe was come in S. Pauls time , which I think he will be loth to do , because if will euidently follow , that either the Pope is not Antichrist himselfe , or els that S. Peter and S. Paul , or whosoeuer els he will make Bishop of Rome in S. Pauls time , was Antichrist . Wherfore since Antichrist himselfe was not come at that time , it is also euident , that S. Paul signified his coming by his reuealing , because the iniquity which was couered with a mystery before his comming , shall be plainely reuealed and auouched by him , which is all that Bellarmine needeth for the force of his argument , for now we talke not of the time , or manner of this reuelation , hauing done that sufficiently in other places . But M. Downam must needs say something , though it be nothing at all to the purpose .

4. M. Downam will needs deuide Bellarmines position into two parts , of the former of which we haue treated hitherto : the latter is , that Antichrist shall impugne all the ordinances of Christ , & teach that Circumcision , the Sabbaoth , and the other cerimonies of the law are not ceased . This is Bellarmines assertion , and not as M. Downam setteth it downe , changing a word or two which may seeme to import nothing : but yet M. Downam had a meaning in it , as we shall see afterward . Now the latter dependeth so vpon the former part , that Bellarmine bringeth no particuler proofes for it , as indeed he need not , since it was but an explication of the former ; & yet M. Downam will needs haue him proue Downam his trifling the latter by the former , and by the first argument with which he proued the former , which is nothing but meere trifeling , and to giue himselfe an occasion to make an idle repetition of part of that , which he had said before . Wherfore omitting this , let vs see , how he answereth the Fathers .

To which first in generall he giueth this censure , that in this question they descrue no further credit , then they conspire with the Prophesies of Scripture , and agree with the euent . Both which latter you must giue M. Downam liberty to interpret and declare as he thinketh good . And besides I would faine know , what questions those be , in which M. Downam will giue the Fathers credit , without this , or the like limitations ? Well the censure presupposed , M. Downam is content for this time to vouchsafe euery Father his particuler answere , and first to S. Hilary he saith , that he calleth those heretikes , who deny Christ to Antichrist shall deny Christ to be so much as the adopted Sonne of God . be the naturall Sonne of God , Antichrist . And is not this a trim answere trow you ? Because those heretikes are called Antichrists , that is the forerunners of Antichrist , therfore S. Hilary saith not , that Antichrist himselfe shall deny Christ to be the adoptiue Sonne of God , as though he could not say both the one and the other . But this is M. Downams acumen , to find a difficulty where there is none , and not to see nor vnderstand the plaine words which lye before his eyes . S. Hilary . For thus writeth S. Hilary : Loquitur haec interim , loquitur planè per aduentus sui Prophetas & prae●io● ipse ille qui postea erit in Antichristo loquuturus , salutarem fidei confessionem his tentamentis nouis inquietās , vt primum conscientiae nostrae , quaita credimus , intelligentiam filij naturalis euellat : deinde ipsum illud quod adoptiuus erit , reliquum nomen excludat . Nam cum quibus creatura est Christus , necesse est , vt cum his Antichristus ipse sit Christus , quia & filij proprietatem creatura non habeat , & Deise ille filium mentiatur , & per hoc àquibus hic Dei filius iam negatur , ab his tunc Christus ille credatur . He speaketh these things in the meane time : he doubtlesse himselfe speaketh them by the prophets and forerunners of his comming , who will hereafter speake in Antichrist , disquieting the wholsome confession of Faith with these new tentations , that first he may pull out of our conscience the vnderstanding of the naturall Sonne , with which we belieue so , and after exclude the very name of Adoptius , which shall remaine . For those who thinke Christ to be a creature , must needes also take Antichrist to be Christ , because a creature hath not the propriety of a sonne , and he doth falsly affirme himselfe to be the Sonne of God : and therfore they who deny this Sonne of God now , wil belieue him to be Christ then . Where we see , that S. Hilary doth not only affirme , that Antichrist will deny , that Christ is so much as the Adopted Sonne of God , but also that he shall affirme himselfe to be Christ , and the Sonne of God , and be acknowledged to be so by his followers . To S. Hippolytus he sayth plainely , that his authority is S. Hippolytus . counterfaite , which is the least part of M. Downams impudency , to reiect whome he pleaseth without either reason , or any other authority then his owne : yet he is content to answere the place obiected by Bellarmine , by telling him , that he hath reiected it himselfe before , which wanteth not impudency , but yet hath some subtilty mixed withall : For Bellarmine indeed did thinke it more probable , that the marke of Antichrist , which is but one , shall be positiue , then priuatiue : which is not altogeather so much , as to reiect the opinion of S. Hippolytus , who thinketh that it shal be priuatiue , but only to thinke another more probable : But the cosening tricke consisteth not in this . Now there is no question of the marke of Antichrist , but only of his Doctrine , and to this end is S. Hippolytus alleadged now , that he shall inforce men to renownce their Baptisme , & the signe of the Crosse . This Bellarmine neuer reiected , but is fully of S. Hippolytus his mind , thus farre only they differ , whether Antichrist shall haue any other marke besides this , or no , for that he shall teach this doctrine they both agree , by which M. Downams vizard is pulled of . To the authority of S. Augustine M. Downam answereth , that he speaketh 〈◊〉 of Antichrist , but of the Diuell , but he should haue added , that he speaketh of the diuell in S. Augustine . Antichrists tyme , as he doth most plainely , by which it is euident , that Antichrist who shall be his chiefe instrument for all wickednes , shall ioyne with him in this also , which Bellarmine doth not affirme , that S. Augustine expresly sayth , but only that he presupposeth it , which is most manifest . S. Hierome he taketh vp more roundly telling him , that he is neither Prophet , nor true expositor of this Prophesy of Daniel ; S. Hierome for both which he giveth vs his owne honest word , and remitteth vs also to Polan on Daniel 11. But M. Downam must pardon vs , if we take S. Hierome to be the honester man of the two , and as for M. Polan , we haue now no spare time to loofe in perusing him , it being sufficient for Bellarmine , and vs also , that S. Hierome is cleare for vs . Sedulius must also be Sedulius . Antichrist shall restore all the Iewish cerimonies . content to be tould , that his speach is incredible , because many of the Iewish cerimonies cannot be obserued , but in the Temple , which shall neuer be reedified . But the best is , that Sedulius hath al those of his side , against M. Downams reason , which thinke , that the Temple shall be reedified , with whome he may be very well content to take this repulse at M. Downams hands , yet he hath thus much fauour shewed him , that if he will change ( all ) into ( many ) his opinion shall be admitted , because in M. Downams iudgment , so it may be verified of the Pope , and of some other heretikes . But Sedulius is not a whit moued with this faire offer , but still affirmeth that Antichrist shall restore all the Iewes Ceremonies , as one that will be taken for their Messias , and he may confirme his assertion , by that which M. Downam bringeth of some heretikes who are his forerunners , and therfore participate with him in some part of his wickednes : but the Pope is his chiefest opposite , and therfore neuer admitted any the least ceremony of the Iewes , though he vseth some , which are like to them , as that which is figured , ought to be to the figure and signe therof . S. Gregory Antichrist shall cause the Sabbaoth to be obserued . Lastly to S. Gregory , M. Downam affirmeth that he teacheth , that Antichrist shall not only admit the Sabbaoth , but also the Lords Day : which is indeed very probable , for it will be hard for him to make so vniuersall a change vpon the suddaine , and therfore that he may please all , he will be content to winke at something . But what is this against that which Bellarmine affirmed ? Doth not S. Gregory affirme , that Antichrist will haue the Sabbaoth obserued ? And this is all that Bellarmine alleageth him for , who neuer affirmed , that Antichrist should abolish all the ordinances of Christ , as M. Downam alleadgeth his words , but only that he should impugne them , which may very well stand with his commanding our Lords day to be obserued , at least for a while , and at his first comming , for other respects , but not for any loue he shall beare to Christ , or any liking he will haue of his ordinances , which is also manifestly S. Gregoryes mind , for he giueth this reason , why Antichrist shall keepe Dominicum diem , quia morise , & resurgere simula● : because he faigneth himselfe to dye and rise againe . But for the Sabbaoth he giueth another farre different , viz. because he shall ●ompell the people to Iudaize &c.

5. To Bellarmines last confirmation , from the vehemency of Antichrists persecution , which shall cause the publique Offices and the diuine Sacrifices to cease , M. Downam answereth with a distinction , that if he meaneth the true publique worship of God , it hath ceased already in the Papacy , by the vehemency of the Popes persecution , who yet is no open enemy of Christ , where by the true worship of God , you may easily conceaue , that he meaneth that of Protestants : though he cannot shew vs , that euer it was before Luthers time , or name vs one , who felt this vehement persecution for that cause , well he may tell vs of some of their brethren ( for all heretikes will be brethren , because they agree at least in one point , that is The Pope suppresseth heretikes as Antichrist shall oppresse Catholikes . in impugning Gods Church ) whome the Pope hath suppressed , for it is his office to suppresse them , as Antichrist shall endeauour to suppresse him , and all that adhere vnto him for Christs cause , whom he shal chiefly oppose himself vnto . Neither is the other part of M. Downams distinction necessary , for all false worshippers shall ioyne themselues to Antichrist , and help him in the persecution of the others , and if M. Downam remembreth , in the place which Bellarmin alleadged , he shewed , that Antichrist shall make the daily sacrifice of the Church to cease , which cannot be vnderstood See cap. 7. of the Protestants , but of the Catholike Roman Church : but since both Bellarmine and M. Downam remit themselues to that which they haue sayd before , I will do so likewise , only I will require the Reader to note by the way , that M. Downam Downam mistaketh Bellarmin is at least mistaken in this place , if not worse , for he maketh this of the ceasing of the publike offices , and the diuine Sacrifices to be a new argument to proue , that Antichrist shall openly deny Christ , and abolish all his ordinances , wheras Bellarmine neuer meant any such matter , but only hauing proued by the Fathers , that Antichrist shall deny Christ , impugne Baptisme , seeke to dissolue the Ghospell of Christ , teach that the Sabbaoth and other cerimonies of the Iewes are not ceased , because he would auoyd prolixity , be remitteth himselfe to his former proofes , that he shall likewise cause the publike offices and the diuine sacrifices to cease : so that M. Downam might aswell haue made a new argument of euery one of the Fathers Authorities , as of this . But I will not charge him with malice in this place , except it may be attributed rather to malice then to simplicity , that he was so blind , of which I am content he shall haue his choice . But surely the one of them he cannot auoid , as appeareth by that which I haue sayd , and also by Bellarmines conclusion which followeth immediatly , Ex quibus euidens est &c. By which it is euident &c. For that ( quibus ) cannot be referred to the last clause only , but to the whole induction out of the Fathers , as is manifest , and this is alway Bellarmines vse , to make the authority of the Fathers one argument .

6. And thus we may come to the second doctrine , for that which M. Downam sayth concerning Bellarmines assumption , Downam speaketh from the purpose . is neither to the purpose , but only so farre , as it includeth the deniall of the proposition ; nor belongeth to this place , but to another , to which he remitteth himselfe , and so the Reader must haue patience till we come thither . See part . 2. §. 6. 7. 8.

7. Now then concerning the second doctrine , M. Downam denyeth , that Antichrist will openly , and in so many words expresly affirme , that he is the Christ or Messias of the world , for Antichrist wil openly affirme himself to be Christ . which he remitteth himselfe to his former proofes , touching only two . 1. That his Religion is a mystery of iniquity , which as a little before we shewed , it is to be vnderstood of the heretikes , and cannot be applied to Antichrist himselfe . 2. Because he could not seduce so many Christians , if he should plainely professe himselfe Christ . But we see the contrary of this in the Turkes , The Turks inferiour to Antichrist who notwithstanding are nothing comparable to Antichrist , either in craft , wonders , or violence , besides the ill disposition , which he shall find in most Christians at that time . Hauing thus eased his stomake a little M. Downam commeth to answere Bellarmines proofe out of the Scripture , referring Ioan. 5. himselfe to his former answere , to this place in Bellarmines second argument , where he said , that Christ spake conditionally , if another shall come , and indefinitly of See cap. 2. any false Prophet . But there also I shewed the contrary of both , as also , that Antichrist is to come in his owne name , and to professe so much , which other false prophets vse not to do . For as our Sauiour did not only come indeed , but also professed himselfe to come in the name of his Father : so likewise Antichrist shall not only come indeed , but also professe himselfe to come in his owne name . And if our Sauiour were to be vnderstood of all false prophets indefinitely , Our Sauiours words not true in M. Downam his opinion his speach were not true ( which me thinkes M. Downam should be afraid to affirme ) for it is euident by experience , that many false prophets haue come since that time , few or none of which the Iewes , or the greatest part of them haue receaued , wheras by his interpretation , they should haue receaued them all , and aboue all the Pope , whome M. Downam will needs haue to be Antichrist himselfe , whom notwithstanding they are so farre from receauing , that they hate him aboue all other men , and accompt him their greatest enemy , as we haue seene , and experience teacheth .

To the Fathers in this place , he vouchsafeth no answere at all , but reiecteth them absolutly , because they were no prophets , and spake without booke . This is the impudency of this fellow , that al they must of force speake without-book , that interpret Scripture against his fond fancy : But we make no doubt , but that God hath giuen the interpretation of Scripture to his Church , and the Doctors therof , which by all reason we are to acknowleadg these holy Fathers to be , since they came not without calling and commission , as M. Downam and his fellow Ministers , and all other heretikes do . Neither can he help himselfe by flying to Bellarmine for aide , for no man reuerenceth the Fathers more then he , and it is false that he euer gaue any such rule , that we are not to Bellarmin reuerenceth the Fathers . giue credit to any such coniectures of the Fathers , as haue no ground in the word of God : For who shall be Iudge of this ? How farre he admitted the opinion of those twelue Fathers who affirmed that Antichrist as to be of the Tribe of Dan. we shew in that place , and it was , that he tooke it to be very probable , See cap. 12. though not altogeather certaine , because the most of them tooke it not to be so ; and besides they were deuided in the exposition of those places of Scripture , some of them following the litterall sense , and some the mysticall . But here is no such diuision , all agreeing both in the exposition of Scripture , and also in the assertion it selfe .

8. And thus we are to passe to the third doctrine : For that which M. Downam sayth concerning the assumption , is nothing but a little tast of his gift in railing against the Pope , in which he is so expert , that he cannot hould his babling , though it be nothing at all to the purpose , as in this place he himselfe confesseth that it is not , for he goeth only about to shew , that the Pope indirectly , and by consequent maketh himselfe Christ . Which if it were true , would only proue him to be an heretike , or a false prophet , but not Antichrist himselfe , of whome only we speake in this place . But how false all this impudent calumniation of our chiefe Pastour is , shall appeare in due place , to which See part. 2. cap. ● . also M. Downam remitteth himselfe for his proofes .

9. Concerning the third doctrine , M. Downam denieth , that it is necessary , that Antichrist should in word , plainely and openly professe himselfe to be God , & to the place of S. Paul he sayth , that the meaning is , that Antichrist shall rule & raigne in the Church 2. Thess. 2. of God , as if he were a God vpon earth , shewing himselfe , not so much by words a● by deeds , that he is a God , and to mantaine this his exposition , Antichrist shall openly name himselfe God . he is content to helpe himself with the translation of the Rhemish , and of the Latin vulgar edition , who read tamquam fit Deus as though he were God : and likwise with the exposition of S. Chrysostome , Theophilact , and Oecumenius , whose words he putteth downe , first in Greeke , and after in English thus : He sayth shewing himselfe , he sayd not saying , bu● endeauouring to shew for he shall worke great works , and shall shew forth wonderfull signes . Finally , he bringeth the authority of Beza , who obserueth that the greeke word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , shewing , is answerable to the Hebrew Mozeh , faciensse apparere , praese ferens , or as we say ( saith M. Downam ) taking vpon him as if he were God . All which maketh nothing at all against Bellarmine , but addeth this more , that he shall not only say that he is God , by which he would not be able to seduce many , but shall likewise giue great shews therof , insomuch that if it were possible , the very elect should be seduced by him . But M. Downams deuice is by telling vs , that he shall endeauour to shew himselfe to be God by works and wonders , to make vs belieue , that he shall not be so shameles as to say plainly that he is God , which is a very strange conceipt , if you marke it well , for he confesseth , that by his actions he shall come to be acknowledged , saluted , and called God , that he shall cause , or at least , suffer himselfe to be worshipped as God , and finally , that he shall challenge vnto himselfe those titles , attributes , and workes which are proper , and peculier vnto the Lord , and yet hauing done all this M. Downam wil by no meanes grant , that he shall name himself M. Downans strange paradox . God . Is not this a strange paradox ? & yet M. Downam will de fend it , though it be neuer so absurde , only for this cause , that he can make a florish amongst fooles , as though the Pope did all this , but that the Pope calleth himselfe God , he can by no deuice make it carry any colour . This is the cause why Bellarmine is constrained to stand so much vpon the name , so that he may leaue his aduersaries no starting-hole at all . And this he manifestly proueth out of the text it selfe ; for S. Paul expresseth , that Antichrist shall sit in the Why and how Antichrist shall sit in the Temple . Temple , not as others do , but as God , for if he would not be accompted and adored as God , he might as well sit in another place as in the Temple , but because that is his end , he choseth to sit in the temple , as in a place proper to his dignity , for as the Throne is proper to a King , so is a Temple proper to God , and this is plaine in the greeke , which hath shewing himselfe that he is God . Against this M. Downam taketh many exceptions . 1. That the Temple signifieth not the materiall See cap. 13 Temple at Hierusalem , of which we haue treated before . 2. That by fitting , is not meant the corporall gesture of sitting in Apoc. 17. that materiall Temple . But how chance he did not answere Bellarmines proofes to the contrary ? for he shewed that all the Fathers without controuersy vnderstood it so , & the words themselues are plaine . 3. That the Temple is not to be erected to Antichrists honour , since it is called the Temple of God . This Bellarmine affirmed not , for the Temple shall be erected in the beginning , when Antichrist shall only discouer himselfe to be the Messias , which when he hath obtayned , then he shall affirme , that he is their God himselfe , and consequently that it belongeth to him to sit in that Temple , and to be adored as God , wherfore the Temple may very well be called the Temple of God , because it shall be erected to him , & yet afterward Antichrist may sit in it as God . And besides S. Paul calleth it the Temple of God , because it was so in Why the Temple that Antichrist shall sit in is called the Temple of God . his time . 4. That the greeke text hath not only 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , but also 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , by which he hurteth Bellarmine sorely , for it is manifest , that this maketh his assertion & proofs much more plaine , since that the same thing is affirmed heere , and he speaketh only of the last words , which by the latin might seeme to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , but is indeed 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as Bellarmine affirmeth . Wherefore none of those foure deuices will serue the turne , and Bellarmines argument is inuincible , that Antichrist shall plainely professe himselfe to be God .

10. The authorities of the Fathers are so plaine , that M. Downam could not deuise what to say to them , for they Downam omitteth Bellarmines argument . expound a place of Scripture , and therfore he could not reiect them vnder pretence of want of Scripture , wherfore ●e thought it his best neuer to make mention of them , hoping perhaps that his reader would neuer misse them . And thus he commeth to the Assumption , which is , that the Pope acknowledgeth himselfe to be the seruant of God , and not God . To which he answereth , that Bellarmine might as well conclude , that the Pope neuer calleth himselfe , Regem Regum terrae ▪ ac Dominum Dominorum , the King of the Kings of the earth , and Lord of Lords , because he acknowledgeth himselfe Seruum seruorum Dei , the Seruant of Gods seruants . As though Bellarmine went about to conclude any thing now , and did not only set downe his Assumption in plaine words , which containe two things . 1. That the Pope acknowledgeth himselfe to be the seruant of God . 2. Nor God : either of which M. Downam should haue proued to be otherwise , if he would haue sayd any See part. 2. cap. 5. Downam speaketh from the purpose . thing to the purpose , for whether the Pope may be called Rex Regum &c. or no , we shall see in another place , where M. Downam will spit out all his venome at once . Now it is sufficient , that the Pope doth not plainely professe himselfe God , as Antichrist shall do , & consequently he is not Antichrist , which is al we go about to proue now . In that other place we will also shew , how falsly and slaunderously M. Downam affirmeth , that the Pope taketh any authority vpon him , that belongeth to God , or that in practice , deed , or behauiour , he vseth himselfe , as if he were a God . Now also his beast of the Apocalyps commeth so out of place , that I will not stand to proue , that by him not Antichrist , See cap. 15. §. 10. but his false Prophet is described , which I haue heretofore shewed in part , and will heerafter declare more at large .

11. M. Downam stormeth more at the fourth doctrine then at the rest , calling it an absurd conceipt of the Papists , and affirming that it is not only repugnant vnto the truth , but also contradictory to their owne Doctrine , in proofe wherof he asketh many Antichrist wil suffer no other God beside himselfe . questions : If it be credible either that a mortall man shall affirme himselfe alone to be the true God , and none but he ? or if he shall so affirme of himselfe , that Christians and Iewes , and all the world almost will acknowledg and worship him , as the only true God ? To which I answere , that it is not only credible , but also certaine . And the difficulty which M. Downam putteth , is none at all , for there can be no doubt made , but that a mortall man may A mortall man , may be truely God . be true God , for so our Sauiour was while he liued vpon earth , and now we see the whole Christian world perswaded of this truth , though our Sauiours conuersation vpon earth was so contrary to flesh & bloud , that it was a scandall to the Iewes , and folly in eyes of the Gentiles : wheras Antichrist will follow the humours of both , seeming glorious in the eyes of world , and wonderfull in lying and deceiptfull signes , and myracles , and with all giue such liberty to his followers , that they will make no difficulty in belieuing any thing he sayth . 2. He obiecteth , that the Antichristian seate is figured by the whore of Babylon , Apoc. 17. which togeather with Apoc. 17. her followers are giuen to Idolatry . But M. Downam knoweth that Bellarmine denieth , that Rome figured by that whore , is the seate of Antichrist , and likewise , that those Idolatries are to be in Antichrists time , but are long since post , when Rome was Ethnike , both which he proued before , and M. See , cap. 12. Downam either would not or could not answere to either then and now he only affirmeth the contrary , which is no sufficient proofe . 3. The Papists themselues expound Deut. 11. 38. where Antiochus Epiphanes i● discribed as an Idolater , as properly spoken of Antichrist : where the Printer surely committed an errour , though it be not noted amongst the falts escaped , for in Deut. 11. there is nothing that can be applyed to Antiochus , and only 32. verses : wherfore no doubt , M. Downam meaneth Dan. 11. Dan. 11. 38. where he speaketh of the God Maozim : but this place Bellarmine handleth at large a little after , wherfore I will intreat M. Downam , and the Reader also to ●●ay for a further answere , till we come to examine M. Downams reply to Bellarmines answere concerning that place . 4. He asketh this question , Do not themselues teach that Antichrist shall professe himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes , and consequently that he is sent , and annoynted of God ? To which I answere that we teach indeed , that he shall professe himselfe to be the Messias of the Iewes , but the consequent we teach not , for he shall come in his owne name , and not sent or annoynted by God , and this he will professe also , if not in the beginning , yet at least after a while , and by this M. Downams next question is also answered , for since he shall professe himselfe not sent by God , he may say that there is no God besides himselfe . 5. Or if he being but a mortall man , shall say that there is no God besides himselfe , may we not well thinke ( saith M. Downam ) that they will either hisse at him as a foole or stone him to death as a blasphemer : for answere of which I will spurre M. Downam another question . Are you so simple Syr as to thinke , that Antichrist will only say , that there is no God besides himselfe , or that he will discouer himselfe so farre , till he see himselfe so applauded , that he may say what he listeth without any feare at all , of either being hissed or stoned ? and for that obiection of mortality it is already answered ; that it may stand with the Godhead , and besides Antichrist will make a faire shew of either raising another , or himself from death to life , which will take away this obiection them at heast , if any stand vpon it at that time , so much as M. Downam doth at this . 6. Nay , do not themselues teach , that he shall be in religion ● Iew , an obseruer of the Sabbaoth In Dan. ●● and other Iewish Cerimonies ? And do they not alleadg Hierome to proue , that Antichrist shall faigne himselfe to be the chiefe of the Couenant , and a chiefe mantainer of the Law and Testament of God ? To all which I answere , that we do so , for he shall not professe himselfe to be any other God , then the God of the Iewes , and consequently shall approue their law . 7. Lastly he poseth vs thus : Are not his two hornes like the lambe expounded by some approued Authers among them , of the two Testaments which he shall seeme to professe ? In Apoc. 13. To which I answere , that M. Downam might haue done wel , to haue named these approued authors , for commonly Catholike authors thinke not , that this beast with two horne like a lambe , is to be vnderstood of Antichrist , but of his precursor or false prophet , whom S. Irenaeus calleth Armigerum , by whose two hornes are signified his power in perswading , and in working prodigious and strange things . If any expound them of the two testaments , they can haue no other true sense , but that he shall professe great knowledg in both , to establish the old , and impugne the new , that so he may preuaile with them the better which are l●ath to forsake Christ , for the authority of the Scriptures .

12. Now that M. Downam hath disgorged his owne proofes , he is content to answere those of Bellarmin . And first concerning 2. Thess. 2. he leaueth his brethren the Magdeburgians 2. Thess 2. Downam cannot defend the Magdeburgenses . in the plaine field , neuer so much as opening his lips in their defence , wherin he seemeth to acknowledge , that Bellarmine confuted them throughly : wherfore admitting , that the place is wel explicated , he denieth the consequence . For ( sayth he ) Antichrist may aduance himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped and yet suffer ●ea require them to be worshipped . In proofe wherof he bringeth three instances . 1. Iupiter was supposted amongst the Heathens to aduance himselfe aboue all other Gods , and yet suffered them to be worshipped as Gods . 2. The second beast , Apoc. 1● . doth the like with the Image of the former beast . Apoc 1● . 3. The Pope also aduanceth himselfe aboue Angells Kings ▪ and Princes , who are called Gods , aboue the Saints , the Host , the Crosse and whatsoeuer 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is in the Church of Rome .

But M. Downam is much mistaken in the matter : for Antichrist shall not only extoll himselfe aboue all other Gods ; but oppose himselfe against them all , for so S. Paul Antichrist shall not extoll him self aboue all other Gods , but also oppose himself against them all . sayth : Qui aduersatur & extollitur , who is opposed and extolled . Now how this aduancing and opposing himselfe can stand with suffering , yea requiring them to be worshipped as God , wil be very hard for M. Downam , or any other to explicate . Iupiter was supposed by the Gentiles to be the Father and King of the other Gods , but likewise he was supposed to loue them , as his children and seruants , and not to oppose himselfe vnto them . The other two instances are both false and foolish , for that second beast is not Antichrist , as M. Downam supposeth , nor yet aduanceth himself aboue the former , Iupiter . by which indeed Antichrist is signified , and not the renowned Empire . The Pope aduanceth not himselfe aboue the Angels , Saints , the Host , the Crosse &c. as M. Downam Downam belyeth the Pope . belieth him : He is indeed the Pastour and the Bishop of KIngs aswell as of others , and in that respect preferred before them by Christ himselfe . But what hindrance is this that he may not command Princes to be honored and obeied by their subiects , as he doth ? Or what haue any of these comparisons to do with the odoration of God , as God , which he that is opposite and extolled aboue all them , that take that name vpon them , should suffer or require it to be giuen to others ? And besides it is plaine , that this opposition and aduancement of Antichrist aboue all other Gods , shall be for no other cause , but because they are called Gods , for if the cause were particuler , the quarrell would not be so general . As if it should be true of any King , that he opposeth and aduanceth himself aboue al that are called Kings , it were euident , that his quarrel against them were no other , then for that they were Kings , and were to called , and it were manifestly Why Antichrist aduanceth and opposeth him self aboue all other Gods . against his will , that any other King should raigne , or be acknowledged for a King but himselfe , and he would be far inough from suffering , yea requiring , that any of them should be worshipped , and further also from acknowledging , or worshipping any of them himselfe for King . Secondly M. Downam confirmeth this his answere by the example of Antiochus Epiphanes , who aduanceth himselfe against euery God , yea against the God of Gods , Dan. 11. 56. and yet he was neuer Antioch ' an Idolatour . so mad , as to professe himselfe the only God . But to this the answere is easy , that this place cannot be vnderstood of Antiochus , but only of Antichrist , as S. Hierome sheweth for this very reason , that Antiochus did not aduance himselfe against euery God , for he was a great Idolater himselfe . Thirdly M. Downam supposeth , that he hath proued Antichristianisme not to be open Atheisme , but a mystery of iniquity &c. But we proued before , that it cannot be the mystery of iniquity , & yet it shall not Antichristianisme is not Atheisme . properly be Atheisme , since those which follow Antichrist shall take him for their God , and he himselfe , though openly he will worship no God , because he will professe himselfe to be God himsefe , yet secretly it is not vnprobable , that he will adore the Diuell as his God . Fourthly M. Downam argueth out of the text it selfe , which he sayth , doth not ascribe to Antichrist so great an extolling of himselfe , as the Iesuite imagineth : first , because , he is called a man of sinne , and Sonne of perdition , and therefore we are to conceaue of such an aduancement of himselfe , as is incident to a mortall and wretched man . But to this of the mortality , I haue answered sufficiently before , and the words of the text rather giue vs occasion to increase , then any way to diminish Antichrists sinne , since that he is called Antonomasticè 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , ille home peccati and filius ille perditionis : that man of sinne , and that sonne of perdition . Antichrist shall commit the greatest sins , when he cannot all . Which giueth vs iust occasion to thinke , that there shall be no sinne nor perdition possible for any man to run into , from which Antichrist shall be free , or rather because some sins be contrary one to the other , that he shall fall into the depth of them all by imbracing the greatest , when he cannot all . Secondly , by al that is called God in this place , M. Downam will haue vs to vnderstand all to whome the name of God is communicated , as to Angels in Heauen , to Kings and Princes on earth , and of this aduancing aboue Kings he would haue this place vnderstood , because afterward it is said , that the Roman Empire hindered Antichrists aduancing or reuealing himselfe , and by 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , he would haue vs to vnderstand any thing that is worshipped as God , or wherin God is worshipped : Such in the Church of Rome ( saith he ) are the Host , the Crosse , the Saints , and their Images and reliques . Aboue all which ( he thinketh ) that a man may aduance himselfe ( as the Pope doth ) and yet may acknowledg some other God besides himselfe But to How the Pope may be called God . answere briefly , though it be true , that Kings &c. and consequently the Pope also may be called God in some sort , yet M. Downam will neuer be able to proue , that God himselfe is also called God ; and likewise the false Gods : wherfore S. Paul must needs comprehend these also vnder all that ●● called God . And M. Downams proofe is very weake , that , because the Roman Empire is sayd to hinder Antichriste reuealing , therfore he shall only aduance himselfe aboue it , for though it be true , that he cannot aduance himselfe till he be reuealed , yet afterward he may and shall , not only aboue the Roman Empire ( for that he did at his reuealing ) but aboue all that is called God , as S. Paul affirmeth . His interpretation of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 we admit , but deny , that those things which he recounteth , are adored in the Church of Rome as God , or that the Pope aduanceth himselfe aboue them , neither of which he wil be euer able to proue , as shall appeare , when Downam belyeth the Pope & church of Rome . he goeth about it . Lastly M. Downam affirmeth , that the greatest height of pride , that is incident to any creature whatsoeuer , is not to seek to be aboue God , for that cannot be imagined , but to be as God . And indeed ( sayth he ) the height of Antichrist his pride and aduanc●●g of himselfe , is noted in the words following , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , insomuch , that be shall fit in the Temple of God , as God . In which words , M. Downam affirmeth the quite contrary to that , which S. Paul sayth , for his words are plaine , that Antichrist shall oppose and extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God . And this may very easily be imagined if we speake of one , that either belieueth not , that there is any true God , or els i● he belieueth it , and consequently in his hart cannot extoll himsel●e aboue him , yet he may desire to vsurpe the honour due to How Antichrist may extol himselfe aboue God . him , to himselfe , and to this end professe himselfe to be the only true God ; and to this intent sit in the Temple , as he , to whome it ought to be erected , and so shew that he is God , which is indeed the height of Antichrists pride , since he cannot desire any more , then to be a compted and adored as if he were the only true God , which cannot be , vnlesse he be extolled aboue the true God , and the false also . Dan. 11.

13. To the second testimony out of Dan. 11. M. Downam answereth two things : First , that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist , in proofe wherof he alledgeth Bellarmine himselfe , who in this very booke cap. 21. affirmeth , that in part of this very verse , Daniel speaketh ad litteram , litterally of Antiochus , who was a figure of Antichrist . To which I answere , that he doth so indeed , and yet these words which he alleadgeth heere cannot be vnderstood of Antiochus , as S. Hierome affirmeth , and proueth against wicked Porphyry , with whome M. Downam will needs partake . And if M. Downam will know the reason of both , it is this : Daniel in the same words prophesieth both of Antiochus , and of Antichrist , but with this distinction , that where the words will beare it , they are litterally first to be vnderstood of Antiochus , and secondly of Antichrist , who in many things is rather figured , then expressly prophesied of , but when we meet with words , that can by no meanes be litterally applied to Antiochus , then of forc● we must vnderstand then litterally also of Antichrist : of this sort there be many in this chapter of Daniel , and the next , amongst which , in the Fathers iudgment , these are to be numbred , as also they most euidently proue , and none but Porphyry , and such Infidels , or heretikes can deny . Those other When the Scripture is litterally to be vnderstod of the figure and when of the thing figured . words which Bellarmine speaketh of cap. 21. may be applyed to Antiochus , and consequently are litterally to be vnderstood of him . And this is no peculiar thing to this place of Scripture , but ordinary in all prophesies of Christ , which for the most part are still mingled with some other figure of him , to which many sentences are to be applyed ad litteram , but not all : and the signe when they are , & when they are not to be applyed to the figure , is , when they containe somthing , which can , or cannot be verifyed but of Christ : & to giue M. Downam one example , he may at his leasure peruse the 71. Psalme , in which Salomon , and our Sauiour are spoken of , and all that can be applied to Salomon , is litterally Psalm. 71. to be vnderstood of him , but somethings cannot , as that his Kingdome or name shall remaine cum sole & ante luna● , or that he should rule à flumine , vsque ad termines orbi● terrarum , that all Kings shall adore him , and all Nations shall serue him : that all the Tribes of the earth should be blessed in him , and the like , of which see S. Augustine lib. 17. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 8. sub med . The second part of M. Downams answere consisteth in prouing , that Antiochus was an Idolater . But of this no man doubteth , and because this is so certaine , therfore it is also out of question among all truly wise and learned men , that the words alleadged by Bellarmine , cannot be vnderstood of Antiochus , but only of Antichrist .

14. Wherfore M. Downam commeth to the obiection which Bellarmine made out of the next verse against himselfe , and insteed of replying vpon Bellarmines answere , M. Downam will needs answere also . Wherfore let vs see this answe●e of an answere . I answere first ( sayth M. Downam ) that although either of his interpretations of the God Maozim were true ( as neither is ) yet the one hindreth not , and the other proueth , that he which ●● heere described , is an Idolater : for let the word Maozim signify what it may , yet the words following plainely conuince the party heere described of Idolatry , The God which his Fathers knew not , he shall worship with gold . But let M. Downam apply either of Bellarmins solutions to this place , & he shal see that it proueth nothing at all . For if by this God which his Fathers knew not , be meant Antichrist himselfe , then he shal only honour , & not properly adore Antichrist shal honor or worship but one God . himselfe as God . If the Diuell be vnderstood ( which is the second solution ) then he shall only adore him secretly & not publikely ; by which the second part of M. Downams obiection is also taken away , for though the word Maozim did signity a false God , yet in those which follow , the idolatry is not increased , but further explicated , for then by the God Maozim , and by the God which his Fathers knew not , is meant only the same false God : and the manner how he is to be worshipped , is shewed , viz. with gold &c. By which also M. Downam may see , how falsly he chargeth Bellarmine with omitting this second clause , for Bellarmine before alleadgeth §. 13. the whose place with both clauses , and now he alleadgeth not the words of Daniel verbatim , but only taketh the sense , which M. Downams brethren obiected against vs , who were not so shamelesse or foolish , as M. Downam is , to affirme , that Daniel speaketh of two Gods , which Antichrist shall adore , for they knew well inough , that it is an ordinary thing in Scripture , to repeat the same thing in diuers words , especially with a little addition in the later , and in this place they also knew , that all interpreters agreed , that only one God was spoken of , and that the Scripture could not be vnderstood otherwise without too apparent a contradiction . And finally , M. Downam may aswell inferre a third God out of that which followeth , as two out of this place . But M. Downam goeth forward and telleth vs , that Mahuzzim signifyeth the true God , which is most absurd , Maozim signifieth not the true God . since it is certaine that Antiochus , of whome he vnderstandeth the place , neuer adored the true God , and Kemnitius and his other brethren the Lutherans , are farre from this sense , since they obiect this place against the Masse , which they take to be this God Mahuzzim , as Bellarmine sheweth heere , and l. 1. de Sacrif . Missae cap. 1. and his confirmation from the name Iehouah , or from other places , where God is called , Our Strength , is most absurd , for who doubteth , but that a false God , or Antichrist will take a name as glorious as he can , since he will extoll himselfe aboue all that is called God , & yet in none of those places this hebrew word is vsed , to signifie the true God . And his cauill against Bellarmines first answere is so ridiculous , that I am ashamed to trouble the Reader with repeating it , for first he maketh it seeme a great absurdity , that Antichrist should worship himselfe , wheras he knew that there was no absurdity in it , if to worship were taken for to glorify , as Bellarmine shewed it might be , against which M. Downam hath nothing to obiect , but only that both the vulgar latin , and Bellarmine himselfe , read venerabitur , Maozim may signify Antichrist . and colet . But who knoweth not , that these words may signify glorifying also , especially since the originall doth fauour that sense . And this being all that he can obiect against Bellarmines first interpretation , yet is not he ashamed to call it sottish and absurd , by which I will leaue the Reader to iudge , if M. Downam doth not shew himselfe to be an absurd Sot .

15. To Bellarmines second answere , M. Downam likewise answereth , that it seemeth he hath forgotten the question which he tooke vpon him to defend , because he admitteth , that Antichrist shall worship the diuell in secret . But M. Downam is deceaued , for Bellarmine remembreth very well , that he is to shew , that Antichrist shall extoll himselfe aboue all Gods , and care for none of them , but rise against them all , as both S. Paul and Daniel affirme , and withall , that he shall worship Antichrist shal adore the Diuell secretly . a strange God , as Daniel prophesieth , Al which Bellarmin sheweth to be most true , because S. Paul and Daniel in the former place , are to be vnderstood of that which Antichrist shall do in publike , and Daniel in the later place speaketh of that , which he shall do in secret , and so there is no repugnance nor contradiction in these two prophesies . Secondly M. Downam obiecteth , that if Maozim were taken for a strong Tower , it should ruther be Maoz , which is a● weake Maozim signifyeth a strong Tower . an obiection as this Tower shall be strong . For who knoweth not , that the Hebrews vse ordinarity one number for another : especially to signify that superlatiue or highest degree ? and besides , why may not one Tower haue many strengths or fortresses in it ? And as see M. Downams friend Tremelius , who readeth De●● su●●●● 〈◊〉 , we oppose to him two , far more ancient and indifferent , & consequently of greater authority then he , who translate it praesidia & confugia , I meane Theodation , and Symachus .

After this impugnation of the word Maozim , M. Downam goeth on to obiect more of the text , for he sayth that those words , He ●●all fortify Maozim with a strange God , whom he hath knowne , are thus in the originall text , word for word . And he shall do to the munitions of Mahuzzim with a strange God . Which we are content to let passe , though we might very well oppose S. Hieromes skill in hebrew to M. Downams , but we can in no sort admit his glosse vpon his new translation , that is , he shall commit the munitions of Mahuzzim , that is Hierusalem , & the Citties of Iewry to a strange God . For this were to reiect all other translatours besids M. Downam , and not to stick to M. Downams originall text neyther : for what similitude hath ( to do to ) with ( to commit ? ) or how can M. Downam make ( to a strange God ) and ( with a strange God ) all one ? Is not S. Hieromes translation much more agreeable , who insteed of ( doing to munitious S. Hierons Translation defended . ) interpreteth ( causing to be fortifyed ) and keepeth ( with a strange God ) as it is in the originall ? giuing to vnderstand , that this place of Antichrist shal be fortified both by nature and art . Lastly M. Downam will needes turne the cat in the pan , and make Antichrist a publike Idolatour , and a secret Atheist , which he saith agreeth more to Machiauillian policy , and fitteth better the disposition of Antichrist . But M. Downam must know , that Antichrist shall far exceed Machianell in wycked policy . Wherefore at the first he shall dissemble this point , that he would be accompted the only God , till he hath gotten sufficient strength and reputation ; and then he will satisfy his pryde aswell , as vse his policy , & this indeed is Antichrists Antichrist his disposition . disposition , as appeareth by the Scripture , and in this place it is also euident , that he shall play the Idolatour only in secret , since that he shal choose to himselfe only one fortified place for that purpose , whereas that of his extolling himselfe aboue all Gods , and not caring for them , hath no such restriction or limitation .

16. Thus M. Downam desisteth from impugning or answering of Bellarmins , and falleth to his owne explication of the text , in which I will only touch so much as maketh to the present purpose , omitting his railing against the Pope , and such other impertinone stuffe .

First then , M. Downam affirmeth , that the abrogation of all the Religious of the Syrians , is called v. 36. the magnifying himselfe aboue , or against euery God , and the same , he saith , is repeated v. 37. in those words , vnto the Gods of his Fathers he shall not attend , and in those , neither wil he regard any of the Gods ; And finally in those also ; because he will magnify himselfe against all . Where first we see , how bould M. Downam is with the Scripture against Downams bouldnes with the Scriptures . the interpretation of the Fathers , to limit that vniuersall assertion so often repeated in different words , only to the Gods of the Syrians which notwithstanding the Scripture expresseth by themselues . Now , what may not any man make good that will be so impudent , as to wrest the Scripture in this sort ? And besides , M. Downam cannot shew vs , that Antiochus impugned any one God of Syria ; for though it were true that the Syrians only worshipped Apollo and Diana , Antiochus impugned not the Gods of Syria . yet he cannot shew vs , that Antiochus neglected the worship of these . The most that he can obiect , is the assault he gaue to the Citty of Persepolis , or Elymais , in hope to haue obtained the treasure left there by Alexander the great , which Appianus in Ciriaco , and Clemens Alexandrinus in protreptico seeme to think , to haue bene dedicated to Venus , though the more probable opinion is , that it was the temple of Diana , but this is no proofe at all , that he impugned Diana for religion , or in Syria , for he might haue pretended to haue brought that treasure from Persia , where that temple was , into his owne country ; for certaine it is that he sought after the treasure , not esteeming to whome it did belong : wherefore we read of no such matter that he did in Syria it selfe , though he had Daphne so neere him ; yea to omit the testimony of Polybius , which M. Downam mentioned §. 13. the Scripture speaketh of him still as of one that worshipped many Idolls , but destroyed none , for there is in diuers places mention of his Idolls 1. Mach. 1. 45. & 50. besides that abhominable Idoll which was placed in the temple vpon the Altar v. 57. which seemeth to be the Idoll of Iupiter Olympius mentioned 2. Mach. Antiochus worshipped many Gods . 6. v. 2. where also the Scripture speaketh of Iupiter Hospitalis placed in Garizim , and v. 7. there is expresse mention made of the feasts of Bacchus , which he caused the Iewes to cel●brate , and 2. Machab. 4. of Sacrifices to Hercules . Finally there were other Idolls placed vpon the hill Modin , as is plaine , out of 1. Mach. 1. v. 23. which place M. Downams great frend Porphyry would needes haue had to be vnderstood by Maozim , for which S. Hierome worthily laughed him to scorne , as no doubt he would haue done M. Downam for his new and most absurd interpretation . In which notwithstanding he proceedeth so far that he is not afraid altogeather to corrupt and alter the text to that end , for thus he translateth the 38. v. And as touching the God Mahuzzim , that is the God Almighty , and there he pauseth , in his place he will honour euen a God , whome his Fathers knew not will he honour with gold and with siluer , with precious stones , and with Iewells , and ( ver. 39. ) he shall commit the munitions of Mahuzzim , that is of the Almighty , vnto a strang God ; where you see altogeather a new text quite contrary to that Downam corrupteth the text . of S. Hierome , for this is the pertinacy of heretikes , that when they can by no meanes interprete the text according to their fancy , they will rather alter the text it selfe , then leaue their owne opinion or interpretations . But any wise man will easily see , that S. Hierome was both more learned , and more indifferent , then M. Downam : and besides , who knoweth not , that the hebrew text may be altered by diuers pointings , which M. Downam will no doubt vse to his owne aduantage ? And yet after all this , he cannot frame his new text to his new interpretation , except he suppose that Antiochus was the first in Syria which euer worshipped Iupiter Olympius ; which wil be very hard for him to do . Neither is i● to the purpose to tell vs , that the Syrians worshiped Apollo and Diana , for this is no proofe that they worshiped not Iupiter , and others also : as we may plainly see by that which hath bene said that they did Bacchus and Hercules &c. And Strabo , whom he citeth , doth not only tell vs of the temple and wood of Apollo , and Diana in Daphne , but also in the same 16. booke , he maketh mention of the temple of Minerua , and of the wood of Aesculapius , and affirmeth , that Hercules was greatly adored by them of Tyrus , and all this long after Antiochus his tyme . And for his confirmation out of Dan. 7. 25. & 8. 11. the former place is to be vnderstood of Antichrist , and the later sheweth only how Antiochus was to spoile the temple of Ierusalem , in which we graunt , that he was a plaine figure of Antichrist , but denie that he is spoken of in this other place .

17. The application which M. Downam maketh of this prophesy interpreted by himselfe , is ridiculous and without proofe , and therefore not to be answered in this See part. 2. c. 5. &c. place , but to be remitted to the second part of this Treatise where we shall examine not only these , but also all other calumniations , which he layeth vpon the Pope . Now it is sufficient , that it is plaine out of that which hath byn said , that except M. Downam corrupteth the text , either of Bellarmines solutions taketh away all obiections out of this place of Daniel .

18. Wherefore now let vs see , what M. Downam answereth to the Fathers , to which he saith , that Bellarmine faith or want of better proofes ; where I would willingly know , what better proofes any man can bring after the Scripture then the Fathers , especially in such a matter as this whereof there can no other reason be yielded , but only Gods will in permitting , and mans wickednes in attempting , except we will add the Diuels m●lice also , whom euery man knoweth to be ready ino●gh to tempt to any euill whatsoeuer : well what answereth M. Downam to these Fathers ? that they either speake of the Idolls and Idolatry of the Gentils only , or els , if they speake of all Idolls in generall , they deserue such an Antichrist , as in this behalf is better then the Pope . But who seeth not , that the Fathers assertion is generall , and withall M. Downams distinction foolish . For who can worship Idolls , but that he Downam reiecteth the Fathers with a scoffe . shal commit Idolatry , and conforme himselfe to the Gentils in that ? wherfore the Fathers are contrary to M. Downams in both points . 1. that Antichrist shal be an Idolater . 2. that the images of Saints are Idolls , and therefore no meruaile , though M. Downam is constrayned to reiect their authority with a scosse , telling them that they deserued a better Antichrist then the Pope : by which he confesseth that they would not haue taken the Pope to be Antichrist , as he most impudently doth . And as for M. Downams opposing the Scriptures to the Fathers , it is his only refuge , accompting nothing for Scripture , but his owne fancyes and interpretations , which how fond and foolish they are , hath already sufficiently appeared .

19. Lastly M. Downam commeth to Bellarmines answere to Illyricus his two arguments , and first he is very angry with Bellarmine for saying , that their doctrine is only built vpon the Scriptures falssy expounded by new glosses , in token The Protestants doctrine built vpon new glosses of the Scripture . whereof they alleadg not one interpreter or Doctor for them ; which ( he saith ) is a malicious slaunder , witnes this place which Bellarmine mentioneth 2. Thess. 2. where they proue 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 reuealed after the Roman Empyre , which hindred , was taken out of the way &c. which you see is but a very poore answere , though it were all true , but now it is also altogeather false : for Bellarmine shewed before , that those Fathers , which interprete the Temple of God , to be the Churches of Christ , do in no sort deny , that Antichrist shall also sit in the Temple of Hierusalem , yea the greater part do expresly affirme it : and besides by the Churches of God , they vnderstand not the Christian , and Catholike See cap. 13. people , but the materiall Churches erected in the honour of Christ , which Bellarmine proued so plainely , that M. Downam thought it his best course to passe it ouer in silence without giuing him any answere at all , or taking any notice of any such proofe . And the second point , so far as it is different from the former , is affirmed also by vs , for we only differ from the Protestants , in that they affirme , that Antichrist is to be reuealed in the Church of God . And we also affirme , that he is not to be reuealed till after the Roman Empire be taken out of the way by the 10. Kings , which shall rule togeather at Antichrists comming .

Wherfore , secondly M. Downam acknowledgeth , that their assertions concerning Antichrist , are grounded on the prophesies of Scriptures , expounded by the euent : and that , the opinion of the Fathers agree with them , where they are consonant to the Scripture , and the euent : and that , the assertions of the Papists are wholy grounded either vpon the vncertaine ( and many times mis alleadged ) contectures of the Fathers , who were no Prophets , and therefore being not able to foresee the euent , did not many times vnderstand the Prophesies &c. And is Downam acknowledgeth the Fathers to be against him . not this all one in effect with that which Bellarmine affirmeth ? Doth not M. Downam giue vs the Fathers coniectures , and expositions , and take to himselfe the Scripture expounded by the euent , which the Fathers were not able to foresee ? and consequently these expositions , by the euent , must needs be since the Fathers dayes , and therfore rightly called by Bellarmine new Glosses , and how false they are , appeareth sufficiently by their contrariety to the expositions of the Fathers , and by the confutation of Bellarmine : for this deuice of M. Downam to make his exposition good by the euent , is no more in effect but to say , that he will first suppose as certaine out of his owne head , and without all Scripture , that the Pope is Antichrist , and then afterward he will make the Scripture say so by one deuice or other , and to all arguments against this interpretation he will answere , that the euent is cleare , and consequently the obiection nothing worth . And this indeed is the Protestants proceeding in all controuersies , by which they make their owne idle & foolish fancy the rule of Faith , and of Scripture , and Fathers , The Protestants proceeding in all controuersies . and all other proofes . After this M. Downam commeth more nigh to his reply for Illyricus , but first he disgraceth him fowly , calling him one of the vnsoundest writers of his side : which how his brethren the Lutherans , who make so great accompt of Illyricus , will put vp , I neither know , nor greatly care . But I must needs tell M. Downam , that he doth Bellarmine great iniury , Illyricus one of the vnsoundest Protestant writers in Downams iudgment . to charge him , that he doth vse to cull out some stragling sentences out of some one of the vnsoundest writers ; for all men know , that Bellarmine flyeth none of their arguments , but many times affoardeth them some of his owne , when they want . And M. Downam should haue shewed vs , what author that Bellarmine had seene , hath any better arguments then those of Illyricus for this point : for his telling vs , that he hath proued it Bellarmin vniustly charged . himselfe better in another place , only argueth , that M. Downam hath a good conceipt of himselfe , and that he hath gotten some new deuise since Bellarmine wrote , aswel in this , as in other things , but this is nothing against Bellarmine , how good soeuer his proofes be , which the Reader shall iudg , See part. 2. c. 5. after they be examined , and perhaps find them not so good , as M. Downam imagineth . Now let vs examine his second charg against Bellarmine , in defence of Illyricus , which is , that he depraueth his first reason , which is not ( sayth he ) because the Downam cannot defend Illyricus . Pope maketh himselfe to be the Vicar of Christ , but this , because he vaunting himselfe to be the Vicar of Christ , doth notwithstanding vsurpe greater authority then the Sonne of God claymed vnto himselfe , of which that which Bellarmine alleadgeth as a second reason , is by Illyricus added as a proofe . But why then doth Illyricus alleadge our Sauiour XXII . XXIII . XXIV . to expound S. Paul , Which Bellarmine sheweth to be a threefould absurdity , and M. Downam answereth not a word ; nor yet to Bellarmines censure of the blindnesse and impudency Gal. 4. 4. Christ is said to be vnder the law . Luc. 2. 51. to be subiect to his parents , because he obserued & obeyed both , not being bound to either . of our aduersaries , who some times vtter such things as are against common sense , by which M. Downam seemeth to acknowledg , that he hath his share in both . But no doubt we shall find a sound reply vpon Bellarmines answere to Illyricus his second argument , which M. Downam acknowledgeth to be his , and replieth by calling it an impudent and shamelesse denyall , that Christ subiected himselfe to the law and word of God , or , that the Pope taketh vpon him to dispense with the Scriptures , or , that any Catholik● writer hath sayd . that he may dispense with Diuine precepts : both which notwithstanding , M. Downam saith , that he hath els where proued by many instances , and most euident allegations , where by ( both ) he seemeth only to meane the two later , and so we must take the first vpon his poore credit , which might perhaps haue had some sway , if he had answered Bellarmines euident proofe to the contrary , or impugned his solution taken out of S. Chrysostome , and S. Augustine . But See part. 2. c. 5. §. 10. 11. 12. since he is altogeather silent in both , the Reader hath good cause to suspect , that he is so impudent and shamelesse , that he will affirme that , which he can neither proue nor defend . And consequently at least suspend his iudgement of those many instances and most euident allegations , for the other two points , which he boasteth of till we come to that place , where they are to be examined . And now for conclusion of this whole argument and discourse I will intreate the Reader to consider his substantiall reply against Bellarmines answere concerning Illyricus his consequence ; for thus M. Downam writeth : for that which he ( Bellarmine ) addeth of Christ his subiecting himselfe to the Prophesyes , and not to the preceptes , as though Illyricus had spoken of the one in his proposition , and of the other in the assumption , it is partely false , and partely ridiculous , and indeed not worth the answering . Thus M. Downam , as it seemeth , in a great chafe at Bellarmines vnlearned answer . But good Syr , vouchsafe out of your high wisdome to shew vs in what this answere is either false or ridiculous ; for is it probable , that Illyricus would be so mad , as to affirme , that Christ was subiect to the preceptes of the law of Moyses , conteyned in the Scripture , and abrogated by Christ as Bellarmine sheweth ? and consequently when Illyricus in his Maior , or proposition affirmeth , that Christ subiected himselfe to the Scriptures , must it not needes be vnderstood only of the Prophesies ? of which notwithstanding it is also false , as Bellarmine proueth , & when in his minor , or assumption he saith , that the Pope affirmeth , that he can dispense against an Apostle or Euangelist , & make those things , which are right to be wicked , is it not also euident , that he speaketh only of precepts ? Wherefore to me it seemeth also euident that M. Downam is ridiculous at least , if not a false fellow to answere in this sort , and that he most impudently called that not worth the answerering , which in his owne conscience M Downam Impudency . he knew to be vnanswerable . But yet I am content that the Reader shall iudg how far he deserueth this censure , & that he may mitigate it , if it seeme too sharp & rigorous .

THE FIFTENTH CHAPTER . Of Antichrists Myracles .

OF the Myracles of Antichrist ( sayth Bellarmine ) there are three things in the Scriptures : first that he shall do many Myracles . Secondly what manner of Myracles they shall be . Thirdly , there are three examples set downe . That Antichrist shall worke myracles , the Apostle teacheth 2. Thess. 2. Whose comming is according to the operation of Sathan in signes and wonders , and our Lord in the Ghospell Matth. 24. They shall giue signes and great wonders so that the very elect shall be led into errour if it be possible . They shall giue ( sayth he ) not , he shall giue , because not only Antichrist , but also his Mynisters shall worke signes . In so much that S. Gregory sayth lib. 32. moral . cap. 12. that the very tortures of the holy Martyrs shall then worke wonders and signes . Finally Apoc. 13. And he did many signes in the sight of men : What manner of signes they shall be , S. Paul explicateth 2. Thess. 2. saying in one word , that they shall be lying : In all power and lying signes and wonders .

Now they shal be lying signes in respect of all causes , the finall , efficient , matter , and forme ; for the end of those myracles shal be to shew , that Antichrist is God , and the Messias , which will be a most pernicious lye . S. Chrysostome vpon this place teacheth , that those myracles are called lying , because they shall induce to a lye . And S. Ambrose also vpon this place teacheth , that the end of Antichrists myracles shal be to proue himselfe God , as our Christ demonstrated his Diuinity with true myracles . Secondly , they are called lying signes , from the efficient : for the principall efficient cause shal be the Father of lyes , that is the Diuell ; for so the Apostle saith : whose comming is according to the operation of Sathan . And all the Fathers affirme , that Antichrist shall be a notable Sorcerer ; yea that the Diuell from his conception , or at least from his Infancy , shall dwell in Antichrist & worke signes by him . S. Cyril cateches. 15. hauing said , that Antichrist shal be a Sorcerer , and furnished with Witchcrafts , Inchauntments , and euill Arts , sheweth , that his myracles are called lying , because they shall proceed from the Father of lyes .

Many of them shal be also lying in respect of the matter , because they shal be phantasticall and vayne illusions , as S. Cyril in the place alleaged , and Theodoret vpon this place do teach : for he shall seeme to rayse the dead , and heale the sicke , but they shall be the illusions of the Diuell , not true resurrections or recoueryes ; for which cause Apoc. 13. Antichrist is said to do myracles in the sight of Men , that is , apparent and deluding the sight of Men , not solide and true ; as Arethas noted vpon that place .

Finally , some of them shal be lying , in respect of the forme , although true in respect of the matter , for sometyme he shall worke true things , but which shall not exceed the strength of all nature , and therfore they shall not be true myracles formally ; for they are only called true myracles which can be done by God alone , that is , which haue not naturall causes , neyther hidden nor manifest ; and therfore are not only wonderfull in the sight of Men , but also in the sight of Diuells and Angells . But all Antichrists myracles shall haue naturall causes , but vnknowne to Men.

There are three examples of Antichrists myracles put Apoc. 13. one , that he shall make fire come downe from Heauen . The second , that he shall make the Image of the Beast to speake . The third that he shall faigne himselfe to dye , and rise againe . For which miracle chiefly almost all the world shall haue him in admiration . Of which miracles the two former shal be true in respect of the matter , not in respect of the forme , but the third in no manner .

But it may be obiected against this , that all these Miracles cannot be attributed to Antichrist ; for S. Iohn in that place bringeth in two beastes , one which hath 7. heades , and one of whose heads seemed to dye and to rise againe . The other lesse , who made fier to come downe from Heauen , and the Image to speake . If therefore Antichrist shal be the former Beast , the two myracles of the fire and Image are not attributed to him . If he shal be the latter beast , the myracle of the Resurrection cannot be attributed to him .

I answere that the former beast signifieth either the Roman Empire , or the multitude of the wicked , as we said before ; and one , that is the chiefest of his heads , which seemed to die and rise againe is Antichrist ; for Antichrist shal be the supreme and last head of the wicked , and he is the last King who shall hold the Roman Empire ; yet without name of Roman Emperour . And that this faigned myracle of the Resurrection is doubtlesse to be atributed to Antichrist , Primasius , Beda , Haymo , Richardus , Rupertus and Anselmus vpon this place doe teach ; and S. Gregory lib. 11. ep. 3. which is to be noted against Lyranus , who expoundeth this of a certaine Sonne of Cosdroas , whom he faigneth to haue bene wounded in a battaile and not killed , for no approued history reporteth any such thing of the Sonne of Cosdroas , neither can that agree to the Sonne of Cosdroas which followeth in the Apocalyps : and the whole earth wondred after the Beast , saying , who is like the beast ?

Now the latter Beast in the Apocalyps according to Rupertus signifieth the same Antichrist ; for the same Antichrist is expressed by two beasts , by one in respect of his Kingly Power , and tyranny , by which he shall compel men violently ; by the other , by reason of his art magick , with which he shall seduce men crastily . But according to Richardus , Anselmus , and others , the latter beast signifieth the preachers of Antichrist , who shall endeauour to shew by miracles , that Antichrist is the true Messias , wherefore all these miracles shall either be Antichrists , or his Ministers . Hence it followeth that the Pope is not Antichrist , for neuer any Pope faigned himselfe to die and rise againe , nor he himself , or any of his preachers made fyre come downe from Heauen , or the Image to speake .

But the Magdeburgenses object cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col . 436. that there haue ben many lying myracles wrought by them which hould with the Pope : as say they , visions of soules babling of Purgatory , and crauing Masses to be said for them , and recouery from sicknesses which haue hapned to the worshippers of Statua's , and vowers to Saintes .

I answere first : These are not the miracles , which S. Iohn writeth that Antichrist shall doe , but to die and rise againe , to send fier from Heauen , and giue the Image power to speake ; wherefore let them shew , that these haue ben don by the Pope or his followers . Secondly those 3. kindes of miracles were vsed in the Church before that tyme , in which our aduersaries say , that Antichrist appeared , for S. Gregory writeth lib. 4. dial . cap. 40. that the soule of Paschasius a Deacon , who liued in the tyme of Pope Symachus about the yeare of our Lord 500. appeared to S. German Bishop of Capua , and desired him to praie for him , that he might be deliuered from the torments of purgatory . Certainely this miracle happened an hundred yeares before Antichrist appeared , by the opinion of all the heretikes of this tyme . For none of them doth put the comming of Antichrist , but after the yeare 600. and S. Gregories death . The same S. Gregorie telleth of other apparitions of soules asking Masses , in the same booke cap. 55.

Of the miracles of healing diseases for the veneration of Images , there is an example extant in Eusebius lib. 7. hist. cap. 14. where he reporteth that there was a brasen Statua erected to our Sauiour , by that woman which our Sauiour healed from the issue of bloud , and that there was wont to grow an herbe vnder that Statua , which being growne to the hemmes or skirts of the Image , and touching it , healed all kindes of diseases ; by which myracle it is euident that God would approue the worship of holy Images .

Of the Recoueryes graunted to them who had vowed any thing to the Saints , there are innumerable Testimonies in the ancient Wryters ; but that which Theodoretus recyteth , lib. 8. ad Graces , qui est de Martyribus , is notable , that in his tyme the Temples of Martyrs were full of little Tablets , or Portraicts of hands , feete , eyes , heads , and other parts of men , by which were signifyed the diuers gifts of healings , which men that had vowed , had receaued of the holy Martyrs .

M. Downams Answere confuted .

1. MAISTER Downam will not contend with Bellarmine , but that Antichrist and his Adherents shall worke many signes , and wonders , and that they shall be lying signes and wonders , both in respect of the end which is to seduce , and confirme lyes : and in respect of the substance , which is counterfayt : In which latter clause M. Downam is a little confused , or at least not so cleere as Bellarmine , who distinguisheth the substance , into matter & forme , Antichrist shall work many signes . and sheweth how Antichrists signes shal be lying in both . But it is very likely , that M. Downam past this ouer so sleightly , because he agreed with Bellarmine fully in that point : wherfore he commeth to the efficient , and author of these myracles , in respect of which Bellarmine also affirmeth , that they are lying signes & wonders , because this efficient cause shal be the Father of lyes , according to whose power Antichrist was to come , who as some of the Fathers affirme was to be a Magician or notable Sorcerer . And heere M. Downam is somwhat doubtful , saying that it seemeth to be somwhat far fetched , vnlesse we will take the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 to be masculine , as none doth . But what meaneth M. Downam by this phrase of far fetched ? Is it not an ordinary matter , that the effect should be denominated How Antichrists signes are said to be lying signes . of the efficient cause ? Why was Manna called the Bread of Angells , but because it was giuen by the Ministry of Angells ? Wherfore we shall not need M. Downams masculine ; for Bellarmine goeth not about to proue that the word lying , signifieth , that they shal be such , by reason of the efficient cause . But that since they are to be wrought by the Diuell , as the Apostle affirmeth ; and M. Downam acknowledgeth , and likewise all the Fathers agree , and not some only ( as M. Downam alleageth Bellarmines words corruptly ) that Antichrist shal be a Sorcerer ; it is also manifest , that they shal be wrought by the Father of lyes , and consequently of him , as well as for other respects , be called lying . But we shall not need to stand any longer vpon this , since M. Downam is content to yield , because he doth not doubt , but that he can apply this note also to the Pope & Church See part . ● , c. 6. of Rome ; which how well he can do , it is not now tyme to examine , but in another place .

2. The 2. Arguments which M. Downam frameth out of these two positions , that Antichrist shall worke signes , and that they shall be lying , were too ridiculous for Bellarmine to haue made ; who only noteth those two points for explication of the whole matter ; and that the third point , from which he draweth his argument may be the better vnderstood ; for who seeth not that those things , which are common Myracles in general belong both to good and bad . both to good and bad , as myracles in generall are , can be no note only to know the bad by ? For that which M. Downam addeth , that myracles in these latter tymes belong only to Antichrist , is spoken without all ground , eyther of Scripture or reason , and only affirmed by Protestants , because they can neyther worke true myracles , being the Diuells Ministers , nor false , because their Maister is not let loose Why Heretiks can worke no myracles at all . yet , as he shal be in Antichrists tyme , which is the reason , why no Heretikes can worke any myracles at all ; but only the true Church true myracles , so long as the Diuel is bound , because God is alway powerfull ; and Antichrists false myracles in that short space , that the Diuell shal be loosed and permitted to vse this manner of seducing , aswell as all the rest . Now to proue or disproue , that any is Antichrist because his signes are true or false , is a harder matter then M. Downam taketh it to be , as we shall see when we examine his See part. 2. c. 7. obiections , against the myracles which haue bene wrought in the Catholike Church , and the Diuell will carry his matters so craftily in Antichrists tyme , that it will not be easy to descry that his myracles are any way false , as that of Caluin , and some other Ministers was , who were taken tardy by the punishment and confession of those whom they vsed in their knauery , as M. Downam may see of Caluin , if he please to turne to Bellarmine lib. 4. de Ecclesia Militante cap. 14. where also he shall find that miracles are not alway the signes of Antichrist .

3. Concerning the 3. miracles from which Bellarmine draweth his argument , M. Downam answereth that the two first doe fitly agree to the Pope , as he hath shewed elswhere , which See part. 2. c. 7. we leaue to examine till we come to that place . The 3. saith M. Downam belongeth not to Antichrist , and he taketh it to be a very fond assertion , that Antichrist shall faigne himselfe to dye , and by the help of the Diuell shall rise againe : for , saith M. Downam , if his death be but counterfaite , he shall not need the Diuells help to raise him ; but I haue shewed before , that if the death had not ben counterfaite , it had passed the Diuells cunning to haue raised him againe ; and I hoped well that M. Downam had not bene so resolute , as he is , that the Diuells help is not necessary to do counterfaite myracles ; by which he seemeth still to Downam seemeth to thinke that the Diuell can doe true miracles . insinuate , that the Diuell may truly raise a man from death to life , but yet he saith it not plainely , and therfore I will not charge him with it , but only tell him once more that the Diuells help shal be necessary in the contryuing of this counterfait myracle , that it may be carryed so cunningly that no man may be able to perceaue , but that he was truly dead , & truly raised againe ; so that he will make the wound appeare more dangerous , then indeed it shall be . Likewise he will procure , that there shall be all signes of death , so that See c. 5. n. 5. none shall doubt , but that he is truly dead . Thirdly he will shew his cunning in the cure of this wound , which shall seeme desperate and exceeding all naturall arte , and yet he will heale it so suddainly and so perfectly , and so secretly , that it will seeme altogeather vnpossible to be any other , then a true resurrection from death . And by this tyme M. Downam I hope will acknowledg what a fond man he was , to thinke this a fond asser●ion , and if he be so fond of himselfe , that h● cannot be brought to see his owne folly , yet I nothing doubt , but the Readers will be more indifferent ; wherefore let vs now see , what M. Downam can say against the place of Scripture which is thus expounded by the Fathers ; Apoc. 13. he answereth first that those words are not to be vnderstood of Antichrist , because the former beast described in that Chapter , is not Antichrist , but the Roman Empire , especially vnder the persecuting Emperours , as , saith he , hath byn shewed , euery part of that description fitting the same ; but how well and how fitly , he hath shewed this , we shall see afterward , till when , we rather belieue the consent of the ancient interpreters , then M. Downams new deuise . Secondly he affirmeth that the later beast signifieth Antichrist , and this he affirmeth to be in a manner confessed of all , for proofe whereof he alleadgeth Bellarmine himself in the beginning of his tenth Chapter of this booke , where he affirmeth that the 3. last verses of this 13. Chapter of the Apoc. are confessed by all wholy to apperteyne to Antichrist : where you must marke two cunning shiftes of M. Downam , first in translating ( omnin● , wholy ) wheras Downam translateth not well . Bellarmine could by no meanes vse it in that sense , since it is manifest euen by M. Downams consent , that in those words , both the Beastes are spoken of ; for it is plainely said , that the latter beast shall cause all men to haue the Character , or the name , or the number of the name of the former beast ; which notwithstanding M. Downam seemeth wylling inough to dissemble in this place : for which cause he alleageth only the beginning of the words thus . And he shall make all both small and great &c. which no doubt belong to the latter beast indeed ; and this is his second deuise . But M. Downam taketh Bellarmines words in a contrary sense . Downam knoweth well inough , that Bellarmine alleadged not those words to shew , who should cause men to take the Character &c. but to proue , that Antichrist was to haue a particuler name signified by that number , and a particuler Character spoken of in that place ; both which euidently belong to the former beast , and therefore it is also most manifest , that Bellarmine affirmeth the quite contrary of that M. Downam would haue him say , viz. that not the latter , but the former beast is confessed by all to be Antichrist , which is most true indeed , as he sheweth in this chapter . Neyther is the proofe which M. Downam bringeth out of this chapter any better , for Bellarmine expresly explicateh himselfe , that he calleth the two latter myracles , the myracles of Antichrist , because they shal be done by his Ministers , & those which they do , are to be attributed to him , as is euident in there . v. Et potestatour prioris b●sti● omnem faciebat in conspectu 〈◊〉 : and he ( the latter beast ) did the power of the former beast in his fight : and consequently whatsoeuer he doth by the formers power , is to be attributed vnto him . And thus we see , what poore proofes M. Downam hath to proue , that the latter beast is Antichrist ; since that he can produce no better authorityes , but only two places of Bellarmine misunderstood at the least , if not corrupted .

Now then set vs see , how he impugneth the opinion of Rupertus in particuler , who affirmeth that Antichrist is sighted by both these beasts , as Bellarmine afterward explicateth , This cannot be , sayth M. Downam , vnles we may say that the sornier and latter are one and the same , which cannot be , since that v. 11. the latter is said to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , another beast . But to this Rupertus might easily answere , that two distiuct beasts may signify one thing , as is manifest ; though indeed their descriptions are so diuers , that it is hard to apply all the particulers of both to one man , and therfore we rather thinke with the common opinion , that by the latter is vnderstood eyther one , or many false Prophets of Antichrist , whom S. Irenaeus deseruedly calleth armigerum , because he , or they shall not only vse persivasions , but also force , as is manifest by the text , The 2. beast Apoc. 13. signifieth . Antichrist his false Prophet . which needeth not to seeme hard to any that considereth how both these offices are exercised by the Protestant false Bishops in our Countrey against Catholikes : and this common exposition is much consumed out of the 16. 19. & 20. Chapters , where this second beast is called a false Prophet , and ioyned with the former beast , & the Diuell also in doing mischiefe , and suffering eternall torments for the same .

4. In Bellarmines answere to his owne obiection M. Downam taketh great hould of that he grateth , that the former beast may signify the Roman Empyre , though he speaketh doubtfully , & ioyneth another exposition with it , which indeed is the more probable of the two , out of which he maketh many illations , but proueth none , and therfore it is sufficient in this place to deny them all , and remit the Reader for both our reasons , to the seuerall places where they are handled at large : only thus much we may note now , that since , as we haue already proued , the 7. head which is Antichrist , is not to come till the 6. which is the Roman VII . VIII Empyre , be wholy taken away , it is most manifest that the Apoc. 13. Pope can by no probability be the seauenth head , since that the Emperour as yet remayneth . And withall I would The Pope cannot be signified by the 7. he●d of the beast . Apoc. 13. & 17. desire the Reader to put all M. Downams arguments in forme , that he may better discouer his folly , and make himselfe sport : for how doth it follow , Antichrist shal be head of the Roman Empyre , ergo , not of the Iewes ? Antichrist shall be head of the Roman Empyre , ergo , his chiefe Seat , or Sea shal be not Ierusalem , but Rome , and he shall not be one particuler Man ? only one of his illations is good against Bellarmine , viz. that if the beast signifieth the Roman Empyre , the name of the beast may very well be said to be Roman or Latin . But this agreeth not with the number of 666 , as Bellarmine proued , & besides it is certaine also , that the name of Antichrist himselfe is signifyed by that number , and consequently that he is signifyed by the former beast , and not the Roman Empyre . Neyther can M. Downam in any case admit that the seauenth head of The 7. heads of the beast Apoc 13. are not the same with those of Apoc. 17. this former beast Apoc. 13. is Antichrist , since that he affirmeth that Antichrist is signified by the latter beast , wherfore both Bellarmine and he must of necessity graunt , that this beast Apoc. 13. is different from the other , cap. 17. and indeed it is very euident that Antichrist and the 7. Kings , which shall acknowledge him , are spoken of in the 13. Chapter , and in the 17. other 7. far different from these , as we shall presently see .

5. The obiections which M. Downam maketh against Bellarmines second interpretation , proue aswell against Downam impugneth himselfe . the first , which is his owne ; for what world wondreth after the Roman Empyre , but such as are in some sort subiect or belong to it ? Who are all those Inhabitants of the earth , that do worship it ? What are all the Tongues , Kindreds , Nations which are made subiect vnto it ? For if this be absolutely vnderstood of all the wicked and reprobate , it is false , that they all do thus wonder , or worship , or are subiect to the Roman Empire ; and if it be only vnderstood of some , viz. of those , which belong to the Roman Empyre , then the difficulty is as great , how the Roman Empyre is said to wonder &c. after it selfe : as how the multitude of the wicked may doe the same ; and besides , M. Downam hath one difficulty more to explicate , then those which follow this second interpretation haue : for he must shew vs , how all this wondring , and worshipping , and subiection came vpon the restauration of the Empyre in the West , which he will needs haue to be the healing of the head , which was wounded as it were to death : for experience hath shewed vs the quite contrary , viz. that the Roman Empyre hath euer since gone more and more to decay , and had a farre greater part of the world subiect vnto it before , then since . Wherfore all this still conuinceth , that this beast Apoc. 13. is neyther the Roman Empyre , nor Apoc. 13. the multitude of the wicked , but Antichrist himselfe , of whom all those sayings are to be verifyed , and the 7. heads are the 7. Kings , which shall yield themselues to Antichrist , and ioyne with him in persecuting the Church . Neyther doth the beast mentioned cap. 17. signifie Apoc. 17. the Roman State or Empyre , or the multitude of the wicked , but the Diuell himselfe ; and the 7. heades which he hath signify eyther the Kings which reigned in the 7. ages of the World , as it is commonly held by Catholikes , or else the 7. diuers gouernments of the Roman State , as M. Downam will needs haue it , because otherwise his whole deuise of prouing the Pope Antichrist out of this place is quite ouerthrowne . But we will shew in due place that this his exposition is nothing so probable as the other . And though it were true in this poynt , yet it cannot stand in the rest , in which he would ground his inference against the Pope .

6. Wherfore M. Downams discourse of the 3. wounds , which the Roman Empire receaued at the death of Iulius Cesar , by ciuill warres , and of Nero , by vncerteynty of succession , and in Augustulus by his ouerthrow , and of their seuerall healinges , is altogea●her impertinent and ridiculous , for now we seeke only for one and the last , which maketh most to his purpose , Downam impugneth him selfe . is indeed flatly against him , since that in his opinion the Pope healed this wound , whom he would haue to be signified by the 2. beast ; whereas the Scripture witnesseth that it was healed by the first Beast ; and that before the second appeared . Likewise if we will belieue M. Downam , the healing of this wound , and the erecting of the Image is all one , since that both are nothing els , but the erecting of the West Empire , vnder Charles the Great , and the like he must say of making the former beast to be worshipped ; for M. Downam hath no other deuise left for all these seuerall actions , but only the bare erecting of the Roman Empire by the Pope . And yet he will haue this also to be so mean a thing , that in substance it shal be nothing at all , and that indeed not this new Emperour but the Pope himselfe shal be the head of the Roman Empire all this while , and the Emperour shall only stand for a cipher to make vp the number of 8. whereas notwithstanding the Scripture plainely saith , that there are 8. without him , not heades as M. Downam seemeth to imagine , but Kings , the beast making one himselfe , as the Scripture expresly testifieth , cap 7. v. 12. which can by no meanes be vnderstood of the Roman Empire , except M. Downam will make the Empire it selfe an Emperour , which is too absurd ; for of what should it be Emperour ? Wherefore it is manifest , that by the Beast is vnderstood the Diuell , who indeed is distinct from the other 7. as is manifest , and therefore By the beast Apoc. 17. the Diuell is vnderstood . may well be accompted the 8. and yet belongeth to all the 7. because he concurred with them all in their wickednes , and in the persecution of the good ; and it is also manifest , that he was in the world before Christs comming , much more then he hath bene since , and shal be more againe hereafter in Antichrists tyme , then euer he was before : ●fter which he shall go into eternall destruction , as S. Iohn affirmeth .

7. And by this we may see , that Bellarmines exposition conteyneth no absurdity at all , nor can be impugned by any found ground , so farre as concerneth the substance Apoc. ●3 . therof , for all that can be obiected against it , is , that it se●meth 〈◊〉 to explicate , how Antichrist should be signifyed 〈…〉 himselfe , and also by one of his heades , 〈…〉 very probable , that it is not Antichri●● 〈…〉 this deadly wound , but one of the 7. Kings signified by those 7. heads , who shall concurre with Antichrist in his wickednesse ; for that in this 13. Chapter S. Iohn speaketh of particuler Kings , and not of seuerall States , is manifest by that which hath bene said , and shall heerafter be againe confirmed . And thus we may conclude this Chapter , for M. Downam replyeth not a word to Bellarmines answere to the obiection of the Magdeburgians .

THE SIXTENTH CHAPTER . Of the Kingdome , and Warres of Antichrist .

OF the Kingdome and Warres of Antichrist , we read ( saith Bellarmine ) 4. things in the Scriptures . First , that Antichrist rising from a most base place shall obtayne the Kingdome of the Iewes by deceipt and craft . Secondly , he shall fight with 3. Kings , riz . of Egypt , Lybia , and Ethiopia : and that he shall ouercome them , and postesse their Kingdomes . Thirdly , that he shall subdue other 7. Kings , and by that meanes become the Monarch of the whole world . Fourthly , that he shall persecute the Christians with an innumerable army through the whole world , and that this is the battayle of of Gog and Magog ; of all which , since nothing agreeth to the Pope , it followeth manifestly , that he can by no meanes be called Antichrist .

Of the first thus speaketh Dan. cap. 11. There shall stand in his place a contemptible one , and Kingly honour shall not be giuen to him , and he shall come secretly , and shall obtayne a Kingdome in deceipt . Vpon which place S. Hierome wryteth , that although these words be in some sort vnderstood of Antiochus Epiphanes , yet they are far more perfectly to be fulfilled in Antichrist , as those things which are said of Salomon , are indeed vnderstood Psal. 71. of Salomon , but are more perfectly fulfilled of Christ : wherefore S , Hierome in the same place after he had expounded this place of Antiochus , following P●rphery writeth thus : But our men better and more rightly interprete , that Antichrist shall do these things in the end of the world ; who is to rise of a meane nation that is of the people of the Iewes , and shal be so base and obiect , that the Kingly honour shall not be giuen him , and he shall obtayne the Princedome by wiles and deceipts &c. Where Saint Hierome signifieth , that this is the common exposition of Christians , for which cause also Daniel cap. 7. compareth Antichrist with a little horne , viz. by reason of his base and obscure beginning .

And certainly this first doth in no sort agree to the Pope , for we should say that the Pope was vntill the yeare 600. most obscure and of no name , and that then suddainly and by deceipts he vsurped some high place . But this is manifestly false . For as S. Augustine epist. 162. saith : In the Roman Church alway flourished the Princedome of the Apostolike Chayre ▪ and S. Prosper lib. 2. de vocat . gentium cap. 6. Rome by the Princedome of preisthood is made more ample by the fortresse of Religion then by the throne of power ; and the Councell of Calcedon epist. ad Leonem , affirmeth , that at Rome do shine the Apostolike beames , which from thence extend themselues to all , and communicate their treasures with others . Finally euen that Heathen writer Amianus Marcellus l. 27. writing of the schisme of Damasus , and Vrsicinus saith , that he doth not meruayle , if men striue so earnestly for the Bishopricke of Rome , since that the riches and amplitude of it are so great .

Of the second , the same Dan. cap. 7. speaketh thus : I considered the hornes , and behould another little horne arose in the middest of them , and three of the first hornes were pulled vp be●ore his face ; and after explicating : Moreouer ( saith he ) the ten hornes , are ten Kinges , and another shall rise after them , and he shal be more mighty then the former , and shall humiliate 3. Kings , And cap. 11. explicating who these three Kinges be , He shall send his hand ( quoth he ) into lands , and the land of Egypt shall not escape : and he shall haue dominion of the treasures of gould and siluer , and in all the precious things of Egypt , and he shall passe also through Lybia , and Ethiopia . Vpon which places and especially vpon cap. 7. S. Hierome writing , saith : Let vs say that which all Ecclesiasticall Writers haue deliuered . In the consummation of the world , when the Kingdome of the Romans is to be destroyed there shal be ten Kinges , who shall deuide the Roman world amongst them , and there shall arise an eleuenth little King ( Antichrist ) who shall ouercome three of the ten Kinges , that is of the Egyptians , and of Africa , and Ethiopia , who being slaine , the other 7. Kinges , shall also submit themselues to the Conquerour . The same doe teach of the three Kinges to be slaine by Antichrist , S. Irenaeus lib. 5. Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 16. and Theodoretus in cap. 7. & 11. Daniel .

And this most of all refuteth the madnes of heretikes , who make the Pope Antichrist ; for let them say , if they can , when the Pope slew the Kinges of Egypt , of Lybia , and Ethiopia , and vsurped their Kingdome ? Theodorus Bibliander in his Chronicle saith , that the Pope , as a little horne shaked the first horne of the ten , when Gregory the second excommunicated Leo the Greeke Emperour the Image breaker , and prohibited the tributes of Italy to be rendred vnto him , and by little , and little obteyned his Princedome , that is , the Exarchate of Rauenna . He saith , that he shaked off the second horne , when Pope Zacharie deposed Childerichus King of the French , and commaunded Pepin to be created in his steed . Of the third he speaketh not plainely , but he seemeth to insinuate that the third horne was then stroken of when Gregory the 7. excommunicated and deposed Henry the 4. Emperour . There is also extant a certaine Epistle of Fredericus the second Emperour of that name , written against the Pope , in which he affirmeth , that the three hornes pulled vp by Antichrist , are the Kingdome of Italy , Germany , and Sicilie , which the Pope had chiefly made to serue him .

But these are most vaine cauills , for first Daniel speaketh not of the Kingdome of France , or Germany , but of the Kingdome of Egypt , Lybia , and Ethiopia . Besides , the Pope hath slaine none of those Kings , but Antichrist shall kill those 3. Kings , as S. Hierome saith . Likewise Antichrist shall vsurpe those Kingdomes to himself , and not giue them to others , but the Pope kept not the Kingdome of France to himselfe , but gaue it to Pepin , and hauing deposed one Emperour , commaunded another to be created , and vsurped not the Empyre to himselfe . And in like manner when he depriued the Emperour Leo of the Princedome of R●●ēna , he challenged not that Princedome to himselfe , but permitted the Kinges of the Lombardes to haue it , which notwithstanding afterward Pepin ( hauing ouercome the Lombards ) gaue to the Pope . Finally , if to depose Princes , be to shake off hornes , there will not be only three , but many more pulled off by Antichrist . For it is manifest , that besides Leo the 3. the Greeke , and Childericke the French King , there haue bene deposed by Popes , Henry the 4. by Gregory the 7. Otho the 4. by Innocentius the 3. Frederike the 2. by Innocentius the 4. all which lost their Empyre in very deed .

Of the third we haue most plaine testimonies of the ancient Fathers . Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 16. and S. Irenaeus lib. 5. say , that after Antichrist hath slaine 3. of the 10. Kings the rest forth with shall be subdued by him , and then he shal be Prince of all . S. Hierome in cap. 11. Dan. vpon that place , And he shall do those things , which his Fathers haue not done . None of the Iewes ( saith he ) besides Antichrist euer reigned in the whole world . S. Chrysostome in 2. Thess. 2. affirmeth , that Antichrist shal be a Monarch , and succeed the Romans in the Monarchie , as the Romans succeeded the Grecians , the Grecians the Persians , and the Persians the Assyrians .

Finally , S. Cyril Cateches. 15. saith , that Antichrist shall obtaine the Monarchy , which was the Romans before , and this opinion of the Fathers is euidently inferred out of Apoc. 17. where we read : And the ten hornes which thou hast seene , are ten Kings . These haue one Counsell , and will giue their force and power to the beast . Now it is certayne that this no way agreeth to the Bishop of Rome , for the Pope neuer was King of the whole world .

Of the 4. S. Iohn speaketh Apoc. 20. And when the thousand yeares shall be consummated , Sathan shal be loosed out of his prison , and shall go forth , and seduce the Nations , which are vpon the foure corners of the earth , Gog , and Magog , and shall gather them into battaile , the number of whome , is as the sand of the sea . And they ascended vpon the breadth of the earth , and compossed the Campe of the Saints , and the beloued Citty . And there came downe fire from God out of Heauen , and deuoured them , and the Diuell which seduced them was cast into the poole of fire and brimstone , where both the beast and the false Prophet shal be tormented day and night , for euer and euer . In these wordes is described the last persecution , and the end of it . Of which S. Augustine speaketh thus , lib. 20. de ciuitate Dei , cap. 11. This shal be the last persecution , the last iudgment being at hand , which the Holy Church shall suffer in the whole world , viz. the whole Citty of Christ , of the whole Citty of the Diuell , how great soeuer both of them are vpon earth . The like are in Ezechiel 38. 39. which are briefly to be expounded by reason of many errours , which haue bene of this matter .

M. Downams Answere confuted .

1. MAISTER Downam answereth first iointly to all these 4. points , that none of them are found in the Scriptures , which you must vnderstand according to his interpretation , who affirmeth , that the Prophesies of Daniel cap. 11. and Dan. 7. ●● . 7. were to haue their complement before the comming of the Messias ; which notwithstanding he acknowledgeth to be against both Iewes , and all ancient Christians , who all agree against M. Downam , that by the two legs of the Image cap. 2. and the fourth beast with 10. hornes cap. 7. the Roman Monarchy , Dan. 2. 7. and not the Kingdome of the Selcucidae & Lagidae is signifyed ; which difference as M. Downam well noteth , is the occasion , why both the Iewes , & Christians constantly affirme , that all which is said of the two legs , and the fourth beast could not be fulfilled before the comming of Christ , but only thus far , that this fourth Kingdome of the Romans was to be in the world before his comming . Neither doth it follow hence , that whatsoeuer is spoken of the little horne cap. 7. 8. Dan. 7. 8. 11. Dan. 8. 11. is by them expounded , at least litterally of Antichrist : for first they all agree , that all the 8. Chapter is plainly to be vnderstood of Antiochus , and in no sort of Antichrist but only by application , and accomodation . Likewise in the 11. Dan. 11. they admit so much to be vnderstood of Antiochus , as can be applied to him , but all cannot , and therefore part must of force be referred to Antichrist euen litterally ; and that which may be verified of Antiochus , must likewise be vnderstood of Antichrist , in whom it is more perfectly to be fulfilled . But in the 7. chap. there is no mention at all of Dan. 7. Antiochus , but only of Antichrist , neither is it the same little horne , which is spoken of in that Chapter , and in the 8. as is most manifest : for the little horne in the 7. Chapter belongeth to the 4. beast , and that in the 8. to the third , that is to the Monarchy of the Grecians , and the successors of King Alexander , as is most manifest v. 8. & . 9. where the 4. heads , which that Monarchy is said to haue cap. 7. The little horne Dan. 7. is not the same with the little horne Dan. 8. because it was to be deuided among foure Kinges , after Alexanders death , are called 4. hornes , out of one of which this little horne is said to proceed , as indeed Antiochus did . But the little horne which is spoken of in the 7. chap. arose in the middest of the 10. hornes , which the 4. beast is said to haue . Now in the 11. Chap. there is not any mention of any hornes at all , but of the Kinges of Egypt , and Syria , and chiefly of Antiochus , and by occasion of him of Antichrist , as hath bene said .

2. But M. Downam telleth vs , that the learned of our tymes , haue made the contrary cleere : but he omitteth their proofes , and only alleadgeth out of S. Hierome , that Porphyry that learned , Praefat. in Dan. though malicius enemy of Christianity , perceaued Daniels Prophesies in the 7. 8. 11. and 12. Chapters , so fully and perfectly to agree to Antiochus Epiphanes , that he affirmed that they were written not before hand by Daniel , but after the fulfilling of them by some one that liued in the tymes of Antiochus Epiphanes . But M. Downam findeth not in S. Hierome those 4. Chapters specified , which he setteth down , but only a generall assertion , that Daniel seemed rather to Hierome and three other ancient writers wrote expresly against Downams exposition . haue written a story then a prophesy : yea S. Hierome plainly conuinceth both Porphiry and all his followers , which are M. Downams learned men , and himselfe , that neither the 7. nor the 11. and 12. Chapters can be wholy vnderstood of Antiochus , and in this agreed with him all writers , aswell Christians as Iewes , and in particuler Methodius , Eusebius , and Apollinaris wrote largely against Porphyry answering his mad obiections , among which no doubt this was one which M. Downam and his learned men take vpon them so stiffely to defend , and for that cause will seeme to some to pertake with Porphyry in his malicious cauills .

3. Thus far M. Downam hath byn constrained to fly to Porphyry , that wicked Gentile , against both Iewes and Christians . Now he hath gotten himselfe a Iew to ioyne Dan. 7. 11. with him against the Pope , for so he saith , that not only Protestants , but also the Iewes , and namely R. Leui Gerson expoundeth the 7. and 11. chap. of Dan. as spoken of the Pope of Rome , whom he calleth another Pharao : which pleaseth this man very well , who thinketh that he hath gotten a great aduantage against the Pope , because not only Heretiks , but also Iewes themselues impugne him . And yet fearing least this Rabbin be not able to make his party good , he still sticketh rather to Porphyry , affirming , that only Antiochus is litterally spoken of Antiochus a type of Antichrist only in some principall pointes . in those places , and that consequently , there can no sound argument concerning Antichrist be taken from them , because Antiochus was a tipe of Antichrist , not in all and euery particuler , but in some principall matters . In which M. Downam sayth true , and I thinke there was neuer yet any so mad , as to auouch the contrary , and the like no doubt is to be said of the Types of Christ , which M. Downam alleageth , only the controuersy may be , what those principal matters are , in which Antiochus was the Type of Antichrist . But euen in these also he seemeth to affirme , that there can be no sound argument taken from the Tipe , for he vniuersally alloweth of that rule of Diuinity , set downe by the Schoolemen , that , Theologia Symbolica non est argumentatiua , which notwithstanding , he must vnderstand praecisè , & per se , as the Schoolmen do , in which sense it only signifieth , that it is no good argument in all poynts to argue from the Type , to that which it signifieth ; which is all , that his other argument of Allegories proueth also . And consequently it wil stil be a good argument from the allegorical , mystical , or spirituall How we may argue from the mysticall sense . sense to infer such things as the type is a figure of . As for example , now that we know by the Scripture , that the Paschall Lambe was a figure of Christ , not only in other respects , but also in that the bones of it were not to be broken , we may very wel bring that place of Exodus 12. necos illius confringetis , to proue , that Christ had not his thighes broken , as the two theeues had . And the reason of this is , for that the mystical and spiritual sense , is aswel intended by the holy Ghost , as the Litteral or Hystorical , yea for the most part in the old Testament much more , as is euident by the place alleadged ; wherfore the only cause , why we cannot vse it in our proofes , is , because it is hidden and vncertaine , so that when it is knowne certainly , it conuinceth as much as the litteral doth : for which cause the Apostles , to whom Except the litteral sense be certain we cannot argue firmly from it . it was reuealed , vsed it so often . But we can proue nothing firmly eyther by the mystical , or litterall sense , except we be sure , that we haue the right of each , which we can neuer se by our owne wits and industry without the assistance of that spirit , with which al Scriptures were written . Neyther can any man in particuler without great presumption , & euident danger of errour , promise this assistance to himself , but no doubt the Church of Christ is neuer without it , & therfore we may boldly build vpon any exposition , which she houldeth for certayne , as she doth all those , in which all the Fathers , Doctors , and Pastors giuen vnto her , by her spouse , do fully agree , as we see they do in expounding this place of Antichrist : and therfore we are to be out of doubt , that it is a true exposition , whether it be litteral or spirituall , of which there may be some question ; Neither doth M. Downam seeme much to striue , but that in some thinges concerning Antichrist , the proofe out of this place is good inough . But he would haue vs giue him leaue to choose them out , which we can do with no security , except he first shew vs an authenticall warrant , for so high & speciall a priuiledge : which because he can neuer be able to do , we must of force neglect his babling , and listen to the consent of the Fathers , to whom it doth belong to shew The consent of the Fathers maketh eyther litterall or mysticall sense certaine . vs , in what points Antiochus , & Antichrist are to agree , and in what to differ , as Bellarmine doth in this place ; though ( as I noted before ) there be many things in the 11. chapter . which cannot be vnderstood of Antiochus , and therfore are litterally to be referred to Antichrist , and much more all that , which is spoken of the little horne in the seauenth chapter , in which there is no mention of Antiochus at all .

4. After this generall answer , M. Downam commeth II. to examine the particuler Instances , and to the first he answereth in two sorts : First , that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist , which he saith , shall appeare out of Daniel himselfe , for Daniel speaketh of Dan. 11. him , that immediately in the Kingdome of Syria succeeded Seleucus Philopater , for so he saith , in his place , who was descrybed vers. 20. shall Antichrist shall arise from base estate . stand vp a vyle person , meaning therby Antiochus &c. Thus M. Downam , prouing very well that Antiochus is spoken of , which no man denyed , and Bellarmine expresly alleageth S. Hieromes exposition in that sense ; but withall addeth , that all Christians vnderstood it also of Antichrist , and that more rightly in S. Hieromes iudgment . This M. Downam should haue impugned : which he in no sort doth , by telling vs , that Antiochus is spoken of , because both Antiochus and Antichrist may be spoken of , if not litterally , at least spiritually , which is sufficient , so that it be certaine , that those words are to be applyed to him , as S. Hierome & the other Christians thought that they were .

5. After this , M. Downam entreth into a large discourse , telling vs first , that excepting one propheticall comfort of the Resurrection , cap. 12. Daniels whole Prophesie is of those things which happened within lesse then 700. yeares , that is to say , from the taking Daniels prophesie containeth many things concerning the end of the world . of Hierusalem by the Chaldaeans , vnto the finall destruction therof by the Romans . Where first we are glad , that we haue gotten M. Downams consent of that Prophesie of the Resurrection ; for surely it is very probable , that it is not alone , but ioyned with many other concerning the consummation of the world , to which the comming of Antichrist doth belong . And this both the text it selfe , and S. Hierome , and all other Ecclesiasticall Wryters perswade vs , and therfore we must needs thinke so , vntill M. Downam conuinceth euidently the contrary , which I am affraid , he will very hardly doe . But let vs see , what he can say for himselfe . Secondly therfore he faith , that Daniels Prophesies concerne , either such terrestriall Kingdomes , vnto whose Tyranny the Iewes were subiect before the comming of the Messias , or else the spirituall Kingdome of Christ , before Downam contradicteth himselfe . which , all the former Kingdomes were to haue an end . But this seemeth somwhat contrary to that he said before , when he confessed that Daniels Prophesie reacheth to the finall destruction of Ierusalem by the Romans , and consequently there must needes in his opinion , be mention in Dan. of the terrestriall Kingdome of the Romans , which without doubt , was not ended , before the comming of Christ ; well , we will not vrge him too far with this , but rather consider The King domes where of Daniel speaketh were not to be ended before Christ . how he proueth , that all the terrestriall Kingdomes of which Daniel speaketh were to haue an end before the spirituall Kingdome of Christ , for it seemeth somewhat contrary to Daniel himselfe , who affirmeth , that the Kingdome of Christ should be raised by God in the daies of those Kingdomes , wherof he spake . In diebus autem Regnorum illorum suscitabit Deus Cali Regnum , quod in aeternum &c. But yet M. Downam bringeth for the contrary Dan. 2. 4. 35. and 7. 11. and ver. Dan. 2. 26. 37. The first of which places is a little misprinted , for that 4. should be 34. in which , and the following verse it is said , that the stone , which was cut out of the Mountayne without handes ( that is our Sauiour borne of our Blessed Lady by the holy Ghost without the seed of man ) should strike the Statua vpon the yron feet , and breake them , and by that meanes the whole should be dissolued , and come to nothing . But I cannot see how this proueth M. Downams intent , but rather the quite contrary ; for if our Sauiour shall destroy these Kingdomes , surely they were not to be ended before his comming , and at least the feet , and the ten toes must remayne , and be stroken by this stone ; as indeed they shall at his second comming , when he shall ouercome the ten Kinges , among whom the Roman Empyre shal be diuided ; who shall fight against him as S. Iohn recordeth Apoc. 17. both before the comming of Antichrist and after also , so many , and so long as they shall continue . When our Sauiour is to destroy the Kingdomes , signified by the Statua of Nabuchodonosor . Neither may it seeme hard , that Nabuchodonosor in his dreame related by Daniel , did see the stone first strike the Statua , & after become so great , that it filled the whole world ; for this is to be atributed to the obscurity of Prophesies , and therefore Daniel in his explication standeth not vpon that circumstance , but rather insinuateth the contrary , explicating first the stability and perpetuity of Christs Kingdome in this world ; and then how he should destroy all the Kingdomes of this world , and finally reigne for euer in the next . The second place cap. 7. 11. is most plainely against M. Downam , for in the two precedent verses is described Da● . 7. the comming of God to iudgement , before which no doubt , all these Kingdomes and Kinges , together with Antichrist himselfe shall haue an end , and the same is as plainely repeated v. 26. in which is declared both the comming of God to Iudgement , and the finall ouerthrow , and destruction of the wicked , and v. 27. the amplitude and perpetuity of the Kingdome of Christ and his Saintes , which is chiefly to be vnderstood of the next world , and only When Christ began spiritually to ouerthrow those Kingdomes . spiritually in this ; after which manner Christ began to ouerthrow all the Kingdomes of the world from the beginning , by rooting out Idolatry , and planting his Church through the whole world . Those other places , which M. Downam quoteth concerning the comming of Christ into this world , and the destruction of Ierusalem make nothing against vs , though some of them are not very fitly applied by him as the Reader will easily discerne of those , which he bringeth out of the new Testament . But I will let them passe , and only note that which maketh a little Matth. 2. & 3. Mar. 1. & 10. to our purpose , that M. Downam misinterpreteth Dan. 7. 13. of the ascension of our Sauiour , wheras it is euident by the text , that it is to be vnderstood of his comming to Iudgement , of which it is said v. 10. Iudicium sedit , & libri aperti Dan. 7. sunt , that God the Father did fit in Iudgment and the bookes were opened , that is , it was the tyme of Iudgement , when Daniel did see our Sauiour come to him . After this M. Downam only reciteth his exposition of the 4. beast cap. 7. and the leggs and feete of the Statua cap. 2. which he will needes haue to be the Kingdome of the Seleucidae , and Lagidae , but Dan. 2. & 7. how foolishly , we shall see after , when he commeth to his proofes , for now he only affirmeth it vpon his bare word , which with vs hath no credit at all , and I thinke will not haue much with any man els , at least , if he be any thing indifferent , and will vouchsafe to read this discourse .

6. Well M. Downam goeth forward with his exposition ( such as it is ) especially of the 11. Chapter of Dan. in which he saith many thinges called in question by none , Dan. 11. and others denied by all ; of the first sort I need say nothing , and the other are so apparently false and foolish , that it wil be inough to touch them briefly ; as first , when he saith , The 4. Kingdomes , into which that of Alexander was deuided belong to the 3. beast described Dan. 7. & not to the 4. that in the 8. and 11. chap. the 3. latter , and especially the last Kingdome spoken of cap. 2. and 7. is prophesied of ; who seeth not the absurdity of this assertion ? for what can be more plaine , then that the foure Kingdomes , into which Alexanders Kingdome was deuided after his death , belong to the same Monarchy signified by the 3. beast cap. 7. which for this cause , is said to haue 4. heads in that place , and in the 8. chap. the same are signified by the 4. hornes , and they all were Greeks as M. Downam confesseth nu. 10. and is euident out of the same 8. Chapter ; and of the Seleucide the same appeareth 1. Machab. 11. and besides all these 4. Kingdomes were ended before the comming of our Sauiour , who notwithstanding is said to ouerthrow the 4. beast ; and consequently all the rest in him , since that he had succeded in their places . Porphiry did see this difficulty , which M. Downam dissembleth , and therefore interpreted Iudas Machabaeus to be that stone which Dan. speaketh of cap. 2. but most ridiculously , as is manifest out of the text ; and therefore M. Downam durst not go so far with him , though in this plate he affirmeth , that in Antiochus his tyme the people of God were freed from the tyranny of the Seleucidae by Indas Machabaeus ; which is all the ouerthrow he can shew vs , that the The Kingdomes of the Lagidae and Seleucidae cannot be signified by the 4. beast Dan. 7. stone gaue to the Statua , or 4. beast . Finally how can two of these Kingdomes , into which Alexanders Kingdome was deuided , be taken for the Kingdome signified by the 4. beast , which cap. 7. is affirmed to be greater then all Kingdomes , and to deuour the whole earth ? whereas all those 4. Kingdomes togeather are said cap. 8. to be inferiour to that of Alexander , non in fortitudine eius , as it is also manifest by experience , that they were , and much more to all Kingdomes , or to that which was to be greater then they all , and to deuour the whole earth . Neither is it true , that these 4. Kingdomes were by mutuall conflictes reduced to two , vnder Seleucus Nicanor , and Prolomy Laegides ; for ( to omit the controuersy about the 4. Kingdome , whether it were of Asia minor , or of Thracia , and Pontus ) it is certaine that there were 14. Kinges of Macedonia , which held that Kingdome about an hundred yeares , and 1. Machab. 1. they are all foure said to haue reigned after Alexander , and their Children after them many years .

But no part of M. Downams exposition is more absurd , then his applications of the 10. Kinges of the Seloucidae and Lagidae to the 10. hornes of the beast mentioned cap. 7. for ( to omit that this was Porphyries deuise , by which he made himselfe ridiculous to all other expositours ) M. Downams particuler application canteyneth so many absurdityes , as I am persuaded his freindes will blush , and all others will pitty the poore man ; for first , whereas he putteth Seleucus Nicanor to be the 2. horne , taking one King of Egypt , and the next of Syria , because Ptolomy Philadelphus who was the Downams exposition contrary to all others , euen his owne fellowes . second King of Egypt was a great fauourer of the Iewes , he is constrayned to interprete the 5. verse of the 11. Chapter of this Seleucus Nicaner , against all expositours , euen his owne Tremellius and Iunius , who by those wordes , & de Principibus cius &c. or as they read it : alter ex Principibus cius , vnderstand Ptolomaus Philadelphus , whom M. Downam will by no meanes acknowledg to be any of these 10. hornes ; and consequently the second horne is not to be found in this 11. Chapter , as neither the 2. and another King , which is none of these hornes , is mentioned in their place , by which M. Downams Downam contradicteth himselfe . assertion , that the 10. hornes which successiuely tyrannized ouer lury are mentioned in order in this 11. Chapter , is wholy ouerthrown . Likewise he omitteth Seleucus Ceraunus elder brother to Antiochus Maguus , though he also be mentioned in this Chapter . Fynally of all these 10. which he nameth hornes , because they tyrannized ouer the people of the Iewes , he cannot proue , that aboue two of them persecuted , or in a manner molested the Iewes : indeed they were so busied with their owne affayres , that they were rather glad to procure the Iewes to be their friends , then to exasperate them . Ptolomy Lagides the first King of Egypt did inuade Ierusalem , as other histories report , but Daniel omitted it , which is a signe , that his intent in numbring these Kinges , was not to declare the persecution , with which they were to afflict the Iewes , as M. Downam imagineth . Besides him , it is only certaine , that Antiochus Epiphanes , the last horne in M. Downams accompt did the like , for that which he affirmeth of Ptolomy Philopater out of the 12. verse , is a meere fable , since it is manifest out of Polybius lib. 5. and other histories , that the thousands , which there he is foretould to ouerthrow , were of the army of Antiochus Magnus , for he slew and tooke prisoners aboue 10. thousand . And as for Antiochus Magnus himselfe , true it is , that he came to Ierusalem , not against the Iewes , but against Antiochus magnus & Seleucus Philopater his elder sonne , were the Iewes benefactors . Scopas one of Ptolomyes Captaines , against whom the Iewes themselues assisted Antiochus , with which he was so well pleased , that he certified his Captaynes of the Iewes good vsage towards him , & how he had decreed to reward them ; for which cause he is by Iosephus accompted one of their benefactors . And the like we may say of Seleucus Philopater his elder sonne in whose commendation the Scripture it selfe speaketh 2. Mach. 3. & 4 testifying , that in his tyme the Citty of Ierusalem was in all peace , and the Temple honoured with many guifts , aswell by him , as it had byn before by his predecessors , and that he in particuler allowed all things necessary to the Sacrifices ; and that which M. Downam obiecteth against him , that he sent to exhaust and empty the treasury and Temple of Ierusalem , the Scripture relateth the matter at large in the same place , and sheweth , how that action of his proceded from the false information and instigation of Symon , who was appointed to keep & defend the Temple , and of Apollonius Gouernour of Calosyria and Phaenices , whom Symon had moued to that effect , and tould , that the treasure was common , and not apperteyning to the Sacrifices . But that this proceeded not from the King , is manifest by that action of O●ias the High Priest , who to defend himselfe from the vexations of Symon and Apollonius , tooke it to be his bestcourse , to go himselfe to the King , and to put himselfe Only Antiochus Epiphanes is in the Scripture accounted a persecutor of the Iewes . vnder his Kingly protection , which seemeth to haue stood him in good steed , since the Scripture maketh no mention of any further trouble in that Kings dayes . but presently addeth these words , Sed post Seleu●i vitae excess●m cùm suscepisset regnum Antiochus &c. By which plainely appeareth the difference betwixt those two Kinges , and how those wicked courses which Seleucus hindered , were set forward by Antiochus . And indeed , this is the only King , whom the Scripture accompteth a persecutor of the Iewes , and therfore Dan. 8. there is no mention of any of the rest , but only of the 4. among which Alexanders Monarchy was deuided , and forthwith after them of this Antiochus , and in the 11. Chapter , as we haue seene , though many of the others be specified , yet there is no mention , that any of them persecuted the Iewes , but only of the warres , which they had among themselues . There remayneth yet the greatest absurdity contayning a flat corruption and contradiction of the Scripture , in that M. Downam maketh the little horne , which arose after the 10. to be one of the 10. and the 10. But because I haue had occasion to handle this point heeretofore , I will not weary the Reader with a needles repetion .

8. After this M. Downam commeth againe to proue , that the first place which Bellarmine citeth , is to be vnderstood Downam speaketh foolishly and from the purpose . of Antiochus , which no man denieth , and therfore all that labour is lost , vnles he would infer out of that , that it is not to be vnderstood of Antichrist , but that also were foolish as we haue seen . And it is litle better to infer , that if Antichrist be spoken of in this place , he was to be the immediate successor of Seleucus Philopater : for who seeth not , that this is a personall propriety of Antiochus , which could not be fulfilled in any , but himselfe ; so that M. Downam might aswell infer , that Antichrist cannot be spoken of in this place , except he had bin Antiochus himself : which indeed is his wonted figure of petitio principij . Wherfore we say , that Antiochus , who was Seleucus his brother , and succeeded him in his kingdome , was in the manner of getting it ●et downe in the Scripture a figure of Antichrists comming to his , and this is that which S. Hierome , & all Christian writers affirme against Porphiry , and his like . But now M. Downam denieth , that Antiochus did arise from most base How Antiochus Epiphanes arose from base estate . estate , because he was Sonne to Antiochus the great & Brother to Seleucus Philopater . As though a Kings Sonne , and Brother , may not be obscure and abiect in a kingdome , out of which he hath liued , and in which he had no right or title , nor yet power to succeed ; for it were too much simplicity in M. Downam to imagine , that Hierome and Bellarmine spake of basenes of birth , since that it is evident , they only speake of him in th●t sort in respect of the obtaining of the kingdome secretly , Dan. 11. and by deceipt , and not by force , wheras otherwise he was by all thought vnworthy to be King . And as for M. Downams exposition of the word vile , or despised in Dan. no doubt somtime it may signifie wicked ; and now I will not contend whether Seleucus Philopater . v. ●0 . be called Vilissimus in the vulgar translation , because of ●● base poling of the people , though Why Seleucus Philopater is called Vilissimus . M. Downams friends transl●●e i● otherwise , by which it appeareth , that the Hebrew word is not all one in both places , and besides many of Seleucus Philopaters predecessours were as wicked as he , and therfore it is 〈◊〉 probable , that he was called Vilissimus , rather because he liued obscurely without doing any memorable act , for which cause he is also said to raigne but a few daies , though he were King twelue yeares . But to omit all this , M. Downam cannot deny , but that one may be called abiect , vile , base , contemptible , despised , or what it pleaseth him , by reason of his obscure life , and vnfitnes , want of meanes , and vnworthines of the dignity which he pretendeth : and when the word is to be taken in this sense , we must gather out of the text , and the circumstances , which concurre in the History , and Person , out of which no man can deny but that S. Heromos sense is most cleare ; and if we speake of Antiochus before he was King , it is more then M. Downam can proue , that he was known to be so exceeding wicked , that he deserued to be called vile in that respect , and after he was King for all his wickednes he came to be called Noble , and is so named in all Histories , yea in the Scripture it self .

9. Now wheras M. Downam sayth , that though Antiochus be atype of Antichrist , yet from hence we must infer not the selfe same particuler , which is proper to the person of Antiochus , but the like . It is very true in this , though sometime this rule doth not hould , as is manifest in the example of Exodus , where the Pascall Lambe is a figure of our Sauiour in that particuler of not hauing the bones broken , but in this , it is true , and so nether S. Hierome and Bellarmine , or any of the rest do infer that Antichrist shall vse the same deceipt that Antiochus did , but the like , nor that he shall obtayne the same Kingdome , as M. Downam very ridiculously would beare his Reader in hand : ●or who knoweth not , that Antiochus was not only King of the Iewes , but of Syria and Asia which S. Hierome inferreth Antichrist is not proued to be the King of the Iewes because Antiochus was so . not of Antichrist , only he nameth the Kingdome of the Iewes , because it is manifest out of other places , as hath byn shewed , that Antichrist shall make himselfe their King and Messias . But it was far from S. Hierome and Bellarmine to proue it out of this place . And to this I might also ●d , that by the Kingdome of the Iewes , they meane not the country of Iewry , but rather the dominion ouer that Nation , and their persons , wheresoeuer they be . For it is vncertaine , whether there shal be any Iewes in that Country at Antichrists comming or no , and it seemeth more probable , that they shall recouer it in his time , and by his meanes . Wherfore S. Hierome and Bellarmine only endeauour to proue out of this place , that Antichrist shall haue an obscure beginning , and come to be King by deceipt , which M. Downam might haue perceaued by Bellarmins minor , or Assumption , in which he neuer goeth about to proue , that the Pope is not Antichrist , because he is not King of the Iewes , which had bene his best and readyest way , if he had inferred out of this place , that Antichrist shal be so : and wheras M Downam saith , that to argue from an allegory , i● but asleight argument in Diuinity , I haue already shewed , that when the allegoricall sense is certayne , and knowne by the generall consent of Fathers , as it is in this place , the argument is not sleight , but most Downam insolently reiecteth S. Hierōe . firme and strong , and M. Downam is most ridiculous in affirming , that S. Hierome ●● ouerseene , and that it is a wonder , he being one of the most learned Fathers , and the matter so easy : for who seeth not the insolent vanity of this heriticall Doctor , who perswadeth himselfe , that his bare word is able to discredit S. Hieroms exposition , whose learning and exactnes in the Scripture , the whole world admireth , and it is hard to find any place in the exposition , whereof he is so earnest as in this , impugning ex professo , the exposition of Porphiry whom M. Downam ●aketh vpon hi● to defend , and that not only agaynst S. Hierome , but against all other Christian , and Ecclesiasticall Downam abuseth S. Hierome . expositours , either before or after S. Hieromes time . Finally M. Downam is too impudent and absurd , to make a shew , as if S. Hieroms meant to proue out of the 23. v. that Antichrist shal be of a small Nation , since he himselfe acknowledgeth , that S. Hierome expoundeth those words otherwise , but this is the fruite of Heresy , first to make men impugne the truth , and the Doctors of Gods Church , who defend it , and then to seeke by such seely shifts to make their party seeme good , and to deceaue their Readers , by which indeed to any indifferent and discreet Reader , they discouer theyr owne shame , as M. Downam doth in this place , as well by this , as also by his simple repetition of his exposition of the fourth beast , and his 10. hornes , which notwithstanding he will now go about to proue , by impugning the exposition of all other but Infidels and Hereticks , concerning that place .

10. But first , he will haue a saying to the Pope , & infer that according to their exposition who think that the 4. beast , Cap. 7. signifieth the Roman Empire , it is very likely , that the Pope is Antichrist , seing hitherto he is the last that hath ruled in Rome , and shall according to the Papists owne conceipt continue to the end , The Pope succeedeth not in the Roman Empyre . but it is no meruaile , though M. Downam insisteth not much vpon this proofe , for first it is manifest , that not the Pope , but the Emperour is he that suceedeth in the Roman Empire , and it is likewise false , that the Papists hould , that either the Pope , or the Emperour shall continue to the end in Rome : since they plainly affirme , that the Empire shal be first deuided among 10. Kings , wherof none of them shal be Emperour , and after surprised by Antichrist himself , who shall subdue The Seleucidae are not signified by the fourth beast . Dan. 7. those 10. Kings : and it is likewise more probable in their conceipt , that Rome it self shal be vtterly ouerthrowne by the same 10. Kings and Antichrist , as we haue seene before , and yet besides these two false assertions , M. Downam to make his argument good , supposeth two other ( ifs ) as false as these . First , that the ten hornes should be the successiue rulers of the Roman state : and 2. that the 10. or last horne should be Antichrist ; which are not only false , but also foolish suppositions , and the latter expresly against the Scripture which maketh Antichrist not the 10. but the 11. horne , as hath byn proued . Now let vs see how he can proue , that by the 4. beast is signified , not the Roman , but the Seleucidae , and first he inferreth it , out of that false ground , which we haue already ouerthrowne , that the kingdome signified by the fourth beast , was to haue an end before the comming of the Messias , but he beingeth no proofes for this , but only quoteth cap. 7. 11. 26. 27. which we haue already shewed to make against him .

Secondly , he supposeth , that cap. 7. v. 25. 26. 27. is to be vnderstood of Antiochus his warres against the Iewes , which is his common fault of petitio principij , and against the consent of all good expositours , and the text it selfe .

Thirdly , he obiecteth that of the Romans : After they Apoc. 17. had obtayned the dominion of Iewry , there were more then ten that ruled ouer the Holy Land . But what is this to the purpose , since that these ten horns signyfie 10. Kings , which shall raign togeather , as appeareth plainly by Apoc. 17. which M. Downam obiecteth to himselfe , and only answereth , that these of Dan. 7. are not the same , but other 10. which tyrannized ouer the Kingdome of the Iewes successiuely , as they are particulerly Dan. 11. cap. 5. nu. 2. described cap. 11. but how false this is , hath already appeared , as likewise that which he addeth , that he whom the Papists take to be Antichrist , in Daniel is one of the 10. hornes , it being manyfest that both Daniel , & S. Io. describe 10. besides him .

Fourthly , he saith , that all that Dan. saith of the 10. horne ( so he calleth the 11. ) do fuly and wholy agree to Antiochus Epiphanes , but not to the 10. Prince of the Romans . But we shall see a litle after , how well M. Downam can apply the pulling vp of 3. hornes to Antiochus , which that little horne cap. 7. is said to do , and I belieue we shall find him as far to seeke , as he that would goe about to shew the same of the 10. Prince of the Romans , which no wise man will do , and M. Downam knoweth well inough that Bellarmine neuer imagined any such matter .

Fifthly , M. Downam argueth from his conference of that , which is written of the little horne , chapter 7. with those thinges which are more plainely recorded of Antiochus , chap. 8. 23. &c. and chap. 11. 21. &c. But what meruaile is there , if the 7. and 11. Chapters agree , since they are both to be vnderstood of Antichrist , as hath bene proued , and likewise Antiochus was a figure of Antichrist , and therfore no meruade , though that which is laid of him cap. 8. be very like to those 〈◊〉 which are related of Antichrist in thee : ther places , and yet M. Downam much mistaketh in making the Goat . buck cap. 8. to comprehend the 2. last beasts cap. 7. for of this he neyther bringeth proofe nor probability , only he sheweth very well , that the 4. heads of the third beast cap. 7. signify the same , that the 4. hornes of the goat cap. 8. and consequently that the Seleucidae and Lagidae , which were The Seleucidae & Lagidae belong to the third beast . two of these hornes , belong to the third beast , and in no sort to the fourth . All the rest which he addeth is an idle repetition of his former fooleries already confuted . 6. He affirmeth without all proofe , that the people 〈◊〉 , and oppress●● by these hornes ▪ are the people of the Iewes , wheras Antichrist in the Papist conceipt , shal be the counterfait 〈◊〉 of the Iewes : for he can only proue that Antiochus persecuted the Iewes , which is no argument to proue ; that Antichrist shall persecute them also ; since it is manifest , that the Iewes in those tymes , were not a figure of the Iewes in Antichrists tyme , out of the Christians , whom I suppose M. Downam will not deny to be now Gods elected people . 7. He argueth from the agreement of the tymes , set downe in D●n . to that which happened in Antiochus . But of this we haue treated sufficiently before , shewing , that he hath no ground for that he saith , and besides it Cap. 8. is most true that the tyme mentioned cap. 8. agreeth most fitly to Antiochus , the other not , though if they did , it were only an argument , that in this Antiochus was a most exact figure of Antichrist . And this is all he can say for his new exposition of the Seleucida , or against that of S. Hierome , and all other good Authors .

11. Now at length M. Downam commeth to Bellarmines assumption , or Minor , where first he telleth vs , that the The Popes whom the Protestants accompt Antichrist arise not from base estate . Pope ariseth from base estate , whether we consider the meane estate of the first Bishop of Rome , or the base birth and obscure parentage of diuers Popes ; and addeth , that Bellarmines allegations are but a vayne florish nothing appertayning to this purpose . But what impudency is this ? Do not those authorities plainly shew , that the Popes of Rome were highly esteemed of , both among Christians , & Gentiles , long before the times that the Protestants assigne for Antichrists comming ? and consequently , that those Popes which they most foolishly , and impiously assigne , did not arise from base estate . But ( saith he ) the estate of the first Bishops of Rome was meane : Well suppose it were so , what were this against those Popes which you make Antichrist , whose estate was not meane as Bellarmine proueth ; as indeed the state of the first cannot be said to be by any , that maketh accompt of spirituall prehemmence and authority , and preferreth it before any temporall dignity whatsoeuer ? But in these worldly Ministers eyes , our Sauiour himselfe would seeme meane , if he were vpon earth againe in the manner that he was . And his other obiection is as foolish , of the base birth , and obscure parentage of diuers Popes . As though this were the b●f●nes , that we speake of now , or the Protestants impugued any particuler Pope , and not the whole succession of them for these 1000. yeares ? But if he would haue said any thing to the purpose , he should haue shewed , as Bellarmine rightly saith , that the Pope vntill the yeare 600. was most obscure , & of no name , and that then suddainly , and by deceipts he vsurped some high place . This M. Downam neuer toucheth , but passeth it ouer , as though he had byn blind , as no doubt he was with malice , which made him break out into such a fit of rayling without all modesty or measure , which See part. 2. cap. 5. therfore I omit in this place , & reserue all such stuffe to the 2. Part , especially since M. Downam acknowledgeth that now it is not to the purpose ; only the Reader must not let passe his Downam chargeth Bellarmin vniustly . charge against Bellarmine , for cunningly passing ouer in silence the other part of fraud and deceipt , which he may see by the wordes , which now I alledged out of Bellarmine to be most false True it is , that he bringeth no distinct proofs for this , but only by shewing the Popes greatnes before the yeare 600. euidently conuinceth , that he came not to it then by any Fraud or deceipt , but succeeded into the lawfull Inheritance of his Predecessours : for as I said before , now the Downam omitteth Bellarmin his argument . question is not of the election of any particuler Pope , but whether the Popes in generall did at that tyme obtayne by fraud any great dignity , being base before . And thus M. Downam concludeth his discourse concerning this first argument , omitting , as the Reader may consider , the greatest part of it , which is taken from the littlenesse of the home cap. 7. by which he will haue Antiochus to be signified ; and yet contendeth , that he was not little , but rather alway great : which two assertions , how they hang togeather , I leaue to the Readers iudgement .

12. To Bellarmines second argument , he hath nothing else to answere , but to tell vs , that the 4. beast is the Kingdome of the Seleucidae & Lagidae ; and that the 10. horne ( he meaneth the 11. ) was Antiochus Epiphanes . All which hath ben sufficiently Antichrist shall ouerthrow 3. Kings . confuted already : wherefore we are now only to note how he contradicteth himselfe in explicating how Antiochus Epiphanes was little , before his comming to the Crowne : for now besides his vile and base conditions , he can tell vs , that he was called little , because of his vnl●kenes to be King . First , because he was the 3. and yongest sonne of Antiochus Magnus , his elder brother Seleucus also hauing a sonne called Demetrius . Secondly , because he was to be a perpetuall hostage a● Rome ; wherefore he must needs graunt , that Antiochus may be called despectus , cap. 11. v. 21. aswell for these reasons and the like , as for his base conditions , which a little before he denied so obstinatly . Now the 3. hornes , which the Scripture saith were to be pulled vp before the little horne , M. Downam will by no meanes haue to be Dan. 7. Kings of other Kingdomes then Syria , and much lesse of diuers , as of Egypt , Lyhia , and Ethiopia , but the 3. immediate predecessors of Antiochus , and this he proueth , because they were expressly called the 3. former hornes , viz. of the ten . But he knoweth well Dan. 11. inough , that these 3. Kinges are named cap. 11. as we shall see forthwith . And besides the absurd it yes , which this exposition conteyneth as we haue already shewed , why doth he not shew vs what these 3. immediate predecessors were , whom Antiochus made away ? According to the succession of the Kinges of Syria , which he himselfe alloweth they should be Seleucus Ceraunus his Vncle , Antiochus Magnus his Father , and Seleucus Philopater his brother , and though Antiochus Epiphanes were so wicked , that in that respect it might be though that he would be ready inough to contriue any mischiefe , yet to affirme all this without either History or other witnes is a strange liberty , if not of lying , yet at least of saygning . The death of his brother Seleucus Philopater is affirmed by M. Downam to haue ben contriued by Heliodorus , whom he affirmeth to haue ben suborned by Antiochus Epiphanes , and quoteth v. 20. as though all this were Scriptures but there is no such matter , and Appianus in Cyri●co , who affirmeth that Heliodorus slew him treacherously , likewise affirmeth , that he would haue made himselfe King , and that they who put him back , admitted Antiochus ; by which it appeareth , that Heliodorus was not so much deuoted to Antiochus , as M. Downam imagineth . And it is easie to answere to that proofe , that the 3. hornes , are called the 3. former : for it is plaine , that Daniel calleth them so , because they appeared vnto him before the little horne , and were likewise to be in the world before it , yea if we would stand strictly vpon that word , and admit M. Downams interpretation , that those 10. hornes were to reigne successiuely ; we should rather say that the 3. former , or first were the 3. first predecessors Why the 3. Kinges which Antichrist shall slay , are called the 3. first or former . of Antiochus then the 3. last , which were rather to be called the 3. latter . But since the truth is , that all the 10. were to be togeather , there can no order of first or last be appointed vs among them , and therfore we must of force say that they were called 3. of the first , because the 10. appeared before the little one ; for indeed they are not called the 3. former hornes , as M. Downam auoucheth , but 3. of the former ; betwixt which there is a great difference , euen as much as betwixt Gods truth and M. Downams lye . And all this is made Downam corrupteth the Scripture . more plaine in the exposition of this vision v. 24. where this little horne is expounded to be another King , which shall arise after the 10. and be more mighty then the former , and shall humiliate 3. Kinges ; where we see , that this little horne is said to be after the 10. and the 10. before it ; but the 3. are set downe without any particuler order , because they were to be of the 10. among which there is no order described . Now , that which he addeth of Antiochus being Downam belieth Pope Gregory the 7. and the Cardinalls . a Type &c. is a meere fabling , and already confuted ; besides that Antiochus can be no type in this place , where he is not spoken of at all , as hath ben shewed . Likewise that loud lye , which he telleth of Gregory the 7. affirming , that it is well knowne , that he made away 6. of his predecessors by poyson , argueth so shameles an impudency , as nothing more . Like vnto which , is that c●lumniation of the Cardinalls , among whome he affirmeth , that it is an ordinary practice to minister ●● Italian ●●gg● to their Popes : In proofe wherof he alleageth Vrbanus 7. Innocent . ● . that there haue bene 9. Popes in the tyme of Queene Elizabeths raigne : and that Vrbanus 7. Gregory 14. and Innocentius the 9. were so suddainly plucked vp , that he supposeth their names haue bene heard of to few in England . And is not this a great wonder , that 9. old men should dy in more then 40. yeares ? Or that a yong Woman liuing in all pleasure should outline them all ? These are M. Downams myracles , and as for the 3. Popes , whome he nameth , they were all most vertuous and holy men , but extreme old ; and therfore no meruaile though their being so close in the conclaue caused the one , if not two of them to dy so soone ; Gregory lay sicke or the stone aboue 3. weeks , and Gregory 14. the other two had bene Popes so little a tyme , and giuen so little offence to any , that there could be no suspicion of any poyson but this is the Ministers charity .

13. To the place , which Bellarmine alleageth out of Dan. 11. 19 this purpose , M. Downam answereth . 1. that Daniel speaketh not of Antichrist , to which I need not reply any more . 2. that though Antiochus were a type in this , yet the same 〈◊〉 were not to be applied to Antichrist . But M. Downam mistaketh them 〈◊〉 much ; for this is one of the places , which canot be applyed to Antiochus ; and therfore is litterally to be vnderstood of Antichrist . 3. M. Downam boldly affirme●h , that this place , is only to be expounded of Antiochus his spoyling of Egipt , hauing in his company the Lybians , and the Aethyopians . And to this purpose he proposeth his new reading according to the Hebrew : the Lubine and Cu●him , that is the Lybians and Ethiopiam , shal be in his passages or voyages , and least we should with Bellarmine obiect the authority of S. Hierome , and the other Fathers against him , he preuenteth vs by writing ●h●s : Now if Hierome or any of the Fathers haue let fall any such thing ( as Bellarmine faith ) we are to esteeme it at an extremeur of theirs , which we are to passe by , rather then with the Cacanorae , the Papists , to gather it vp , as fit food for their soules ; Downam opprobriously reiecteth the Fathers . and then he hath this note in the margent , Cacanorae auis quaedam est apud Indor , quae alterius auis assecla est , ●ui●s vescatur excrementis . S●●lig . de subtil . What should a man say to this filthy Companion , that dareth open his foule mouth to such opprobrious words against the Fathers ? Are not those fooles in a 〈◊〉 taking , that follow such a fo●le ? But his blasphemous 〈◊〉 against God and his Sai●●●● , in which he imitat●● in his Maister Antichrist , must 〈…〉 from cleauing to the Fathers , giuen vnto the Church by Christ for her Pastors , Guides , and Doctours , and therfore we nothing doubt , but that S. Hieromes interpretation , and exposition S. Hierso translation defended . of this place , approued and imbraced by all Ecclesiasticall Wryters , both before and after him , is to be preferred before M. Downams new deuise , and the Hebrew text , which hath ad gressus eius , if we belieue Tremelius and Iunius , i● as capable of S. Hieromes translation , ●● of M. Dowmans ; and the words immediately going before plainly shew , that S. Hieromes interpretation is the right , which are , Et me●ti● manum suam in terras , and after nameth only these three , two of which M. Downam would cut off by his new translation , and consequently must also change that terras , into terram ; and yet euen then also the coherence would shew , that the Prophet spake rather of inuasion , then assisting , of enemyes then friends . But besides this , we must put M. Downam to a little more trouble , vrg●●g him to tell vs , in what History he ●uer read , that Antiochus inuaded the land of Egypt any oftener Antiochus Epiphanes inuaded not Egypt oftener than twice . then twice ; or both which Daniel speaketh from the 22. to the ●● . v. declaring how he was put back the second tyme by the Romans ; after which he neuer returned into Egypt , and consequently this inuasion of that Countrey , which Daniel speaketh o● in this place , cannot in any sort be vnderstood of Antiochus , but must be wholy referred to Antichrist . Finally , it M. Downam will stand to his owne rule of conferring one place of Scripture with another , what can be more p●aine●●●n this , that Daniel speaketh now of the same 3. Kinges ; which cap. 7. he said , should be plucked vp , and humiliated by the little borne ? Wherfore , whether M. Downams excrements , for so he calleth farre better mens expositions then his owne , be worth the taking vp or no , I leaue to the Readers iudgment , but in my conceipt they sauour very strongly of heresy and folly .

14. To Bellarmines Minor , M. Downam is dumbe , as likewise to his consutation of the obiections , which some other make against it . And to his third argument he only answereth , that Lactantius , S. Irenaus , and S. Hierome are ●● Antichrist shall subdue the 7. Kings which remaine after the ● . and so he shal be Monarch of the whole world . Scriptures , a● though Bellarmine had affirmed , that they were , because in the beginning he saith that these 4. things are read of Antichrist in the Scriptures . But M. Downam might easily haue conceyned , that Bellarmine could not proue better that this doctrine is conteyned in the Scripture , then by alleadging the authority of the Fathers , who gather it out of the Scripture : and yet to satisfy M. Downam in all points , he alleadgeth also a place of Scripture , whereall the 10. Kinges Apoc. 17. are said to giue their power to the Beast , that is the Diuell , which the 7. cannot do without yielding themselues to Antichrist after that the other three be slaine . To which M. Downam hath nothing to reply , but only asketh , whether S. Iohn speaketh of Antichrist his either ki●●ing 3. ●● Apoc. 17. subduing 7 ? To which I answere , that S. Iohn plainely foretelleth , that all the 10. shall giue their power to the beast , and consequently that the 7. which remaine after the death of the other 3. will concurre with Antichrist , which they cannot do , without yielding themselues vnto him , since it is certayne , that he shal be the Mo●●●ch of the whole world , and because the Scripture is not so expresse , Bellarmine only saith , that it may be inferred out of that place , as it may likewise out of the 12. and 13. Apoc. as in part hath ben touched . And is it not euident inough of it selfe , that the little horne , which presumed to encounter , if not all the 10. yet Apoc. 12. & 13. at least three of them , while he was so little , will not stay there , when he is growne great , but cause the other 7. to subiect themselues vnto him ? The other questions and assertions which M. Downam hath , are already confuted , and therefore not to be repeated now againe . Wherefore let vs see , what he saith to the testimonies of S. Chrysostome and S. Cyril . I answere ( saith he ) that for substance these Fathers held the truth , for what Monarch hath there byn in the West these 5. or 6. hundreth yeares besides the Pope & c ? where I beseech the Reader to Why M. Downam admitteth any of the Fathers . marke attentiuely M. Downams reason , why he alloweth the testimony of the Fathers , which is no other , but because they are against the Pope in some sort , according to his conceipt , for otherwise we may see by that which he answeteth to the 3. former , and that which he saith of them all in generall a little before , how little he setteth by their authority . Now for the Monarchy of the West , it is euident The Pope no temporall Monarch . that it remaineth in the Emperours , and that which he attributeth to the Pope , euery child will see , how different it is , from the Monarchy of the Romans ; and how small a thing it is , if you take away his spirituall authoritie , which no doubt is the greatest vpon earth . But what is that to the temporall power , of which these Fathers speake ? Now how the Pope is Lord of the whole earth , and how he disposeth of the new found world , we shall examine at large in the second part , and how the gouernment of Rome belongeth not to Antichrist , in whose time it shal be destroyed , as neither the 2. beast Apoc. 13. nor the 7. head Apoc. 17. to the Pope hath bin already sufficiently declared .

15. To the 4. argument , M. Downam answereth nothing , Antichrist shall persecute the Christians through the whole world with an innumerable army . which Bellarmine himself hath not confuted at large in his discourse of Gog and Magog , which M. Downam wholy omitteth , vnder pretext of not troubling his Reader , but indeed , because he would not discouer his owne shame , for otherwise at least he might haue answered to so much of it , as made against himself . The like deceipt he vseth in passing ouer Bellarmines answers , to the Protestants obiections , or arguments , wherby they indeauour to proue the Pope Antichrist ; because he saw that they contayned in effect an answere to his former booke . But I may not omit either , that so the Reader may iudge , how well M. Downam hath cleared them in his former booke , of which he seemeth himself to make some doubt , by telling vs , that the controuersie betwixt vs , is not whether euery argument , that hath bin produced by euery one doth necessarily conclude the Pope to be Antichrist , and that , that discourse is rather personall , then reall , and therfore he letteth it passe .

THE SEAVENTENTH CHAPTER . Of Gog , and Magog .

WHERFORE the first opinion , or rather errour ( saith Bellarmine ) is of the Iews , who teach that Gog is Antichrist , & Magog innumerable Scythian Nations which lurke within the Caspian Mountaynes , and that Antichrist shall come with Magog , that is with an Army of Scythians at the same tyme , that the Messias shall first appeare in Hierusalem , and that there shal be a battaile fought in Palestine , and such an ouerthrow in the Army of Gog , that for 7. yeares the Iewes shall not cut any wood from trees to make fire withall , but shall burne the speares , bucklers , and other weapons which shal be found with the dead bodyes , and that afterward there shall be a golden world &c.

S. Hierome relateth this opinion in cap. 38. Ezech. and Petrus Galatinus lib. 5. cap. 12. cont. Iudaeos , and Rabbi Dauid Kimhi in his Commentary vpon the Psalmes in many places ; but the Iewes erre in two things . First , that they think the battaile of Gog & Magog , shal be in the first comming of Christ , confounding the first with the second . Wheras notwithstanding the Scriptures plainly teach , that Christ in his first comming , was to come in humility , and as a meeke sheep to be sacrificed , as it is manifest Isa. 53. and in other places . Secondly , in that they thinke , that Antichrist shall come against them , and fight with their Messias , wheras indeed Antichrist shall be their Messias , and shall fight with the Iewes against our Sauiour the true Christ .

The second opinion is of Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 24. 25. & 26. who thinketh , that the battaile of Gog and Magog , shall be a thousand yeares after the death of Antichrist , for he teacheth that after 6000. yeares , from the beginning of the world , Antichrist shall come and raygne three yeares & a halfe , and that then Antichrist shal be slayne , Christ shall appeare , the Resurrection shall be , and the Saints shall raign heere with Christ vpon earth for a thousand yeares in great peace and tranquillity , the Infidels not being wholy rooted out , but seruing peaceably . Which ended , the Diuell shal be loosed againe , and a most fierce warre of all Nations be raysed against the same Saints , which they serued for a thousand yeares ; and this is the battaile of Gog and Magog , of which Ezechiel , and S. Iohn do speake . But that a little after all the wicked shal be slayne by God , and that then the second Resurrection shall be , and the world be wholy renewed .

This opinion was also of many of the ancient Fathers , as Papias , S. Iustine , S. Irenaeus , Tertullian , Apollinaris and some others , as S. Hierome relateth in cap. 36. Ezech. and Eusebius lib. 3. hist. cap. vlt. But it is long since exploded as a manifest errour : for our Lord Matth. 24 and ●5 . plainly teacheth , that after the persecution of Antichrist , the last iudgment shall follow forthwith , and that all the good shall go into euerlasting life , and all the euill into euerlasting fire , and therfore that afterward , there shall not be another thousand yeares , nor euer after any more battailes .

The third opinion is of Eusebius , who lib 9. demonst Euang. cap. 3. thinketh , that Gog is the Roman Emperour , and Magog his Empire . But he buildeth vpon a false Foundation , for he deduceth this opinion ou● of Numb. 24. where according to the translation of the 70. we read , the kingdome of Gog shal be extolled , and his Kingdome shal be increased : God hath brought him out of Egypt &c. where the Scripture seemeth to say , tha● when Christ shall returne out o● Egypt in his infancy , the Kingdome of Gog shal be extolled . But it is manifest , that in the infancy of Christ , no Kingdome was extolled , but that of the Romans .

But without doubt the edition of the 70. is corrupted in this place , for in Hebrew it is not Gog , but Agag . ve●arom meagag malcho : & tolletur propter Agag , vel prae Agag Rex etus . And his King shal be taken away for Agag , or in respect of Agag , and the sense is according to S. Hierome in cap. 38. Ezech. and Saul the first King of Israel , shall be taken away for Agag , that is , because he shall sinne not killing Agag , or according to others , Saul shal be extolled before Agag , that is , he shall preuayle and ouercome Agag . Both are true . And it is certaine , that , that place of Numer . is vnderstood of the Kingdome of the Iewes , and not of Christ , or the Romans , for it beginneth : How faire are thy Tabernacles ó Iacob , thy Tents ô Israel &c.

The fourth opinion is of others , who by Gog and Magog vnderstand the battayles of the Diuell , and his Angells , long since past in Heauen with the good Angells , which S. Hierome confuteth as destroying the letter in cap. 38. Ezechiel .

The 5. opinion of Theodorus Bibliander , whom Chytraeus followeth in his Commentary vpon Apoc. 20. wherfore Bibliander Tab. 14. suae Chronologia , where he treateth exactly of Gog and Magog , and at length teacheth , that the Prophesy of Ezechiel and S. Iohn pertayneth not to the same tyme , but that the Prophesy of Ezechiel was fulfilled in the tyme of the Machabees , and that Gog and Magog were Alexander the Great , and his successors the Kinges of Egypt and Syria , who fought many battayles with the Iewes , and were at length ouercome by the Machabees , and that the Prophesy of S. Iohn was fulfilled in the tyme of Gregory the 7. and of some ensuing Popes , and that the Popes were Gog and Magog , and the other Princes and armyes of Christians , who fought a long tyme against the Saracens , for the recouery of the holy Land , and our Lords Sepulcher .

The first part of this opinion is also of Theodoretus in cap. 38. Ezech. but it cannot be defended : First because without doubt , the Prophesy of Ezechiel , and S. Iohn is one , and the same , and therefore both are to be fulfilled after the comming of Christ : for first S. Iohn saith , that the army of Gog shall come from the foure corners of the earth , and the same saith Ezechiel , namely expressing that in the army of Gog there shal be Persians from the East , Aethiopians from the South , Tubal that is Spanyardes from the West , and ●ogorma , that is Phrygians from the coasts of the North. Secondly S. Iohn saith that this army shal be destroyed by fier sent from Heauen : and the same affirmeth Ezechiel in the end of the 38. Chapter , I will rayne ( saith he ) fier and brimstone vpon him , and his Army . Finally S. Iohn after this battaile presently addeth the renewing of Ierusalem , that is the glorification of the Church , and likewise Ezechiel from chap. 40. to the end of his booke treateth of nothing els , but of the wonderfull renewing of Ierusalem .

Besides , Secondly it is proued , that the Prophesy of Ezechiel was not fulfilled in the tyme of the Machabees , for Ezech. 38. it is said to Gog , Thou shalt come in the last yeares , but Alexander the Great with his , came in the middle yeares . Likewise Ezechiel expresly saith , that in the army of Gog , there shal be Aethiopians , Lybians , Spaniards , Cappadocians &c. which notwithstanding neuer fought against Ierusalem , and chiefly in the tyme of the Machabees , for only the Syrians , and the Aegyptians fought against the Machabees .

Finally , Ezechiel describeth such a victory against Gog and Magog , that afterward no enemies were to be feared , but all battayles should be ended , but the victory of the Machabees was not such against the Kinges of Syria and Egypt , for nether the Iewes did euer altogeather ouercome the Kinges of Syria and Egypt , and a little after the Iewes were vexed and subdued againe by the Romans ; neither did they euer deliuer themselues out of their handes , as S. Augustine deduceth , and proueth lib. 18. de ciuitate Dei cap. 45. therefore the Prophesy of Ezechiel was not fulfilled before Christs tyme .

The other part of Biblianders opinion , which is his owne , and peculiar to him , is not only false , but also impious ; for first S. Iohn saith , that the battaile of Gog and Magog shal be against the Camp of the Saints , and the beloued Citty , that is against Gods true Church . But the warre of the Christians for the recouery of the Holy Land was wholy against the Saracen Mahometans , vnlesse perhaps Bibliander would haue the Mahometans to be the true Church , and camp of the Saints . Secondly , S. Iohn saith , that there shal be in the army of Gog , men out of the 4. corners of the earth . But in the Army of the Christians , there were only out of the West , and North , that is French , Germans , Italians . Besides S. Iohn saith , that the warre of Gog , and Magog being ended , Hierusalem shall forthwith be renewed , and glorified , and that the Diuell , & Antichrist , and the false Prophets shal be throwne into euerlasting fire . But the warre of Christians for the Holy Land , is long since ended , and yet we see not any Hierusalem renewed , nor the Diuell , and the false Prophets cast into hell , for now , as our Aduersaries also confesse , the Diuell , and false Prophets most of all flourish .

Furthermore , God himselfe by manifest signes , and wonders , aswell at Antioch of Syria , as in other places manifestly shewed , that , that warre was acceptable vnto him , of which , see Gulielm . Tyri●s lib. 6. de bello sacro , and Paulus Aemilius lib. 4. de rebus Francorum .

Finally S. Bernard , whom Bibliander calleth a Saint , in Chronico , where he treateth of the tymes of Eugenius the 3. besides other holy men , was one of the chiefest Authors of this warre , for he , both by wordes and myracles perswaded an infinite multitude of French , and Germans , to go to that war , as he himselfe sheweth , initio lib. 2. de Consid . and the author of his life lib. 2. cap. 4. writeth , that S. Bernard after the battaile was ended , restored a blind man to his sight , in testimony that he had preached that warre in the name of God .

The 6. opinion is of the Magdeburgenses , cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. column . 435. where they teach that Gog & Magog , is the Kingdome of the Saracens , or Turkes ; which opinion is wholy opposite to the opinion of Bibliander ; & therfore it is better , or rather lesse euill . But yet absolutely it is fals● ; for Gog shall come in the last yeares , and shall not endure long , as it is plainly gathered out of S. Iohn , & Ezechiel . But the Kingdome of the Saracens began long since , and hath endured hitherto , almost a thousand yeares , which doubtlesse cannot be called a little tyme .

The 7. is of S. Ambrose , lib. 2. de fide cap. vlt. that Gog are the Gothes , who destroyed many Prouinces of the people of Rome . S. Hierome maketh mention of this opinion in quaest. heb. cap. 10. and saith , Whether it be true or no , the end of the warre will shew . And now doubtlesse , the issue of the war hath taught vs , that it was not true , for neyther hath there followed any renewing of the Church after the warre of the Gothes ; neither haue all warres ceased .

The 8. is of S. Hierome himselfe in cap. 38. Ezech. who seeing the difficulty , omitting the litterall sense did mystically expound it of the Heretikes : for he will haue Gog , which in Hebrew signifieth the House top , to signify the Heresiarches , who like to the toppe of an House are lifted vp , and proud ; and Magog which is interpreted , of the toppe of an House , to signify them who belieue these Arch-heretikes , and are subiect to them , as the House to the roofe or toppe . This opinion taken for the mysticall sense , is most true , but not in the litterall ; for Ezech. cap. 38. saith : that Gog shall come in the last yeares , and S. Iohn Apoc. 20. saith , that the same Gog shal come after a thousand yeares , and by the name of a thousand yeares , all Catholickes vnderstand all the time , which is from Christs comming to Antichrist . Since therfore Gog shall not come but about the end of the world , and heresies began in the beginning of the Church , while the Apostles liued , it is manifest , that properly , and litterally , Gog doth not signifie the Hereticks .

We must also know , that S. Hierome , when he saith , that Gog is interpreted an house roofe , and Magog , of an house roofe , meaneth not , that Gog and Magog in Hebrew are altogeather the same , that an house roofe , or of an house roofe with vs ; but he meaneth that it is in a manner the same , for properly an house roofe is not Gog , but Gog , and of an house roofe , is not Magog , but Miggag .

The 9. opinion is of S. Augustine lib. 20. de ciuitate Dei cap. 11. who by Gog vnderstandeth the Diuell , who is like a great house roofe , that is a great house roofe in which all the euill do dwell ; and by Magog he vnderstandeth the army of Antichrist gathered of the Nations of the whole world : which opinion doutbles is most true , and to be imbraced , in that it referreth Gog and Magog to the tymes of Antichrist , aswell , because all Catholike Authors , which write vpon the Apocalyps do follow it , as Arethas , Primasius , Beda , Haym● , Rupertus , Richardus , Anselmus , and others ; as also , because that all which is said by Ezechiel , and S. Iohn , of Gog and Magog do most rightly agree to Antichrist ; for then truly shal be the last and greatest persecution , and after it shall Ierusalem be renewed , that is , the Church glorified : neither shall there any battailes be heard of after . But in that by Gog it vnderstandeth the Diuell , it seemeth not true , for S. Iohn saith , that the Diuell being let loose , shall call Gog and Magog to warres , wherefore the Diuell is one thing and Gog another .

Wherefore our opinion , which is the 10. conteyneth three thinges . First we affirme , that the battaile of Gog and Magog is the battaile of Antichrist against the Church , as S. Augustine rightly taught . Secondly , we say , that it is very probable , that by Gog , Antichrist himselfe is signified , by Magog his army . For Ezechiel alway calleth Gog a Prince , and Magog a Land or Nation . Thirdly , we say that it is probable that Gog is so called of Magog ; and not contrarywise , so that Antichrist is called Gog because he is Prince of that Nation which is called Magog , and that the army of Antichrist is called Magog of the Scythian Nation , not that it consisteth of those Scythians , which the Iewes faygne to be beyond Cancasus and the Caspian Sea , but either because a great part of Antichrists army shall consist of Barbarous people , which came out of Scythta , as Turkes , Tartars , and the rest , or ( which I rather thinke ) because it shal be a very terrible and cruell army , for we call them Scythians , which we would call bloudy .

For that Magog signifieth the Scythian Nation , it is manifest out of Genes. 10. where we read that the second sonne of Iaphet was called Magog , of whome the Country of Magog was denominated , which his posterity inhabited , which was Scythia , as Iasephus teacheth lib. Amiq. cap. 11. and S. Hierome in quest. hebr. in Gen. cap. 10. For as from the three sonne of Cham , that is Chus , Myrami , and Chanaham , Aethiopia is called Chus , Aegipt Myrami , and Palestina Chanaham ; so doubtles Scythia is called Magog of Magog the sonne of Iaphet . And that Ezechiel naming Magog , had relation to the Nation denominated of Magog the sonne of Iaphet , it is manifest , because in the same place , he addeth as companions to Gog , other Nations denominated of other sonnes or nephews of Iaphet , as Gomer , Togorma , Mosoch , Tubal &c. Wherefore let vs conclude , that the battaile of Gog and Magog is the last persecution which Antichrist shall raise in the whole world against the Church .

Neither is it against vs , that Ezech. cap. 38. saith , that the weapons of Gog and Magog shal be burnt for the space of 7. yeares , wheras notwithstanding it is manifest , that after Antichrists death there shall not be past 45. daies to the end of the world , as is gathered out of Daniel 12. for Ezechiel speaketh not properly but figuratiuely after the manner of Prophets , neither meaneth he , that indeed those weapons are to be burned for the space of 7. yeares , but that it shal be so notable an ouerthrow , that the Launces and Targets of the slaine might suffice a very long tyme to make fires , if need were .

One doubt remaineth , whether by reason of the most cruell persecution of Antichrist , the Faith and Religion of Christ shal be altogeather extinguished . For Dominicus Soto in lib. 4. sent. dist. 46. q. 1. art. 1. thought surely that it would be so . The departing ( saith he ) and defection from that Seae , shal be a signe of the consummation of the world . And after . Faith being extinguished by the departure from that Sea Apostolike the whole world shal be vayne , and should without cause continue any longer . And after . Let therefore men be astonished , how pestilent self loue is ; for thence floweth puffing vp and pryde , which vnder the conduct of Antichrist shall at length consume the Citty of God .

But this opinion in my iudgment cannot be defended ; for first it is repugnant to S. Augustine , who lib. 20. de ciuit . Dei cap 11. saith : that the Church shall be euer inuincible against Antichrist . Neyther shall she ( saith he ) forsake her warfare , who is called by the name of Tents . Secondly , it seemeth to me also , to be repugnant to the Ghospell ; for Matth. 16. we read : Vpon this Book I will build my Church , and the gates of Hell shall nor preuayle against her . But how shall they not preuaile , if they shall wholy extinguish her ? Likewise Matth. 24. Our Lord saith of the Ministers of Antichrist : They shall giue great signs , so that the elect also shal be led into error , if it be possible . Where our Lord would signify , that there shall be many elect at that tyme , who shall not suffer themselues to be seduced by the myracles of Antichrist . Finally , all Wryters , who speake of Antichrists persecution , as Ezechiel , Daniel , S. Paul , S. Iohn , & all the Fathers alleaged before , say , that the victory of that war or persecution shall at length be the Churches . And surely , reason it selfe teacheth the same . For , who can belieue , that in that Battaile , in which with their whole Campes , God and the Diuell , Christ and Antichrist shall fight , God shal be ouercome by the Diuell , and Christ by Antichrist ?

M. Downams Answere confuted .

1. THvs farre Bellarmine . In which M. Downam is fully confuted . For the reasons which Bellarmine vseth against the first part of Biblianders opinion , do euidently conuince , that Ezechiel speaketh not of the Seleucidae , nor of their warres against the Iewes ; and that which M. Downam addeth , that S. Iohn speaketh of the enemyes of the Church , which Sathan incited after he was loosed , is the same in effect , which Bellarmine affirmeth . For we haue proued before , that Antichrist shal be in the world , when Sathan is loosed , and not before . Wherfore it remayneth euident , that this Battaile of Gog and Magog belongeth to Antichrist , and not to the Pope , and therfore that the Pope is not Antichrist , as M. Downam , and his Mates most impudently & impiously dare to affirme .

THE EIGHTEENTH CHAPTER . The Dotages of the Heretikes are refuted , with which they do not so much proue , as impudently affirme , that the Pope is Antichrist .

ALTHOVGH ( saith Bellarmine ) those things , which we haue hitherto treated of Antichrist , might suffice , since that we haue euidently shewed , that none of those things agree to the Pope , which the diuine Scriptures attribute to Antichrist : yet least any thing should be wanting , and that the impudency of our Aduersaries may be made manifest , I will briefly propose , and confute those arguments which Luther , Libellus Smalcaldicus , Caluin , Illyricus , Tilemanus , & Chytraus bring to proue , that the Pope is Antichrist .

And first Luther , although euery where he calleth the Pope the chiefest Antichrist , and chiefly in his booke de captiuieate Babylonica lib. contra execr abilem Bullam , Antichristi , in assert . articulorum , lib. cont. Ambros . Cathar . notwithstanding I could only find one argument of his , with which he endeauoureth to proue it , for in asser . art. 27. he speaketh thus : Daniel foretold cap. 8. that Antichrist shal be a King with an impudent face ; that is , as the Hebrew hath , mighty in shewes , pomps , and cerimonyes of outward workes , the spirit of saith in the ●eare tyme being extinguished , as we haue seene in fulfilled , with so many Religions , Orders , Colleages , Rites , Garments , Habites , Buildings , Constitutions , Rules , Obseruances , so that thou canst hardly rehearse the number of their names . And these same faces of Antichrist , as he calleth them , he recounteth and explicateth at large , lib. cont. Ambros . Cathar . de visione Danielis .

But this argument of Luther hath three faultes . The first is in the Foundation it selfe , for the Hebrew wordes sabbagim verbatim signify Rob●stus facie , and according to the Hebrew phrase , an unpudent fellow , who can not blush : for first so the 70. translate it 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Inuerecundus facie : so doth S. Hierome translate , so Theodoretus readeth , so out of the rules of the Rabbyns expoundeth it Franciseus Vatablus , Fortis facie ( faith he ) is he that blusheth not , and who is no ▪ ashamed .

Finally the same is gathered out of the like wordes Ezech. 3. the house of Israel hath a worne forehead , and an hard hart : behould I haue giuen thy face more forcible , then their faces , and thy forehead adwarder then their foreheads . Where in the Hebrew it is : The house of Israell haue a strong forehead , and I haue giuen thy face stronger then their faces , which haue no other sense , then this , ●s S. Hierome rightly explicateth , they are impudent indeed , but thou shalt not yield to their impudency , and if they do euill bouldly , and without shame , thou shalt reprehend them bouldly , and without shame : which since it is so , let Luther looke , least he hath an impudent face , if he will preferre his owne interpretation , before the Rabbyus , Theodoretus , S. Hierome , the 70. Interpreters , and Ezechiel himselfe .

The second fault of Luthers argument is , because it cannot be rightly gathered out of this sentence , that the Pope is Antichrist ( whatsoeuer it signifieth ) for though it were manifest , that Antichrist shal be potent in outward pompes , and cerimonyes ; yet it could not forthwith be gathered , that whosoeuer is mighty in outward pompes and cerimonyes , is Antichrist , for as the Logicians teach , nothing is gathered out of particuler affirmatiues : otherwise also Moyses was Antichrist , who instituted so many Cerimonyes in Exodus and Leuiticus , that they can searsly be numbred . And when in the same place it is said of Antiochus , and in his figure of Antichrist , that he shall vnderstand Aenigma's or darke speaches , if Luthers argument were good , it would follow , that all they who can solue Aenigma's , were Antichrists , which certainely is false and ridiculous .

The third fault is , that he attributeth to the Pope the Institution of all Orders , and Ecclesiasticall Cerimonies , whereas notwithstanding it is manifest , that many of them were not instituted by the Pope , but by other holy Fathers ; for the Greeke Church euer had and hath still Monasteries , rites , obseruations , cerimonies which they receaued from S. Basil , S. Paconius , and other Greeke Fathers , and not from the Bishop of Rome . See Cassianus his booke de Institutis renuntiantium , and S. Basilij Constitutiones . In the West also , the Orders of S. Benedict , S. Romualdus , S. Bruno , S. Dominick , and S. Francis were indeed approued by the Pope , but inuented and instituted by those holy men , whome the holy Ghost instructed . So that if these orders belong to Antichrists face , rather those holy Fathers , are to be called Antichrists , then the Pope .

Adde lastly , that the words of Daniel agree more fitly to no man ( excepting the true Antichrist , who is to be reuealed in his tyme ) then to Luther ; for he aboue all others had an impudent face ; for being a Priest , and a Monke , he marryedopenly a Nunne , of which there can be no example giuen in all Antiquity . Likewise he wrote lyes without any number , which are noted and published in wryting by many . Ioannes Cochlaeus in act . Lutheri anno 1523. wryteth , that out of one of Luthers bookes , there were noted by one 50. lyes : and that by another , Luther was conuinced of 874. lyes . Finally , what an impudency was that , when in lib. cont. Bullam . Leonis X. the same Luther durst excommunicate his Bishop , togeather with the whole Church , that adhereth to him ? Who euer heard , that a Bishop could be excommunicated by a Priest ?

The Councell of Chalcedon in tymes past , trembled at the audaciousnes of Dioscorus , who presiding in the second Ephesine Councell , presumed to excommunicate Pope Leo. But what comparison can there be betwixt Dioscorus . Patriarch of the second Sea , presiding in a generall Councell , and Luther a simple Monke writing in his chamber ? But now leauing Luther , let vs come to Melancthon .

THE NINTEENTH CHAPTER . The trifles of the Smalchaldicall Synod : of the Lutherans are confuted .

THERE is a booke of the Power & Primacy of the Pope , or of the Kingdome of Antichrist , put forth in the name of the Smalchaldicall Synod ; which to me seemeth to be Melancthons ; but whosoeuers it be , it hath nothing but words , & vayne bragging . It is well knowne ( saith the Author of the booke ) that the Bishops of Rome with their members defend impious doctrine , and impious worships , and plainly the notes of Antichrist agree to the kingdome of the Pope and his members . Hitherto the Proposition . Now let vs heare the proofes : for Paul ad Thessal . describing Antichrist , calleth him the aduersary of Christ , extolling himselfe aboue all that is said , or worshipped for God , suting in the Temple as God , wherfore he speaketh of some that raigneth in the Church , not of Heathen Kings ; and him he calleth the aduersary of Christ ; because he shall inuent doctrine repugnant to the Ghospell ; and he will vsurpe to himselfe diuine authority .

Although all this if it were true , would hurt vs very little , yet I aske vpon what foundation this exposition is built ? S. Paul plainly saith , that Antichrist shall extoll himselfe aboue euery God , and that he shall sit in the Temple , not as a King , not as a Bishop , but plainely as a God ; and this same expresly affirme S. Chrysostome , S. Ambrose , and the rest of the ancient Fathers interpreters of this place . With what right do you then without witnesse and without reason affirme , that he is Antichist , who sitteth in the Temple , not as a God , but as a Bishop ? And is so far from extolling himselfe aboue euery God , that he doth not only adore God the Father , and the Sonne , and the holy Ghost , but also in the presence of all the people prostrateth himselfe before the Sacrament of the Eucharist , before the Tombes of the Apostles , and Martyrs , before the Crosse and Images of Christ , and his Saintes , which you your selues , though impiously , are wont to call strange Gods and Idolls ? But let vs see how you apply this same to the Pope .

The Synode .

And first it is manifest that the Pope reigneth in the Church , and vnder the pretext of Ecclesiasticall authority and Ministry , hath made himselfe this Kingdome , for he pretended these wordes : I will giue vnto thee the Keyes .

Bellarmine .

You say indeed , that the Pope reigneth in the Church , but you proue it not . But we can easily shew the contrary , for he , that reigneth , acknowledgeth not any superiour in his Kingdome , but the Pope professeth himselfe to be the Vicar , and Seruant of Christ his King . And although he vseth most ample power in the whole House of God , and in the vniuersail Kingdome of Christ ; notwithstanding that power exceedeth not the condition of an administrator , and seruant : for Moyses also ( as S. Paul saith Hebr. 3. ) was faithfull in the whole house of God , but as a seruant ; and Christ , as a Sonne in his owne . But to go forward .

The Synode .

Besides , the doctrine of the Pope is many wayes repugnant to the Ghospell , and vsurpeth to himselfe diuyne authority in three manners . First , in that he taketh to himselfe authority to change the doctrine of Christ , and the worships instituted by God : and he will haue his doctrine , and his worships obserued as if they were diuine .

Bellarmine .

This likewise you say , but proue it not , and it seemeth to vs not only false , but also a most impudent lye , for you are not ignorant , that in the Catholike Church it is taught by all , that the doctrine of Christ and worships cannot be changed by any man , no nor by any Angell neither . Was there euer any question betwixt you and vs , whether that , which Christ taught or commaunded , ought to be belieued and done ; but whether you or we interprete better the doctrine and procepts of Christ ? In which question you in a manner are wont to bring nothing els , but your owne interpretation ; but we bring the consent of the Fathers , and either the decrees or customes of the Catholike Church , for we do not oppose ( as you falsely brag ) the consents of the Fathers , and the decres and customes of the Church to the word of God , but to your iudgement , and interpretation . But let vs heere the second proofe .

The Synode .

Secondly , because he taketh to himselfe not only power to loose and bynd in this world : but also power ouer soules after this life .

Bellarmine .

This also is said , but not proued : for the Pope doth not take to himselfe authority ouer the soules of the departed , since that he doth not absolue them from their sinnes and punishments by his authority , but only communicate with them the prayers and the good workes of the faithfull which lyue , by manner of suffrage . And all the ancient Fathers do teach , that the prayers and almes of the liuing , and chiefly the Sacrifice of the Masse , do profit the dead , of which since we haue largely disputed els where , it shal be sufficient to haue noted one testimony of S. Augustine in this place : wherefore serm. 34. de verb. Apost. S. Augustine speaketh thus : It is not to be doubted , that the dead are holpen by the prayers of the holy Church , and the wholsome Sacrifice , and the almes which are giuen for their soules . But let vs go on .

The Synode .

Thirdly , because the Pope will not be iudged by the Church , or any other , and taketh away their authority from the iudgment of Councells , and of the whole Church . But this is to make himselfe God , to refuse to be iudged by the Church , or by any other .

Bellarmine .

Heere also two things are said , which are not proued : for first by what Scriptures , by what Councells , by what reason do you proue , that the Pope ought to be iudged by the Councells or the Church ? For we read ( to omit other things which are sufficiently disputed in the former booke ) that it was said to S. Peter by Christ Iohn 21. Feed my sheep , and we thinke , that there can be no doubt , that the sheep are to be ruled , and iudged by the Sheepheard , and not the Sheephard by the sheep . We also read Luc. 12. that it was said to the same Peter : Who thinkest thou is a faithfull and prudent Dispenser , whom the Lord appointeth ouer his family ? In which place we see a certain Steward put ouer the whole family of Christ , certainly to gouerne it , and not to be gouerned by it .

And least perhaps some should obiect , what if he were a naughty Steward , by whom shall he be iudged , if he be aboue all , and subiect to none ? Therfore our Lord addeth forth with : And if that seruant shall say in his hart , my Lord delayeth to come , and shall begin to strike the Men and Maid-seruants , and to eate and drinke , and be drunke ; the Lord of that seruant will come in the day which he hopeth not , and in the houre he knoweth not , and will deuide him , and put his part with Infidels . Do you heare who is the Iudge of the euill Steward whome our Lord hath appointed ouer his Family ? For Christ saith not , that he shal be iudged by a Councell , but the Lord will come in the day , which he hopeth not , and that which followeth . Wherfore our Lord reserueth to himselfe the iudgment of that Seruant , whom he hath appointed ouer all his Family , and therfore the Pope taketh not away their authority from the iudgment of the Councells , and the whole Church , when he suffereth not himselfe to be iudged by it , for that cannot be taken away which was neuer giuen . But neuer did the Councells rightly congregated euer take that to themselues , that excepting the case of Heresy , they would giue sentence against the Pope . But of this we haue said inough in due place .

The other thing , which you say , and proue not , is , that this is to make himselfe God , to refuse to be iudged by the Church , or by any other , for when you say ( of any ) without doubt you meane of any man ; for you are not ignorant , that the Pope belieueth and professeth , that he is to be iudged by Christ . Now , how doth he make himselfe God , who belieueth , that he is to be iudged by God ?

Besides , certainly the Kings of the earth , do not acknowledge any Iudge vpon earth , for so much as doth belong to politicall affayres , and in your opinion , who take coactiue power from Bishops , they haue not any Iudge euen in Ecclesiasticall matters ; shall there therfore be so many Gods as Kings ? I do not thinke , that you are so mad , as to say this ; wherfore it remayneth that it is not true , that he forth with maketh himselfe God , who will not be iudged by any man . Lastly you adde .

The Synode .

These so horrible errours , and this impiety he defendeth with exceeding great cruelty , and killeth them who dissent from him .

Bellarmine .

Now , how impudently you lye in this place , you may know euen by this one instance , that I my selfe who write these things , do openly affirme , and that in the Citty of Rome ( not vnknowne to the Pope ) that the Pope may not change the doctrine , or worships of Christ , nor institute new worships which should be held for diuine , or should any way be repugnant to the Ghospell ; and yet I am not only not killed by him , but neyther receaue any molestation . Because the Pope knoweth very well , that I say true , & you lye . As also a little after , when you adde : The doctrine of pennance is altogeather depraued by the Pope , and his members ; for he teacheth , that sinnes are remitted for the worthines of our works . Likewise they neuer teach , that sinnes are freely remitted for Christ . Which surely are not our opinions , but your lyes : for we teach not that , but altogeather the contrary , as the Councell of Trent plainly witnesseth Sess. 6. cap. 5. 6. 7. & 8. But of this inough . I passe to Caluin .

THE TWENTITH CHAPTER . Caluins lyes are refuted .

WHEREFORE Iohn Caluin expounding the place of the Apostle 2. Thess. 2. Who extolleth himselfe aboue all that is called God , saith indeed many thinges , and with great pompe of wordes , but he proueth in a manner nothing . Paul ( saith he ) signified in these wordes , that Antichrist would vsurpe to himselfe those thinges , which are proper to God alone , so that he will extoll himselfe aboue all diuine power and the whole religion , and all the worship of God shall lye vnder his feet . And after : Now whosoeuer shal be taught out of the Scripture what thinges are most proper to God , and on the other side shall behould what the Pope vsurpeth to himselfe , although he be a child of ten yeares old , he will not much labour in the discerning of Antichrist . Surely a magnificall promise .

But let vs heere with what reasons he proueth at length that , which he hath proposed : for peraduenture they wil be such that children of 10. yeares old will not labour much in soluing them . The Scripture pronounceth , that God is the only law-giuer , Isa. 33. v. 22. who can keep , and destroy , Iacob . 4. v. 12. The only King , whose office is to gouerne soules with his word : it maketh him likewise the author of all holy thinges : it teacheth that iustice and saluation is only to be sought for of Christ : it assigneth also the manner and meanes . There is none of these thinges which the Pope affirmeth not to belong to his power : he glorieth , that it is his office to bind consciences with what lawes he thinketh good , and to subiect them to eternall punishements . He either instituteth new Sacraments at his pleasure , or corrupteth and vitiateth , yea wholy abolisheth those which were instituted by Christ , that he may substitute in their place the sacriledges which be hath seygned . He forgeth meanes of obtayning saluation altogeather repugnant to the doctrine of the Ghospell . Finally he doubteth not to change the whole Religion at his beck : what I beseech you , is it to extoll himselfe aboue all that is reputed God , if the Pope doth it not ?

Did not I ●ay , well , that many thinges are said by Caluin , little or nothing proued ? For that the Pope glorieth , that it is his office to bind consciences with what lawes he thinketh good , that he instituteth new Sacraments , that he abolisheth the old , that he forgeth meanes to saluation repugnant to the doctrine of the Ghospell , that he changeth all religion ; Caluin saith so indeed , but he proueth it not . And if to say with him , be to proue ; by like reason to deny , must be to refute .

Certaynely all we Catholikes , which obey the Bishop of Rome Christs Vicar say freely , and without any iniury to him , that it is not lawfull for him to bynd men with any lawes whatsoeuer , that is , with pernicious also and vniust , nor to institute new Sacraments , nor to corrupt and abolish those which are instituted by Christ , nor to inuent meanes to Saluation repugnant to the doctrine of the Ghospell , nor to peruert or change Christian Religion : and this we say the more willingly , because we know , that he also thinketh and saith so : for if he thinketh not so , if he thinketh that he may make vniust lawes , institute new Sacraments , abolish the old , and do other thinges of that sort ; how doth he suffer vs to speake so , who notwithstanding are in his power , and not in I know not what corner , but teach in the Citty of Rome it selfe , by his knowledge and will ?

But they will say , the Pope saith not , that it is lawfull for him to do these things ; but yet in very deed , and in fact he striueth , that it is lawfull for him to do them . Let it be proued then , that he hath done any of these thinges , for otherwise to assume that which is to be proued , which indeed is common with our Aduersaries , is called by the Logicians , petiti● princip● .

Now these two places , Isa. 33. and Iac. 4. which Caluin only produceth , are not any thing contrary to our opinion , for that which Isaias , and S. Iames say , that our King , Iudge , & Law-giuer is one ; certainly is not repugnant to those words , Prou. 8. By me Kings do raigne , and the makers of Lawes do discerneiust things : and with those Psal. 2. And now Kings vnderstand , be instructed , you who iudge the earth , and with 600. other of the same kind . Wherfore Isayas , and S. Iames do not make God the only King , Iudge , & Law-giuer in whatsoeuer manner ; but only in that sort , that he only is so King , & Iudge , & Law-giuer , that he ought to giue account to none other , that he dependeth of none , that he raigneth and iudgeth , and maketh Lawes by his owne authority , that is not receaued from another , and finally , that he alone can also with effect destroy and saue , as S. Iames saith . For we attribute none of these things to the Pope , or other Princes .

THE XXI . CHAPTER . The lyes of Illyricus are refuted .

NOw Illyricus , in the booke which he wryteth against the Popes Primacy , saith thus : But among other arguments , that must we hould most firmly which hath bene most truly and clearly proued by many in this tyme , that the Pope teacheth and desendeth impious Doctrine , and that he is the very Antichrist himselfe ; the reasons wherof I will heere repeate . Ioan. 1. epist. 2. defineth that Antichrist is he who denyeth Iesus to be Christ . That the Pope plainly doth , not in words , but in deed . For Meschias in Hebrew , in Greeke Christ , is a Person sent by God , to be the perpotuall Priest and King of the people . It is the office of a Priest to teach , pray , and sacrifice ; but it is a Kings office to gouerne and defend . So he . Now let vs heare , how he proueth , that the Pope hath taken away these offices from Christ , and what testimonies , what reasons he bringeth . But if I be not deceaued , we shall only heare vayne words . Thus then he goeth forward : Wherfore the Pope taketh away the Priesthood from Christ , for he will not only haue the beloued Sonne heard , but rather himselfe , and his false Apostles , who bring another Ghospell . Likewise because he substituteth to vs many other Mediatours in Heauen for Christ who may make intercession for vs before the Father , Christ the seuere Iudge being neglected . Likewise because he hath substituted infinite petty Sacrificers for Christ , who may appease God to mankind , to whom he saith , that the Priesthood was translated from Christ by Peter . Finally because , he will haue vs saued by the meritts of his spirituall men and Saintes .

Behould with what cleere testimonies of Scripture Illyricus conuinceth vs : what if we demonstrate , that all these are meere lyes ? For where I pray you haue you read , that the Pope had rather haue himselfe heard then Christ ? We deny it : proue it , for we contrarywise see that the Scriptures are greatly honored by the Pope , and that they are accompted heretikes who haue taught any thing against the Scriptures . Besides , is it not a most manifest lye , that the Pope hath substituted Mediators for Christ , and that he would haue them make intercession to the Father , Christ being neglected ? Do not our Litanies begin thus , Kyrie Eleison , Christe Eleison ? Are not all the praiers of our Church which we read in the Masse and Ecclesiastcall office directed to God , and ended by Christ our Lord ? Doe we not acknowledg the mediation and intercession of Christ , since that whatsoeuer we aske of God , or we desire to be asked for vs by the Saintes , we aske it all by the merits of Christ ? For we haue not the Saintes in the place of God or Christ , but we desire of them , that they will ioyne their prayers with ours , that in this sort we may obtayne more easily of God by Christ whatsoeuer we will haue .

In like manner it is a lye , that we say , that the Pope hath substituted petty Sacrificers for Christ , and that the Preisthood of Christ is translated by S. Peter to petty Sacrificers , for you neither proue , neither euer will be able to proue any of these thinges . Neither can there be any doubt , but that if you had any thing , you would produce it : but this is it , which we say , that Christ , who is a Priest for euer , & alway liueth to make intercession for vs , hath offred himselfe once to God an hoast of pacification by his death of the Crosse : and that now he offereth himselfe by the hands of the Priestes againe , and againe in Mystery .

And as , though many baptize in this tyme , notwithstanding that is true , which we read Ioan 1. This is he who baptizeth in the Holy Ghost : for the office of Christ is not translated from Christ to Priests , but it is he , who alway baptizeth by the Ministrie of Priests ; so also , though many Priestes at this day offer Christ in the venerable Mysteries , notwithstanding he is the principall Priest , and truly the chiefest Bishop , who offereth himselfe by the Ministry of all Priests . The workes , saith S. Chrysostome hom. 83. in Matth. are not of humane vertue ; He that did it then in that supper , he worketh now also , he finisheth it , we hould the order of Ministeries .

But I would willingly learne or thee Illyricus , since that all the ancyent writers aswell Greeke , as Latin , make mention of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist , and of Christian Priestes , which no man denieth but such as haue not read them ; why doest thou attribute this only to the Bishop of Rome , that he hath transferred the Priesthood of Christ to petty Sacrificers ? but let vs go on to the rest .

That which thou addest in the last place ; he will haue vs saued by the merits of his spirituall men and Saints , is only a notable lye ; otherwise produce a place where the Pope said so , for we belieue to be saued by the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ , as also our Fathers were saued , as S. Peter saith Act. 15. Neither do we acknowledg any other Sauiour , but Iesus , and him crucified , who gaue himselfe a redemption for all , 1. Tim. 2.

Now that the merites and prayers of the Saints do profit vs in their manner , cannot be denied , but by him , who knoweth not , or belieueth not , that there is communication and connexion betwixt the members of the body of the Church , of which thing since we haue treated els where , it shall suffice to haue added two testimonies in this place . Wherefore S. Aug. quaest. 149. in Exod. saith thus : That by that meanes we might be admonished , when our owne merites had oppressed vs , so that we are not loued of God , that we may be relieued by him , by the merites of them , whome God loueth . And againe lib. 21. de ciuitate Dei cap. 17. he diuers tymes repeateth , that some obteyne pardon by the merites of Saints ; and that this was signified by our Lord when he said : Make you friends of Mammon of iniquity , that when they faile , they may receaue you into euerlasting Tabermacles , Luc. 16. And as we haue also experienced , saith S. Leaser . 1. 〈…〉 . Apostol●●um , and our Ancestors haue proued , 〈◊〉 belieue and ●●●st , that we shall alway be helped by the prayers of our speciall 〈◊〉 , among all the laboures of the life , to obtayne the mercy of God , that by h●w much we are depressed by our sinnes , so much we may be erected by Apostolicall merits . So he .

And although we are not wont to speake so , as Illyricus saith , that we are saued by the merits of spirituall men : ye● if any did speake so , and would only signify , that we are in some sort helped by the merites of Saints to obtayne saluation by Christ , he could not be more reprehended then the Apostle S. Paul , who 1. Cor. 9. saith , Iam made all things to all men , that I might make all men saued , and the Apostle S. Iudas , who speaketh in like manner , when he saith ; Do you reprehead , these indeed being iudged , and saue those taking them from the fier . And thus much of the Priesthood of Christ .

Illyricus goeth forward : Now he taketh away Christs Kingdome from him , because in earth he will be the head of the Church , and in Heauen he appointeth vs other helpers and Sauiours , to whome he commaundeth vs to fly in our miseries : wherefore the Pope denieth that Iesus is Christ .

Heere first I aske , whether the Pope or any of the Catholikes call the Saints Sauiours ? Then I adde , if to affirme , that he is the head of the Church vnder Christ as his Vicar and Minister , which the Pope doth , be to deny that Iesus is Christ , why by the same reason whosoeuer affirmeth that he is Vice-roy , or Gouernour of some Prince , is not forthwith censured to deny the King to be his Lord ?

Finally if to fly to Saints as helpers in miseries , is to deny , that Iesus is Christ , how I pray you did not S. Paul deny Iesus to be Christ , when he saith Rom. 15. I bes●ech you brethren by our Lord Iesus Christ , and by the charity of the Holy Ghost , that you helpe me in prayers for me to God , that I may be deliuered from the infidalls which are in Iudea ? How did not Basil the Great deny Iesus to be Christ , when in orat . de 40. Mart. he spake thus . He that is oppressed with any distresse , let him fly to these . Againe , he that reioyceth let him pray to these : he to be deliuered from miseries . this other , that he may continue in prosperity ? I omit the rest of the Fathers , for feare least if we examine them , we shall find none , who hath not denieth Iesus to be Christ .

Illyricus goeth on . Dan. 11. describeth Antichrist by many notes . First saith he , he shall do what he will , surely the Pope doth what he listeth . But holy Daniel , when he saith of Antichrist he shall do what he will , signifyeth that Antichrist shall acknowledge no superiour at all , no not God himselfe , for so it , followeth : And he shal be extelled against euery God : wherefore Antichrist neglecting also the law and commaundement of God , shall liue at his owne will , which cetainely the Pope doth not , who denieth not , that he is bound by the law of God , and acknowledgeth Christ his Iudg and Superiour .

He himselfe ( saith Illyricus ) confesseth it dist 40. If the Pope should draw with him infinite so●●es into hell , yet no man must say vnto him , what dost thou ? And the glosse saith , the Popes will standeth for reason .

The Canon which beginneth Si Papa , is not as Illyricus falsly saith , of any Bishop of Rome , but of S. Boniface Bishop of Me●tz Apostle of the Germanes , and a Martyr : who donieth not , that the chiefe Bishop if he liueth ill is to be rebuked and admonished by brotherly charity : but he denieth , that he can be reprehended by authority and iudged , since that he is the iudge of all men ; which Boniface also in those words , which go before that Canon ( as is to be seene in the new edition of the Decree ) expresly calleth the Church of Rome the head of all Churches , and affirmeth that the prosperity of the whole Church doth depend of the safety of the Bishop of Rome after God .

Wherefore I demaund of Illyricus , whether the sentence of S. Bonifacius Apostle of the Germans be true or no , for if it be not true , why is it obiected vnto vs ? if it be true , why is it not receaued ? I will say the same more plainely . If that sentence be not true , then it is not true that it may not be said to the Pope drawing many soules with himselfe into hell , What doest thou ? If it be true , then is the Pope truly the head of all Churches , and being to iudge all , is to be iudged by none . Wherefore let Illyricus leane alleadging the Canons , which can profit him nothing . As for the glosse , let Illyricus know , that it is either taken away by the Pope himselfe , as false in the new edition of the Decree , or els was neuer in the decree ; certainely I could not find it .

Illyricus goeth forward . Secondly Daniel saith that he will extol himselfe aboue God : that the Pope did , as is manifest by that which hath ben said . Likewise , because he will have himselfe heard more then God , and blaspheming he crieth out , that the Scripture is the Fountaine of all heresies and schismas , doubtefull and obscure &c. But thou shouldest haue rehearsed Daniels wordes faithfully , for he saith not , he will extell himselfe aboue God ; but he shal be extelled against euery God ; and after : Neither shall he care for any of the Gods , because he shall rise against all . Which note most clearely sheweth that the Pope hath nothing common with Antichrist , for Antichrist will care for none of the Gods ; but the Pope worshippeth the only true God , the Father , the Sonne , and holy Ghost . Neither doth he that alone , but also ( if we belieue you ) he adoreth openly so many Gods , as there be Saintes in Heauen , Images on earth , and reliques vnder the earth .

Now that which thou addest , that the Pope crieth out , that the Scripture is the fountaine of heresy and schismes ; Certainely I neuer read it in the writinges of any Pope , but I heare , that it is the word of thy freind Luther , that the Scripture is the booke of heretikes , Luth. praefat. historia , qua contigit in Strasfort . anno 36. which word if it be rightly taken , I see not why it should be deseruedly reprehended ; for S. Hilarie lib. de Synod : extre●●o , sheweth that most heresies arose out of the Scriptures ill vnderstood , and Tertullian in lib. de praescript more bouldly saith thus : Neither am I afraid to say , that the very Scriptures are so disposed by the will of God , that they might minister matter to Heretikes , since I read Heresies must be , which cannot be without Scriptures .

And that the Scriptures are ambiguous and obscure in many places , not only the Pope most truly teacheth , but also all the old Fathers , and euen Luther himselfe whether he would or no was constreyned to confesse it , when praefat. in Psal . he wrote thus : I would not haue that presumed of me by any which none of the most holy and most learned could yet performe , that is to vnderstand and teach the Psalter in all thinges with the true and lawfull sense . It is sufficient to haue vnderstood some , and those in part ; the spirit hath reserued many thinges to himselfe , that he may alway haue vs his schollers , many thinges be only sheweth to intice , many thinges be deliuereth to mooue our affections . And after : I know , that he is most impudently rath , who dareth professe that one booke of the Scripture is vnderstood by him in all parts . Also did not the same Luther in lib. de Concilijs & Ecclesia pag. 52. openly confesse , that he had sought with great sweate the true and proper sense of the Scripture ? Finally so many Translations of the Scripture , so many expositions , so many most diuers sectes among our aduersaries , what other do they proclayme , then that the Scripture is ambiguous and obscure ?

Illyricus .

Thirdly Daniel saith , that he ( Antichrist ) shall haue prosporous successe vntill the anger of God be ended . The Pope hath oppressed as he desired by his tyranny and impiety both many common wealths , and also innumerable Churches .

Bellarmine .

And with what reason , or by what author do you proue this ? Can you tell , what Common Welthes , what Churches the Bishop of Rome hath oppressed ? what if we contrarywise demonstrate , that the note altogeather opposite to this third note of Antichrist , agreeth to the Pope ? for from that tyme , at which in your opinion the Pope began to be Antichrist , his Kingdome hath not only increased , but hath alway more , and more decreased . In the time of S. Leo the Great , that is 150. yeares before Antichrist was borne in your opinion , the Pope of Rome had more Nations vnder him , then the boundes of the Roman Empire extended to . For so writeth the same S. Leo serm. 1. de natal . Apost. Thou being made , ô Rome , the head of the world by the holy Seat of S. Peter , rulest more largely by diuine Religion , then by earthly domination : for although increased with many victories thou hast extended the right of the Empire by Land and by Sea ; yet that is lesse which warlike labour hath subdued vnto thee , then that which Christian peace hath subiected . And S. Prosper lib. de ingratis :

Sedes Roma Petri , quae Pastoralis honoris Facta caput mundi , quidquid non possidet armi● , — Relligione tenet .

But afterward Antichrist reigning , as you affirme , by little and little the Roman Sea hath lost almost all Affrick , the greatest part of Asia , all Greece , and in our tymes in which you crie out that Antichrist rageth most of all , all things haue succeeded so prosperously , that it hath lost a great part of Germany , S●●tia , G●thia , Nerutgia , all Denmark , a good part of England , France , Heluetia , Pol●nia , Bohemia , and Pa●●●nia . Wherefore , if to haue prosperous successe be a note of Antichrist , not the Pope , who hath ben depriued of so many Prouinces , but Luther , who by preaching carnall liberty ▪ hath seduced so many people , and hath proceeded with such prosperity , that of a priuate Monke he is become the Prophet of all Germany , and as it were a certaine Pope , may deseruedly be called Antichrist : but go forward .

Illyricus .

Fourthly Daniel saith , that he will not care for the God of his Fathers , that this is truly said of the Pope , we cleerely proued before in the place of Iohn .

Bellarmine .

And we reproued the same more cleerely in the same place : wherefore go forward to other .

Illyricus .

Fiftly he saith , that he will not care for the loue of women , which the Pope hath done , both by commaunding his followers continency , as also by his Sodomiticall lustes .

Bellarmine .

Heere I omit to speake of your rashnes , with which you dare say any thing , little weighing in the meane tyme , whether those thinges which you say can be proued , or not . That I will not omit , that the wordes of Daniel , although in the greeke text , they signifie so as you say , notwithstanding out of the hebrew Fountayne they are translated by S. Hierome into the quite contrary sense , for thus he translateth : And he shal be in the concupiscence of women . And although the Hebrew wordes Ve gal kemdath nasi● , only signify , In the concupiscence of women , and haue not any word a lioyned by which it may be vnderstood , whether Antichrist shal be or not in the concupiscences of women : Notwithstanding there are two coniectures , which make the translation of S. Hierome the more probable .

The one , because it is manifest that Antiochus of whom litterally Daniel speaketh , and who bare the figure of Antichrist , was very much addicted to the loue of women : Antiochus ( saith S. Hierome in commentar. h●iu● loci ) i● said to haue bene most lecharous , and that he came into such ignominy by rauishements , and corruptions of the Kingly Maiesty , that he did also publiquely accompany queanes , and harlots , and satisfy his lust in the peoples presence . Which since it is so , how is it credible that Daniel would say of such a King he shall not be in the concupiscences of women ?

The other coniecture is since that Antichrist shal be the Messias of the Iewes , & the Iewes besides other benefites , expect of their Messias multitude of wyues , it is in no sort probable , that Antichrist shall either commaund , or praise continency .

Lastly I adde , that if it be a note of Antichrist , to bring in continency for Priests , not only the Pope , but all the ancient Fathers and the Apostles themselues were certaine Antichrists : for to omit the rest , which shal be brought in their places , heare what the Fathers of the second Councell of Carthage say can . 2. It pleaseth vs all , that Bishops , Priests , Deacons , or they that handle the Sacraments , keeping chastity , abstein● also from their wyues , that we may also obserue that , which the Apostles taught , and Antiquity it selfe hath kept . Go on .

Illyricus .

Sixtly , Daniel saith , that he shall worship the God Maozim , and that with gold and siluer : which he hath donne while he placeth all piety in this , that many and great Temples fairely built may shine with all kind of ornaments , and sound with singing .

Bellarmine .

Of the God Maozim there hath bene much said before , where we shewed , that the God Maozim is either Antichrist himselfe , or the Diuell himselfe , whom Antichrist shall worship secretly . But our friend Illyricus seemeth to me , to make Iesus Christ the God Maozim , which surely is an intollerable blasphemy : for that all the Temples , which are costly built , and are adorned with gould and siluer by the Bishops of Rome , are consecrated and dedicated to Christ our God there is no man but knoweth . Therefore if he , that is worshipped in these Temples , be the God Maozim . Neither did the building and adorning of Temples begin from the yeare 666. in which yeare our aduersaries will haue Antichrist to haue appeated , but almost 300. yeares before this tyme .

Heere Eusebius ex versione Russini lib. 9. Hist. Eccles. cap. 10. By which there was , as it were by Gods gift , ioy infused to all , especially seeing those places , which a little before had bene destroyed by the impious deuises of Tyrants with a new building arise more costly and statly , and the huge Temples were erected insteed of meane meeting places . Heere S. Cyril Hierosol . catech . 14. These Kinges which now are , by their piety couering this holy Church of the Resurrection in which now we are , with siluer and gould , built it vp , and made it resplendens with siluer ornaments .

See besides , if you list , of the magnificence of Christian Temples , and the splendour of holy Vessells of the Church Eusebius lib. 3. & 4. de vita Constantini , S. Greg. Nissen orat . de S. Mart. Theodoro . S. Greg. Nazianz. orat . in Iulian. S. Chrys. hom. 66. ad Pop. Antioch . S. Cyril . Alexand. lib. de rect. fide ad Regin. S. Damas . in vit. S. Siluestri , S. Ambrose lib. 2. de offic. cap. 21. S. Hierom. in commen . cap. 8. Zachar. S. August . in psal. 113. S. Paul . in natal . 3. S. Felicis , Prudentius in hymno de S. Laurentio , & Procop. in lib. de aedificijs Iustiniani . Certainly all these liued before the tymes of Antichrist , and yet they witnesse , that there were such buildinges , and ornaments of Christian Temples euery one in their owne age , that those which we see now , can in no sort be compared to them .

Illyricus .

Seauenthly , Daniel saith that Antichrist shall inrich his fellowes : that the Pope hath done .

Bellarmine .

Doubteles he greatly inriched Iohn Eckins , Io. Cochl●us , Io. B. of Rochester , Latomus , Driedon , Tapper , Peter à Soto , and so many other most learned men , who hauing laboured night and daie to suppresse your furies , neuer receaued one half-penny of the Bishop of Rome ; although neither did they desire reward of man , who laboured chiefely for the glory of God . And if the Bishop of Rome giueth rich benefices to Cardinalls , and Bishops , he is not so much to be thought to enrich them , as the piety of the faithfull , who gaue these rents to the Church .

Illyricus goeth on , Paul 2. Thess. 2. putteth 5. notes of Antichrist besides the aforesaid . The first , that he shall sit in the Temple of God . This the Pope doth , feigning himselfe the Vicar of Christ , and reigning in the consciences of men . For if he should professe himselfe the enemy of Christ , as Mahomet doth , he should be out of the Church . But S. Paul ( Illyricus ) doth not only say , that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God ( for euery Bishop sitteth in the Temple of God ) but he explicateth the manner , how he shall sit in the Temple of God , saying : shewing himselfe 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . But the Pope by thy owne Testimony maketh himselfe the Vicar of God , and consequently not God : for the Vicar of God cannot be God , vnlesse thou feignest lesser , & greater Gods . Besides , I aske of thee , if the Pope be not out of the Church , as thou saist in this place , and consequently is within the Church ; where I pray thee , art thou and thine ? art thou not out of the Church ? for the Church is one , and the Pope sitteth in it : wherefore you who are not in that , are in none . But let vs heare the rest .

Illyricus .

The second , because he faith that the mystery was then dooing : this I thinke to signify that the Bishop of Rome began a little after to list his head aboue others .

Bellarmine .

This is that , which I briefly noted before , following Nicolas Sanders , who before had seene and written the same , that in your opinion S. Peter is Antichrist , and Simon Magus , or Nero Christ . For S. Paul saith not the mistery shall worke a little after , but it worketh now ; wherefore if this Mystery belongeth to the Bishop of Rome it must nedes belong to S. Peter , and if S. Peter ( which my hart abhorreth to thinke , and my hand trembleth to write ) was Antichrist , who seeth not , that Simon , and Nero S. Peters enemyes were Christ and God ? But keep to thy selfe such Gods and Christs , for we enuy thee not ; but go forward .

Illyricus .

The third , because he saith , that Antichrist shall come with lying signes : which the Pope hath donne , as experience witnesseth ,

The fourth , that God shall send the efficacy of illusion : which hath manifestly hapned in the Papacy , for we belieued in all things the Pope more f●mely , then God .

We treated before of the miracles of Antichrist cap. 15. and it is a most impudent lye , that Illyricus saith of experience ; for the Popes haue done neither true , nor false miracles , either in this age , or in the former , with which notwithstanding they say that Antichirst doth chiefly reigne . And that which he addeth of the efficacy of illusion , euery man seeth , how easily it may be returned vpon our aduersaryes ; for what greater efficacy of illusion can be imagined , then that there should some be found in these tymes , who choose rather to belieue two or three Apostataes , then the whole Church , all Councells , and all the Fathers , who besides their admirable doctrine and excellent sanctity of life , were renowned also with many signes and myracles ?

Now that which Illyricus bringeth out of S. Ambrose to explicate the fifth note , is before refuted in the second demonstration , with which we proued , that Antichrist is not yet come .

Illyricus in the last place addeth somewhat out of ep. 1. ad Tim. 4. In the last tymes same shall depart from the saith : The Pope denieth that there is any other saith but hestoricall . They shall attend to deceauing spirites : The Pope proueth all things with visions of spirits and soules . They shall prohibite marriage , and the vse of meates : both these are most true and manifest of the Pope .

But good Syr , the Pope hath learned of S. Paul , that there is one Faith : looke thou from whence thou hast learned another faith . Besides , one God ( saith the Apostle Ephes. 4. ) one faith , one baptisme . Neither did S. Paul euer define this one faith to be a confidence relying vpon the promise and word of God , as you define it cent. 1. lib. 2. col. 262. but he saith Rom. 10. This is the word of faith which we preach , because if thou confessest in thy mouth one Lord Iesus , and hast belieued in thy harte , that God hath raised him from the dead , thou shalt be saued . And Hebr. 11. he saith , by Faith we belieue that the worldes were framed by the word of God .

And who knoweth not that it pertayneth to the sacred history , that Christ hath rysen from death , and that the worldes were framed by the word of God ? And yet we name not this one only , and true Faith , by which we most certainely belieue whatsoeuer God hath vonchsafed to reueale by the Apostles and Prophets , an historicall faith ; but the Catholike faith , for we leaue to you the nouelties of wordes .

That which thou addest , that the Pope proueth all thinges with the visions of spirites and soules , I know not what spirit hath reuealed vnto thee . For we somtime bring somthing out of the apparitions of soules written by approued and ancient authors to confirme those things which belong to the state of soules , of which sort is that which Eusebius writeth of the apparition of S. Potamiena lib. 6. hist. Eccles. cap. 5. and that which S. Augustine relateth of the apparition of S. Felix Nolanus lib. de cura pro mortuis , cap. 16. But for the confirmation of other doctrines , I know not what Catholike euer alleaged the visions of soules : but this is not your first lye .

That which thou bringest in the last place , of the forbidding of meates and marriages , is euidently inough confuted by S. Aug. lib. 30. cont. Faust . cap. 6. where he saith thus : If you were exhorted to Virginity in such sort , as the Apostles doctrine exhorteth ; He that giueth to marriage doth well , and he that giueth not to marriage doth well : so that you did say , Marriage is good , but Virginity better , as the Church doth , which truly is the Church of Christ ; the holy Ghost would not foretell you thus saying , forbidding to marry ; for he forbiddeth , who saith that this is euill , not he who preferreth another thing better before this which is good . And after : You see therefore , that there is a great difference betwixt those , which exhort to virginity , preferring a greater good before a lesse , and those which forbidde to marry , vehemently accusing the act of propagation , which only properly belongeth to marriage . And that there is a great difference betwixt those who absteyne from meates , for the sacred signification , or for the chastising of the flesh , and those which absteyne from meates which God hath created , saying ; that God hath not created them . Wherefore that is the Prophets and Apostles doctrine , this is the doctrine of lying Diuells . Thus S. Augustine for himselfe and vs . Neither is it necessary to adde any thing .

Illyricus concludeth . Wherefore it is manifest out of these signes , that the Pope is that very true Antichrist himselfe , of whome the Scriptures haue prophesied .

But perhaps he might haue concluded more fitly in this manner : Wherefore it is manifest by these lyes , that Illyricus is one of his forerunners , whome holy Daniel long before foretould , that he should haue an impudent face .

THE XXII . CHAPTER . The fool●ries of Tilemanus are refuted .

TILEMANVS Heshusius in the Booke which he intituled , de sexcentis erroribus Pontificiorum , whereas he should haue intituled it , de sexcentis mendacijs Luther anorum , made a peculiar title of Antichrist , that is titul. 33. and it comprehendeth foure errors . Thus then he saith .

Tilemanus .

First the Papists say , that Antichrist shall come out of Babylon of the Tribe of Dan. Compendium Theologia lib. 7. cap. 8.

Bellarmine .

We thanke Tilemanus who teacheth , that so ancient , and so holy Fathers are Papists , for if they be Papists who say , that Antichrist shall come of the Tribe of Dan , surely S. Irgnaeus , S. Hippolrtur , S. Ambrose , S. Augustine , S. Prosper , Theodorctus , S. Gregory , Beda , Arethas , Rupertus , Anselmus , and Richardus are Papists . For all these , as we shewed before cap. 12. with common consent , do teach that Antichrist shal be borne of the Tribe of Dan. But go on .

Tilemanus .

Secondly , the Papists deny , that the Bishop of Rome with his Company is the true Antichrist ; whereas it is proued , and demonstrated with most forcible , and most plaine testimonies of Gods word .

Bellarmine .

But we haue not yet seene these testimonies , neither are they in any place of our Hebrew , Greeke , or Latin Bibles : for the testimonies which are alleadged by your brethren , do not so much as name the Bishop of Rome .

Tilemanus .

Thirdly , they teach , that Antichrist shall raigne only 3. yeares and a halfe . Compend : Theologiae .

Bellarmine .

Heere we giue thee immortall thankes , that thou confessest , that not only all the ancient Fathers , but also the Prophet Daniel , and S. Iohn Euangelist are Papists ; and surely I haue compassion of thee , and thine , to whome thou only reseruest the dregges of writers , hauing giuen all the learned & approued Fathers to the Papists . See , if thou wilt , what we taught before cap. 8. and thou shalt find , that S. Irenaus , S. Hippolytus , S. Cyril , S. Hierome , S. Aug. Theodoretus , Primasius , drethas , Bed● , Anselmus , Richardus , Rupertus , and also Daniel and S. Iohn did expresly teach that , which thou affirmest the Papists to teach .

Tilemanus .

Fourthly , they teach that Antichrist shal be slaine in the Mount Oliuet . Compend . Theol. lib. 7. cap. 4.

Bellarmine .

But heere also thou makest great men Papists , for that Antichrist was to be slaine in the Mount of Oliuet S. Hierome in comment . cap. 11. Dan. gathereth out of Daniel himselfe , and Isayas . Theodoretus also writing vpon the same place , although he nameth not the mount Oliuet , yet he affirmeth , that Antichrist is to be killed not far from Hierusalem . But let vs see now with what arguments thou confutest the foresaid errours , for thou addest a preseruatiue immediatly in these words .

Tilemanus .

The Papists trifles of Antichrist , because they are grounded vpon no testimony of the holy Scripture , are to be reiected and detested : for as S. Hierome rightly speaketh , that which hath no authority in the Scripture is contemned with the same facility , with which it is affirmed . And Paul admonisheth that we should take heed of the traditions of men . Coloss. 2. And this I say , least any man deceaue you with false reasons &c. Likewise see that no man prey vpon you by Philosophy : we must seeke out of the word of God what is to be thought of Antichrist as 1. Ioan. 2. Who is a lyer , but he that denieth Iesus to be Christ : This is Antichrist . Likewise 2. Thess. 2. the man of sinne , and the sonne of perdition extolleth himselfe aboue euery God &c. Likewise Matth. 24. There shall arise false Christs , and false Prophets , and they shall giue signes &c. Likewise Dan. 11. and he shall make the munition of the God Maozim &c Likewise Apoc. 17. And I saw a woman drinken with the bould of Saints , and with the bloud of the Martyrs of Iesus . Out of these testimonyes of the sacred Scripture , it appeareth manifestly , what the Christian saith is of Antichrist , whome Christ , and the Apostles foretould was to come . And since it is cleerer then noone-day , that euery one do most exactly agree to the Bishop of Rome , it ought not to be doubted , but that , that most naughty Roman Tyrant is Antichrist . Thus he .

Bellarmine .

It will not be offen fiue I trust , if we reduce these thy arguments to the forme of syllogismes , for the more ignorant sort , and conclude thence most euidently the confutation of the aboue written errours . Wherfore the first errour is refuted thus . The Papists trifles , because they are grounded vpon no Testimony of Scripture , are to be reiected , and detested . But the word of God proclaimeth , who denieth Iesus to be Christ , this is Antichrist , 1. Io. 2. Wherfore it is an errour to say , that Antichrist shall come of the Tribe of Dan.

The second errour is thus confuted , as Hierome rightly saith , that which hath not authority in the Scripture is contemned with the same facility , with which it is affirmed : but Paul saith the man of sinne and the sonne of perdition extolleth himselfe aboue euery God , 2. Thess. 2. Therfore the Papists erre , when they deny , that the Pope is Antichrist .

The third thus , and more firmely , because out of two Scriptures Paul saith ; And this I say , least any man deceaue you with false reasons &c. Coloss. 2. But there shall arise false Christs and false Prophets , and they shall giue signes &c. Matth. 24. Therefore the errour of the Papists is intollerable , who say , that Antichrist shall raigne three yeares and a halfe .

The last thus , and most firmely , because out of three Scriptures Paul admonisheth , See that no man prey vpon you by Philosophy &c. Coloss . 2. But Antichrist shall make the munition of the God Maozim , Dan. 11. and Iohn saw a woman drunke with the bloud of the Saintes , Apoc. 17. Wherefore the Papists erre exceedingly , when they say , that Antichrist shal be slaine in Mount Oliuet .

The gentle Reader will pardon me , for vsing Tileman so ridiculously : for the impudency of the man compelled me , who bringing nothing worth the confutation , yet prateth and boasteth in such sort , as if he had produced Demonstrations , more certaine , and more cleere then those , which the Mathematicians vse .

THE XXIII . CHAPTER . The lyes of Chytraeus are refuted .

DAVID Chytraeus in Commont . cap. 9. Apoc. expounding the vision of S. Iohn , in which when the fifth Angell sounded his trumpet , there was an huge starre seene to fall from heauen vpon the earth , to which was giuen the key of the bottomeles pitte . And after there was seene a most thick smoke to ascend from the pitte , which obscured the Sunne , and the ayre . Lastly there was seene out of the sinoke certaine wonderfull locustes , to come forth , which a little after carried the shapes of Horses , and Lions , and Scorpions , and armed men : Chytraeus ( I say ) explicating this vision , thought himselfe , and would haue other thinke , that it agreed so fitly to the Bishop of Rome , that he said ; there is no doubt , but that Antichrist or the order of the Roman Papacy is described in this vision .

And further he teacheth , that the beginning of this vision , is to be taken from the yeare 600. and that the starre , which fell from Heauen is Gregory the Great , Bishop of Rome , and his successors , who hauing cast away the keys of the Kingdome of Heauen , receaued the keyes of the bottomelesse pyt , and that the smoake comming out of the pyt are the corruptions of doctrine , and the diuers traditions of the Bishops of Rome . Finally he will haue the swarme of Locusts , to be the Bishops , Clergy , and Monkes &c. and to dissolue this smoke in some sort , he proposed the Antithesis of the Popes doctrine , and the Ghospells , or of Antichristian , or Christian doctrine , which comprehendeth 12. articles like another Creed .

But this his opinion may be confuted many wayes ; first , because it is grounded vpon no witnes , for the old interpreters , as Arethas , Beda , Primasius , Anselmus , Rupertus and others vpon this place vnderstand by that starre , which fell from heauen , the Diuell himselfe , and not any Bishop ; for of the Diuell it is said Isa. 14. How fellest thou from heauen Lucifer , who ar●sest in the morning ? And because the Diuell fell long before S. Iohn wrote the Apocalyps , therfore the Fathers note , that S. Iohn said not , I saw a starre falling from heauen , but I saw a starre fallen from heauen ; for S. Iohn saw that starre now creeping vpon the earth , which in tymes past had shined most cleerly in heauen . Also , that which followeth agreeth most fitly to the Diuell , And the key of the bottomlesse pit●●● giuen vnto him ; for as Christ hath , and communicateth to his the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen , and raigneth in the mindes of the faithfull and pious : So the Diuell hath the keyes of the bottomlesse pit , and raigneth in the children of diffidence , and is often called in the Scriptures , the Prince of darknesse , the Prince of this world , the God of this world , Ioan. 12. & 14. 2. Cor. 4. Ephes. 6. Colos. 1. and in other places . It is he also , who by Gods permission raiseth the smoake of errours out of the pit , and sendeth new swarmes of Locusts , that is new Arch-heretikes with their armyes , into the lymits of the Church , almost in euery age .

Secondly , because Chytraeus his opinion cannot stand with that , which S. Iohn saith in this same Chapter of the sixt Angell , and the sixt persecution ; for S. Iohn in 8. and 9. chap. Apoc. describeth by the trumpets of the 6. Angells , six persecutions of heretikes , which were to be from the tyme of the Apostles , vntill the consummation of the world . And Chytraeus himself by the first trumpet , doth not ill vnderstand the heresie of the Ebionits , which was raysed in the time of the Apostles ; by the second , he vnderstandeth the heresie of the Gnosticks which followed ; by the third , the heresie of Samosatens , and Arians , which was after ; by the fourth , the heresie of Pelagius which was latter then they all .

Now , if by the fifth be vnderstood the persecution of the Roman Antichrist , which as they also confesse , is the last persecution ; what shall we vnderstand by the sixt trumpet ? Chytraeus answereth , that by the sixt trumpet is signifyed the persecution of Mahomet , and the Turkes . But this is not well said , both because the Mahometans are not heretikes , but Pagans ; and also , because the persecution of Mahomet shall not follow , but go before Antichrists persecution as we thinke , or they are both togeather , as Chytraeus saith . Wherfore Chytraeus is compelled to confound the fift trumpet with the sixt , wheras he referred the rest plainly inough to diuers tymes : wherfore the Catholikes vnderstand better by the sixt trumpet , the persecution of Antichrist , which shall truly be the last , and most grieuous , and by the fift some very pernicious heresie , which shall go next before the tymes of Antichrist , which surely many very probably coniecture to be the heresie of the Lutherans .

Thirdly , because Chytraeus erreth most grosly , when he teacheth , that S. Gregory is the falling starre ; for S. Gregory , if any credit may be giuen to hystories , fell not from heauen to earth , but ascended from earth to heauen ; for of a Pretor he became a Monke , and of a Monke a Bishop : neyther did he euer returne from being a Bishop to his Pretorship , nor from being a Monke to the world . As also S. Basil , S. Gregory Nazianzen , S. Chrysostome Grecians ; S. Martin , S. Paulinus , and S. Augustine Latines of secular , became Monkes , and of Monkes Bishops , neither did euer any say , that they did therfore fall from heauen to earth . Besides , S. Gregory was second to none in continency , sobriety , and loue of heauenly things ; and in humility , he in a manner excelled all : and yet Chytraeus dareth affirme , that he fell from heauen , that is , from an heauenly life to earth , that is , to an earthly and delicate life .

Finally , Luther himselfe in supput . temp . saith , that S. Gregory was an holy Bishop : and Theodorus Bibliander tab. . 10. Chronol. following Luther , praiseth S. Gregory exceedingly , and saith , that it may be knowne by his bookes , how much be profited in piety and learning . Which doubtles is most true , for his writinges breath out a wonderfull holynes .

Neither is that lesse vaine , which Chytraus addeth of the smoke of the pitte , which he interpreteth the corruptions of doctrine , brought in by S. Gregory and his Successors into the Church . For S. Gregory innouated nothing , which belonged to doctrine , but concerning rites and discipline , he corrected many thinges , which had crept in by abuse , many thinges he restored which by negligence of tymes were forgotten , he instituted a new very few thinges , and those with mature counsaile , as may be knowne both by the 4. bookes of his life , written by Ioannes Diaconus , as also by his 63. epist. lib. 7. where he giueth accompt of the rites which he renewed or ordeyned . But this will be most plaine , if we runne ouer the antithesis or opposition , betwixt the doctrine of the Ghospell , and the Pope , which Chytraeus proposeth , and to which he often afterward remitteth his Readers .

§. I. Of the true Knowledge , and Inuocation of God . Chytraeus .

THE Ghospell teacheth , that one only God is to be innocated and worthipped , as he hath commaunded himselfe to be worshipped in his word , and that all the confidence of our saluation , is to be placed in the only goodnes and mercy of God . The Papists commaund vs not to call vpon one only true God , but also vpon dead men or Saints . and to aske and expect their aide and help in dangers &c. Besides also plainely , after an heathen manner , they tye the inuocation and worship of God to certaine Statua's in such sort , as if God were more fauourable , and propitious to him that calleth vpon him , at this or that Status , then in other places .

Bellarmine .

Because we haue els where at large treated of these controuersies which are touched in this antithesis ; heere we will only most briefly demonstrate that the doctrine , which Chytraeus calleth Popish , is neither repugnant to Gods word , nor began in the tyme of S. Gregory . Therefore the word of God teacheth indeed , that one only God is to be worshipped and inuocated with that inuocation , and adoration which is only due to God ; for the true God , who is also a zealous God , doth not suffer vs to take any creature for the Creator . In the meane tyme notwithstanding , the very same word of God biddeth vs honour the more excellent creatures , and inuocate also some , not as God , but as deere and familiar freindes to God . As Kinges would be much offended , if they should see Kingly honours giuen to their seruants , who notwithstanding are well pleased , if they see the same seruants honoured and obserued . Adore ( saith Dauid psal. 98. ) the footestoole of his feete . And Iob. 5. Call ( saith he ) if there be any man , that may answere thee , and turne thy selfe to some of the Saintes . Wherefore Abdias a great and holy man adored Elias prostrate vpon the earth 3. Reg. 18. And the children of the Prophets , when they heard , that the spirit of Elias had rested vpon Flizaeus , comming to him they adored him prostrate vpon the earth 4. Reg. 2. And the Apostle S. Paul almost in euery Epistle , craueth the praiers of Christians , that by them he may be deliuered from many dangers . Neither can there any reason be giuen , why the honour due to God is diminished , if we aske of the spirits of Saintes , that they will pray for vs ; & it is not diminished , if we aske the very same of the lyuing .

Finally S. Ambrose was 200. yeares elder then S. Gregory , and yet lib. de riduis he speaketh thus : The Angells are to be beseeched , who are giuen vs for our defence . The Martyrs are to be beseeched , of whom we seeme to challenge acertayne patronage by the pledge of the body . And after : Let vs not be ashamed to take them for intercessours of our infirmity &c.

Moreouer we do not tye the worship and inuocation to the Statua's of Saintes , to the memories of Martyrs , and other religious monuments in any other sort , then God in times past tied them to the sanctuary or Temple of Salomon : for although God heareth vs euery where , and we may lift vp our hands to God in euery place , yet not without cause the holy Ghost in Isaias cap. 56. and Christ in S. Matth. cap. 21. called the Temple of God , the House of prayer , nor without cause the most pious Emperour Theodosius ( to omit many other examples of antiquity ) went with the Priests and the people , about all the places of Prayer , lay prostrate in hair-cloth before the shrines of the Martyrs , and the Apostles , and craued assured help by the intercession of Saintes . And certainly Theodosius , who did this , & Russinus who wrote this lib. 2. hist. Eccles. cap. 33. were before S. Gregory almost 200. yeares .

§. II. Of the Office and Benefits of Christ . Chytraeus .

THE Ghospell teacheth that remission of sinnes , & eternall saluation is giuen to vs for the only & alone Sonne of God our Lord Iesus Christ crucified for vs , dead , and risen againe , freely , not for any works or merits of ours : And that this is the proper honour of God alone , as it is said , Isa. 43. I am , I am he , who taketh away iniquities : likewise there is no saluation in any other . The Papists contrariwise do teach , that we are iustifyed and saued , not for the merits of Christ alone , but partly for Christ , partly for contrition , and obedience .

Bellarmine .

The Catholike doctrine hath not this : that sinners are iustifyed , partly for Christ , partly for their workes , as though the workes themselues merit any thing without Christ . For we distinguish three kinds of workes , one of those which are done out of the only forces of nature without faith , or the grace of God , and of these we plainly pronounce with the Apostle , that man is not iustified by works but by faith , and if any were iustified by such workes , he should haue glory , but not with God , as S. Paul saith of Abraham , Rom. 4. wherfore of these workes , there is no controuersie betwixt vs , although euery where with a most impudent lye , you attribute this to vs , that we teach , that workes without the merits of Christ are meritorious .

Another kind of workes there is , which proceedeth from faith , and the Grace of God , and disposeth to reconciliation with God , and remission of sinnes ; of which sort are almes , prayers , fastings , sorrow for sinnes and other like ; which workes we affirme not to be meritorious ex iustitia , of our reconciliation , but rather contrariwise we heare the Councell of Trent , saying : Sess. 6. cap. 8. that men are freely iustifyed , because neyther faith , nor workes which goe before iustification deserue it , to wit , of Iustice , as though iustification were due to workes : we confesse notwithstanding , that these workes , as they proceed from Faith , and Gods help , are diuine workes , and merit in their manner , that is , obtayne by way of request the remission of sinnes : for although you graunt not this , yet the word of God doth graunt it : for what is that which Ezechiel saith cap. 18. When the impious shall turne himselfe from his impiety , he shall quicken his soule ? What is that which Dan. saith cap. 4. Redeeme thy sinnes with almes ? What is that which Ionas saith cap. 3. God saw their workes ( fastings and hayrecloth ) and tooke compassion of them ? What is that which Christ saith , Luc. 7. Many sinnes are forgiuen her , because she loued much ?

And not only S. Gregory , but many Fathers before him taught the same . S. Ambrose lib. 10. in Lucam . Teares ( saith he ) do not aske , but merit pardon . S. Hierome lib. 2. aduers . Pelagianos . They who simply confesse their sinnes merit by humility the clemency of our Sauiour . S. Augustine epist. 105. Neither is the remission of sinnes it selfe without some merit , if faith obtayne it : for the merit of faith is not none , with which faith he said : God be propitious to me a sinner ; and the faithfull humbled , descended iustifyed deseruealy &c. And epist. 106. If any shall say , that Faith meriteth grace to worke well , we cannot deny it , yea we most freely confesse it .

Finally , the last kind of workes is of those , which are done by a man already iustifyed , and proceed from the holy Ghost , inhabiting the hart of man , and diffusing charity in it . To which workes , whether you will or no , we attribute merit ; not with which they merit remission of sinnes which went before , and which cannot properly fall vnder merit , but with which they truly and properly merit glory and euerlasting blessednesse : for otherwise how would S. Paul say 2. Tim. 4. I haue fought a good fight , I haue consummate my course , I haue kept the faith : Concerning the rest , there is layd vp for me a crowne of Iustice , which the iust Iudge will render mein that day . For if euerlasting life be not truly the reward of good workes , why calleth he it a Crowne of Iustice , and not rather a gift of clemency ? Why , saith he , is it to be rendred and not giuen ? why by a iust iudge , not by a liberall King ? Wherefore rightly S. Augustine ep. 105. from whence ( saith he ) life euerlasting it selfe , which doubtlesse in the end shall be had without faith , and therefore is rendred to precedent merits , yet because those merites to which it is rendred are not gotten by vs by our sufficiency , but are done in vs by grace , it also is called grace , and not therefore , because it is not giuen to merits , but because the merits also of themselues are giuen , to which it is giuen .

Neither do those two testimones of Scripture terrify vs : I am he who take away iniquities : and , there is not saluation in any other , for such testimonyes exclude another God , another Christ , another Sauiour , and Phisitian of soules , who may promise saluation , the true God , and Christ Iesus being excluded , notwithstanding they exclude not faith , hope , charity , pennance , Sacraments , with which as it were with certaine meanes and instruments God himselfe chiefly working the merit of Christ is applyed vnto vs , for otherwise how do these sentences : I am he , who take away iniquityes ; and , there is not saluation in any other , agree with those , Thy saith hath made thee safe . Luc. 7. He will saue those who haue hoped in him . Psal. 36. he shall quicken his soule . Ezech. 18. The seare of God expelleth sinne . Ezech. 1. He that hath belieued , and hath bene baptized , shal be saued . Marc. vlt. he that eateth this bread shall liue for euer . Ioan. 6. But thus much of this , Chytraeus . But go forward .

§. III. Chytraeus .

THE Ghospell teacheth that he who doth pennance , and heareth the promise , ought to belieue the promise , and to determine that sinnes are remitted , not only to others , to Peter , or to Paul , but also to himselfe for Christ , that he himselfe pleaseth God , is receaued , and heard by God ; and that we must haue accesse to God with this faith , and daily inuocation . The Papists contende , that we must alway doubt , whether we haue remission of sinnes , which doubtfulnes is simply repugnant to faith , and plainely heathen . So he .

Bellarmine .

One Ghospell teacheth plainely inough that we must giue credit to Gods promises , and all Catholikes teach , that we must in no fort doubt of them . But that remission of sinnes is absolutely promised by God to men , we read in no place of our Ghospell . And much lesse read we , that , euery one must certainely determine , that his sinnes are forgiuen him , that he pleaseth God , and that he is receaued and heard by God . And not without cause we ead not this because it would destroy the rest , which is most plainely and cleerely read in it ; for what is more cleere , then that which the wise man writeth Ecclesiast. 9. There are iust and wise , and their workes in the hand of God , and yet a man knoweth not whether he be worthy of hatred or loue ? Likewise how manifest is that , which Iob saith cap. 9. Although I shal be simple , this very same , my soule shal be ignorant of ? and after : I feared all my workes knowing that thou wouldest not spare the offender ?

Besides almost all Gods promises haue a condition annexed , which no man can certainly know , whether he haue fulfilled it as he ought , or no. Matt. 19. If thou wilt enter into life keep the Comaundements . Luc. 14. If any man commeth to me , and hateth not Father and Mother , and Wife and Children , and Brethren and Sisters , yea and his owne life besides , he cannot be my Disciple . Rom 8. The spirit himselfe giueth testimony to our spirits , that we are the sonnes of God , and if sonnes , heyres also , heyres truly of God , and coheyres of Christ , yet if we suffer with him , that we may also be glorised with him . Finally S. Ambrose much more ancient ( as we haue said ) then S. Gregory , inserm. 5. super Psalm . 118. Hee would ( saith he ) haue his shame taken away , which he suspected , either because he had thought in his hart and not done it , and though it were abolished by pennance , yet be suspected least peraduenture his shame remayned still , and therefore he prayeth to God to take it away , who only knoweth , that which he himselfe that did it , may be ignorant of .

§. IIII. Chytraeus .

THE Ghospell teacheth , that there is one only propitiatory Sacrifice in the world &c. Heb. 7. 10. Christ was once offered that he might take away sinne &c. The Papists teach that Christ is offered euery day in the Sacrifice of the Masse to God the Father by Priests &c.

Bellarmine .

The Ghospell teacheth indeed , that there is only one propitiatory Sacrifice in the world , viz. which was once offered vpon the Crosse ; neyther do Catholikes deny this ; but the Ghospell no where teacheth , that this only Sacrifice may not be euery day reiterated in mystery by the same chiefe B. Christ , by the hands of Priests ; and this Catholikes affirme . Neither do they only affirme it , who haue bene since S. Gregories tyme , but all the Fathers togeather , euen those who were many ages before S. Gregory . Heare in the name of the rest , only S. Augustine epist. 23. ad Bonifacium speaking thus : Was not Christ offered once in himselfe ? and yet in the Sacrament , not only all the solemnityes of Easter , but euery day he i● sacrificed , and offered for the people .

§. V. Chytraeus .

THE Ghospell teacheth , that not only outward actions repugnant to the law of God , are sinne , but also doubts of God , carnall security , and contumacy , and concupiscence which is borne in vs , and remayneth in those which are borne againe , Rom. 7. The Papists deny , that these euills remayning in those , which are borne againe , are sinnes repugnant to the law of God .

Bellarmine .

The Papists , that is Catholikes , teach in no place , that only outward actions are sinnes : but it is lawfull for you to lye ; for you learned that of your Father , who stood not in truth . Now , we doubt not , that doubtes of God , carnall security , contumacy , and concupiscence are sinnes , if they be voluntary ; but if they be inuoluntary , as those desires of the flesh against the spirit were , which S. Paul felt , though he did not consent vnto them , we constantly deny that they are sinnes . Neyther do we striue with you about S. Paules words , as though they seemed true to you , and false to vs , but about the interpretation of those wordes . Neither must you take it ill , if we preferre S. Augustine and all the Quyre of Saints , before you new Vpstarts . For thus speaketh S. Augustine lib. 1. cont. duas epistolas Pelagianorum . cap. 13. But concerning this concupiscence of the flesh , I thinke they are deceaued or deceaue with which it is necessary , that euen the baptized , and this if he profiteth most diligently , and be moued with the spirit of God , doth striue with a pious mind . But this although it be called sinne , it is so called , not because it is sinne , but because it was made by sinne , as a writing is called a mans hand , because his hand made it .

§. VI. Chytraeus .

THE Ghospell teacheth , that man in his weaknesse of nature cannot satisfy the law of God , and that he is not iust and free from all sinne by this perfect fulfilling of the law , Rom. 8. The sense of the flesh is enmity against God , for it obeyeth not the law of God , neyther indeed can it . The Papists striue , that man may satisfy the law of God , and that he is iust , and deserueth euerlasting life with this fulfilling of the law .

Bellarmine .

The Papists , that is the children of the Catholike Church , say not , that man in this weaknesse of nature is free from all sinne , for we acknowledge and professe that it is most true which S. Iohn saith in the beginning of his first epistle , If we shall say , that we haue no sinne , we seduce our selues . But because these daily sinnes neither take away iustice , nor are so much against , as besides the law , since that for the remission of such offences , euery Saint prayeth in opportune tyme , Psal. 31. and all the children of God , doubtlesse iust and holy , are taught daily to say , Forgiue vs our debts , Matth. 6. Therfore we are not afraid to say , that man being iustifyed by the grace of God , may by the help of the same grace both fulfill the law of God , and by that fulfilling , merit euerlasting life : for we know who said , And his Commaundements are not heauy , Io. 1. 5. and who likewise said : Call the workmen and render them their reward , Matth. 20. And againe , Come you blessed of my Father , possesse the Kingdome prepared for you &c. for I was hungry , and you gaue me to eate .

Wherefore S. Augustine lib. de gratia & lib. arb. cap. 16. It is certaine ( saith he ) that we keep the commaundements , if we will , but because our will is prepared by our Lord , we must aske of him , that we may will so much , as is sufficient , that willing we may do . And de spirit . & lit . cap. 10. Grace is therefore giuen , not because we haue fulfilled the law , but that we may fulfill the law . Neither doth that word of the Apostle moue vs , The sense of the flesh is enmity against God : for the same Apostle had said before Rom. 7. Therefore I my selfe with my mind serue the law of God , but with my flesh the law of sinne . But that which we do with our mynd we truly do , and that which we do with our flesh , if the mind repugneth , is not our deed , as the same Apostle saith , If I do that ( saith he ) which I will not , now I worke it not .

§. VII . Chytraeus .

THE Ghospell teacheth that those only are good workes which are commaunded by God &c. according to the rule which I commaund thee , do only these thinges for thy Lord , neither adde nor diminish . The Papists contrarywise haue ouerwhelmed the whole Church with traditions &c.

Bellarmine .

These thinges haue bene already a thousand tymes repeated by you , and refuted by vs . And it is false , which thou saiest , that it is in the Ghospell , that those are only good workes , which God hath commaunded : for where I pray thee hath God commaunded virginity ? Doth not S. Paul say : But of Virgins I haue not our Lordes precept , 1. Cor. 7 ? And yet he saith in the same place , that it is a good worke to remayne a Virgin . Therefore ( saith he ) he that ioyneth his virgin in Matrimony doth well , and he that ioyneth her not doth better .

Neither doth that rule much help thee : Do only those things for the Lord , which I commaund thee . For God forbiddeth not any other thing in that place , but that we corrupt not his preceptes , but that we keep them entirely as he hath commaunded , not declining to the right hand , nor to the left . Wherefore S. Aug. lib. de sanct. virginit . cap. 30. distinguishing precepts from counsailes , for neither ( saith he ) as it is said , Thou shalt not commit adultery : Thou shalt not kill : can it be so , Thou shalt not marry : those thinges are exacted , these are offered . If these be done , they are praised , vnlesse those be done they are condemned . In those God commaundeth vs a debt , in these , if thou shalt supererogate ; or bestow any more ( Note ) he will restore it you at his returne .

§. VIII . Chytraeus .

THE Ghospell teacheth that both partes of the Sacrament of the Lordes supper are to be ministred to all Christians , and truly of the cuppe he expresly saith , Drinke all of this . The Papists contrariewise determine and define &c.

Bellarmine .

Hitherto we haue not seene that place of the Ghospell , where we are taught that both partes of the Sacrament of our Lords supper are to be ministred to all Christians . For our Lord saith not of the chalyce , Drinke all you Christians of this : but drinke you all of this , and who those all were , S. Marke explicated , when he added : And they dranke all of it : but all Christians dranke not , but all the Apostles , who only then did eate with our Lord .

§. IX . Chytraeus .

THE Ghospell teacheth that true repentance , or conuersion to God is an earnest sorrow of hart , of sinnes committed , and a faith determining that sinnes are certaynely remitted to him for Christ &c. The Papists contrariewise although they number contrition among the parts of repentance , yet they feigne that it meriteth this remiss●on of sinnes , and they adde auricular confess●on not commaunded by God and satisfaction or workes not due , with which they feygne , that the eternall paines of sinnes may be satisfied , and that these same works may be redeemed with money . all which doctrine is blasphemous against the merit of the Sonne of God , who alone hath satisfyed for our sinnes .

Bellarmine .

Heere I see nothing proued ; no testimonies of the Ghospell produced , but only vayne words interlaced with lyes ; for thou mightest haue omitted that which thou sayest of conuersion , and earnest sorrow of the hart : for we truly require conuersion , and earnest sorrow of the hart in Penitents , wheras you only haue , I know not what terrours insteed of contrition . That which thou addest of faith , determining that our sinnes are forgiuen vs , is refuted before . That which thou saiest , that among the Papists , the contrition deserueth remission of sinnes , is a lye , before refuted also . That also , which thou affirmest that the Papists say , that euerlasting paines are satisfyed by temporall satisfactions , is likewise a lye : for we thinke not that we satisfy for euerlasting paines , which we doubt not to be remitted vs in our iustification ; but for temporall punishments which either heere , or in Purgatory God exacteth of them , who after Baptisme come to pennance and reconciliation , The punishment ( saith S. Augustine tract. 124. in Ioan. ) endureth longer then the fault ; least the fault should be thought small , if the punishment were also ended with it .

Finally , that which thou addest , that auricular confession is not commaunded , and that satisfaction is repugnant to the merit of Christ ; thou saist indeed , but doest not proue it . Read if thou please S. Cyprian ser. 5. de lapsis , and thou shalt find Confession and Satisfaction to be necessary , and these very words often repeated . Now that Satisfaction is to be redeemed with money ( least peraduenture thou shouldest suspect some vnlawfull negotiation ) is nothing else among Catholikes , then that one kind of satisfaction may be changed into another , by the Priests iudgment , as fasting into almes . Let vs go forward to the rest .

§. X. Chytraeus .

THE Ghospell teacheth , that marriage is graunted , and free for all men , Lay , and Priests , and expresly saith , that the forbidding of marriage , and meates is a diuellish doctrine . Contrariwise the Papists forbid a great part of men , Priests , and Monkes marriage , and commaund abstinence from certaine meates vpon certaine daies .

Bellarmine .

But where I pray thee doth the Ghospell teach , that marriage is graunted to them who haue a vow of continency ? Peraduenture Hebr. 13. where we read , Marriage is honorable in all . But if ( in all ) comprehendeth all men whatsoeuer , marriage shal be honorable in the Father & the Daughter , in the Mother and the Sonne , in Brother and Sister ; or if this pleaseth you not , let it not please you neither , that marriage ought to be called honourable betwixt a Monke and a Nunne , and other men for whome it it is not lawfull to marry , by reason of their vow , for the Apostles meaning only is , that we honour Marriage in all who are duely and lawfully marryed , and it remayneth that you proue , that those are duely and lawfully marryed , who haue vowed to God perpetuall continency . Heare S. Chrysostome what he wryteth epist. 6. to Theodore a Monke , who meant to marry a wife , or perhaps had already marryed one : Marriage ( saith he ) is honourable , but it is not fitting for thee now to keep the priviledges of marriage : although thou often callest this Marriage , yet I thinke it worse then adultery . Concerning the place of the Apostle 1. Tim. 4. forbidding to marry &c. see what we said before chap. 21. neere the end of it .

§. XI . Chytraeus .

THE Ghospell teacheth that there is one true , and solide foundation vpon which the Church of God is built : viz. our Lord Iesus Christ 1. Cor. 3. Act. 4. and Augustine so interpreteth the place of Matth. 16. Vpon this rock which thou hast knowne , saying : Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God , that is vpon my selfe the Sonne of the liuing God , I will build my Church , I will build thee vpon me , not me vpon thee . The Pope contrary wise cryeth out , that vpon the rock of the Roman Church , and the ordinary succession of Popes , all the rest of the Church in the Christian world is built .

Bellarmine .

But I belieue S. Paul is not repugnant to himselfe when he saith Ephes. 2. we that are built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets . Neither is S. Iohn Apoc. 21. where he saith that the 12. Apostles are 12. foundations of the Church , contrary to S. Paul 1. Cor. 3. affirming , that there is no other Foundation of the Church , but Christ : for S. Paul 1. Cor. 3. speaketh of the principall foundation . But both he Ephes. 2. and S. Io. Apoc. 21. speake of secondary Foundations . Of which manner of foundation S. Augustine also speaketh in psal. contra part . Donat. where he saith : Number the Priests , euen from the very seat of S. Peter , that is the rock , which the proude gate of hell do not ouercome . But of this we haue spoken sufficiently before , lib. x. de Pontifice cap. 10.

§. XII . Chytraeus .

THE Ghospell teacheth , that no Apostle or Bishop or other Minister of the Ghospell , hath superiour , and greater power and rule , then another , so farre as pertayneth to the Ministry , but that all Ministers haue equall power to teach the Ghospell , administer Sacraments , bynd wicked , and absolue those which do pennance , as the Scriptures cleerly teach , Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 3. v. 4. Ioan. 20. & Matth. 18. the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen are giuen to all the Apostles togeather . On the contrary side the Bishop of Rome boasteth , that he hath by Gods law supreme power ouer all other Bishops , and the whole Church , and both swords , the spirituall and politick &c.

Bllarmine .

I could not yet find , where the Ghospell teacheth , that one Bishop or Minister hath not greater power then another , for the places which thou citest do plainely signify the contrary : for Luc. 22. our Lord indeed exhorteth his disciples to humility , and forbiddeth Kingly and tyrannicall domination to them , who ought to gouerne the Church . In the meane time notwithstanding he affirmeth , that among the Apostles , one is greater then the rest , yea and the guid or captayne of the rest . For he saith : let him that is greater among you : become as the lesse , and the precessour ( in Greeke 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is Dux , the guide or captaine ) as a seruant or Mynister . And the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. where he saith , that he had planted , and Apollo watred : and againe , that he as the Architect had laid the Foundation , and that others do build vpon it ; doth he not plainely inough signify , that he was greater then Apollo , and his other coadiutours ?

Moreouer Io. 20. it is said indeed to all the Apostles , Behould I send you : and whose sinnes you remit &c. notwithstanding cap. 21. all the Apostles , and the rest of the faithfull are subiected to S. Peter as sheep to their Pastour , when it is said by our Lord to S. Peter alone in the presence of other Apostles ; feed my sheep . Finally although Matth. 18. it be said to all the Apostles : Whatsoeuer you shall bind &c. notwithstanding Matth. 16. it is said to Peter alone , To thee I will giue the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen &c. and without doubt our Lord would not promise him any thing singulerly , vnlesse also he would giue him some singuler thing : but of these we haue said many thinges before lib. 1. cap. 12. 13. 14.

To that which thou obiectest of both the Swordes against the Extrauagant of Bonifacius 8. where thou also laughest at the Popes arguments : I will only answere in this place , that they are all taken out of S. Bernard , whome Caluin , Melancthon , and other of your crew are wont to call an holy man , and to alleadge him oftener then once : See lib. 2. & 4. de Consider : or if thou pleasest , see what we haue treated of this very matter in our last Booke de Pontifice . And this shall suffice of thy Antithesis , or opposition in this place .

Now it remayneth , that we shew , that this very vision of S. Iohn doth best agree to Luther , and Lutherans : for first it is plaine , that Luther may be signifyed by that starre , which fell from heauen to earth , seeing that he became of a religious man , a secular ; of a continent , a marryed , and of poore , rich ; and changed his sober and slender fare , with plentifull and dainty cheere . For what else is this , then to haue fallen from heauenly to earthly conuersation ?

Now , he that feeleth not the smoke of the bottomlesse pitte which hath ensued vpon his fall , is altogeather blind and stupide : for before Luther fell from the Catholike Church , almost all the West was of the same faith , and religion , and whithersoeuer a man went , he presently acknowledged his brethren , for they were all in light . But a●ter Luthers fall , there arose such a smoke of Errours , Sects , and Schismes , that now one cannot know another in the same Prouince , ye● , not in the same Citty or house .

This smoke hath also darkened the Sunne , and the Ayre , as it is said in the Apocalyps , for both we and our Aduersaries do vnderstand by the Sunne Christ , and by the Ayre the Scriptures : by which we after a certaine sort breath in this life . And truly how vehemently this smoke hath obscured Christ , Transiluania , and the Countreys therabout do testify , where Christs Diuinity is openly denyed . Germany also witnesseth , where the Anabaptists plainly , and the Vbiquists more obscurely deny Christs Humanity . And though there were in tymes past many heretikes , which did likewise impugne Christ , yet none more impudently then the heretikes of our time ; for many of them doe not only deny Christ to be God , but they adde , that he cannot be inuocated , nor knoweth what we do . It is an horrour to heare or read , with what temerity the mysteries of Christ are disputed of at this tyme .

Likewise it is incredible , how vehemently this smoke hath obscured the Scriptures , for now there are so many Translations and Commentaryes contrary one to another , that those thinges , which in times past were most cleere , seeme now most obscure . What can be said more plainly , then that which S. Paul saith , 1. Corinth . 7. Of Virgius I haue not the precept of our Lord , but I giue counsaile : And yet all the heretikes of this tyme do constantly deny , that there is any counsaile of Virginity , and that S. Paul meant not to giue any counsaile to imbrace Virginity in that place , but rather to terrify men from it . What can be more plainely spoken , then that word of our Lord , This is my Body : and yet there is nothing more obscure at this time ? What should I say of those of Transiluania , who haue so peruerted with their Commentaries the Ghospell of S. Iohn , which is well knowne to haue bene chiefly written against Cerinthus , and Ebion , who denyed Christs Diuinity , that they most of all proue out of it , that Christ is not God ?

Let vs come to the Locusts , which went out of the smoke of the pyt . Chytraeus by the Locusts vnderstandeth the Bishops , Clerkes , and Monkes in the Church before S. Gregoryes tyme , and yet these wonderfull Locusts were not yet risen . But all which S. Iohn saith of the Locusts do most aptly agree to the Lutherans , and the other heretikes of this tyme . For first the Locusts are wont alway to come in great multitude , and to go in flocks Prou. 30. the Locust hath no King , and they all go out by their swarmes : so the Lutherans properly haue not one Head , because they deny , that there ought to be one Head of the whole Church . Notwithstanding in a very short tyme they haue increased to a huge multitude ; neither is it any meruaile , for they haue opened the gate to all vicious men : the gluttons run to them because the Lutherans haue no certaine fasts : the incontinent , because among them all vowes of continency are disliked , and Monks , Priests , & Nunnes are permitted to marry . Likewise all Apostataes , because among them all Cloysters are opened , and conuerted into Pallaces ; couetous , and ambitious Princes , because both Ecclesiasticall goods and persons , are subiected to their power ; the idle , and the enemies of good workes , because among them , only Faith is sufficient , good workes are not necessary . Finally , all sinfull and wicked people , because all necessity of confessing their sinnes , and giuing account to their owne Pastour , which is wont to be a very great bridle to sinners , is taken away among them . Hence therfore are the Locusts so multiplyed .

Now these Locusts are strangely described by S. Iohn , for they are said to haue a mans face , yea a womans , the taile of scorpions , the body of Locusts . Likewise they weare vpon their heads a crowne , as it were of gould ; they haue the teeth of Lions , and their brest armed with an iron plate . Finally , they seemed to be as horses prepared to the warre : and the sound of their winges was heard , as the noyse of chariots running to warre , and they had for King ouer them an Angell or the bottomelesse pytte ; who is called an Exterminatour . Their smoth face signifieth the beginning of their preaching , which alway beginneth from the Ghospell , for they promise to say nothing , but the most pure word of God , so they most easily allure the simple . The scorpions taile signifieth the poysoned and deadly euent , for after they haue proposed the word of God , they depraue it with their peruerse interpretation , and in that sort as it were writhing their taile , they strike in their sting , and infuse their deadly poyson . The Locusts body which is in a manner nothing but belly ( for the locust hath a great belly and therefore it can neither go nor fly well , but skippeth a little vp , and presently falleth downe to the ground againe ) signifieth that the heretikes of this tyme are men addicted to their bellies , enemies of fasting and continency , and therefore they can neither go by the way of the commandements , nor fly to the contemplation of heauenly thinges .

They indeauour indeed sometyme to erect themselues , and amend their manners , but they presently fall to the earth againe like Locusts , of which the Saxonicall Visitation may serue for an example . For when Luther considered that by reason of the Euangelicall liberty , which he preached , and the abrogation of all Ecclesiasticall lawes , the people did runne into all vices without a bridle , he ordayned a Visitation , and admonished the Pastors , that they should preach pennance , the feare of God , obedience , good workes &c. but it profited nothing . See Cochlaeus in vita & actis Lutheri , anno 1527.

In like manner they endeauour to fly by contemplation , and they write euery where bookes of the Trinity , of the Incarnation , and of such other mysteries ; but they fall into most grieuous errours , yea most pernicious heresies , as is manifest of the Vbiquists , who destroy the whole mystery of the Incarnation , and Trinity .

The Crownes vpon the heads of the Locusts , signify the arrogancy and pride ▪ with which they extoll themselues aboue all men . There is a booke of Luthers , extant to Duke George . In it he saith thus : From the tyme of the Apostles no Doctor or Witer , no Deuine or Lawyer hath so notably and cleerely confirmed , instructed , and comforted the consciences of secular states as I haue done . By the singular grace of God I know this certainely , that neither Augustine , nor Ambrose , which notwithstanding are the best in this affayre , are equall to me in this . What , that not only Luther and Caluin do set nothing by a 1000. Cyprians , and Augustines , but also euery paltry Minister accompt all Papists asses , and blocks ? Now these Crownes were , as it were of gould , that is , they seemed of gould , but they were not , because they faigne that they are moued to that which they say , with the zeale of Gods honour and charity : whereas notwithstanding , they know nothing lesse then the zeale of God .

The Lions teeth signify the detractions , with which both in writing & speaches they teare the fame of Bishops , Clerkes , Monkes , and of the very Saints themselues which reigne happily with God . And surely they seeme to be nourished with detraction , and they say so many thinges , which neither are , or haue bene , and perhaps shall neuer be , that they seeme to haue cast of all conscience ; this is manifest inough aswell by other thinges which are euery where read in their bookes , as by those , which we cited a little before out of the Smalchaldicall Synod , Illyricus , Tilemanus , Caluin , and Chytraeus .

The brest armed with an iron plate , signifieth their obstinacy , for they are so obdurate , that though they be most plainely conuinced , yet they neuer yeild , and many tymes they had rather die , then leaue their obstinacy .

The likenes of horses , which seemed prepartd to warre signifieth their bouldnes , and temerity , for they most bouldly prouoke all to warre , whereas notwithstanding afterwards for the most part , they bring only lyes for arguments : Luther in assertione art . 25. Come hither ( saith he ) all you Papists togeather , ioyne all your studies , if perhaps you can vndoe this knot . In which manner do almost all the rest speake . Now the similitude of the flying chariots signifieth the swiftnes , which this new heresy vseth in taking possession of diuers Countries ; for in short tyme it hath not only inuaded many Kingdomes in the North partes , but also durst runne out to the Indians , although God permitted not , that is could stay there ; for that new and tender Church of Christ , did not deserue so great a scourge .

Finally , the Angell of the bottomelesse pit , is said to be the King of these Locusts : for although the Locusts haue not a visible King , as we said before , yet they cannot want an inuisible King , that is the Diuell , for he is King ouer all the children of Pride , Iob. 41. Now , the King of the Locusts is called an Exterminatour , because the Diuell neuer so destroyed , and wasted the Church by any heresie or persecution , as he hath done by the Lutherans ; for other heresies for the most part destroyed one or two articles , but did not wholy ouerthow the whole order and discipline of the Church . But the Lutheran Heresie partly by herselfe , and partly by her ofspring the Anabaptists , Caluinists , Trinitarians , Libertines , hath destroyed all the good thinges , which the Church had , in the places where it could preuayle , for it hath taken from God the Trinity by the new Samosatenes , the Deity from Christ by the same men , and his Humanity by the Anabaptists , from all the Angells and Saintes all worship and inuocation , from Purgatory the suffrages of the liuing , yea it hath exterminated Purgatory it selfe .

From the Church which is in earth , it hath taken away many bookes of diuine Scripture , in a manner all Sacraments , all Traditions , the Priesthood , the Sacrifice , Vowes , Fasts , Holy-dayes , Temples , Atars , Reliques , Crosses , Images , all Monuments of piety . Likewise all Ecclesiasticall lawes , all discipline , and order .

But perhaps she hath spared hell , least she should wrong her King the Angell of the bottomlesse pitte . She hath not . For many of the Lutherans do also deny the true and locall hell , and feygne I know not what imaginary hell , as we shewed before in the disputation of Christs descending into hell . Truely therfore , this may be called an exterminating heresie , and worthy of that Captaine , who is called in Hebrew anaddoch , in Greeke 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , in Latin Exterminator . And surely it were a wonder , if the Lutherans themselues did not admire this extermination , vnlesse they were altogeather blinded with the smoke of which we spake before .

But amidst so many euills , there is one consolation , that , as S. Iohn saith , these Locusts hurt not the greene herbs and trees , but only those men that haue not the signe of the liuing God : for since that this heresie is wholy carnall , it cannot easily deceaue good men , and those in whose minds religion and piety is greene , and doth flourish . So we see , that it hath seldome , or neuer happened , that any hath fallen from the Church to the Lutherans , who began not first to be of a corrupt and loose life among Catholiks . But thus much of this .

THE XXIIII . CHAPTER . The arguments of Caluin , and Illyricus are confuted , who go about to proue that the Pope is no longer a Bishop ; where also the fable of Pope Ioane the Woman is confuted .

THERE remaineth that which we propounded in the last place , viz. that we shew , that the Bishop of Rome is not only not Antichrist , but that he hath not lost his Bishoprick by any other meanes : for Caluin and Illyricus , the one with a reason , the other with a certaine coniecture , go about to proue that he is not a true Bishop at this tyme .

And to begin with Caluin , thus he speaketh lib. 4. Instit. cap. 7. § . 23. & 24. I would know what Episcopall thing the Pope hath ? First the chiefest thing in a Bishop is to teach the people with the word of God . Another , and next to this , to administer Sacraments : the third , to admonish and exhort , and to correct those who offend , and to conteyne the people in holy discipline : what of these doth he ? Yea , what doth he feigne himselfe to do ? Let them say therefore , how they will haue him to be accompted a Bishop , who toucheth not with his least finger , no not so much , as in show , any part of that office . It is not the same of a Bishop and a King : For a King although he doth not that which is proper to a King , notwithstanding he retayneth his honour and title . But in discerning a Bishop Christs commaundement is regarded , which ought alway to be of force in the Church . Wherefore let the Romanists vnty me this knot : I deny that their Pope is Prince of Bishops , since he is no Bishop . So he .

If I be not decaued , all this discourse may be reduced to this short syllogisme . Since this is the difference betwixt a Bishop and a King , that a King is a name of power and gouernment , to which the office of gouerning the people is annexed : but a Bishop is a name of the office only of mynistring the word of God , and the Sacraments . Certainely if neither King nor the Bishop preforme their office , the King shall retaine his name and dignity , and the Bishop shall loose his . But the Bishop of Rome doth not performe his office , so much as in shew , since that he neither ministreth the word of God , nor the Sacraments to the people : wherefore the Pope of Rome hath lost his name , and dignity and consequently cannot be called a Bishop .

Now the Madgeburgenses centur. 9. cap. 20. col. 500. go about to confirme the same with a coniecture and signe , for they say that it was an euident signe of the changing of the Roman Church into the whore of Babylon : that God would , that aboue those tymes , in which this change was made , a certaine true Woman and harlot should sit in the Popish seate , who was called Iohn 8.

This they proue first , out of the authors Platina , Martinus Polonus , Sigebertus , and Marianus Scotus . Secondly out of the stepps or signe thereof , which haue remained to our tymes : viz. by a certaine seate of Prophyry hollow within , which remayned in the pallace of S. Io. Lateran , the vse of which they say was appointed , after the discouery of this cryme , to wit to discerne , whether the new Pope were a man or no. Likewise by a certaine Statua of a woman with childe , which hath remayned to our tymes in that place , where Iohn 8. is said to haue byn deliuered . Finally , for that the Popes when they go from the Vatican to S. Io. Laterans , are wont to decline that place , where this woman is said to haue bene deliuered in detestation of that fact . For otherwise that is the right way : but it is no hard matter to vnty these knots :

And first to answere to Caluin , either he speaketh of the signification of the name , or of the thing it selfe , when he saith , that a Bishop is a name of an office , a King the name of dignitie : if he speaketh of the signification of the name , he is plainly deceaued , for as Episcopus is deryued of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is , of considering , or looking vpon , and signifieth the office of looking to , so also Rex is deriued of gouerning , in latin à regendo , and signifieth the office of gouerning , and as Rex is the name of a Magistrate , so 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 also among the Heathens was the name of a Magistrate , viz. of the Pretor , as is manifest out of Aristophan in auibus ; and that which is more , the same name of Pastor in the Scripture , is attributed to a Bishop , and a King , as is manifest Ephes. 4. & Isa. 44.

And if he speaketh of the thing it selfe , he is no lesse deceaued , for as Kingly office is not a simple office of iudgging , as of other Iudges , but a true Prefecture in politicall affayres , that is a power of gouerning men that are subiect to him , by commaunding & punishing : so also a Bishoprick is not a simple office of preaching , as it is of many other , who preach and are not Pastors : but it it a true Ecclesiastical Prefecture , that is a power to gouerne men in spirituall , & diuine affayres , and consequently of commaunding & punishing , of which we haue said much already , and yet will say more in the booke following . Now it shall suffice to note a few , but most cleere places . The Apostle S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. saith : I will dispose the rest when I come . and 2. Cor. 13. that I deale not more seuerely according to the power which our Lord hath giuen me . and Heb. 13. obey your Superiours , & be subiect vnto them . and 1. Tim. 5. Receaue not aceusation against a Priest , but vnder 2. or 3. WItnesses .

Adde to this also , that it is false , the Popes performe not the Episcopal function ; for they are not bound to preach , and minister Sacraments themselues , if they be hindred by some iust cause ; but it is sufficient if they procure , that all this be done by others ; otherwise Bishops should be bound to impossibilityes , for there is no Bishop so little , who can be sufficient of himselfe to preach & minister Sacraments in all his Diocesse . As therfore he satisfieth , if in that place where he cannot himselfe , he preacheth by another ; so likewise he satisfieth , if in all places he preacheth by another , when he cannot do it himselfe in any . Neyther want there examples of antiquity : for Possidius writeth in the life of S. Augustine , that S. Valerius Bishop of H●ppe committed the office of preaching to S. Augustine his Priest , because he being a Grecian could not preach himselfe to a Latin people : and in the same place Possidius relateth , that in the East Church , many Bishops were wont to commit the office of Preaching to their Priests , which they could not exercise themselues . And yet we cannot say , that eyther S. Valerius or others , who preached not the word of God themselues , were not Bishops .

To the argument of the Magdeburgians , I say , that their history of Pope Iohn the Woman is a fable , which Onuphrius refuteth sufficiently in his addition to Platina . And first it is conuinced to be a fable by the testimonie of Greek & Latin Wryters . The first of all , who could wryte of this thing , and who best knew it , was Athanasius Bibliothec. who liued in that very time , in which this Iohn ● . is feigned to haue bene Pope , viz. about the yeare 850. & was present at the creation of many Popes , who eyther were before or followed this Iohn . He therfore writeth that after Leo 4. the Sea was vacant 15. daies , and presently by common consent Benedictus 3. was created : by which words he sheweth , that there was no Iohn a woman , for all that admit this Iohn , do say , that he ●ate after Leo the 4. and before Benedictus 3. and that he liued in the Popedome two yeares , and 15. moneths .

They will say perhaps , that Anastasius omitteth this Ioln 8. in fauour of the Popes . But against this , at the leastwise , he should haue said , that the Sea was vacant after Leo 4. two yeares and a halfe , least he should admit a manifest errour in his Chronology , and an errour which might be refuted by eye witnesses who liued then . They answere , that there is no errour in the Chronology , because these two yeares of Iohn are added to Leo 4. for Leo 4. is said by Anastasius to haue sitten 8. yeares , which are so to be taken , that 6. yeares are of Leo himselfe , and other two are added out of the yeares of Iohn the woman .

But against this , is , that not only Anastasius but also Martinus Polonus , and Platina , and the Magdeburgians , and Bibliander , and others , who will haue Io. 8. to haue sitten two yeares , giue 8. yeares to Leo. Wherefore there wil be perforce an errour in the Chronology of Anastasius , if this Iohn be put Pope after Leo. Besides not only Anastasius , but also A●o Bishop of V●en●a , who liued at the same tyme , and of whome there is no suspition that he would lye in fauour of the Popes , teacheth , that there was no Iohn betwixt Leo 4. and Benedictus 3. for thus he speaketh in the Cronicle of the yeare 865. Gregory the Bishop of Rome dieth , and Sergius is ordayned in his place : he being dead Leo succeedeth , who dying Benedictus is substituted in the Apostolicall Sea . And in the like sort speake Rhegino , Lambertus , Hermanus Contractus , Abb●s V●spergensis , Otho Fri●●gensis , and all other Historiographers , which are very many , vntill Martinus Polonus who was 400. yeares after this feygned Io. 8. and he first mentioned this Iohn 8. against the testimony of all the ancient , and from him did Platina and the other later take it .

And not only the Latins , but also the Greekes , who wrote before Martinus Polonus , as Z●naras , Cedren●s , Ioannes Curopalates , and others make no mention of this prodigious history among the thinges of that tyme , whereas notwithstanding they fauour not the Bishop of Rome , and would willingly haue taken an occasion to scoffe at the Latines in this respect , if they might . Now how is it credible , that Martinus Polonus who liued in the yeare 1250. knew better , what passed about the yeare 850. then all other Historiographers who liued in the yeare 800. or 900. or 1000 ?

And that , which the Magdeburgians say , that Sigebert , and Marianus Scotus , who are more ancient then Martinus Polonus , did put Iohn the Woman in their Chronicles , is false . Although in the printed Sigebert , and Marianus Scotus , Iohn the Woman is found ; yet in the most ancient manuscripts she is not found , and it is sufficiently knowne , that those authors are corrupted . There is yet extant in the Monastery of Gemblacum , where Sigebert was monke , a most ancient manuscript copy , which is thought to be Sigeberts owne , and in it there is no mention of Iohn the Woman , which manuscript copy Iohn Molanus a Doctor of Louayne , who is yet aliue , witnesseth , that he hath seene . Likewise that in the most ancient copyes of Marianus Scotus , Iohn the Woman is not to be found , he witnesseth who put forth the Metropolis of Albertus Krantzius , at Colen , in the yeare 1574.

Secondly that this narration of Martinus concerning Iohn the Woman is a fable , is proued out of the narration it selfe : for first he saith , that this Iohn was an English Woman of Mentz : but Mentz is not in England , but in Germany . And others to amend this errour are strangly repugnant one to the other : for Platina saith , that she was an English Woman , but come out of Mentz . The Magdeburgians contrary wise say , that she was of Mentz , but come out of England . But Theodorus Bibliander in his chronicle saith that she was neither borne , nor come out of England , but brought vp and instructed in England .

Secondly Martin , and those which follow him say , that she studied at Athens . But it is manifest , that in that tyme , there were no Schooles , neither at Athens , nor in any other place of Greece , for Synesius writeth in epist. vlt. ad Fratrem suum , that in his tyme there was nothing but the name of an Academie at Athens . And Synesius was a little after the tymes of S. Basil , and S. Nazianzen . Cedrenu● also , and Zonaras do write in vita Michaelis , & Theodorae Impp. that about the end of Michaels raigne , viz. when he raigned alone , his mother Theodora being remoued , the Schooles of learning and Philosophy were restored by Bardas Caesar ; whereas vntill that tyme , for many yeares , all studies of wisdome were so extinguished in Greece , that there was not so much as any step or signe of them extant . Now it is manifest , that the Empyre of Michael alone , Theodora being remoued , fell in the tyme of Nicolas the 1. who succeeded Benedictus 3. who had succeeded as these men feigne Iohn 8. the Woman : yea all Chronologies , and Billiander himselfe put the beginning of the Empire of Michael alone in the yeare 856. and the Popedome of Iohn the Woman in the yeare 854. By which it followeth , that the studies of wisdome , began to be reuiued in Greece after the death of this Iohn ,

Thirdly the Magdeburgians say , that this Io. 8. was deliuered in his iourney when he would haue visited the Lateran Church , from the Vatican . But it is most certaine , as Onuphrius demonstrateth lib. de 7. Eccl. that the B. of Rome did not dwell in the Vatican , but in the Lateran Pallace , vntill the time of Bonifacius the 9. that is , vntill the yeare 1309. how then if she dwelt in the Lateran , would she go from the Vatican to visit the Lateran ? Certainly if one should wryte now , that the Pope came from the Lateran to visit the Vatican Church , he would be ridiculous , since all know that the Pope dwelleth in the Vatican .

Fourthly Martin , and all the rest say , that this Iohn was deliuered in a solemne and publike Procession . But certainly there is no probability , that a woman gone with child so many moneths , would then chiefly goe in Procession , when she was in most danger to be discouered .

Thirdly this is proued out of the epist. of Leo 9. a most graue pope , to Michael Bishop of Constantinople cap. 23. where Pope Leo writeth , that it is a constant fame , that many Eunuches had sitten in the Patriarchate of Constantinople , & that among them there had crept in , and bene Patriarch a Woman ; which certainly Leo would neuer haue obiected to the Grecians , if any such thing had happened a little before to the Roman Sea : yea perhaps from hence arose this fable of Iohn the Woman : for wheras there was a rumour , that a certaine woman had bene Bishop of Constantinople , and after by little and little , the name of Constantinople being omitted , there remayned the fame and opinion of a woman Bishop , and Vniuersall Bishop ; some began in hatred of the Roman Church to say , that that woman had bene Bishop of Rome . And it is very like , that this fame arose about the tyme of Martin himselfe . Certainly Martinus Polonus , who first wrote it , bringeth no Author , but only said : It is reported : wherfore he only had it by an vncertaine rumour .

Neither ought it to seeme strange , if some feigned this fable in hatred of the Church of Rome , that ground of a woman being Bishop supposed , and there being so many contentions at that tyme betwixt those which fauoured the Emperours , and others which fauoured the Popes ; for now also we see , that the Magdeburgians do feigne more incredible things ; for wheras Martin only wrote , that this was an English woman of Mentz , and added nothing of the Parents & proper name of the woman , and other things ; the Magdeburgians haue added , that the Father of this woman was an English Priest , and that she in the beginning was called Gilbert , and that she was brought vp in the habite of a man , in the Monastery of Fulda , and that she wrote bookes of witchcraft ; which are all meere fancies inuented without witnesse or reason . Adde , that this Martinue Polonus seemeth to haue bene a most simple man , for he writeth many other fables , as though they were most authenticall hystories .

Now , that which they obiect of the hollow seate , of the womans Statua , and the going out of the way , is easily solued ; for as is manifest , out of the first booke of sacred Cerimonyes Sect. 2. there were three seates of stone in the Lateran Church , in which the new Pope did sit at the tyme of his Coronation . The first seate was before the entrance into the Temple , which was vile and abiect , to which seate , the new Pope was first brought , and did sit vpon it for a little space , that it might be signified by that cerimony , that he ascended from a most low place , to the highest place that is , for lifting him from thence , they sung that 1. Reg. 2. Suscitat de puluere egenum , & de stercore erigit pa●perem ; vt sedeat cum Principibus , & solium gloria teneat : and this is the cause , why that seate is called Stercoraria . Another seate was of Porphiry in the Pallace it selfe , and there he sate the second tyme , in token of Possession : and sitting there he receaued the Keyes of the Church of the Lateran Pallace . The third seat was like the second , and not farre from it , and after sitting a little in it , he deliuered the same keyes to him , of whome he had receaued them before . Perhaps , that by that cerimomony he might be admonished of death , by which ere long he was to resigne that power to another . Of any seate to discouer the sexe , there is no mention any where .

And that Statua of the woman with child , without doubt was not of Pope Iohn : for if our Aduersaries say , that the ancient Historiographers would not make mention of this woman in their bookes , in the Popes fauour : how is it probable , that the Popes themselues would haue memory of it extant in a Statua ? Besides , if it were the Statua of this Iohn , it should haue represented a Woman with an infant newly borne , but that Image did neither represent a woman , nor did carry an infant in her armes , but did expresse a good big boy , and many yeares old , as a seruant going before . Wherefore some do coniecture , that it was a Status of some heathen Priest prepared to Sacrifice , before whom his Minister went .

Finally it is not in destestation of that cryme , why the Popes go not the shorter way to the Lateran , but because the way is narrow and steepy , and therefore incommodious for the Popes trayne , or compaine , which alwayes vseth to be very great . Adde , that as Onuphrius witnesseth , there want not Popes , who haue oftner then once gone that very way .

FINIS . Omnia Ecclesiae Catholicae Romanae subiecta sunto .